Rush has the solution to inequality

[rightwinger]

Rush is now an economists?
I don't think Rush knows that there are three job applicants for every job opening and that wages for the working class have been flat for over three decades despite increases productivity while those who determine wages are getting wealthier. In a consumer driven economy, that scenario doesn't work well. How are the working class going to contribute to the capitalist economy with a shrinking expendable income?

Typical rightwing dogma from Rush

Young people do not succeed because they are lazy and on drugs

 

[Bombur]

Simply put, because it is theirs.... not yours... not the state's.

Wrong -- nothing is "theirs". They live in a society, not in an inhabited island or a jungle. And they become rich thanks to the rules we, as a society, put forth and are following. If those rules were different, the same person could have ended up at the bottom of the social ladder, and poor as a church mouse!

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

If you lost at a game of monopoly, would you frown on the winner who simply followed the rules?

Would you suggest a rule change?

If that same person won everytime, is it because the rules are screwed up or is it because he is simply better at the game than you are?

Well what is the game? Is it about having one winner at the end or is the game about maximizing the productivity of all players in the game?

Once you know what the game really is you can create the rules so you can win it.

 

[Jarhead]

Wrong -- nothing is "theirs". They live in a society, not in an inhabited island or a jungle. And they become rich thanks to the rules we, as a society, put forth and are following. If those rules were different, the same person could have ended up at the bottom of the social ladder, and poor as a church mouse!

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

If you lost at a game of monopoly, would you frown on the winner who simply followed the rules?

Would you suggest a rule change?

If that same person won everytime, is it because the rules are screwed up or is it because he is simply better at the game than you are?

Well what is the game? Is it about having one winner at the end or is the game about maximizing the productivity of all players in the game?

Once you know what the game really is you can create the rules so you can win it.

First of all...I was playing on the premise of a poster...who used the term "rules"...

But what bothers me about this entire debate is the following...

YOU...and most others supporting a "change" continually think about the few.....those who are paid millions of dollars to be CEO's.....the very few comparatively speaking.

Most are not in that category. Most business owners that do well do not make millions...they make hundreds of thousands...but not millions.

So we are going to turn the economy upside down...change the rules if you will....because of the top one tenth of 1 percent?

(top 1% includes those at 388K and up......)

Or do you feel that even those making 300K a year should make less as well?

 

[Bombur]

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

If you lost at a game of monopoly, would you frown on the winner who simply followed the rules?

Would you suggest a rule change?

If that same person won everytime, is it because the rules are screwed up or is it because he is simply better at the game than you are?

Well what is the game? Is it about having one winner at the end or is the game about maximizing the productivity of all players in the game?

Once you know what the game really is you can create the rules so you can win it.

First of all...I was playing on the premise of a poster...who used the term "rules"...

But what bothers me about this entire debate is the following...

YOU...and most others supporting a "change" continually think about the few.....those who are paid millions of dollars to be CEO's.....the very few comparatively speaking.

Most are not in that category. Most business owners that do well do not make millions...they make hundreds of thousands...but not millions.

So we are going to turn the economy upside down...change the rules if you will....because of the top one tenth of 1 percent?

(top 1% includes those at 388K and up......)

Or do you feel that even those making 300K a year should make less as well?

Ideally the issue is fixed the same way it happened, through income growth over time. The rules are already upside down as far as I am concerned. I would prefer if they were simply made to recognize modern economic realities.

The tax code is only one way to address the problem but there is no doubt in my mind that it needs to be reformed in a way that would benefit the middle class more.

 

[Defiant1]

Republican hacks always painting liberals for what they are not. Like liberals want everyone to have equal income -- that's a lie.

Liberals want success to be rewarded fairly. If one works 3 times harder than the other guy, he should make 3 times more. Maybe 10 times if he is also taking risks and had to recoup earlier investments.

What liberals -- or any sane person -- don't get is how can making 100 times the average, year after year, can be justified. Nobody works that hard.

Digging ditches with a shovel is hard work. Digging with a backhoe, much easier.

Should the guy with the shovel earn more than the guy operating the backhoe?

Of course he should. But not 100 times more! He should earn just a bit more, enough for the other guy to realize that he should ditch that shovel.

Ok, so then following your logic the engineer who measures and marks the hole to be dug, comes by time to time to measure the progress, then stops the digging when the correct length, width, and depth have been achieved, he should get what, maybe half what the diggers get?

I mean how hard is it to read a ruler?

 

[ilia25]

Simply put, because it is theirs.... not yours... not the state's.

Wrong -- nothing is "theirs". They live in a society, not in an inhabited island or a jungle. And they become rich thanks to the rules we, as a society, put forth and are following. If those rules were different, the same person could have ended up at the bottom of the social ladder, and poor as a church mouse!

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.

If you lost at a game of monopoly, would you frown on the winner who simply followed the rules?

Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.

Would you suggest a rule change?

Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

 

[Jarhead]

Well what is the game? Is it about having one winner at the end or is the game about maximizing the productivity of all players in the game?

Once you know what the game really is you can create the rules so you can win it.

First of all...I was playing on the premise of a poster...who used the term "rules"...

But what bothers me about this entire debate is the following...

YOU...and most others supporting a "change" continually think about the few.....those who are paid millions of dollars to be CEO's.....the very few comparatively speaking.

Most are not in that category. Most business owners that do well do not make millions...they make hundreds of thousands...but not millions.

So we are going to turn the economy upside down...change the rules if you will....because of the top one tenth of 1 percent?

(top 1% includes those at 388K and up......)

Or do you feel that even those making 300K a year should make less as well?

Ideally the issue is fixed the same way it happened, through income growth over time. The rules are already upside down as far as I am concerned. I would prefer if they were simply made to recognize modern economic realities.

The tax code is only one way to address the problem but there is no doubt in my mind that it needs to be reformed in a way that would benefit the middle class more.

But you didn't address the point.

Most are not earning a10 million a year.

Take me in my prime.

My best year as a business owner was about 400K...that was my before tax income after all expenses....(I was an s-corp)

That year I had 8 employees.....with the average salary about 40K.

SO in return for my time (worked 60+ hours a week), my investment, and the headaches, I made about 10 times the amount of my average employee.

Is that out of line?

You are aware that such is pretty much the ratio of all successful business owners.....

o do we really need to change that?

 

[ilia25]

Digging ditches with a shovel is hard work. Digging with a backhoe, much easier.

Should the guy with the shovel earn more than the guy operating the backhoe?

Of course he should. But not 100 times more! He should earn just a bit more, enough for the other guy to realize that he should ditch that shovel.

Ok, so then following your logic the engineer who measures and marks the hole to be dug, comes by time to time to measure the progress, then stops the digging when the correct length, width, and depth have been achieved, he should get what, maybe half what the diggers get?

I mean how hard is it to read a ruler?

Now you are being just silly. You know well, that engineers are working just as hard, if not harder, as everyone else.

And if you really want to know what exactly the engineers are busy doing when they are not measuring holes, go read the fucking job description.

 

[Jarhead]

Wrong -- nothing is "theirs". They live in a society, not in an inhabited island or a jungle. And they become rich thanks to the rules we, as a society, put forth and are following. If those rules were different, the same person could have ended up at the bottom of the social ladder, and poor as a church mouse!

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.

If you lost at a game of monopoly, would you frown on the winner who simply followed the rules?

Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.

Would you suggest a rule change?

Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

so if the rules work for someone, but doesn't work for someone else, it must be the rules that are screwed up?

Really?

 

[Defiant1]

Wrong -- nothing is "theirs". They live in a society, not in an inhabited island or a jungle. And they become rich thanks to the rules we, as a society, put forth and are following. If those rules were different, the same person could have ended up at the bottom of the social ladder, and poor as a church mouse!

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.

If you lost at a game of monopoly, would you frown on the winner who simply followed the rules?

Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.

Would you suggest a rule change?

Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

Can you answer the question?

What problem is created because of this so-called inequality?

 

[ilia25]

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.



Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.

Would you suggest a rule change?

Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

so if the rules work for someone, but doesn't work for someone else, it must be the rules that are screwed up?

Really?

Why, it might well be the case. Does not have to be, mind you, but it could be.

 

[ilia25]

think of w2hat you just said.

They became rich thanks to the rules we as a society put forth and are following.

So?

Good for them. The rules worked well for them.

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.



Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.

Would you suggest a rule change?

Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

Can you answer the question?

What problem is created because of this so-called inequality?

Well, it is obvious -- the incomes of the bottom half are stagnating in the past 30 years despite the economic growth. Only the rich are getting richer.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, I agree with what Milton Friedman says, especially his position on legalizing all drugs. But he never explained why it is necessary to let super-rich to keep most of their incomes.

Simply put, because it is theirs.... not yours... not the state's.

Wrong -- nothing is "theirs". They live in a society, not in an inhabited island or a jungle. And they become rich thanks to the rules we, as a society, put forth and are following. If those rules were different, the same person could have ended up at the bottom of the social ladder, and poor as a church mouse!

That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read.. how old are you?

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.



Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.



Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

so if the rules work for someone, but doesn't work for someone else, it must be the rules that are screwed up?

Really?

Why, it might well be the case. Does not have to be, mind you, but it could be.

Nearly 18% of all American households earn over 118K a year.

If the number was more like 5% I would say the rules need to be looked at.

But when nearly one fifth of American Households are making 118K a year? Seems the rules are working...and many need to find a way to make them work for themselves.

How much does the Average American Make? Breaking Down the U.S. Household Income Numbers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Solution; Education that allows people the ability to innovate, think and consider.

Colllege or craft-school...

Being a slave making a dollar per hour isn't the solution.

Who's only making a dollar an hour? Besides, slaves don't make anything.

 

[ilia25]

so if the rules work for someone, but doesn't work for someone else, it must be the rules that are screwed up?

Really?

Why, it might well be the case. Does not have to be, mind you, but it could be.

Nearly 18% of all American households earn over 118K a year.

If the number was more like 5% I would say the rules need to be looked at.

Why 118K and why 5%? What bothers me is the fact that most Americans have not benefited from the impressive economic growth in the past 30 years, because way to much of new wealth went to the top 1%. That's a problem.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, good for them, not good at all for the rest. That is why we should change the rules, to make the outcome more equal.



Nobody is being frown on for following rules. If the outcome is not satisfactory, we change the rules.



Yes, and that's what liberals are doing -- suggesting a rule change. Not the Monopoly rules, the rules that govern the income distribution in the real life*

* i'm talking about the tax code, what were you thinking?..

Can you answer the question?

What problem is created because of this so-called inequality?

Well, it is obvious -- the incomes of the bottom half are stagnating in the past 30 years despite the economic growth. Only the rich are getting richer.

you seem to leave out the following basic scenario of life and career...

low level jobs do not warrant salary growth. They are what they are.

People need to do what they need to do to get out of that low level job.

A mailroom clerk is a mailroom clerk. He or she will never be able to increase the re3venue of the firm....and their responsibilities will never become more complicated.

A mailroom clerks salary should rise with CoL.....but what reason should it rise even greater?

Not to mention.....20 years experience as a mailroom clerk makes you no more efficient than 3 years experience as a mailroom clerk.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You gotta read the whole thing...mix yourself a Manhatten and read....

"So my idea to ensure equal beginnings for 20-somethings in the job market, is all teenagers will be required to get high on the drug of their choice. They will be required to play video games. They will be required to remain jobless during summer breaks. They will not be allowed to do internships at a company -- which are really nothing more than indoctrination camps, as are high school and college -- if we're gonna equalize things using the Democrat method.

And ABOVE ALL, let's make sure we keep pointing at democrats as the only source of problems, let us keep playing left right ping pong to obscure any alternative parties or movements, while you, the referee, the educator will continue lecturing your people.

Really no need to point at the opposition and highlight their shortcomings, the democrat/liberals do enough of that. The conservatives are not the only ones who ignore their own faults. So let the finger-pointing begin. Until both groups acknowledge their roles in our current problems, nothing will ever get done.

 

[Jarhead]

Why, it might well be the case. Does not have to be, mind you, but it could be.

Nearly 18% of all American households earn over 118K a year.

If the number was more like 5% I would say the rules need to be looked at.

Why 118K and why 5%? What bothers me is the fact that most Americans have not benefited from the impressive economic growth in the past 30 years, because way to much of new wealth went to the top 1%. That's a problem.

Sorry...that is a talking point with nothing to back it up.

Compare the lifestyle of middle class now to that of middle class 30 years ago.

When I was young, we were middle class. One car, one TV, one phone number.

Would you say that is the lifestyle of middle class today?

 

[Jarhead]

Solution; Education that allows people the ability to innovate, think and consider.

Colllege or craft-school...

Being a slave making a dollar per hour isn't the solution.

Who's only making a dollar an hour? Besides, slaves don't make anything.

Don't make anything?

Free boat trip, free room and board.