Rush has the solution to inequality

[gallantwarrior]

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

So you did get the point.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

The graph has nothing to do with "life and career" as you put it as it represents a broad cross section of people who are all at different points in their career.

You then proceed to equate all wage earners to low level jobs not worthy of sharing in the prosperity of the nation even though the graph also shows increases in productivity.

My hope is that you just misread the graph. Maybe you can try again.

Not my fault if you are not willing to think beyond your own "box"...

There is absolutely no reason a mailroom clerk should share in the prosperity of a company..

Unless...

he finds a way to sort the mail more efficiently.

And those that do?

Usually get a promotion over time.

 

[Bombur]

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.

The graph has nothing to do with "life and career" as you put it as it represents a broad cross section of people who are all at different points in their career.

You then proceed to equate all wage earners to low level jobs not worthy of sharing in the prosperity of the nation even though the graph also shows increases in productivity.

My hope is that you just misread the graph. Maybe you can try again.

Not my fault if you are not willing to think beyond your own "box"...

There is absolutely no reason a mailroom clerk should share in the prosperity of a company..

Unless...

he finds a way to sort the mail more efficiently.

And those that do?

Usually get a promotion over time.

But the graph shows growth in productivity and flat wage growth.

Reducing wage earners to mailroom clerks is ridiculous.

 

[deltex1]

Rush nailed Obabble and the LIBTARDS and his solution frames the ridiculousness of Obabble's useless call for equality of outcomes.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I couldn't get past the title. Obama is not a Dictator nor did he take office by a coup.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

I believe that is exactly what is being suggested. All the employees who work at your business deserve at least what you, the owner, are putting in your pocket. After all, they are doing the same work as you, at least. Some employees no doubt do more work than the owner does. Skills, education, effort, risk...all those elements of being successful are irrelevant to the takers. Regardless of opportunity and whether an individual avails himself of those opportunities, only the outcome counts. No one should have a disparate outcome when compared to another.

 

[Bombur]

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?

I believe that is exactly what is being suggested. All the employees who work at your business deserve at least what you, the owner, are putting in your pocket. After all, they are doing the same work as you, at least. Some employees no doubt do more work than the owner does. Skills, education, effort, risk...all those elements of being successful are irrelevant to the takers. Regardless of opportunity and whether an individual avails himself of those opportunities, only the outcome counts. No one should have a disparate outcome when compared to another.

Pro tip: When creating a straw man to argue against don't make it so obvious.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW when I saw the first part of the subject
I thought it was going to say something like

Rush says the solution to ____ is ____

Where anyone could just fill in the blanks with something else

Rush says the solution to the [Democrats] is the [death penalty]

Rush says the solution to [inequality] is to [weigh people on the moon]

Rush says the solution to [liberal media bias] is to [listen only to him]*
*My solution is [try listening to leftwing public radio, bashing the media as conservative]

 

[emilynghiem]

Can you answer the question?

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

Dear Defiant: if people do not have equal training, experience and knowledge of laws (of govt, business, finance, spiritual laws, conflict resolution, etc.) they risk becoming a burden to society. Either crime, abuse or addiction, taxing health care resources, even charities which need to develop sustainable ways to move people into independence or interdependence if disabled.

We need to equally distribute the knowledge, not the wealth itself.

The best solutions are free, the laws that are monopolized are the ones everyone keeps pushing which keeps people enslaved in political and socioeconomic classes.

I believe in applying campus models to reforming public housing, prisons, sweatshops factories, and even drug houses (or also historic houses and businesses that could be saved to create housing and jobs for Veterans) to teach management, business and government administration skills to citizens and community leaders to become independent.

Where the capital can come from, to invest in properties and pay mentors to train student interns (while they work for credits and to pay off educational loans):

A. assess documented cases of either charity fraud, welfare or vet fraud, insurance fraud, or other corporate or govt abuses of either taxpayer funds or investments/donations
for which debts or damages are owed to the public.

B. issue notes or credits against the debt owed, and use that capital to microfinance
rebuilding community businesses, economy and whole districts.

C. create jobs for law schools/interns to negotiate such restitution settlements, collect the debts paid back from the actual wrongdoers responsible for abusing or stealing the funds,
and manage fulfilling the legal agreements to resolve cases of crime or corruption.

if the money cannot be collected back, then create jobs raising the money by grants or donations, investments or loans, where the shareholders own stake in the programs, and the property is used for collateral on the loans against the debts to taxpayers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd you cementhead.

Leftists are not leftists because they are particularly bright...

I'm just sayin...

 

[Bombur]

It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd you cementhead.

Leftists are not leftists because they are particularly bright...

I'm just sayin...

I am glad irony is not lethal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am glad irony is not lethal.

Because you'd be dead - I understand; sporky.

 

[OKTexas]

Since the left are the ones who love to preach about income inequality how would you fix it? How would you elevate those who don't have the same drive, ability, skills, passion, and determination to the level of those who have more of these quality's?

I'd like to know Rush's solution but I'm not holding my breath. He specializes in sarcasm not answers

Why would Rush or any other conservative have a solution to something we don't believe is a problem?

Thus his humorous solution.

Because the commies have declared it a problem, therefore there must be a solution, doesn't matter if it actually works, something has to be done.

 

[Bombur]

I am glad irony is not lethal.

Because you'd be dead - I understand; sporky.

Are you threatening me with more irony?

Bring it on. I find it amusing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you threatening me with more irony?

Bring it on. I find it amusing.

I'm threatening you with mockery, oh flaccid one...

Hardly an idle threat.

 

[edthecynic]

Rush nailed Obabble and the LIBTARDS and his solution frames the ridiculousness of Obabble's useless call for equality of outcomes.

Those are your MessiahRushie's words that he put in Obama's mouth. You lie just like Porky!

 

[Bombur]

Are you threatening me with more irony?

Bring it on. I find it amusing.

I'm threatening you with mockery, oh flaccid one...

Hardly an idle threat.

Mock away, the irony isn't lethal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because the commies have declared it a problem, therefore there must be a solution, doesn't matter if it actually works, something has to be done.

"Equality can only be found at the most base level." - Adam Smith.

"We come into this world unable to speak, walk, feed, or clothe ourselves, it is the only time which all people are equal, and only a return to that state can render all men equal." - Murray Rothbard.

 

[jasonnfree]

Since the left are the ones who love to preach about income inequality how would you fix it? How would you elevate those who don't have the same drive, ability, skills, passion, and determination to the level of those who have more of these quality's?

So basically the rich work harder, smarter, and longer hours than those on the bottom?
Most multibillionaires have inherited wealth. The kochs and the walmart bunch for example would still be multibillionaires if they were born poor and in the ghetto, correct.? Answer that for starters. You know the kochsters were convicted of stealing oil on gov't land? Got off by paying a fine. Thousands of guys in prison serving time for committing lesser crimes . Another starter subject.

 

[jasonnfree]

I couldn't get past the title. Obama is not a Dictator nor did he take office by a coup.

No, he actually won the white house 2x in a row with the republicans trying to destroy his presidency from day one and mitch mcconnel was stupid enough to say it in public:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc]Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President - YouTube[/ame]