Unequal distribution of wealth

[Flaylo]

Because WE PAY THEIR SALARIES and have NO SAY how much they are.

Federal workers pay into the system for usless ***** too, your salary pays a lot of shit, if you want more of your own money back get a ******* government job and stop hating on others.

At least we agree that Federal workers are "useless *****".
I have to negotiate WITH THE FOLKS THAT PAY ME for my cash.
Gummint "workers" do not.
And that is wrong.
I could not live on a gummint wage.

federal workers are not useless ***** but the whiners complaining about them are.

 

[usmcstinger]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

You have no reliable source to back your statement. Your are a typical delusional Left Wing Nut who was born stupid. You define the phrase that you can't fix stupid.

Obama is not the problem. It is idiots like you who voted for him.

 

[MikeK]

Well, good night to all. Just as a passing shot, I'd lik eto say that it's obvious that none of the people (who I've been debating), appear to have any knowledge of manufacturing or the realities of economics or the importance of real production.

You're all people who desparately cling to unfair wealth distribution, because if wealth distribution was fair you'd all be dirt poor!

If wealth distribution was fair there would be no billionaires in America but lots of millionaires and very little poverty.

 

[Avatar4321]

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

You have no reliable source to back your statement. Your are a typical delusional Left Wing Nut who was born stupid. You define the phrase that you can't fix stupid.

Obama is not the problem. It is idiots like you who voted for him.

I dont know who you are, but I wouldnt vote for Obama unless someone like hitler was running against him. And even then id have to make a difficult choice of just not voting and getting ready to get the heck out of the country (assuming there was anywhere to go).

Taking what isnt yours by the use of force is robbery. Which is precisely why I oppose Obama's redistrubition of wealth efforts. Which is also why I started the thread asking what was wrong with people earning different amounts of money depending on their jobs.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, good night to all. Just as a passing shot, I'd lik eto say that it's obvious that none of the people (who I've been debating), appear to have any knowledge of manufacturing or the realities of economics or the importance of real production.

You're all people who desparately cling to unfair wealth distribution, because if wealth distribution was fair you'd all be dirt poor!

If wealth distribution was fair there would be no billionaires in America but lots of millionaires and very little poverty.

You are half right. There would be no billionaries, we would just be all poor.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Here's a video discussing the societal impacts of wealth disparity:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUVk1mx6W4g]Kate Pickett - The Consequences of Inequality and Wealth Distribution - YouTube[/ame]

And here's some further reading on a number of different issues:

Articles on Inequality and Societal impacts

Thanks for treating us to the rantings of another whiny self entitled liberal.

Why is it that hearing from anyone with an intellect and an education rubs you hayseeds so wrong?

 

[Mustang]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Because inequality (economic/income inequality, included) leads to civil strife. Crack open a history book or read the news if you don't believe me.

Why do you think the US has had a long uninterrupted period of domestic peace? Asked another way, why do you think it's called peace AND prosperity?

Here's something for you to chew on. Do you know what 1928 and 2007 have in common aside from being the year just prior to the financial collapses of both the Great Depression and the Great Recession? They are the two years when the top 1% of income 'earners' reached a high level of taking 23.5% of the national income.

 

[JoeNormal]

Well, good night to all. Just as a passing shot, I'd lik eto say that it's obvious that none of the people (who I've been debating), appear to have any knowledge of manufacturing or the realities of economics or the importance of real production.

You're all people who desparately cling to unfair wealth distribution, because if wealth distribution was fair you'd all be dirt poor!

If wealth distribution was fair there would be no billionaires in America but lots of millionaires and very little poverty.

You are half right. There would be no billionaries, we would just be all poor.

Doesn't work that way. Germany has strong labor representation in all of the large corporations which ensures that they will get an equitable slice of the profits. They're booming.

 

[thanatos144]

If redistributing wealth worked why with all the socialist country do people starve??? I mean they starve in socialist country like Korea and Cuba and China....How did redistributing wealth help those starving kids??????


Hey socialists you want to live the socialist dream? Move to a third world country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So? The government takes from the thieves and gives to the poor.

The government, IE The politicians and the bureaucrats, are the theives. They give to themselves.

You don't steal money from someone by providing them with a good and service that they want.

BTW I noticed you didnt disagree that the government steals money from people. You just think their robbery is justified. So clearly your moral justification for why "unequal distribution of wealth" is wrong is not something you actually believe. If you actually objected to stealing, you would object to stealing in all it's forms. You just object to what you call stealing while justifying the kind you like.

We need to prevent these Robbers from having power in our government or they will cause the collapse of it.

Uh...I didn't say that the goverment 'steals' from anybody, I said that the government 'takes'.

I agree that there's a lot of corruption in government and that quite a lot of politicians line their own pockets - but that's a separate issue.

As far as the notion that selling goods and services is not ripping off the customer...sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If the goods or services are non-essential items then it's perfectly O.K. to charge whatever the customers are willing to pay...as in the case of guitars.

However, in the case of essential services, most of the time business extorts the customers - if the government lets them get away with it. If people need medical or legal help, for example, the charges for these services are astronomically and completely non-proportional to the cost of delivering these services. There's nothing customers can do about it. It's pure extortion.

The only thing that stands between us and $500/ gallon milk is the government.

But, getting back to the point, it's the low level workers that are usually the ones (especially in manufactirung) that are almost always getting ripped off.

Do you really think that the workers in the factories that build all the high tech equiment that are in our hospitals are the ones getting the big bucks? They don't have a pot to piss in. Yet the cost of hospital equipment is astronomical. It really doesn't cost any more to manufacture than your home PC does, but it all costs way more.

"$500 a gallon milk". And this is the piss-brained moron arrogantly telling OTHER people they know nothing about economics?

I'm feeling generous today, Pi8ss-Brain, so instead of just laughing at you and ignoring you, I'm going to give you a short lesson in why it's NOT the government that stands between us and "$500 a gallon milk". Sorry, but that's just ******* hilarious every time I hear it.

Do you know what happens LONG before milk gets to $500 a gallon? First, people stop buying cow's milk and start using substitutes, like soy milk. The soybean industry, no fools they, see how the dairy industry is foolishly pushing customers into their arms, and make a point of keeping prices reasonable in comparison so that they can make a bloody fortune off quantity sales.

THEN, I and a bunch of other people go out and buy some cows and start selling milk ourselves for prices competitive with the soy milk prices. The dairy people who listened to YOUR stupid economic ideas have already gone out of business somewhere back when everyone was on soy milk, and I and my new competitors buy up their dairies and other assets, and BOOM! Everything's back the way it was, and we've learned the lesson of our predecessors, the one you're too much of a piss-brain to see: if you raise prices too much, someone's going to come along and cut the legs out from under you.

Thank you. This concludes today's lesson in "How to live in the real world without being a piss-brain". We now return you to your regularly-scheduled mouthbreathing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You obviously have no experience in manufacturing and have no idea what factory workers, skilled or unskilled are paid.

I'm an electrical engineer with 20+ years of experience in heavy industry - I design and build things that require quite a bit more skill than guitar building. I know what workers are paid. And yes idiot, I get paid well into the six figure range.

No, there is actually no job that pays any worker their true value - if they did then there would be no profit.

Unions try to get employers to pay the workers something more than slave wages, but still not even close to their true value.

You're obviously completely ignorant of the economics of manufacturing.

Because you say so.

BTW you do realize that the workers true value is dependent on the profit they make for the employer, right? So if there is no profit, their is no value.

No. The workers true value is their productive contribution to society. Are you saying that the value of productive work is only the gain of the slave masters?

Hey, I didn't buy that guitar because I wanted to make some fat cat fatter, I bought it because I wanted a guitar.

No, fool. A worker's true value is NOT "their productive contribution to society". Know why? Because it's not "society" who's paying them. It is their value to the person signing/authorizing the paychecks. That doesn't make you a "slave master", by the way, unless one is a slacker loser sitting around on his mommy's couch, diddling with a guitar and congratulating himself on how "free" he is as his parents put food on his plate.

It doesn't matter why you bought the guitar, fool. Despite what your Mommy told you, the world does not revolve around you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean like the Government steals from those that work to give to those that do not work and no I am not referring to people who do not work because of sickness, disability, old age or short term job loss.

.

No body wants the government to give money to people that are perfectly capable of working. In fact the whole notion that the government does give money to people who are capable of working is a conservative myth. It does occur, but it's illegal.

I beg to differ, having re-enter the dating scene after a divorce, I have met 5 out of 15 women that have several kids, live in section 8 housing, do not work and are government assistance in several forms (needless to say after learning this, I never contacted them again) , but it is not a conservative myth, evidently you do not participate in the real world much.

.

Well, he definitely doesn't DATE. I mean, look at his picture. I know I'D laugh at him.

 

[BDBoop]

1) old pic

2) he's a cutie

 

[thereisnospoon]

If wealth distribution was fair there would be no billionaires in America but lots of millionaires and very little poverty.

You are half right. There would be no billionaries, we would just be all poor.

Doesn't work that way. Germany has strong labor representation in all of the large corporations which ensures that they will get an equitable slice of the profits. They're booming.

And lots of government subsidies which are paid off the backs of the taxpayer. So no one really gets ahead.
Unions are shit. Just another form of socialism which screws with the marketplace. In the case of unions, labor rates are kept artificially high. This raises the cost of doing business which is passed along to the end user of a product or service.
So consumer goods are expensive and taxes confiscatory. Who gets ahead? No one. The government gets theirs and the people live under the illusion that they are prosperous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1) old pic

2) he's a cutie

No one ever expected you to have high standards. Or any standards.

 

[BDBoop]

1) old pic

2) he's a cutie

No one ever expected you to have high standards. Or any standards.

Pot, kettle - *****.

What do you do for a living again?

 

[Avatar4321]

The government, IE The politicians and the bureaucrats, are the theives. They give to themselves.

You don't steal money from someone by providing them with a good and service that they want.

BTW I noticed you didnt disagree that the government steals money from people. You just think their robbery is justified. So clearly your moral justification for why "unequal distribution of wealth" is wrong is not something you actually believe. If you actually objected to stealing, you would object to stealing in all it's forms. You just object to what you call stealing while justifying the kind you like.

We need to prevent these Robbers from having power in our government or they will cause the collapse of it.

Uh...I didn't say that the goverment 'steals' from anybody, I said that the government 'takes'.

I agree that there's a lot of corruption in government and that quite a lot of politicians line their own pockets - but that's a separate issue.

As far as the notion that selling goods and services is not ripping off the customer...sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If the goods or services are non-essential items then it's perfectly O.K. to charge whatever the customers are willing to pay...as in the case of guitars.

However, in the case of essential services, most of the time business extorts the customers - if the government lets them get away with it. If people need medical or legal help, for example, the charges for these services are astronomically and completely non-proportional to the cost of delivering these services. There's nothing customers can do about it. It's pure extortion.

The only thing that stands between us and $500/ gallon milk is the government.

But, getting back to the point, it's the low level workers that are usually the ones (especially in manufactirung) that are almost always getting ripped off.

Do you really think that the workers in the factories that build all the high tech equiment that are in our hospitals are the ones getting the big bucks? They don't have a pot to piss in. Yet the cost of hospital equipment is astronomical. It really doesn't cost any more to manufacture than your home PC does, but it all costs way more.

"$500 a gallon milk". And this is the piss-brained moron arrogantly telling OTHER people they know nothing about economics?

I'm feeling generous today, Pi8ss-Brain, so instead of just laughing at you and ignoring you, I'm going to give you a short lesson in why it's NOT the government that stands between us and "$500 a gallon milk". Sorry, but that's just ******* hilarious every time I hear it.

Do you know what happens LONG before milk gets to $500 a gallon? First, people stop buying cow's milk and start using substitutes, like soy milk. The soybean industry, no fools they, see how the dairy industry is foolishly pushing customers into their arms, and make a point of keeping prices reasonable in comparison so that they can make a bloody fortune off quantity sales.

THEN, I and a bunch of other people go out and buy some cows and start selling milk ourselves for prices competitive with the soy milk prices. The dairy people who listened to YOUR stupid economic ideas have already gone out of business somewhere back when everyone was on soy milk, and I and my new competitors buy up their dairies and other assets, and BOOM! Everything's back the way it was, and we've learned the lesson of our predecessors, the one you're too much of a piss-brain to see: if you raise prices too much, someone's going to come along and cut the legs out from under you.

Thank you. This concludes today's lesson in "How to live in the real world without being a piss-brain". We now return you to your regularly-scheduled mouthbreathing.

Excellent response. Id also like to add that it's more likely that if milk ever reached $500 a gallon, it would be precisely because the government was inflating our currency to the point where $500 was equivalent to $2.50 is now.

Which oddly enough is precisely what the government is doing: Inflating our currency and making our money worth less.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, he definitely doesn't DATE. I mean, look at his picture. I know I'D laugh at him.

You might think that, but there are some women with odd tastes out there. I should know, I actually convinced one to marry me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, he definitely doesn't DATE. I mean, look at his picture. I know I'D laugh at him.

You might think that, but there are some women with odd tastes out there. I should know, I actually convinced one to marry me.

I am quite sure that your lady made out like a bandit on that deal.

 

[georgephillip]

These ******* idiots who complain about govt workers and their salaries are just haters, they ignore facts, facts like the wages of govt employees are used to purchase goods and services in the private sector which pays the salaries of private sector workers, cut their wages you cut your own, simple economics 101.

They also tend to ignore the fact that without government there would be no courts, public safety and money.

No see, that's why libeals think of communism as socialist utopia. The conservatives call it anarchy, because we do want SOME government, VERY BASIC government.
Utopian socialism = anarchy (positive view is from liberals, negative view from conservatives)
Liberals are the ones that want huge government, then when you as mention the USSR or cuba, they say communism hasnt been tried, because they think it is socialist utopia (ie no government, ie anarchy). That's why we laugh at socialist utopia, it's NOT POSSIBLE= and if it did happen, it would be CHAOS (ie no courts, public saftey or money as you point out)
And thats why commies and anarchists get together, because they both believe in the same thing for different reasons.

so to recap. Liberals love utopian socialism, conservatives dont and call it anarchy (because we realize we need SOME government)

Liberals understand how the Public creates the infrastructure, public education, and the regulations for the protection of health and justice that makes the Private, especially private PROFIT possible.

"Conservatives endorse massive fraud, primarily through the Pentagon, because the Decider scares them with fabels about terrorists, anarchists, and communists coming from the USSR and Cuba for their guns and bibles.

"VERY BASIC government begins with the principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public business, something conservatives often confuse with anarchy.