View Poll Results: What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Do not intervene

    47 51.09%
  • Yes, do intervene

    45 48.91%
Page 79 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 1006

Thread: Income Inequality

  1. #781
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by GBFAN View Post
    Wages are stagnant because labor chooses it to be so... as hard as that is to swallow, it's true. If you want more, ask ... I sure as hell ain't going to volunteer it. But, if you ask, remember that you open up other avenues for me. Believe me, you'll know when you've asked for too much ... you will have to commute to China.

    You want the government to do something you're not willing to do yourself ...
    Yupper, labor is stagnate....



    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  2. #782
    Sage
    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Twinsburg Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    5,949

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    So you believe that the from one year to the next, you increased the amount of revenue you drive for the company by about $6k? Not sure if that question really even makes sense, since I don't know what you do, but if it does make sense in the type of work you're in, and you did indeed bring in say $6k or $7k or $8k more of revenue than the previous year, I would agree that sounds like a very fair raise. That said, in my experience, in most companies, in order to get a $6k raise you actually need to increase your value more like $50k or $100k/year. If that isn't the case at your employer, that's great, and you should stick with them! But, if you are in a kind of work where it is harder for you to estimate how much more revenue you drove and you're just guesstimating that $6k sounds like a fair raise, you might actually be getting totally screwed and not realizing it, as most people are in these things statistically speaking.



    You seem to be trying to reduce our positions to binary positions where you're saying raises are driven by merit and I'm saying people should just get raises for existing. That isn't an accurate description of our positions at all. Of course merit has a big impact on raises and gives you negotiating power. And of course people shouldn't just get raises for existing.

    What I am saying is that the impact of having high merit is becoming diluted. It used to be, and is supposed to be, that $1 more merit translates into almost $1 in additional compensation, but in reality it appears to not be working that way any more. These days, the norm is more like $1 of additional merit gets you, on average, $0.44 in compensation. You have millions of people who, for example, generate $350k/year in after-expenses revenue, make $55k/year, and are just glad they have a job. That isn't how that is supposed to work in a capitalist economy. Definitely increasing your merit will still cause your income to increase, just not by as much as it should or as much as it used to.

    So, I think it is key to look at the reasons that has fallen apart like that and address them. That doens't mean just giving raises for existing or whatever, that means taking steps to restore a freer market for labor with more competition and more even negotiating power. That is the opposite of paying people for existing. I am saying compensation should be more closely tied to performance, not less.

    so someone that generates 350k in net profit, and is paid 55k for that effort is totally underpaid in your eyes?

    remember uncle sammie gets his share, and the state gets their share

    so how much is the manager above him getting?

    and the owner above him?

    what piece of the pie do you feel is appropriate?
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  3. #783
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-19-14 @ 07:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    312

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    So you believe that the from one year to the next, you increased the amount of revenue you drive for the company by about $6k? Not sure if that question really even makes sense, since I don't know what you do, but if it does make sense in the type of work you're in, and you did indeed bring in say $6k or $7k or $8k more of revenue than the previous year, I would agree that sounds like a very fair raise. That said, in my experience, in most companies, in order to get a $6k raise you actually need to increase your value more like $50k or $100k/year. If that isn't the case at your employer, that's great, and you should stick with them! But, if you are in a kind of work where it is harder for you to estimate how much more revenue you drove and you're just guesstimating that $6k sounds like a fair raise, you might actually be getting totally screwed and not realizing it, as most people are in these things statistically speaking.



    You seem to be trying to reduce our positions to binary positions where you're saying raises are driven by merit and I'm saying people should just get raises for existing. That isn't an accurate description of our positions at all. Of course merit has a big impact on raises and gives you negotiating power. And of course people shouldn't just get raises for existing.

    What I am saying is that the impact of having high merit is becoming diluted. It used to be, and is supposed to be, that $1 more merit translates into almost $1 in additional compensation, but in reality it appears to not be working that way any more. These days, the norm is more like $1 of additional merit gets you, on average, $0.44 in compensation. You have millions of people who, for example, generate $350k/year in after-expenses revenue, make $55k/year, and are just glad they have a job. That isn't how that is supposed to work in a capitalist economy. Definitely increasing your merit will still cause your income to increase, just not by as much as it should or as much as it used to.

    So, I think it is key to look at the reasons that has fallen apart like that and address them. That doens't mean just giving raises for existing or whatever, that means taking steps to restore a freer market for labor with more competition and more even negotiating power. That is the opposite of paying people for existing. I am saying compensation should be more closely tied to performance, not less.
    Apparenlty, having high merit wasn't deluted in my case.

    What you have a problem understanding is that a capitalist economy allows those who think they aren't being paid enough to go elsewhere, even start their own business in order to maximize their worth. You also have a problem understanding that it's not your place to determine how much something should increase unless you are the one doing the paying of the wages. There isn't but one business for whom you can make that determination. It's one that you own. For the ones that you don't own, you have absolutely no say in what is being paid.

  4. #784
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-19-14 @ 07:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    312

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Sure they do, which explains stagnate wages since 1980.


    Well said.

    Your problem is that what I have put forward (all of the argument and stats) are ignored.
    You've provided nothing more than rants about how businesses you don't own should pay higher wages. You've put nothing forward but typical LIberal bleeding heart rants from an emotional and five year old mentality. I'm sorry if your wages have been stagnant. Perhaps the problem is with you not your employer. Mine have steadily increased. I've been in the same profession for 27 years. While I changed companies, I currently make almost 4x what I made when I started in the business in 1987. If you haven't, that your problem.

  5. #785
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative65 View Post
    You've provided nothing more than rants about how businesses you don't own should pay higher wages. You've put nothing forward but typical LIberal bleeding heart rants from an emotional and five year old mentality. I'm sorry if your wages have been stagnant. Perhaps the problem is with you not your employer. Mine have steadily increased. I've been in the same profession for 27 years. While I changed companies, I currently make almost 4x what I made when I started in the business in 1987. If you haven't, that your problem.
    For someone who claims to be so mature and experienced, it is strange seeing such selfish "I'm successful so the problem is you" argument in light, full view of the fact that you are an anomaly. I'm glad you are (supposedly) successful, but that is not the story for the vast majority of US workers. US workers have not en mass become lazy or non-productive (as I have shown) and further, those that are reaping huge economic gains have not done the US many favors, their gains have not caused greater levels of employment or incomes....it has not trickled down.

    There is not much point in debating you any longer, you do not want to acknowledge or accept macroeconomic data or argument about the causes for the data since the end of the 30 Great Years, but then I see that a lot from supply-siders that do not want to accept the failings of their ideology.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #786
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-19-14 @ 07:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    312

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    For someone who claims to be so mature and experienced, it is strange seeing such selfish "I'm successful so the problem is you" argument in light, full view of the fact that you are an anomaly. I'm glad you are (supposedly) successful, but that is not the story for the vast majority of US workers. US workers have not en mass become lazy or non-productive (as I have shown) and further, those that are reaping huge economic gains have not done the US many favors, their gains have not caused greater levels of employment or incomes....it has not trickled down.

    There is not much point in debating you any longer, you do not want to acknowledge or accept macroeconomic data or argument about the causes for the data since the end of the 30 Great Years, but then I see that a lot from supply-siders that do not want to accept the failings of their ideology.
    My success has nothing to do with your not being able to make it.

    Interesting how you say those reaping huge gains haven't don't any favors. The Obama administration keeps telling us that unemployment is declining. Someone has to be hiring or the numbers YOUR President spout are a lie.

    I agree, there is no need in debating you. You apparently are too low on the cognitive level to learn basic concepts like no one owes you anything in life or that if you don't like your situation do something about it. Since you haven't been successful, it seems you either didn't learn them or you are doing the best you can. Anyone that think an employer owes them more than what they agreed to make, and by staying they are agreeing, is a failure.

  7. #787
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative65 View Post
    My success has nothing to do with your not being able to make it.
    Dude, stop making this a personal argument.

    Interesting how you say those reaping huge gains haven't don't any favors. The Obama administration keeps telling us that unemployment is declining. Someone has to be hiring or the numbers YOUR President spout are a lie.
    Seriously, you are going to make the marginal changes in UE proof of trickle down?

    I agree, there is no need in debating you. You apparently are too low on the cognitive level to learn basic concepts like no one owes you anything in life or that if you don't like your situation do something about it.
    I'm not going to put up with the ad hominem personal attacks anymore.
    Since you haven't been successful, it seems you either didn't learn them or you are doing the best you can.
    You have no idea about my prosperity, and all you can do is to go personal.
    Anyone that think (sic) an employer owes them more than what they agreed to make, and by staying they are agreeing, is a failure.
    Again, you show that you have read the previous argument about the declining influence of labor in the US, or if you do know about it are intentionally make dishonest argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #788
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,977
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    That essentially what I argued in my recent thread.

    But to them I ask: How is it socialist to simplify our tax code? How is it socialist to be able to keep the fruits of your labor? How is it socialist to pay for what you take?
    I saw that thread, and I noted the conspicuous absence of certain posters.

    I'd love to see you and TNAR go back and forth, lol. Would likely be educational for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  9. #789
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Income Inequality

    No he is showing income, and I showed wealth. There is a difference, it is significant, and the difference between wealth today and 90+ years ago when the UOSC study got its data back too there is not all that much difference - except in the US Population. In 1922 a total of 1.2 million shared the top 1% of wealth and today 3.2 million do. I realize that doesn't fit your parties wet dream of harvesting the proceeds of other peoples hard work to give it away to xbox loving low life voters that give you power - but tough - its the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Actually, between his charts he is showing you the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%.

    People talk a lot about the 1%, but really is it the 0.1% or even the 0.01% that is where the real "rich-poor" gap kicks in. Well up into the 1%, you're actually still talking about people who work jobs full time or run small businesses and make great, but still sane, incomes which are often relatively proportionate to their contributions to the economy. If somebody makes $450k/year working 70 hour weeks doing something important that they're really good at, I think they should pay sizable taxes, but I don't think that the mere existence of people in that sort of situation indicates a systemic flaw in our economy.

    Then you hit this cliff around the top 0.1% where you transition to people whose income bears little relation to their contributions. The top 0.1% is people who draw money out of the economy because they happened to land in a lucky position more than because they actually did something useful. They happened to be the sales guy when a big corporation signed up for a new office product supplier and they get 5% of the contract each year pretty much for nothing other than shaking a few hands and taking a client out to a fancy dinner, or maybe their father died and left them $40m, or maybe they gambled with other people's money in the market and got lucky and got to skim a few percentage off the top. But even that is somewhat comprehensible- some people will totally luck out. IMO they should be taxed far, far, more heavily than they are, and probably we should be looking more closely at whether that is a wise use of our GDP, but it isn't a total disaster. People this rich have always existed and probably always will.

    Where it really gets mind boggling is the top 0.01%. These are people who rake in just incomprehensible amounts of money, often literally for nothing or wildly out of proportion with what they actually do. People whose only "job" responsibility is calling up their broker once in a while to ask how much more they are worth now who are pulling in sums of money that would practically be impossible to spend. Many, or even most, of the people in this category never worked, never did anything useful, and we're wasting massive fractions of our entire nation's GDP just flooding them with money for no real reason at all. This is a systemic problem. It is sheer waste on such a massive scale that it is crippling our entire economy. Enabling this unimaginable sort of excess costs so much that working people are basically having to forego increases in their income entirely to accomodate it. This is where almost all the GDP growth for the past 15 years has gone- down this irrational black hole of graft.

  10. #790
    Student Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    σκότος και φωτός
    Last Seen
    06-23-15 @ 10:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    162

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Do you feel that whatever raises you get are an accurate reflection of your merit? For example, I have no idea what kind of work you do, but do you have a sense of how much revenue you create for your employer? If so, do you feel that the portion of that revenue that goes to you, compared to the portion that goes to the owner, is reasonable?

    In a free market, if you generate (after all expenses other than your compensation) $100 an hour for your employer and your employer pays you $80 an hour, it would make sense for one of their competitors to hire you for $81, thus increasing their profits by $19. Then another competitor should offer you $82 to increase their profits by $18, and so on until competition over your labor has raised your compensation (including benefits and whatnot) to $99. That is how it is supposed to work. In fact, that is one of the main reasons a capitalist system is a good idea- people get paid roughly what they're worth. And, for most of US history, that is exactly what did happen. Up until about the mid 1970s, you would see a tiny blip in productivity where the average after expenses productivity would go up from say $45/hour to $46/hour and within a few months, the average compensation would go up from say $42 to $43 or so. In the relatively rare cases where productivity fell slightly, income fell the same amount. Companies have always taken profits, so the compensation was always a bit below the productivity, but only a couple/few bucks and hour.

    But that stopped happening. Since the mid 1970s, productivity has increased roughly 300%, but income has only increased about 40% (both adjusted for inflation). Today, our average compensation is less than half of our after expenses (including after taxes) productivity.

    So, while I love the idea of raises being driven by merit, that doesn't seem to be reality anymore. Seems to me like bargaining power rather than merit drive raises these days. Employers tend to have market positions or monopoly power that they can leverage to hold off competition for their employees and that gives them the leverage to dictate wages far below what the employees are actually worth. If we could return somehow to a situation where workers were again receiving something close to what they were worth, we would see the median income double or more. That would be amazing. But just pretending it already is happening doesn't get us there. We need to be thinking more creatively about how to even negotiating power back up and instill more competition.
    Interestingly, it was the 60s and 70s when increases in government interference became more prevalent. People demand "fairness." Fairness and justice are abstract concepts that cannot exist. I fully support regulations preventing child labor. I do not support regulations demanding employers to pay over time for working more than 40 hours a week. I also do not support forcing employers to pay out benefits, either. And it's not because i don't want people to have benefits. It's because every time the government steps in and forces employers to do something, employers react by reducing jobs and hours employees can work. At one time, if an employee worked 40plus hours, it was legally considered full time and they had to be given benefits. Employers cut hours below that amount. Now if employees work more than 30 hours, they are considered full time and they have to be paid benefits.

    Anyone care to guess what employers will do now? I know people working two or three jobs to get a full time paycheck. The government will put a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound and call it a solution.

Page 79 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2969777879808189 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •