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 80 of 101 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 1006

Thread: Income Inequality

  1. #791
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    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?
    I said $350k in after-expenses revenue- meaning you've already paid off the taxes and the manager and you still have $350k left. Yes, if the owner just keeps $295 for themselves and gives the employee $55k, they are totally ripping the employee off. That isn't just my opinion, that is not supposed to even be possible in a free market, as I explained. That is one of the main reasons we opt to have a capitalist system.

  2. #792
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Income Inequality

    Firstly, claiming that "The Top One Percent Of Earners Have Seen Their Incomes Go Up While Everyone Else's Hasn't" isn't true, because who makes up the top 1% changes every year. 75% of the tippity-top .01% households in 1995 were in a lower income group a decade later. People flow into and out of "the top 1%" all the time, and so to treat them as some kind of stationary group (the incomes of the top 1% / the share of wealth going to the top 1% / etc.) is a false measure. You're really saying that 'the amount of money you have to make this year to make it into the top 1% has changed".



    To a large extent, the expansion of the range of earned income is a good thing. We have become better in society at matching possibility to opportunity. Used to be, if you were a high-achieving high schooler - good for you! Maybe you'll be a foreman! Our elite schools and industries were largely for the children of members, who had the time and resources (both soft and hard) to get them into Harvard, to get them trained in Medicine. Now, if you are a hard-charging high-achieving high schooler, well, Harvard is in reach, or MIT. When we match the greatest opportunities to the greatest talents instead of a genetic lottery, the completely predictable result is that we see far greater productivity, and that manifests itself in far greater individual income. Everyone here who think that its' bad that Steve Jobs is the force behind the iEverything, or that what Bill Gates did for computing hurt poor people, raise your hand.

    To a large extent, the lack-of-movement at the bottom is a mixed bag. You sort of expect that high school sophomores in 2014 aren't going to be that much more value-added when it comes to flipping burgers or mowing lawns than high school sophomores were in 1995. The basic skill set and experience (approx: nil) is still there. Additionally, if you force up lower income wages, you reduce demand for labor - hurting the poor rather than helping them. I wonder what the income disparity / rise statistics would look like if we accounted for the fact that the real "minimum wage" is "zero", and that labor-market participation is fairly low. Proportionally, however, the lower-income strata see larger gains in income than the higher ones do. About half of the people in the bottom quintile have moved up a decade later, which matches about the half of general Americans who move around over the same period of time. As the Treasury Department (which tracked individuals, rather than only discussing descriptive percentages into which individuals floated in and out of) put it:

    ...conomic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period [1995-2005]: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups.....

    However, there is a distinct feeling that the top of our bell curve has not moved upwards with the highest of producers, and while to an extent that is a product of good things, it is also an effect of a few bad things. Decreased family formation, for one. One of the reasons that households are making less is because there are more of them. Take a couple - Steve works full time and brings home $45,000; Jen works part time (the kids are in school) and brings home $20k. Average Household Income: $65,000. Now they get a divorce, but both keep their jobs. Average Household Income: $32,500. Multiply this across the reduced incidence of (successful) marriage in our society, and you see that it is a huge drag on our household income numbers. Since we generally report income as a household, that is in turn a huge drag on the statistics.


    As for me, I'm not really worried about the people on the top. They seem to be doing okay for themselves. I'd rather try to figure out how to actually improve the situations of the people on the bottom.
    Last edited by cpwill; 10-02-14 at 12:06 AM.

  3. #793
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative65 View Post
    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.
    No, I don't have a problem understanding that theory. I already explained that theory to you. Then I laid out for you how the stats show that things aren't actually playing out as the theory would predict. So, I am asking what we can do to get things to work as the theory would predict again like they used to. Do you have any thoughts on that or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative65 View Post
    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.
    You know, I always get the sense that all these arguments conservatives try to come up with are really just masking a deep seated desire to obey. Some sort of instinct left over from an earlier time or something where they are desperate to display submissiveness to the biggest master in their tribe or something, like dogs do. I guess you are just flat out admitting that?

    Anyways, it isn't rational, it is just some kind of misplaced emotional impulse that you have. The stuff you said about the free market and competition, that stuff makes sense, not this shameful "you have no right to question the master" blathering. Have some dignity man.

  4. #794
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    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.
    No, no, you're getting mixed up lol. 3.2 million is 1% of the population. That is the number of people who are in the top 1% for wealth, not the number of people who own 1% of the wealth lol. Like the "tallest 1% of the country" will always be made up of 1% of the population. You follow?

    The top 1% of the population owns roughly 1/3rd of all the wealth in the country.

  5. #795
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhiannon View Post
    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.
    Your theory just doesn't align to reality at all. In reality, far more of the population is working, and they are working far more hours, than in the 1960s. In those days, usually only 1 member of a household worked and they generally only worked 40 hours a week. Now 2 members of the typical household work and they work more like 50+ hours a week. So, the theory that requiring benefits and whatnot is bad because it causes employers to cut the amount they expect people to work doesn't seem to hold water at all.

  6. #796
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    No, no, you're getting mixed up lol. 3.2 million is 1% of the population. That is the number of people who are in the top 1% for wealth, not the number of people who own 1% of the wealth lol. Like the "tallest 1% of the country" will always be made up of 1% of the population. You follow?

    The top 1% of the population owns roughly 1/3rd of all the wealth in the country.
    they also pay far more taxes than most of America combined on a federal level



  7. #797
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    11-25-15 @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    531

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    you are simply dismissing and excusing the capture of wealth by the top quintile and telling me that even though I know more than my father, i work longer hours, I have greater skills and am more productive, I should be satisfied that I make the same as he did. I should not expect greater levels of income for my higher levels of work.

    This is a common argument from libertarians, do not see that that the top have captured a larger share. I have never understood this protection of the wealthy, it is as if they need your defense.

    Even the source you linked to has a link the original data on mobility where so much of chances of mobility depend upon where you grow up....basically, the parents you choose. It is in fact, a lot about luck. But then the further one goes to right ideology, the more the emphasis is placed on morality, less on circumstance.

    We did build this, we should share in the gains.
    An envious and jealous Liberal talking about "morality"....ROTFLMMFAO...PRICELESS.

  8. #798
    Educator
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Last Seen
    10-23-14 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    945

    Re: Income Inequality

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    No, no, you're getting mixed up lol. 3.2 million is 1% of the population. That is the number of people who are in the top 1% for wealth, not the number of people who own 1% of the wealth lol. Like the "tallest 1% of the country" will always be made up of 1% of the population. You follow?

    The top 1% of the population owns roughly 1/3rd of all the wealth in the country.
    The top 1% (some facts)

    * Aged 47 (that’s the average age).
    * 90% of them have made their money on their own rather than inherit it (10%).
    * 90% graduated from college (but 75% did not go to an Ivy-League school).
    * 80% don’t tell anyone they are part of the elite of the nation and keep it quiet for fear of what people might say.
    * Minimum income to qualify in the top 1%??? $367,000 in gross income. (or $342K, depending on your source - Top 1 Percent: How Much Do They Earn? | Bankrate.com)

    If you look REAL close, you'll see that calGun's statement is factually correct - today, 3.2 million people are in the top 1%, whereas in 1922, only 1.9 million were. It makes perfect sense given that the population in 1922 was significantly less. You need to read closer.
    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.
    - Orson Welles

  9. #799
    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 Lakeside View Post
    An envious and jealous Liberal talking about "morality"....ROTFLMMFAO...PRICELESS.
    Yes, my argument....is all about "envy".


    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Again, instead of understanding that the argument by me is to reduce revolution (civil unrest) by reducing economic inequality, the argument is turned on it's head to where equalizing economic gains becomes communism.

    But then as I have said many time, libertarians are among the most ignorant when it comes to history.
    dust yourself off.
    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.

  10. #800
    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

    In case you missed it...
    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 ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    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.

Page 80 of 101 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... 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
  •