Income Inequality

US Conservative · Sep 25, 2014

Unrepresented said:
If the Republican candidates offered union support, I'm sure the money would follow. Conservatives unfortunately don't appreciate a fair and balanced debate between organized business matched with organized labor.

You say you are "sure", cool story bro.

Im "sure" you make excuses for the draconian measures of your party. Whats that like?

What if...? · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
You say that like people care. No matter how true it might be in reality, people just aren't interested in that. They look at the amount of money they have on hand, the cost of the various items they have to choose from and make a decision based on that. Long-term use is the farthest thing from their mind.

I get that. My point is in response to the mantra that outsourcing is a net good thing because it provides lower prices. But too often the quality is even lower than the price.

So "outsourcing is actually good for low income workers" is a less than true concept when at the end of the day they end up paying MORE to open cans than they did when they made more money and can openers cost more.

Peoples behavior doesn't make it any less false economy.

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

What if...? said:
I get that. My point is in response to the mantra that outsourcing is a net good thing because it provides lower prices. But too often the quality is even lower than the price.

So "outsourcing is actually good for low income workers" is a less than true concept when at the end of the day they end up paying MORE to open cans than they did when they made more money and can openers cost more.

Peoples behavior doesn't make it any less false economy.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's an understandable thing that people are going to want the lowest possible prices, regardless of the underlying realities and if companies want to compete in the free marketplace, they have to keep reducing prices, even if that means lowering the quality of their products. It's what the consumer wants and the consumer's money is king.

You might have a point if people's money supply wasn't a constantly regenerating thing. People keep getting paid. They have a continually limited supply of money that gets resupplied on a regular basis. That's how virtually everyone thinks. I don't think that I can buy a cheap car today that might only last 10 years, or an expensive car today that might last 20 years. I still only have a certain amount of money to spend today, I'll get more in 2 weeks and more 2 weeks after that. Most people, like it or not, don't think over the long term. False economy or not, it is the economy we have.

What if...? · Sep 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
Since Im a fan of the first amendment and freedom from coercion, yeah-its a problem for me.

Do you feel the same when a corporation donates money to causes some stockholders disagree with?

Unrepresented · Sep 25, 2014

gdgyva said:
i have zero issues with unions under the following restrictions

1. it has to be an open shop.....we live in a democracy.....not fair to make people join something they dont necessarily believe in

2. Dues have to be optional.....if the union does good work, then the dues will be paid.....if not, the union leaders can starve

I dont really think unions are necessary myself anymore.....but if people want them, fine

But they have to be open....not dictorial

So, in summary, you're okay with unions so long as they have no authority, leverage, or strength and are relegated to ornamental tributes to workers rather than functional organizations fit to actually serve their needs.

US Conservative said:
You say you are "sure", cool story bro.

Im "sure" you make excuses for the draconian measures of your party. Whats that like?

I'm sorry that conservative politicians act in opposition to the public positions of labor leaders. It's easier to catch flies with honey...

What if...? · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's an understandable thing that people are going to want the lowest possible prices, regardless of the underlying realities and if companies want to compete in the free marketplace, they have to keep reducing prices, even if that means lowering the quality of their products. It's what the consumer wants and the consumer's money is king.

You might have a point if people's money supply wasn't a constantly regenerating thing. People keep getting paid. They have a continually limited supply of money that gets resupplied on a regular basis. That's how virtually everyone thinks. I don't think that I can buy a cheap car today that might only last 10 years, or an expensive car today that might last 20 years. I still only have a certain amount of money to spend today, I'll get more in 2 weeks and more 2 weeks after that. Most people, like it or not, don't think over the long term. False economy or not, it is the economy we have.

Yet those who DO know better still repeat the mantra that wages are stagnant but that's OK because prices are lower.

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

What if...? said:
Do you feel the same when a corporation donates money to causes some stockholders disagree with?

If there are enough stockholders that disagree, they can vote out the leadership of that corporation, so sure. Checks and balances.

What if...? · Sep 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
Since govt employees are REQUIRED to join these public sector unions, and since the money they forcibly take are spent supporting dems, even against the wishes of the employee-thats not good enough.

They aren't required to take the job though. They could always find a job in the private sector and negotiate individually.

SheWolf · Sep 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
Meaning increase funding and votes for the democrat party. :doh

Or maybe we could all agree to restrict corporate and union influence in politics, and empower the individuals more in this country...

SheWolf · Sep 25, 2014

I think the government should stay out of employer/employee bargaining and union politics. We should let the workers and their employers work everything out among themselves like the adults they are, right?

US Conservative said:
Since Im a fan of the first amendment and freedom from coercion, yeah-its a problem for me.

Unrepresented · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
If there are enough stockholders that disagree, they can vote out the leadership of that corporation, so sure. Checks and balances.

As can union members. Officials are elected by their members.

What if...? · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
What has anyone else done to EARN those scraps? Why do you think that anyone else ought to benefit from the hard work of others?

Technically, profit from labor is "benefiting from the hard work of others".

SheWolf · Sep 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
Since govt employees are REQUIRED to join these public sector unions, and since the money they forcibly take are spent supporting dems, even against the wishes of the employee-thats not good enough.

Government employees are required to do a lot of things... When you enter the work force, you have certain responsibilities and duties, and many of them ****ing suck and seem unfair. Why single out the requirement to join a union as opposed to the requirement to wear a uniform or pass a certain exam?

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

What if...? said:
Yet those who DO know better still repeat the mantra that wages are stagnant but that's OK because prices are lower.

It depends on how they mean it. With pure buying power, they're right. Someone who makes a dollar a day but a loaf of bread costs a penny is in no better shape making $100 a day, but the same loaf of bread costs $1. So long as all prices remain low or go down, buying power remains constant. We know that if we raise wages, costs have to go up as well as manufacturers have to cover the costs of those additional wages.

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

What if...? said:
Technically, profit from labor is "benefiting from the hard work of others".

Depends on whose labor you're talking about. I benefit from the hard work of myself.

Unrepresented · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
It depends on how they mean it. With pure buying power, they're right. Someone who makes a dollar a day but a loaf of bread costs a penny is in no better shape making $100 a day, but the same loaf of bread costs $1. So long as all prices remain low or go down, buying power remains constant. We know that if we raise wages, costs have to go up as well as manufacturers have to cover the costs of those additional wages.

No. If the same distribution of wages is maintained inflation can occur, however, if the distribution changes prices don't necessarily have to rise.

The American worker has been taking a haircut for years. Let someone else take a haircut for a change.

What if...? · Sep 25, 2014

gdgyva said:
we can repeal citizens united at the exact same time, all money goes out of politics

repeat....all money

candidates would be given a budget by local/state/feds depending on what they are running for

no money from pacs, lobbyists, companies, or persons allowed in any election

you stand on your own....no party backing you with millions and millions

if citizens wish to donate to the process, they donate to the fund that all monies are paid out of....with zero political affiliation

no entity can campaign for a candidate (no lobbyists, no unions, no robocalls, no pac ads, nothing)

i have zero issue getting rid of citizens united....lets change the entire freaking think though

Imagine a country where politicians spend ALL their time working for the people who voted for them instead of who paid for their campaigns.

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

Unrepresented said:
No. If the same distribution of wages is maintained inflation can occur, however, if the distribution changes prices don't necessarily have to rise.

The American worker has been taking a haircut for years. Let someone else take a haircut for a change.

Why? What have they done to earn it?

Glen Contrarian · Sep 25, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.

Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.

I pose three questions to you:

1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course

Thanks

1. Money in politics
2. Oligarchy in fact if not in name
3. Nothing, absolutely nothing at all! Let money be equated to freedom of speech! Let the rich rule all! They're better people than the rest of us, so they should be allowed to rule, right? When has vast degrees of wealth inequality ever ended badly?

SheWolf · Sep 25, 2014

The IRS is allowed to tax income you receive. If somebody dies and you gain income as a result, that is income to you, hence it is taxed as income to you. It was also taxed when your relative initially received the cash.

All the liquid cash flowing through our economy is taxed and taxed multiple times. I pay payroll taxes, then purchase something from a small business owner, and then he pays a small business tax on the money I previously paid payroll tax on...

That's just how economics works... :shrug:

gdgyva said:
first thing

inheritance taxes are double taxation

that money was already taxes once....at some point

secondly.....businesses value can easily exceed five million...with little or no cash

so it passes on to a son or daughter who have to go deeply into debt to keep it? no thanks

at the 50 million mark, its enough.....

and 25% is EXTRA money for the government to waste as it sees fit

so no...i dont think it's insanity

i think it's rather fair to all myself

Unrepresented · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
Why? What have they done to earn it?

You're approaching a subjective question with the tone implying there's an objective answer.

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

Unrepresented said:
You're approaching a subjective question with the tone implying there's an objective answer.

No, I'm asking why you made the statement that you did. It's an honest question. What have these workers done to deserve more than they are getting? What companies have they started? What risks have they taken? What is it that you think entitles them to getting more than they are already getting?

SheWolf · Sep 25, 2014

People vote for their interests... :lol:

Yeah, government workers will vote for spending if it's going to benefit them. Teachers vote to pass school levies. College students vote to lower their interest rates. GLBT people vote for GLBT rights. Sheldon Aldelson votes against online gambling because he runs casinos. Union members vote for unions. CEOs opposed to unions, vote against unions, etc. etc. etc.

When do people ever vote against their interests? Do you vote against your own interests? If so, when...

This is how democratic elections are supposed to work. Would you like a different constitution?

US Conservative said:
They still have their money taken and used for left wing causes, and in the case of county and city govt (notably city workers and school district employees) it is indeed true.

Big govt supports big govt. Power looks out for itself.

American · Sep 25, 2014

Unrepresented said:
No. If the same distribution of wages is maintained inflation can occur, however, if the distribution changes prices don't necessarily have to rise.

The American worker has been taking a haircut for years. Let someone else take a haircut for a change.

Who would that someone else be?

Unrepresented · Sep 25, 2014

Cephus said:
No, I'm asking why you made the statement that you did. It's an honest question. What have these workers done to deserve more than they are getting? What companies have they started? What risks have they taken? What is it that you think entitles them to getting more than they are already getting?

Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png

The richest are getting all the profit from a smarter, harder working labor base. That's unsustainable and unjust.

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

Do not intervene

Yes, do intervene

More options

US Conservative

What if...?

Cephus

What if...?

Unrepresented

Undisclosed

What if...?

Cephus

What if...?

SheWolf

SheWolf

Unrepresented

Undisclosed

What if...?

SheWolf

Cephus

Cephus

Unrepresented

Undisclosed

What if...?

Cephus

Glen Contrarian

SheWolf

Unrepresented

Undisclosed

Cephus

SheWolf

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Unrepresented

Undisclosed