• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income Inequality

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

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%
  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%

  • Total voters
    73
I like the sound of this.

Our politicians should spend less time fundraising and more time working on improving our communities and nation.

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
 
There's only one solution to the problem, give me all the money and I will allocate who gets how much.

How does that sound, any votes for me, the benevolent dictator?
 
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.

Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.
 
Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.

And if the corporations agree to pay higher wages because organized workers demand more, it's okay. It's a reciprocal agreement.
 
Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.

Sadly you are correct.
 
And if the corporations agree to pay higher wages because organized workers demand more, it's okay. It's a reciprocal agreement.

And if they don't?
 
Sadly you are correct.

I don't know that there's anything sad about it. America was built on people going out on their own and competing with existing companies. If you have a better idea, if you want to do something differently, you find investors, you get a loan, you work hard and you put your own money, time and reputation on the line and create something yourself. Your labor is worth what someone is willing to pay you for it and not a single dime more. If you don't like what you're making, go find someone who will pay you more for your skills. Yet in this absurdly liberal society we have today, the workers don't want to actually innovate or find someone who thinks they're worth a premium, they want to get the government to force their employers to give them more money for the same work.
 
The amount of money we spend on politics is ridiculous and sad. I remember when Mitt Romney was in Ohio during Superstorm Sandy asking for money and people were donating cans of Campbell's soup, meanwhile, you know his financial backers were pouring in billion dollar donations for him to run the campaign.

Meg Whitman spend 140 million of her own money on a failed campaign. All that money wasted. Just think how many storm victims and how many people she could have helped with 140 million.

It's disgusting how expensive political campaigns are.

100%. Hell yes.



Naturally, it won't happen. Politics is a billion dollar a year industry.
 
I don't know that there's anything sad about it. America was built on people going out on their own and competing with existing companies. If you have a better idea, if you want to do something differently, you find investors, you get a loan, you work hard and you put your own money, time and reputation on the line and create something yourself. Your labor is worth what someone is willing to pay you for it and not a single dime more. If you don't like what you're making, go find someone who will pay you more for your skills. Yet in this absurdly liberal society we have today, the workers don't want to actually innovate or find someone who thinks they're worth a premium, they want to get the government to force their employers to give them more money for the same work.

My point is that the average salary has no increased much while costs have, but your conservative principles are still true. Frankly I think govt has been more of a problem than a solution, as Reagan like to say.
 
Depends on whose labor you're talking about. I benefit from the hard work of myself.

The economy is interdependent. We benefit on the hard work of everybody else participating in the economy. I easily see it in my coworkers. I don't have to do anybody else's job at my firm. There are no lazy people here.
 
Tacit consent isn't a permanent foregone conclusion.

Sometimes there's a labor movement, sometimes there are guillotines.

Still waiting for a response from you.
 
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.


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

whats the issue

if the union does what it is supposed to do, the people will join, and pay the dues

if not, well i guess they really didnt need the union to begin with....did they?

yes...it's harder in a shop like that....but that is when you know the union ACTUALLY WORKS for the members, not some boss.... or other organization somewhere else
 
Tacit consent isn't a permanent foregone conclusion.

Sometimes there's a labor movement, sometimes there are guillotines.

So you're proposing violence. That's rather telling.
 
The amount of money we spend on politics is ridiculous and sad. I remember when Mitt Romney was in Ohio during Superstorm Sandy asking for money and people were donating cans of Campbell's soup, meanwhile, you know his financial backers were pouring in billion dollar donations for him to run the campaign.

Meg Whitman spend 140 million of her own money on a failed campaign. All that money wasted. Just think how many storm victims and how many people she could have helped with 140 million.

It's disgusting how expensive political campaigns are.


Well, they didn't light all that money on fire to send out smoke signals. TV and Radio people were paid, small town and big town printers were employed. Mechanics and logistics people benefited. The list goes on and on.

The fact that people are swayed by big messages, rather than taking the time to educate themselves on the issues and candidates should be the biggest concern.
 
My point is that the average salary has no increased much while costs have, but your conservative principles are still true. Frankly I think govt has been more of a problem than a solution, as Reagan like to say.

I don't know, my salary has certainly increased. Maybe the problem isn't the system but the people.
 
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.


and the age of the computer, and robotics has absolutely nothing to do with this graph

right?

:lamo
 
I don't know, my salary has certainly increased. Maybe the problem isn't the system but the people.

My salary has too, but a couple of salaries doesn't make a trend. Frankly I don't know exact what's causing it, maybe the FED pumping money into the market, maybe it's the build up of taxes on the populace over the decades.
 
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

The closing down of Free Market capitalism and the installation of the Corporate State have pushed to remove economic mobility amongst the People. The long term trend is the establishment of an actual aristocracy and the death of the Middle Class. What we should do is free the markets to allow participation. You'll never get homogeneous income distribution, there will be those that get more and those that get less. But Free Market can lessen the difference between the extremes and promote a healthier middle class.
 
The economy is interdependent. We benefit on the hard work of everybody else participating in the economy. I easily see it in my coworkers. I don't have to do anybody else's job at my firm. There are no lazy people here.

Which is unfortunately not as many people as it ought to be. There are a lot of people in society who do not do hard work, who hardly want to get out of bed in the morning and they don't have to because they get a government check. There are far too many people who get complacent, who just get into a position and stay there and wonder why they're not getting more and more money. That's because they don't take on more and more responsibility. They have to continually and constantly earn it. I see people who say they've been in the same job for 20 years and I have to wonder what the heck is wrong with them. Why haven't they been promoted? Why aren't they doing their bosses job? Why haven't they continued to move up? That's a problem and they have to take a serious look at themselves to see where they are failing.
 
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

I'll add two more...firing union members has to be legal for companies to do, without lawyers and mountains of paperwork...and firing members on strike has to be legal, without lawyers and mountains of paperwork.


As they currently stand, unions can FORCE employers to do what they want, because letting go of those employees and replacing them isn't even an option.
 
Prove that's the case. Yes, the richest are getting richer, but laborers are still agreeing to work for those wages. It's a reciprocal agreement. They could refuse to work for those wages if they wished and start their own companies to compete with the richest. So again I ask, what have the laborers done to earn more.

Money and financial stability is a basic human need, and the majority of people work out of need, not out of privilege, as a hobby, or out of human desire. At least, that is how it is for the poor and working class, and for the majority of Americans who are not billionaires and have student debts and mortgages to pay off.

Personally, I would like to be paid more money than I currently am. I think I deserve more. It not so much a reciprocal agreement, as what is available for now... and I NEED $ now. Making some money, is better than making no money.

Having a job, any job, in the current American economy is reason to be thankful... Refusing a job because it's not good enough, would be consigning oneself to poverty and a financial catastrophe. Our politicians need to recognize the difference between the welfare or "lazy poor" and the working poor. The poor who work their asses off because they are not lazy and refuse welfare, yet still live below the poverty line.

Furthermore, we are not all created equal. We are not all Bill Gates, nor are we all equally capable of starting up successful companies like Mr Gates did. You can't just tell anybody off the street to start up a company and expect them to be the next billionaire or even remotely successful. Some people just aren't intelligent enough to run companies or stay wealthy once they win the lottery or suddenly find wealth.
 
My salary has too, but a couple of salaries doesn't make a trend. Frankly I don't know exact what's causing it, maybe the FED pumping money into the market, maybe it's the build up of taxes on the populace over the decades.

It's not just a couple of salaries but the people who tend to do that are conservative. Liberals have their hands out, they just expect to be rewarded for showing up. They think they're just entitled to more, we think we actually have to work hard and earn it. That's why, in my entire professional career, I've never been in the same position more than 3-4 years, I'm always being promoted, I'm always moving up, I'm always improving and succeeding, because I have the drive and desire to do it. I know that it's *MY* responsibility. Liberals think it's someone else's responsibility.

That's the difference.
 
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

I could go with that if they have to negotiate their salary directly with the employer.

Taking union wages without paying dues is freeloading.

And of course that's the aim of right to work. To replace union rates with individually negotiated ones. The much lower ones.
 
Back
Top Bottom