• 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
Cephus said:
True, but they also rely on illegal alien labor, which is something the Republicans, in general, oppose, so...

But yes, the Teacher's Union and the Public Employee Unions have the Democrats in their pocket.
Click to expand...

Yeah we have a really odd type of republican party here. The democrat party knows where to get its bread buttered.

And the silly premise of this thread indicates how many people buy into the insane idea that somehow income should be "equal". As if the results are evidence of a problem.
 
US Conservative said:
Lets make you sure...


What I see as a problem is the sham these sides are in on. Unions support democrat politicians in exchange for their votes, its anti-capitalism, anti-competition, and a conflict of interest. And no-the solution isn't the republicans jumping on board. :doh
Click to expand...



Of course, the unions support Democrats because the Democrats support the unions. Would you expect them to support Republicans just to be fair or something?

Who supports the Republicans? Do the Republicans also support their donors?


We need to get the money and the partisanship out of politics, but I really don't see that happening any time soon.
 
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
And despite them all being hard working I suspect that there's a variety of wages earned.
American said:
Still waiting for a response from you.
Click to expand...
What response are you waiting for?
gdgyva said:
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
Click to expand...
If the union didn't work for the members, new officials with new policies would be elected. Why is it that anti-union people are so quick to argue "if you don't like the job you don't have to take it" when it comes to employers underpaying their staff, but suddenly become "pro labor" where everyone is entitled to work at a shop if it means infringing on unions.
Cephus said:
So you're proposing violence. That's rather telling.
Click to expand...
I'm not proposing violence, merely noting the historical remedies for imbalance involve rebalancing.
 
Cephus said:
Saying the truth? Yes. Your point?
Click to expand...

Back it up. PROVE that most of the wealth in this country was MADE while voting republican, lol. I mean, if you were to say a person made a ton of money, then BECAME republican, well, that would be believable, but not supporting of your point. If you were to say that most of the wealthiest people in the country are republican, and were BEFORE they got wealthy, well, then I'd need you to try to substantiate that claim somehow, or admit to just saying stuff.
 
Ikari said:
I would be more inclined to follow the philosophies of Hayek. It's not Laissez-faire, but has a limited amount of proper law and regulation to ensure the free participation and interactions of the market. And when people mess up, they have to realized the consequences of such; the government doesn't bail out the losers. Or rather shouldn't.
Click to expand...

This is a vague answer. So, no FDA? OSHA? What I mean is, in what way, exactly, would you free the US market?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It is against the law of the State of California to use general membership dues to support political causes.

I know. I used to be one of those terrible union members. I was even elected president of a local. I have a proud history of union membership, just like one of our most famous governors, Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'm not familiar with laws that make spending of general membership dues on political causes illegal. I believe there are opt out provisions for non-members, but not what you are writing.

I've been goggling with little success.
 
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
Click to expand...

1.) What has caused this phenomenon It's not exactly a phenomenon. Income inequality predates us by thousands of years.
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continueNo idea....
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course Nothing can be done, or should be done artificially.

In this country we all have equal opportunity afforded to us by the Constitution. We don't have equal results guaranteed.
 
ocean515 said:
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I'm not familiar with laws that make spending of general membership dues on political causes illegal. I believe there are opt out provisions for non-members, but not what you are writing.

I've been goggling with little success.
Click to expand...

Im not aware of that either. But even with the opt out, the member must still pay dues, iirc. And that make the opt out very difficult.
 
KevinKohler said:
Back it up. PROVE that most of the wealth in this country was MADE while voting republican, lol. I mean, if you were to say a person made a ton of money, then BECAME republican, well, that would be believable, but not supporting of your point. If you were to say that most of the wealthiest people in the country are republican, and were BEFORE they got wealthy, well, then I'd need you to try to substantiate that claim somehow, or admit to just saying stuff.
Click to expand...

Never said Republican, said conservative. The two are not the same. Learn to read.
 
Cephus said:
Never said Republican, said conservative. The two are not the same. Learn to read.
Click to expand...

Fine. Swap the word out at all uses.


Then respond. Google hard.
 
US Conservative said:
Im not aware of that either. But even with the opt out, the member must still pay dues, iirc. And that make the opt out very difficult.
Click to expand...

As recently as 2012, California had Prop 32 on the ballot which sought, among other things, to curtail the use of union dues for political activities.

Proposition 32: Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

Union Dues and Fees. Approximately 2.5 million workers in California are represented by a labor union. Unions represent employees in the collective bargaining process, by which they negotiate terms and conditions of employment with employers. Generally, unions pay for their activities with money raised from (1) dues charged to union members and (2) fair share fees paid by non-union members who the union represents in the collective bargaining process. In many cases, employers automatically deduct these dues and fees from their employees’ paychecks and transfer the money to the unions.

Payroll Deductions Used to Finance Political Spending. Many unions use some of the funds that they receive from payroll deductions to support activities not directly related to the collective bargaining process. These expenditures may include political contributions and independent expenditures—as well as spending to communicate political views to union members. Non-union members may opt out from having their fair share fees used to pay for this political spending and other spending not related to collective bargaining. Other than unions, relatively few organizations currently use payroll deductions to finance political spending in California.​


Prop 32 was defeated in the vote. I'm not aware of any recent legislation that has made this spending illegal. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen it.

The greatest victory in the area of dues was the recent Supreme Court ruling that nailed the SEIU in it's In-Home-Support-Services scam they had been running. In California alone, they collected over $60 million a year on this outrageous plan supported by the Democrat controlled legislature they purchased with taxpayer money. Hopefully, all home health care workers opt out, and the SEIU can die the horrible death it deserves.
 
You're complaining about laziness, then you are complaining about hard workers not being smart and looking for opportunities in the workplace. I hope you realize that distinction. I don't think the majority of Americans are lazy. I think a lot of Americans are willing to work hard, and work long hours, but that has little to do with the income gap. Very hard working people live in poverty and financially struggle.

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that that is way liberals actually think. I don't live in a super liberal state, and I don't know many super mega liberals, but I don't get the feeling that the majority of them or the majority of Americans hold the beliefs you are suggesting.

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
SheWolf said:
You're complaining about laziness, then you are complaining about hard workers not being smart and looking for opportunities in the workplace. I hope you realize that distinction. I don't think the majority of Americans are lazy. I think a lot of Americans are willing to work hard, and work long hours, but that has little to do with the income gap. Very hard working people live in poverty and financially struggle.
Click to expand...

Then why do they do that? We come back to the actual causes of their poverty. Did they get an education when they had a chance? Did they make good decisions in their lives? Did they do things that would make them successful? Or did they do stupid, self-defeating things? Who is responsible for these things? It's not society, it's the individual.
 
Nowhere did I suggest people should be able to take more than they have earned. WTF... You're simply talking as if everybody is entirely equal and capable of making the same exact amount of money and having the the exact same opportunities if they just work hard enough, and that's not reality. People are not equal. We have different levels of intelligence, different skills, different talents, etc. There is always going to be poverty for reasons beyond the individuals control be it IQ, physical or mental disability, illness, etc.

Liberals, Conservatives, nobody can entirely rid a society of poverty or make everybody economic equals. It's a BS notion.

In a Lockian free market, you are what you are worth in your current state at the current time... your FMV or what you are currently earning. You're worth no more or no less. My work has higher value at other firms, and I am capable of working at those firms because I have a great resume. However, I like the current benefits, and hence, changing jobs would involve economic tradeoffs. I will go to other firms eventually.

Cephus said:
Which doesn't change a thing I said. I'm not a billionaire. I've worked hard for everything I've gotten. I've made good financial and personal decisions, I have virtually no debt and I pay for virtually everything in cash. I live within my means. It's not my fault if people can't learn to do that.



Then you need to prove to your employers that you're worth more money than you're making. You need to show that your presence and your work earn them a significant amount of money. If you can't do that, then you're just not worth more. That's how it works.



That's true, but we're also talking about people who had low-paying jobs before the economy tanked and once it recovers fully, they'll still have low-paying jobs. That's all they will ever have because they have neither the skills, the work ethic or the education to have more. And whose fault is that?



No, we're not, so why are so many people acting like everyone ought to be treated equally? Bill Gates earned his billions. He deserves them. Someone digging ditches has not earned that much, therefore they don't deserve it. So why do we have this thread about income inequality when you, yourself, admit that there isn't work equality? People get what they've earned. If they want to get more, they have to earn more. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...
 
I know... fighting unions is about hurting the Democratic Party's financiers... but I am a pragmatic person and want to hear better reasons to oppose unions on a personal level. I understand how current politics works.

US Conservative said:
Right-except that govt is all up in unions and vice versa-look at the democrat parties major donors-they are unions. They take care of each other in a sham against the public.
Click to expand...
 
What if...? said:
You're doing that forgetting the lessons of history thing again.

MANY revolutionary periods were precipitated by extreme income/wealth inequality.

We're not at that point yet, but heading that way.

So it simply isn't accurate to claim there's "no concern".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't truck with paying tribute to potential threats.
 
Cephus said:
Then why do they do that? We come back to the actual causes of their poverty. Did they get an education when they had a chance? Did they make good decisions in their lives? Did they do things that would make them successful? Or did they do stupid, self-defeating things? Who is responsible for these things? It's not society, it's the individual.
Click to expand...

Poverty is a cycle... welfare is a cycle and being a member of the working poor is often a cycle. How are you so sure it's not society? Have you researched the social implications of poverty and environment? It's very likely a condition of both human agency and government, and perhaps some genetics in the case of disabilities and mental and physical illness.

The best solution is education and teaching them as children how to make better decisions and prepare them for college and trades.
 
SheWolf said:
Nowhere did I suggest people should be able to take more than they have earned. WTF... You're simply talking as if everybody is entirely equal and capable of making the same exact amount of money and having the the exact same opportunities if they just work hard enough, and that's not reality. People are not equal. We have different levels of intelligence, different skills, different talents, etc. There is always going to be poverty for reasons beyond the individuals control be it IQ, physical or mental disability, illness, etc.

Liberals, Conservatives, nobody can entirely rid a society of poverty or make everybody economic equals. It's a BS notion.

In a Lockian free market, you are what you are worth in your current state at the current time... your FMV or what you are currently earning. You're worth no more or no less. My work has higher value at other firms, and I am capable of working at those firms because I have a great resume. However, I like the current benefits, and hence, changing jobs would involve economic tradeoffs. I will go to other firms eventually.
Click to expand...

You're making my argument for me. The people who are more deserving of better pay, the people who know more, who learn better, who are smarter and harder working, those are the people who get paid more! That's how it works! There isn't an income inequality, there's a QUALITY INEQUALITY! If these people were better at their jobs, they'd make more money!

So I guess that's thread over, we both agree.
 
US Conservative said:
No it hasn't the number in poverty is greatly diminished. Even with a "gap" (what lefties love to cite as "evidence" of a problem :roll:) everyone has benefited.
Click to expand...

While it has greatly diminished in city's, again in rural areas it has gotten worse. Furthermore to attribute all this to the free market is absurd. In India and China they have largely been growing from outside investment, and education. Not your beloved free market. Both governments stepped in with strong regulations and more funding for public education. This does much more than the free market ever could/would.
 
No, we don't agree. I am arguing there is always going to be poverty, because people are not equal. But I am also arguing that the people on the top are not worth what they have been paid. For example, the highest paid people in the world crashed the economy, and those CEOs and executives were the highest paid CEOs and executives in history at that time.

I understand the concept of FMV, but actually putting a value on human labor and quality is more complicated than simply valuing it at it's FMV in the free market. It's not that simple.

Cephus said:
You're making my argument for me. The people who are more deserving of better pay, the people who know more, who learn better, who are smarter and harder working, those are the people who get paid more! That's how it works! There isn't an income inequality, there's a QUALITY INEQUALITY! If these people were better at their jobs, they'd make more money!

So I guess that's thread over, we both agree.
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
You're making my argument for me. The people who are more deserving of better pay, the people who know more, who learn better, who are smarter and harder working, those are the people who get paid more! That's how it works! There isn't an income inequality, there's a QUALITY INEQUALITY! If these people were better at their jobs, they'd make more money!

So I guess that's thread over, we both agree.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a narrow way of looking at things.
 
SheWolf said:
Poverty is a cycle... welfare is a cycle and being a member of the working poor is often a cycle. How are you so sure it's not society? Have you researched the social implications of poverty and environment? It's very likely a condition of both human agency and government, and perhaps some genetics in the case of disabilities and mental and physical illness.

The best solution is education and teaching them as children how to make better decisions and prepare them for college and trades.
Click to expand...

Which would be great, but the liberals don't want us telling the poor how they are screwing up their lives because it might make them feel bad and somehow, that's racist. We have to accept that the ridiculous ghetto culture that makes 94% of poor black familys headed by single mothers. We have to accept that the ghetto culture that puts a huge number of poor black men in prison, in gangs, on drugs, etc. is somehow not their own fault and we're not allowed to tell them how stupid the whole thing actually is. We can't bring up that their culture makes them treat people who actually want to get out of poverty as race traitors to be shunned by the community. If we say what is actually true, we're called racists.

Yes, the best solution is for them to actually get educations when they have them available but we have to get them out of that cultural mess they grow up in first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom