• 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
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, my argument....is all about "envy".




dust yourself off.
Click to expand...

Except what actually happens is your provide those that desire to be violent another way to justify it. What actually needs to happen is people need to stop feeding the mindset that people owe them anything in life and disarm that mindset down at it's root cause.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
In case you missed it...
Click to expand...

Nice try ... but no goal.

I didn't say that labor was stagnant ... you said wages were stagnant, and I said that was because labor chose it to be that way.

Don't try to twist words ... stay on the subject.
 
tuhaybey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Man, you need to get a job ... or an eraser.

You are trying to make it black and white ... since more people are working (your words) more hours (your words), that proves that requiring benefits (and, by extension, raising taxes) doesn't adversely affect the economy??? You really believe that? Seriously?? You need to take a macroeconomics course ... or one in logic.

Doesn't it seem perfectly logical that if you take $1,000 away from my company, that I have $1,000 less to hire people, expand, or do R&D? Let's think about that for a minute ...

Why do I provide benefits to my employees? Not because I have to (though, in some cases, the government has seen fit to inject itself into my corporate management structure) ... I provide them because my benefits package is an enticement to get the best employees available. Because I have attracted the best employees, my company is much more efficient, successful and profitable. I am getting a direct return on my investment.

If business has to provide that same benefit package to all employees in all companies, that incentive is lost, and I get nothing in return for my investment. You are now asking me to subsidize the sub-standard, and under-performing, employees. Another incentive for quality worker performance is negated by the government - everybody gets treated equally. You, on the other hand, are an A-1, upstanding, outstanding, outproducing employee. What's your reward for working so hard? Oh yeah ... nothing. Nothing other than watching those around you get the same you get despite the fact that they are producing half what you do.

It just doesn't make sense ... you're about two steps from the same wages (and benefits) for everybody regardless of their contribution. THAT is scary stuff ...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, my argument....is all about "envy".




dust yourself off.
Click to expand...

I love dusting the Liberal lemmings on here. They sure are a cute bunch, not educated but cute.
 
Last edited:
GBFAN said:
Nice try ... but no goal.

I didn't say that labor was stagnant ... you said wages were stagnant, and I said that was because labor chose it to be that way.

Don't try to twist words ... stay on the subject.
Click to expand...
Labor chose for wages to be stagnate?

That makes even less sense.
Workers decided that they did not want increases in min wage, they chose not to have influence in negotiations, they chose to have increases in globalization?

If one argues that "they could have unions", we know that the efforts of corporations to influence legislative actions have decimated union activity along with the near constant anti-union propaganda. Since most blue collars vote conservative, there is a built in follow the authoritarian mindset that causes many to go against their own self interests. But the rest, min wage and globalization, workers were not doing the "choosing".
 
Lakeside said:
I love dusting the Liberal lemmings on here. They sure are a cute bunch, not educated but cute.
Click to expand...
"I can't debate my way out of a paper bag, but I sure know how to troll".
 
Henrin said:
Except what actually happens is your provide those that desire to be violent another way to justify it.
Click to expand...
WTH? How does my stating that inequality causes civil unrest provide "another way" to justify violence? It is the same old "way", it is nothing new. I'm arguing for the decline in inequality so that the old cause of unrest does not re-appear.

What actually needs to happen is people need to stop feeding the mindset that people owe them anything in life and disarm that mindset down at it's root cause.
Click to expand...
???

We need to end the idea that wage inequality is a bad thing? The concept that sharing the wealth when all are causing greater profits is a bad thing?

Again, your Randian anti-society ideology pokes its head out.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
WTH? How does my stating that inequality causes civil unrest provide "another way" to justify violence? It is the same old "way", it is nothing new. I'm arguing for the decline in inequality so that the old cause of unrest does not re-appear.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring half of the reason people fought in the past. It wasn't just inequality that was the problem but that people expected other people to solve their problems. Feeding into the mindset that other people are to blame for your problems is exactly what your policies do. In order to challenge past events you need to challenge the mindset behind them and you are doing very much the opposite.

???

We need to end the idea that wage inequality is a bad thing? The concept that sharing the wealth when all are causing greater profits is a bad thing?

Again, your Randian anti-society ideology pokes its head out.
Click to expand...

In order to challenge wage inequality you have to change how people treat the market and the relationship between capital and labor. Again, your polices are not doing that, but simply moving wealth around by force and empowering the idea that government is there to solve all your problems.

What is really going on is a social problem and not one merely of wealth. Wealth inequality is merely the consequence of a much larger and harder to solve problem. A problem that we need to be focused on, but no one really is. Instead they are interested in throwing around the blame and forcing other people to give up what they earned. You are really solving nothing.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Labor chose for wages to be stagnate?

That makes even less sense.
Workers decided that they did not want increases in min wage, they chose not to have influence in negotiations, they chose to have increases in globalization?

If one argues that "they could have unions", we know that the efforts of corporations to influence legislative actions have decimated union activity along with the near constant anti-union propaganda. Since most blue collars vote conservative, there is a built in follow the authoritarian mindset that causes many to go against their own self interests. But the rest, min wage and globalization, workers were not doing the "choosing".
Click to expand...

That's not even remotely accurate ... every businessman recognizes that he is at the mercy of collective bargaining. You don't see strikes for one simple reason ... most laborers realize that they are at the top of their value, and if they raise a ruckus, the company will simply take the business someplace else. As for the 'anti-union' pitch ... the truth is that, with the exception of wage increases, most union demands have been codified into law. When you couple that with the 'right to work' laws (which are a direct result of chipping away at union influence in the government) ... unions serve no practical purpose if they aren't pushing for increased wages. Increases in globalization are a direct result of two primary elements - cost of labor and tax costs. If you raise the cost of labor, you force the company to seek offshore labor in order to remain globally competitive. Our economy is no longer a closed loop.

Workers did, in fact, decide to remove themselves from negotiations, etc. Laborers have about reached their ceiling .... their technical expertise and their work ethic is available anywhere. Laborers viscerally recognize that there is a hierarchy of contribution to the product, and a commensurate hierarchy of wages. Frankly, American labor is no longer the only game in town.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We need to end the idea that wage inequality is a bad thing? The concept that sharing the wealth when all are causing greater profits is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Just how many times in history do we have to prove that a socialist model just won't endure? "From those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs." is a failed approach. Why do we think we can be successful this time, when it has failed so miserably so many other times? The definition of insanity ....and all that.
 
Henrin said:
You're ignoring half of the reason people fought in the past. It wasn't just inequality that was the problem but that people expected other people to solve their problems. Feeding into the mindset that other people are to blame for your problems is exactly what you policies to do. In order to challenge past events you need to challenge the mindset behind them and you are doing very much the opposite.
Click to expand...
I'm so sad that world history was something you were shielded from. I guess you were taught that the Jacobin's hired others to man the guillotines.



In order to challenge wage inequality you have to change how people treat the market and the relationship between capital and labor. Again, your polices are not doing that, but simply moving wealth around by force and empowering the idea that government is there to solve all your problems.
Click to expand...
And now you suddenly switch back to an anarchist solution where the poor are going to control capital without government. You can't show how this applies to the current situation, so it is just mental masturbation.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm so sad that world history was something you were shielded from. I guess you were taught that the Jacobin's hired others to man the guillotines.
Click to expand...

I would imagine you're referring to the french revolution, right? If so, then everything I said is right on the mark.

And now you suddenly switch back to an anarchist solution where the poor are going to control capital without government. You can't show how this applies to the current situation, so it is just mental masturbation.
Click to expand...

I didn't switch back to anything. The problem everyone is really talking about is the relationship between capital and labor and the consequences of what happens when the relationship between them is poor.
 
You are definitely not on this planet.
GBFAN said:
That's not even remotely accurate ... every businessman recognizes that he is at the mercy of collective bargaining.
Click to expand...
LOL! Of course! We are in the midst of a sellers market, where workers are in short supply and are commanding high wages!

Better yet, union membership is pushing wages to all time highs....I tell yah!!!


You don't see strikes for one simple reason ... most laborers realize that they are at the top of their value, and if they raise a ruckus, the company will simply take the business someplace else.
Click to expand...
OMG! It is true! Labor has such a complete control of their market that unemployment is at ZERO PERCENT and threatens to go NEGATIVE!



As for the 'anti-union' pitch ... the truth is that, with the exception of wage increases, most union demands have been codified into law. When you couple that with the 'right to work' laws (which are a direct result of chipping away at union influence in the government)
Click to expand...
Seriously....did you just say in the same sentence "union demands codified into law" and "right to work"? RTW is a union busting method applied primarily for countering union organization in PRIVATE work sites, where those who pay no dues still enjoy union gains. It is the OPPOSITE of codifying union demands.
... unions serve no practical purpose if they aren't pushing for increased wages.
Click to expand...
WTF? The most important feature of a union is to cause higher wages for its members......and then to provide support during a strike, to cause a decent pension, to cause higher prevailing wages for non members...on and on.

Increases in globalization are a direct result of two primary elements - cost of labor and tax costs. If you raise the cost of labor, you force the company to seek offshore labor in order to remain globally competitive. Our economy is no longer a closed loop.
Click to expand...
Globalization was caused by containerization and the unwillingness to protect US jobs.

Workers did, in fact, decide to remove themselves from negotiations, etc. Laborers have about reached their ceiling .... their technical expertise and their work ethic is available anywhere.
Click to expand...
There is nothing like projection, it reveals so much about an individual. Where do you find US workers having so little pride in their work?
Laborers viscerally recognize that there is a hierarchy of contribution to the product, and a commensurate hierarchy of wages.
Click to expand...
By all means, show us where this manifests itself.
Frankly, American labor is no longer the only game in town.
Click to expand...
It is really amazing to read a conservative, one who served this country, who is still supported by tax dollars from American workers, have so little regard for them.
 
Last edited:
GBFAN said:
Just how many times in history do we have to prove that a socialist model just won't endure? "From those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs." is a failed approach. Why do we think we can be successful this time, when it has failed so miserably so many other times? The definition of insanity ....and all that.
Click to expand...
Again, the headstanding!

When I say I want to decrease the chance of civil unrest, to not have a revolution, to decrease inequality......I suddenly become a communist.

Amazing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"I can't debate my way out of a paper bag, but I sure know how to troll".
Click to expand...

AWWW..the poor envious and jealous Liberal is angry. "Trool?" In never ends with the low info Liberals.
 
-2 spelling for me.
 
Without exploitation, there can be no capitalism.
 
tuhaybey said:
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?



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.
Click to expand...

When things don't play out, don't always blame the theory but the players. The problem is too many people today feel they are entitled to something rather than the way people used to operate. It used to be that people took it upon themselves to better themselves. Now, they want someone else to make it easier to do it. In both situations, the theory hasn't changed, the people have. As far as changing that, you don't change the theory because people don't do it that way they should. They can either do what is expected or suffer the consequences.

That I have taken it upon myself to do what I expect of others when it comes to bettering myself, your thoughts about a deep seated desire to obey are absolutely false. You're the one that says things need to change when it's the attitudes of people that need to change. Seems you're admitting that you would rather have someone do it for you than get off your butt and do it yourself. I won't ask it as a question because I already know. You should have some dignity and do for yourself.
 
tuhaybey said:
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.
Click to expand...


on this site being specific helps

so this is net income (after taxes)

and again, i ask the question

what percentage of profits is the employee due according to you

15% apparently isnt enough.....what would be
 
ChezC3 said:
Without exploitation, there can be no capitalism.
Click to expand...

Why did you choose the word exploitation? You feel that capitalism is treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work?
 
ChezC3 said:
Without exploitation, there can be no capitalism.
Click to expand...

There is no proof of that. When capitalism started out the relationship between capital and labor was stronger and inequality was in many ways less. Why? Well, one of the reasons was that capital had closer relationship with their workers didn't as of yet gain the ability to separate themselves from the daily occurrences of their workers. In effect, they didn't yet obtain the ability to go about their business and not directly interact with their workers.

As time went on the relationship between capital and labor got worse, and not so much because because capital got greedy, but because the interaction between the two groups decreased which caused the friendship and companionship that was formed between capital and labor to become impaired. So like I said, the problem really isn't greed or wealth, but a problem with the relationship between the parties.
 
Re: The supply and demand for unskilled labor:

Yes, the point has been made that the price of unskilled labor is set by supply and demand.

Therefore, the motivation of the employers of unskilled labor is to keep the supply as high as possible.

Now, that said, who is it that is really in favor of illegal immigration by unskilled workers?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Why did you choose the word exploitation? You feel that capitalism is treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work?
Click to expand...

It was apt.

Of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom