• 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
Well, waaaaaaay back in my yooot, there was a guy....


Is this the stand you're gonna take?

*edited from a double post.
 
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.

Of course there is, lest we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is a new take. Capital exploits labor because they're not friends anymore.

Interesting.
 
Well, waaaaaaay back in my yooot, there was a guy....


Is this the stand you're gonna take?

*edited from a double post.

I'm not taking a stand, you are. You are saying that capitalism only exists because people are exploited. I'm just asking you how you were exploited and by whom. I'll add, was that as a result of capitalism or are you saying that it happened because capitalism didn't prevent it?

I believe that people can be exploited in any system, but capitalism is not a system based on exploitation.
 
You are definitely not on this planet.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!!!

If you choose to intentionally misinterpret what is said, I can think of no reason to continue discussion. To take one comment out of context is corrupt ... read it in its entirety, and get back to me.


OMG! It is true! Labor has such a complete control of their market that unemployment is at ZERO PERCENT and threatens to go NEGATIVE!



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. 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.

Once again, you choose to intentionally misinterpret. I clearly said that the reasons that unions were originally formed have been codified into law, thus negating many of the justifications for unions. The main remaining factor is collective bargaining. THAT is what I said .... I also said that labor causes its own problem. When the unions are not able to put together a strong enough package to attract members, it loses its bargaining position. If the union is strong enough to enforce collective bargaining, then employers have to make a simple decision ... can they accede to union demands and still make money, or do they just close the doors?

Globalization was caused by containerization and the unwillingness to protect US jobs.

Pretty simplistic ... and intentionally misleading. Those are factors, yes, but they are far from being the primary causative factors. They are simply convenient foils you can point to in order to avoid the reality. High labor costs, utility costs, excessive and onerous regulations, and taxes are the primary driving factors.

My choices are simple ... I can make a shirt here in the US for $11, or I can make it in Thailand for $2.30 ... while I can sell the US shirt in the US for $18, and make a living, i can't take that $18 shirt overseas and sell it. So, I'm stuck in a single market. But, I can take that $2.30 shirt and sell it everywhere. Which one would you do?

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?By all means, show us where this manifests itself.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.

Gee, where do I find US workers having so little pride in their work? Take a look at your purchases next time ... shoddy workmanship is the norm, not the exception. But, where did I see this?

Hmmmm ... I wonder if it was in the veneer mill that I worked in before I went in the service? You know, the one where the crews took turns napping, or spent half the night drag racing with forklifts. Or, maybe it was in the company I built after I got out of the service ... grew from 6 people to 304 workers before we sold it. Could it be the shoddy workmanship, the lack of productivity? Could it be the night janitor who had to sweep around the production line (for only $18/hour), but was caught smoking dope three times? (By the way ... the first time it happened, we fired him, and the union threatened to shut the plant down if we didn't reinstate him - THAT is what a union does for you). The last two time we sent him home (he was a safety hazard), and the union protested, and insisted we pay him his wages even though he wasn't even at work.

Maybe it was the remodeling we had done on our home - you know, the one that the union shop said they could do for only $24,000. But, a Hispanic-run company said they could do it for $13,000 - and did a top notch job. You think it might be the lack of quality in American cars? It almost killed the whole industry ... foreign cars were built better and cheaper.

The facts are simple ... the American worker has gotten lazier, less productive, more careless, and litigation happy. instead of striving to do a better job and be rewarded, they have tried to use politics to get what they want. While there are still plenty of quality workers out there, the weak links make the whole chain weak.

The education system has virtually destroyed the productivity of the American workforce. We have to train them to do basic math skills, spend money to teach them to read schematics, or spend hours upon hours rewriting substandard quality reports. The quality of the American engineer is quickly becoming a farce. College graduates are coming to us almost functionally illiterate with only a cursory understanding of their basic area of supposed expertise. When we first started our company (1987), we planned on a 5 month acclimation period for new engineers. Today, that period is 15 months.

It used to be a mark of pride that you were the best wood plank stacker in the whole company. Today, it's a mark of pride if you can get your paycheck without stacking a single wood plank.

Take the time to watch the American workers where you work ... and then tell me that they are committed to maximum performance in support of corporate goals.

I love how you conveniently drag out the flag in order to protest "unwillingness to protect US jobs". I'm reminded of something my old man used to tell me ... "You get what you give."
 
Of course there is, lest we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is a new take. Capital exploits labor because they're not friends anymore.

Interesting.

It's not really a new take. It's actually an old take based on historical study. The first time I saw it was by a historian that took note of the fact that capital in the early days of capitalism was commonly friends with their workers and would make great sacrifices for labor. I think the solution is in healing the relationship between capital and labor. What capitalists need to realize is that it is partnership and the welfare of their workers directly affects the growth and prosperity of the nation, which will in turn affect the well being of the capitalist. What labor needs to realize is that capital is not the enemy nor a competing force, but a partner and punishing capital will only punish themselves to a great effect. Do I think it will happen? No, but I don't think spreading the wealth around will ever work as it is only dealing with consequences of a poor relationship and not facing the relationship itself.
 
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.

Misdirection, again .....

What you actually said was "The concept that sharing the wealth when all are causing greater profits is a bad thing?"

Last time I checked, that's socialism ... a failed experiment at all levels. Why would you propose it again? Redistribution of wealth has never worked ... unless you have a whole new methodology, you're just spouting the same ol' thing over and over gain.
 
I'm not taking a stand, you are. You are saying that capitalism only exists because people are exploited. I'm just asking you how you were exploited and by whom. I'll add, was that as a result of capitalism or are you saying that it happened because capitalism didn't prevent it?

I believe that people can be exploited in any system, but capitalism is not a system based on exploitation.

I'm stating a fact, and comfortably seated on my couch. I'm saying capitalism can only exist with exploitation. You're just trying to get into the standard, you "had a choice" BS argument that is always presented. Further, we're not taking about me, why try to make it personal? Can't speak on the subject in an abstract? Or did you think you're trying to show me the err of my ways be saying no one put a gun to my head or cracked a whip on my back to take that job. Is that what you're doing? If not, it sure looks like you are.

I'll add, the sum of the product labor produces has to be greater than what labor is paid to produce it. If it less than or equal to, the system fails. When you compensate someone who produces something at a lesser value (minus the cost of materials[read every cost outside of labor]) than that which they produce and you bring to market what do you call that? Without doing this, capitalism fails. You cannot pay labor equal value for the products they produce(again, minus COS - labor), you'd go belly up before you start.
 
It's not really a new take. It's actually an old take based on historical study. The first time I saw it was by a historian that took note of the fact that capital in the early days of capitalism was commonly friends with their workers and would make great sacrifices for labor. I think the solution is in healing the relationship between capital and labor. What capitalists need to realize is that it is partnership and the welfare of their workers directly affects the growth and prosperity of the nation, which will in turn affect the well being of the capitalist. What labor needs to realize is that capital is not the enemy nor a competing force, but a partner and punishing capital will only punish themselves to a great effect. Do I think it will happen? No, but I don't think spreading the wealth around will ever work as it is only dealing with consequences of a poor relationship and not facing the relationship itself.

Nothing you've said however contradicts the fact that labor is exploited by capital. I know it is a icky thing, but it is a fact, as I told Ali, you cannot pay labor (minus the rest of the COS) equal value for the product which they produce.
 
I'm stating a fact, and comfortably seated on my couch. I'm saying capitalism can only exist with exploitation. You're just trying to get into the standard, you "had a choice" BS argument that is always presented. Further, we're not taking about me, why try to make it personal? Can't speak on the subject in an abstract? Or did you think you're trying to show me the err of my ways be saying no one put a gun to my head or cracked a whip on my back to take that job. Is that what you're doing? If not, it sure looks like you are.

I'll add, the sum of the product labor produces has to be greater than what labor is paid to produce it. If it less than or equal to, the system fails. When you compensate someone who produces something at a lesser value (minus the cost of materials[read every cost outside of labor]) than that which they produce and you bring to market what do you call that? Without doing this, capitalism fails. You cannot pay labor equal value for the products they produce(again, minus COS - labor), you'd go belly up before you start.

Enjoy your facts and your couch. If your thesis didn't apply to you then you are talking about all the other abstract people in the world. Your mathematical formula means that it is a fact to you, so there really isn't much to discuss since I disagree with you.
 
Enjoy your facts and your couch. If your thesis didn't apply to you then you are talking about all the other abstract people in the world. Your mathematical formula means that it is a fact to you, so there really isn't much to discuss since I disagree with you.

You can disagree with me all you want, but you can't argue the math...
 
yes....i pay my workers less than they earn me

i call that a contract...not exploitation

i trade you salary/compensation for your labor

win/win

no one is exploited.....

of course i make money doing so....it was my idea, my capital, my business that put us together

without me, you have your labor....you can work for yourself (hopefully) or trade your labor to someone else

but somehow, someway, you need to be able to turn what you have (labor) for what i have (money)

that isnt exploitation...that is a contract
 
You can disagree with me all you want, but you can't argue the math...

And your math does not lead to your conclusion that capitalism can only exist with exploitation. You live in a capitalist society, although unless I'm mistaken, you were a government employee, where you or any of your co-workers exploited?
 
yes....i pay my workers less than they earn me

i call that a contract...not exploitation

i trade you salary/compensation for your labor

win/win

no one is exploited.....

of course i make money doing so....it was my idea, my capital, my business that put us together

without me, you have your labor....you can work for yourself (hopefully) or trade your labor to someone else

but somehow, someway, you need to be able to turn what you have (labor) for what i have (money)

that isnt exploitation...that is a contract

pouring syrup on shyte don't make it pancakes...
 
And your math does not lead to your conclusion that capitalism can only exist with exploitation. You live in a capitalist society, although unless I'm mistaken, you were a government employee, where you or any of your co-workers exploited?

Of course it does. You think so eh? capitalist-ish society, me thinks. I was a government employee for a time. I've also been exploited and have done a helluva allot more exploiting.
 
Nothing you've said however contradicts the fact that labor is exploited by capital. I know it is a icky thing, but it is a fact, as I told Ali, you cannot pay labor (minus the rest of the COS) equal value for the product which they produce.

The point wasn't that anyone is being exploited but that interconnection and the lack thereof has a strong effect on how people relate to each other. Smaller companies in small towns will commonly have better relations between owner and workers than small companies in big cities, while small companies in big cities will have commonly have better relations between owner and work than large corporations. The same is true for pretty much anything involving people. The more interconnected and knowledgeable they are of each other the better relations will be.
 
The point wasn't that anyone is being exploited but that interconnection and the lack thereof has a strong effect on how people relate to each other. Smaller companies in small towns will commonly have better relations between owner and workers than small companies in big cities, while small companies in big cities will have commonly have better relations between owner and work than large corporations. The same is true for pretty much anything involving people. The more interconnected and knowledgeable they are of each other the better relations will be.

Actually I've found that smaller towns and smaller employers use the relationship to their advantage to exploit their employees further and use that closeness of relationship to their advantage.

It seems you're hung up on the word rather than what that word signifies.

It is what it is

:shrug:
 
Of course it does. You think so eh? capitalist-ish society, me thinks. I was a government employee for a time. I've also been exploited and have done a helluva allot more exploiting.

Sorry it isn't. I really don't know what "capital-ish" is but I'm sure it means something to you. How have you been exploited and how did you exploit?

I've never been exploited for my labor and I've never exploited anyone else for their labor. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone exploit someone for their labor.

I think you really don't understand the word exploit and your math leads you to the wrong conclusion.
 
Sorry it isn't. I really don't know what "capital-ish" is but I'm sure it means something to you. How have you been exploited and how did you exploit?

I've never been exploited for my labor and I've never exploited anyone else for their labor. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone exploit someone for their labor.

I think you really don't understand the word exploit and your math leads you to the wrong conclusion.

Don't be sorry. If you stubbornly insist on that which isn't so -- OWN IT!

You do know if you're going to "quote" someone than you really should make sure that what goes in between the "____" is what they said.

Never seen? Really? Than you must be typing from a braille keyboard and I applaud you for not letting your disability keep you from engaging in debate.

Of course I don't understand, I mean I don't agree with you, or you don't agree with me rather so it must be a lack of comprehension. :roll:

Great argument...:thumbs:
 
Don't be sorry. If you stubbornly insist on that which isn't so -- OWN IT!

You do know if you're going to "quote" someone than you really should make sure that what goes in between the "____" is what they said.

Never seen? Really? Than you must be typing from a braille keyboard and I applaud you for not letting your disability keep you from engaging in debate.

Of course I don't understand, I mean I don't agree with you, or you don't agree with me rather so it must be a lack of comprehension. :roll:

Great argument...:thumbs:

I'm not sorry that "capitalism-ish" is the dumbest thing made up unexplained concept I've ever heard said in many years--Own that. And yes, there is braille on my keyboard, but if you are going to be snarky about figures of speech, then I shall exploit your time no further.
 
I'm not sorry that "capitalism-ish" is the dumbest thing made up unexplained concept I've ever heard said in many years--Own that. And yes, there is braille on my keyboard, but if you are going to be snarky about figures of speech, then I shall exploit your time no further.

The sad thing is you don't even see your hypocrisy.

Ah well, no one is so blind as those who refuse to see...
 
If you choose to intentionally misinterpret what is said, I can think of no reason to continue discussion. To take one comment out of context is corrupt ... read it in its entirety, and get back to me.
The give-away, the tell....is not being able to say WHAT was taken out of context.
.... I also said that labor causes its own problem. When the unions are not able to put together a strong enough package to attract members, it loses its bargaining position.
You are once again putting the cart in front of the horse, since half the states already are RTW, and union membership has already declined, unions generally don't have the force to effect wages, benefits. Again, this is a cause of the hollowing out of the middle class, an explanation for DECLINING WAGES and increase inequality.


If the union is strong enough to enforce collective bargaining, then employers have to make a simple decision ... can they accede to union demands and still make money, or do they just close the doors?
Don't worry your pretty little head, collective bargaining for the remaining stronghold of unions, govt workers, will soon be a thing of the past, another nail in the coffin for workers, a further eroding of wages, a cause of growing inequality.


Pretty simplistic ... and intentionally misleading. Those are factors, yes, but they are far from being the primary causative factors. They are simply convenient foils you can point to in order to avoid the reality.
You have little historical perspective, the combo of containerization/low shipping costs and the relaxing of trade barriers to US markets is what allowed off-shoring to be economically feasible. After the standardization in 1965, containerization costs plummeted.
High labor costs, utility costs, excessive and onerous regulations, and taxes are the primary driving factors.
Profit is the driving force, the ability to undercut domestic producers with govt subsidization and grab market share was the play, whether it was steel, cars, electronics, optics...you name it. We never had a domestic industrial policy, we never tried to protect domestic workers.

My choices are simple ... I can make a shirt here in the US for $11, or I can make it in Thailand for $2.30 ... while I can sell the US shirt in the US for $18, and make a living, i can't take that $18 shirt overseas and sell it. So, I'm stuck in a single market. But, I can take that $2.30 shirt and sell it everywhere. Which one would you do?
You can't sell a US made car in Japan or China or Germany at below costs....they won't allow it.

If you wish to exploit with sweatshop labor....that is your choice. Like most corporations, you have already cast aspersions upon US workers, showing no loyalty towards them. it is pure Randianism.



Gee, where do I find US workers having so little pride in their work? Take a look at your purchases next time ... shoddy workmanship is the norm, not the exception. But, where did I see this?
Like I said, there you are. I have seen this expressed a million times by corporatists.

Hmmmm ... I wonder if it was in the veneer mill that I worked......
Yawn, and away we go with the personal anecdotes substituting for data.
 
Misdirection, again .....

What you actually said was "The concept that sharing the wealth when all are causing greater profits is a bad thing?"

Last time I checked, that's socialism ... a failed experiment at all levels. Why would you propose it again? Redistribution of wealth has never worked ... unless you have a whole new methodology, you're just spouting the same ol' thing over and over gain.
Really? Profit sharing has never worked? The voluntary increase in wages by corporations from 1945 to 1979 did not work?

income-gains46-04.gif


Look at all that socializ'm that built a middle class!
 
The sad thing is you don't even see your hypocrisy.

Ah well, no one is so blind as those who refuse to see...

You can find the definition of exploit in a reputable dictionary. You can create a definition if "capitalistic-ish" in the Urban dictionary. You will immortalize your own cleverness in the mind where the word was made up.

I'm done with trying to reason with you.
 
High paying jobs are becoming more valuable, low skilled non technical positions remain a dime a dozen. You can't replace a do for or chemist with some schmuck off the street. You can replace most non-skilled employees. There is an abundance of non skilled workers both homegrown and immigrant. Can't be surprised low level jobs remain low wage jobs.
 
You can find the definition of exploit in a reputable dictionary. You can create a definition if "capitalistic-ish" in the Urban dictionary. You will immortalize your own cleverness in the mind where the word was made up.

I'm done with trying to reason with you.

Uh huh...:coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom