• 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
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?

I can tell you it's not the businesses of Texas, but instead it's the business of Obama.
 
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.

Your right, but when you have a president with no job growth policies there will always be more unemployed than should be. When there are more jobs than people and take them wages go up. But you can see under Obama wages are down from 6 yrs ago. Growth creates demand for jobs, thus higher pay for the middle class. This is something the liberals could never figure out. But hell they never have been for the middle class as they are not for introducing pro-growth policies.
 
If you look REAL close, you'll see that calGun's statement is factually correct - today, 3.2 million people are in the top 1%, whereas in 1922, only 1.9 million were. It makes perfect sense given that the population in 1922 was significantly less. You need to read closer.

No, you aren't following. CalGun argued that the top 1% OF WEALTH was controlled by 1.2 million people in 1922, but today it is spread around to 3.2 million people, so the wealth is less concentrated today. But of course, that is just him getting mixed up. That isn't who owns 1% of the wealth, that is 1% of the population lol.

Don't tell others to "read closer" before you've done so yourself.
 
on this site being specific helps

Seems you just were not reading carefully. I did say that specifically.

what percentage of profits is the employee due according to you

15% apparently isnt enough.....what would be

Again, in a capitalist system, compensation is supposed to track very closely with productivity. In a perfect theoretical model, compensation would be 99.9999999999999% of productivity. In reality, we don't live in a perfect market. In the 1960s, it was around 95%. Today it is around 45%. Obviously the closer to 100%, the better, but any improvement is good. If we could get to even just 75%, that would be a massive leap forward for the country. If we got all the way back to 95%, we would be a truly wealthy nation like that earth has never seen before.
 
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.

Not sure what "blaming the theory" or "changing the theory" would even mean.

I think there are a lot of causes. Corruption of the Republican Party by the rich obviously plays a big role. The reduction of most markets to oligopoly is a huge part of it. But, no, it doesn't make sense to blame the employees. Again, productivity has been shooting up, so the employees obviously are doing their part. Amazingly, they have even continued to rapidly increase their productivity for decades after they stopped being rewarded for it.
 
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 ...

LOL. So your stance is that companies can't afford to hire people because they hire too many people? And you're sitting there condescending to me? Might want to rethink that buddy.
 
I think there are a lot of causes. Corruption of the Republican Party by the rich obviously plays a big role.
It's A Myth That GOP Is Party Of The Wealthy - Investors.com
The reduction of most markets to oligopoly is a huge part of it. But, no, it doesn't make sense to blame the employees. Again, productivity has been shooting up, so the employees obviously are doing their part. Amazingly, they have even continued to rapidly increase their productivity for decades after they stopped being rewarded for it.
Technology may play a role in this productivity claim.Momentum Machines Burger Robot - Business Insider
 
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. It takes money to make money.

2. None.

3. Nothing.

People who believe that income inequality is an issue don't understand game theory. The economy is not a zero sum game. The fact that someone has a lot of money doesn't mean that someone else can't make a lot of money because the number of dollars in the economy may be finite but money and value are not synonyms.

Also not understood is that a persons ability to make money isn't predicated on their ability to spend it. The concept of a living wage is psycobabble. A persons ability to make money is directly related to their ability to create value with their time and labor. That's why doctors and CEO's make more money than fast food workers.
 
The give-away, the tell....is not being able to say WHAT was taken out of context.
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.


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.


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. 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.

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.



Like I said, there you are. I have seen this expressed a million times by corporatists.

Yawn, and away we go with the personal anecdotes substituting for data.


You're right ... I have no loyalty to an American worker. I pay the laborer for his efforts, and he does his job. My job is to produce maximum profitability for my investors ... period. Increasing the laborer's take home pay is NOT in my job description. The only reason I would pay more is because that's what it would take to produce maximum profitability.

Clearly, the American workforce is no longer interested in maximizing their work level in order to get better pay. They expect to get it, whether they produce or not. Our government's entitlement philosophy has infected our labor force.

You're right and you're wrong - some countries won't allow US cars to be sold overseas, but most countries won't ... but, even if they would, we can't be cost competitive, so it's a non-issue. As for your containerization argument, if you're looking for an excuse, that's as good as any. If you're unwilling to look at reality, that is as good a subterfuge as any.

My personal anecdotes?? You're right .... but then, my personal anecdotes created 300 jobs and about $40 million a year in business. How are your personal anecdotes doing?

To call out the 1945 - 1979 time frame to demonstrate that socialism is a viable solution .. oh wait, you call it 'sharing the wealth', don't you? - is almost laughable. Perhaps you can tell me what time frame that unions were the most powerful and forced 'sharing the wealth'. I'm guessing it will be the same time frame ... ya think? What the hell makes you think those wage increases were 'voluntary'????
 

As should be obvious to you from the tone of that editorial, it is baloney. He's just playing silly tricks with the numbers. Including PAC spending when it suits him and not when it doesn't and whatnot. For example, the numbers were Democrats get more donations is in direct donations to the actual candidate. You can only donate a small amount directly to a candidate, so while Democrats always dominate in that category (more small donations) they always get destroyed in the superPAC stuff where the Republicans get the huge donations. Another example is that he pretends that the Koch brothers come in #59 for donations. That is, again, DIRECT donations. When you include their PAC spending, they are #1 by a wide margin. Obviously if this guy has actually looked into any of this, he knows that and is intentionally misleading you.

Technology may play a role in this productivity claim.Momentum Machines Burger Robot - Business Insider

Oh, yes, absolutely technology is almost the entire reason productivity goes up.

I feel like you're trying to debate a different question than I am. Like you're debating a "do the humans deserve more money" question. I guess I am just assuming that we want humans to have more money. That is the goal of having an economy at all, no? So, to me, the question is just how best to maximize the economic well-being of people. I see that the market isn't working like it is supposed to- 56% of worker's productivity is leaking out and being wasted instead of getting to the people who create it. So, I want to fix that and I'm laying out potential explanations for what is broken and how we could solve it.
 
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.

See? There ARE people out there that understand reality .... well done.
 
i pay my workers less than they earn me

Every company does. But, from an economic perspective, that is inefficiency. Profit taking is waste. So, I'm not saying you should feel bad about doing it or something lame. People are selfish, such is life. But we certainly should design the economic system in a way that minimizes waste as much as possible.
 
Seems you just were not reading carefully. I did say that specifically.



Again, in a capitalist system, compensation is supposed to track very closely with productivity. In a perfect theoretical model, compensation would be 99.9999999999999% of productivity. In reality, we don't live in a perfect market. In the 1960s, it was around 95%. Today it is around 45%. Obviously the closer to 100%, the better, but any improvement is good. If we could get to even just 75%, that would be a massive leap forward for the country. If we got all the way back to 95%, we would be a truly wealthy nation like that earth has never seen before.

Ok --- I follow you. So, tell me, where did the extra 50% go? The difference between compensation and productivity - did it just disappear?
 
LOL. So your stance is that companies can't afford to hire people because they hire too many people? And you're sitting there condescending to me? Might want to rethink that buddy.

No, as a matter of fact, that isn't even close to what I was saying ... in fact, I can't even twist logic enough to figure out how you got there.
 
Ok --- I follow you. So, tell me, where did the extra 50% go? The difference between compensation and productivity - did it just disappear?

The employers just keep it. That's why, for example, the value of the stock market has doubled in the past 6 years, but the median income has not improved at all.
 
The employers just keep it. That's why, for example, the value of the stock market has doubled in the past 6 years, but the median income has not improved at all.

So, let's see ... money kept by the employer is not considered compensation, right? You're telling us that in the 1960s, employers only took 5% of productivity, right?

I'm sorry ... you're gonna have to prove that to me. First, there is no difference between the compensation I get as a business owner, and the compensation you get as a laborer. It is nonsensical to try to differentiate.

But, I can see where your claim MIGHT be interpreted to mean that the money (this mythical 50%) isn't employer compensation, but rather is just left in the corporation, increasing the value of the corporation without benefiting anyone EXCEPT the stockholders. Is that what you're saying?

Frankly, that's even more nonsensical than your first fantasy. Everyone above the age of 11 knows that money working makes more money than money sitting in a savings account someplace. If you are trying to say the money is reinvested in the company, which in turn increases the value of the company, driving stocks up, and benefiting the stockholders, that is compensation.

PLEASE tell us just what you're trying to say ... we are sitting on the edge of our seat. (Personally, I'll be even more interested in how this relates to the stock market recovery ... but then, that's just me)
 
The employers just keep it. That's why, for example, the value of the stock market has doubled in the past 6 years, but the median income has not improved at all.
If people followed the stock market the way they do celebrities they could make more money. But everyone has their priorities in life it seems.
 
Not sure what "blaming the theory" or "changing the theory" would even mean.

I think there are a lot of causes. Corruption of the Republican Party by the rich obviously plays a big role. The reduction of most markets to oligopoly is a huge part of it. But, no, it doesn't make sense to blame the employees. Again, productivity has been shooting up, so the employees obviously are doing their part. Amazingly, they have even continued to rapidly increase their productivity for decades after they stopped being rewarded for it.

It's always blame it on someone else for you Liberals.

Do they get a paycheck? If so, they're being rewarded. If the skills they offer aren't making enough for them, change jobs. Instead, they want to spend more time whining that someone owes them something. If they spent half as much time bettering themselves as they do demanding more for nothing, problems would solve themselves. If someone is making an amount they don't like and they stay, they are to blame. Don't blame the one doing the paying if the one doing the receiving stays and continues to work for it rather than doing something else.

I have degrees, licenses, and certifications in 3 distinct but indirectly related fields. That didn't happen by sitting on my ass complaining that someone should pay for my education. It took effort, time, and money. That's why if something happened in my current position, I could move into the other the next day. Again, that did't happen by accident or through luck.
 
Seems you just were not reading carefully. I did say that specifically.



Again, in a capitalist system, compensation is supposed to track very closely with productivity. In a perfect theoretical model, compensation would be 99.9999999999999% of productivity. In reality, we don't live in a perfect market. In the 1960s, it was around 95%. Today it is around 45%. Obviously the closer to 100%, the better, but any improvement is good. If we could get to even just 75%, that would be a massive leap forward for the country. If we got all the way back to 95%, we would be a truly wealthy nation like that earth has never seen before.


are we talking productivity, or profit

they are different

in a commission retail environment, there are two basic models for pay

pay based on revenue, or pay pay on gross profit generated

since 1982, when i joined the retail car world.....it has been based upon gross profit (not net)

And that is at eight of the largest car organizations on the east coast

productivity, and profit are two different things.....i require the first.....i pay on the second
 
You're right ... I have no loyalty to an American worker. I pay the laborer for his efforts, and he does his job. My job is to produce maximum profitability for my investors ... period. Increasing the laborer's take home pay is NOT in my job description. The only reason I would pay more is because that's what it would take to produce maximum profitability.

So, was Henry Ford wrong?

You're right and you're wrong - some countries won't allow US cars to be sold overseas, but most countries won't ... but, even if they would, we can't be cost competitive, so it's a non-issue. As for your containerization argument, if you're looking for an excuse, that's as good as any. If you're unwilling to look at reality, that is as good a subterfuge as any.

GM plans to invest $14 billion through 2018, including five new assembly plants to support estimated sales of about 5 million per year. Last year the company sold nearly 3.2 million vehicles in China, compared with 2.8 million in the U.S.

GM hopes Chinese cars buyers embrace Cadillac, the luxury brand that has struggled in the U.S. despite earning numerous awards. GM expects China to become the world's largest luxury car market later this decade, and plans to introduce nine new Cadillacs there over the next five years.

link
My personal anecdotes?? You're right .... but then, my personal anecdotes created 300 jobs and about $40 million a year in business. How are your personal anecdotes doing?

To call out the 1945 - 1979 time frame to demonstrate that socialism is a viable solution .. oh wait, you call it 'sharing the wealth', don't you? - is almost laughable. Perhaps you can tell me what time frame that unions were the most powerful and forced 'sharing the wealth'. I'm guessing it will be the same time frame ... ya think? What the hell makes you think those wage increases were 'voluntary'????

Maybe you are what you say you are, and maybe not. You can be anything you want online.
 
I'm sorry ... you're gonna have to prove that to me.
image.jpg


Your justification for increased wage and wealth inequality is that owners and rentiers deserve greater levels of income capture, in spite of the fact that greater inequality causes slower growth along with a host of other negatives. And as I have pointed out previously, the promise was that "trickle-down":

that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.​

It hasn't, wages for labor has remained stagnant, not because
"labor chose" it to be so, but because ownership "chose".



piketty-saez-top10a.jpg

income-top10a.jpg

income-inequality4-14a.jpg
 
You're right ... I have no loyalty to an American worker. ......

Perhaps you can tell me what time frame that unions were the most powerful and forced 'sharing the wealth'. I'm guessing it will be the same time frame ... ya think? What the hell makes you think those wage increases were 'voluntary'????
I think that is the point, post WWII unions were strong, but beyond that there was a different mindset among owners, we had emerged from the Great Depression and WWII, surviving not only threats of revolution but direct foreign threats to the Constitution. As a result we were much more unified as a nation and the ethos of "get as much as you can and screw the workers" was not so proudly displayed as now. Now many (like yourself) have gone full on G. Gekko, displaying and living by the worst expression of capitalism.

change-in-real-family-income-by-quintile-and-top-5-percent-1947-1979.png

change-in-real-family-income-by-quintile-and-top-5-percent-1979-2009.png
 
Last edited:
Every company does. But, from an economic perspective, that is inefficiency. Profit taking is waste. So, I'm not saying you should feel bad about doing it or something lame. People are selfish, such is life. But we certainly should design the economic system in a way that minimizes waste as much as possible.


oh...i dont feel bad about it at all

i have 140+ employees, all making a good living

some making a GREAT living....

over 20 exceeded 100k in earnings in 2013, and more than that will break that number this year

they make money, i make money, and the owner makes money

win/win/win

i dont see it as inefficient at all.....i see capitalism working for 140 + people.....and i am damn glad to be part of it
 
I think that is the point, post WWII unions were strong, but beyond that there was a different mindset among owners, we had emerged from the Great Depression and WWII, surviving not only threats of revolution but direct foreign threats to the Constitution. As a result we were much more unified as a nation and the ethos of "get as much as you can and screw the workers" was not so proudly displayed as now. Now many (like yourself) have gone full on G. Gekko, displaying and living by the worst expression of capitalism.

View attachment 67173863

View attachment 67173864


Pure rhetorical nonsense ... you talk the talk, but I don't think you can walk the walk.
 
Back
Top Bottom