• 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!

Flat Wages for the middle and working class - what to do?

Absentglare said:
Bold is so dead on, extremely well-said.
Click to expand...

And how do you go about that or justifying it morally or legally? Do you really want the government deciding who is properly spending and taking wealth away based on "Not spending properly"?
 
Conaeolos said:
I would add a lot of people don’t even see the full impact of that particular example(driving automation). It is still a net benefit for society but it going to be HUGE for Main Street. We are not just talking truck & taxi drivers which is a lot of people to begin with, with automation comes the end to a lot of the barriers of electronic vehicles.

So at the same time there are huge reductions in:
- Large scale gas stations networks
- Car dealership (make more sense to join a car service)
- Postal worker / couriers
- Autoworkers / Mechanics (electronic motors are a lot simpler and take a lot less specialized knowledge)
- Small-stop food industry
- Emergency services (that’s not such a bad one lol)
- Flaggers
- Swapper and warehousing staff
- Construction drivers
- Garbage men
- Farm Hands

And the jobs it creates mainly have to do with
- Software design
- Technicians
- Emergency system operators
- Risk management systems
- Finance & marketing sector

All which require certain fundamental natural abilities that bar a lot of the old workers from crossing over.


Family units can support quite a few non-formally working members. So I wouldn’t be so sure. Communes and co-ops have also been able to absorb huge unemployment within their membership without killing capitalism and still supporting their members with a good quality of life.

That said biggest barrier to entry: personal debt. And guess what we just loaded on the next generation in record amounts?

Yeah definitely which is why we’re seeing more calls for guarantee income at this point.


:( My only goal in life is to leave the world better for my daughter/future grand children so at least she’s got her Trust if she can't work - that if you don’t all steal it in taxes - J/k (maybe) :(


Yet how does a automated world not seem amazing ~ I an average Joe get to live like a emperor :confused:
Click to expand...

That's the rub, though.

Thus far, automation isn't freeing man from labor.

It's just freeing employers from labor costs.
 
ludin said:
it is a fact and calculated that there are diminishing returns on working over time as it pushes your tax withholdings into higher brackets.
this is not federal income tax, but what they hold out of your pay check when you get paid. you are confusing the two of them together and they
are not one in the same.
Click to expand...
I would love for you to demonstrate.


You asked for evidence I gave it to you. I don't know what more you want.
Click to expand...
You jumped right to communism without any consideration of anything in between


not possible as we have laws that prevent this from happening. please see fair use and free travel laws. plus there are right of way laws.
again it helps to understand our laws and things.
Click to expand...
Oh the irony...
Yes exactly...I'm proposing laws that keep a select few from damming up the "river" (our economy).

I never argued any such thing.
Click to expand...

You did when you assumed my tax policy would automatically affect you.


you are not listing any option that I considered worth considering so I pick none of your options.
Click to expand...
Is that like "I give up" in debate terms? At some point conservatives are going to have to be forth coming of their own ideas, and not just mindlessly bashing the ideas of others.
 
Renae said:
And how do you go about that or justifying it morally or legally? Do you really want the government deciding who is properly spending and taking wealth away based on "Not spending properly"?
Click to expand...

It's much simpler than that. We either redistribute spending power to optimize the system as it is or we inject more to make up for when people sock it away (the government deficit spends). Nobody is taking away wealth. It is merely a correction - a correction to those that have more access to the economy than they should. It's the toll to use our economy.
 
Renae said:
And how do you go about that or justifying it morally or legally? Do you really want the government deciding who is properly spending and taking wealth away based on "Not spending properly"?
Click to expand...

We have idle resources, resources which go to waste. They could make our society, on the whole, far more prosperous if we could simply mobilize them. Mobilizing them requires currency.

They don't have to be mobilized by "taking wealth away", we can do it with MMT.
 
Absentglare said:
We have idle resources, resources which go to waste. They could make our society, on the whole, far more prosperous if we could simply mobilize them. Mobilizing them requires currency.

They don't have to be mobilized by "taking wealth away", we can do it with MMT.
Click to expand...
No, "we" do not. Wealth isn't public property, it's not a resource the government dictates where and how it's used. That's never ever a good idea.
 
Absentglare said:
We have idle resources, resources which go to waste. They could make our society, on the whole, far more prosperous if we could simply mobilize them. Mobilizing them requires currency.

They don't have to be mobilized by "taking wealth away", we can do it with MMT.
Click to expand...

This actually one of the great irony's to me. We'll take cheap goods and resources with little question, but when an autonomous creature walks over to us that can create things and provide services, we look at it as a burden?
 
pdog said:
I would love for you to demonstrate.
Click to expand...
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15/ar02.html

towards the middle or so you will run into several different methods.
all withholding payments care about is gross wage.

it also depends on the method used to calculate it.

You jumped right to communism without any consideration of anything in between
Click to expand...

I never mentioned anything you are the person saying that the government should just hire people for government jobs.
I asked you how they would pay for it. you said of course the typical answer just raise taxes.

I told you that cuba does the same thing and it doesn't work that well. you asked for evidence and I gave it to you.
they have people that just have a job to have a job and don't do anything.

Oh the irony...
Yes exactly...I'm proposing laws that keep a select few from damming up the "river" (our economy).
Click to expand...

it isn't possible our economy isn't a 0 sum game.

You did when you assumed my tax policy would automatically affect you.
Click to expand...

Nope because tax policy does affect me.

Is that like "I give up" in debate terms? At some point conservatives are going to have to be forth coming of their own ideas, and not just mindlessly bashing the ideas of others.
Click to expand...

Nope it just means you haven't offered anything that is worth choosing.
I see no issue with people having money and being prosperous and moving that money
onto their family.

you evidently have a problem with it.
 
Absentglare said:
We have idle resources, resources which go to waste. They could make our society, on the whole, far more prosperous if we could simply mobilize them. Mobilizing them requires currency.

They don't have to be mobilized by "taking wealth away", we can do it with MMT.
Click to expand...

really what are those idle resources? the only idle resources is money that people shove in their mattress most money is not shoved in the mattress.
most people invest their money.

no one practices MMT the governments that have tried have destroyed their currency.
 
Renae said:
No, "we" do not. Wealth isn't public property, it's not a resource the government dictates where and how it's used. That's never ever a good idea.
Click to expand...

Our economy, at least the way that that it runs, IS public property. We decide how our economy should run and what to do when it isn't operating efficiently. Wealth is post-tax, not pre-tax. What you buy after your transaction with the economy is complete is your business. But that transaction requires a toll (taxes).
 
pdog said:
Our economy, at least the way that that it runs, IS public property. We decide how our economy should run and what to do when it isn't operating efficiently. Wealth is post-tax, not pre-tax. What you buy after your transaction with the economy is complete is your business. But that transaction requires a toll (taxes).
Click to expand...
They are talking about taking wealth from people who aren't spending it in ways that they feel helps the economy. It's based on a fallacy that wealthy people just horde money "in banks".
 
ludin said:
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15/ar02.html

towards the middle or so you will run into several different methods.
all withholding payments care about is gross wage.

it also depends on the method used to calculate it.
Click to expand...
If you would like to prove your point please do so. I'm not going to go thru a couple of hundred pages of irs documentation for you with nothing more than "towards the middle"


I never mentioned anything you are the person saying that the government should just hire people for government jobs.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a reasonable person wouldn't have assumed that I meant that it should hire everybody :p.

I asked you how they would pay for it. you said of course the typical answer just raise taxes.
Click to expand...
I gave you three options, none of which you attempted to show flaws. I even included an offer of a lifetime of no taxes and you had no response.

I told you that cuba does the same thing and it doesn't work that well. you asked for evidence and I gave it to you.
they have people that just have a job to have a job and don't do anything.
Click to expand...

Ok, I will clarify since we can't get away from this - I am proposing the government supply enough employment to keep us at "full" employment and to add to wage pressure.

it isn't possible our economy isn't a 0 sum game.
Click to expand...

You lack imagination. The idea is that we create laws to regulate access to our economy and make corrections (even in the form of taxes) when necessary.

Nope because tax policy does affect me.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only a typical conservative assumes it affects you negatively. It seems ludin is still uninterested in a debate.

Nope it just means you haven't offered anything that is worth choosing.
Click to expand...
well since you didn't care to elaborate, you're baseless opinion is noted.

I see no issue with people having money and being prosperous and moving that money
onto their family.
Click to expand...
This where the hypocrisy of conservatism comes out for me. You have no problem with nepotism and dynasties that contributes to an eventual oligarchy and that some how that passes the litmus tests of "fair" and "hard work".
 
Renae said:
Lower taxes, streamline regulations, control H1 style Visas, work to reduce burdensome dictates on businesses at the Federal level.
Click to expand...

Those all have the opposite effect on what we are talking about. They all depress wages of the middle class. In fact my proposal is to do the opposite of whatever the GOP proposes as the best method of decreasing income disparity. EVERY SINGLE THING they do is to increase the income share of the 1%. And it has been working all to well.
 
Renae said:
They are talking about taking wealth from people who aren't spending it in ways that they feel helps the economy. It's based on a fallacy that wealthy people just horde money "in banks".
Click to expand...

You make it sound as though I'm suggesting we take money out of peoples bank. I'm merely suggesting that taxes are taken as a person gets paid an income. They can horde as much as they want after at that point.

I think it's a bigger fallacy that savings and investment are somehow different things. I think too much money chasing too few goods creates inflation and I think that is just as true in capital markets. There is room to optimize and balance everywhere, and it shocks me that conservatives are entirely unwilling to even consider a top-heavy supply-side economy as a possibility.
 
Renae said:
They are talking about taking wealth from people who aren't spending it in ways that they feel helps the economy. It's based on a fallacy that wealthy people just horde money "in banks".
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that since today the average Billionaire IS hoarding $600 million in cash and millionaires are hoarding 20 to 30% of their networth as cash also. That is why it is madness to give them any more tax cuts and expect anything but massive deficits to occur. Is that your aim too? Massive deficits?

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/22/billionaires-are-hoarding-piles-of-cash.html
 
iguanaman said:
Those all have the opposite effect on what we are talking about. They all depress wages of the middle class. In fact my proposal is to do the opposite of whatever the GOP proposes as the best method of decreasing income disparity. EVERY SINGLE THING they do is to increase the income share of the 1%. And it has been working all to well.
Click to expand...

You obviously have zero clue as to the impact on businesses that Government action has, nor the impact to wages.
 
Renae said:
And how do you go about that or justifying it morally or legally? Do you really want the government deciding who is properly spending and taking wealth away based on "Not spending properly"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Not on an individual bases case by case, but based upon which income classes tend to have the highest marginal propensity to spend, and which ones have the lowest marginal propensity to spend. It would create a wealthier economy overall. A bigger pie. A bigger pie that we can ALL share proportionately to the actual effort, physical and mental and intellectual which we put into the system.
 
Renae said:
You obviously have zero clue as to the impact on businesses that Government action has, nor the impact to wages.
Click to expand...

And you are blind to the reality of what led us to where we are now. This all began with Reagan and his tax cuts and deficits and the middle class has been slipping ever since. Until we reverse all that has been done we are all doomed to be serfs to the aristocracy of the rich. Half of us already spend more than we earn.

Half of Americans are spending their entire paycheck (or more) - Jun. 27, 2017
 
pdog said:
You make it sound as though I'm suggesting we take money out of peoples bank. I'm merely suggesting that taxes are taken as a person gets paid an income. They can horde as much as they want after at that point.

I think it's a bigger fallacy that savings and investment are somehow different things. I think too much money chasing too few goods creates inflation and I think that is just as true in capital markets. There is room to optimize and balance everywhere, and it shocks me that conservatives are entirely unwilling to even consider a top-heavy supply-side economy as a possibility.
Click to expand...

AG Certainly suggested that.
 
iguanaman said:
Funny you should mention that since today the average Billionaire IS hoarding $600 million in cash and millionaires are hoarding 20 to 30% of their networth as cash also. That is why it is madness to give them any more tax cuts and expect anything but massive deficits to occur. Is that your aim too? Massive deficits?

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/22/billionaires-are-hoarding-piles-of-cash.html
Click to expand...

A: Who gives a **** how they "horde" their money, it's theirs, they are welcome to do it.
B: A good portion of their money is invested into the markets.
 
Absentglare said:
We have idle resources, resources which go to waste. They could make our society, on the whole, far more prosperous if we could simply mobilize them. Mobilizing them requires currency.

They don't have to be mobilized by "taking wealth away", we can do it with MMT.
Click to expand...

I wish that everyone understood that. From time to time I've had certain people argue with me that wealth creation isn't zero sum. And they are correct, creation is never zero sum, it's creation. I find it odd that the people who are so quick to bring up that one person making money doesn't necessarally take wealth from another also tend to be the same people who don't understand the concept that putting idle resources to work by motivating them with payment for their work, doesn't take anything away from anyone else, when done so within the framework of our actual monetary system (MMT).
 
Absentglare said:
Bold is so dead on, extremely well-said.
Click to expand...

If you want to reduce investment and possibly even shrink the economy....
but it could be argued that the general welfare optimum might be pushed outward. It depends on the convention you choose to aggregate utility.
 
imagep said:
I agree. I think I may need to "borrow" that from time to time.
Click to expand...

I'd be honored. I think exponential penis theory and your phrases for inflation have been stuck in my head for like 5 years now :p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom