• 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
Nope, it's an accurate way of looking at things.

We don't exist in a bubble. We're in a globalized economy wherein different labor pools operate under different rules, and different corporations operate under different tax structures. Add to that the gaming of currencies to affect import/export prices, and backroom supply deals conjured up between certain governments, and I think you'll agree that the picture is much bigger than simply saying the amount of money one makes is solely related to how smart/hard they work.

There's more to it than that.
 
Nope, it's an accurate way of looking at things.

Here's one example. Say you're a homebuilder. You're smart, you work hard. In the current market, you make a killing. Then one day, the FED decides to raise interest rates to 20% because it feels inflation is becoming a problem. All of the sudden, folks can't afford to get home loans, and your business tanks.

You can be the best and brightest homebuilder in the world, your business is still going to suffer immensely.
 
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.

Most of the deregulation that allowed the 2008 financial crash was done under Clinton, keep that in mind. The liberals removed the safeguards that would have stopped that from happening because Clinton wanted his legacy to look good. The .com bomb was his too because he wanted to make it look like he was good with the economy. He wasn't. And it's your OPINION that the people at the top are making too much but apparently, the shareholders don't agree with you and it's their job, not yours, to make that determination. If you don't like it, by all means feel free to buy stock in any company that you think the CEO is making too much and cast your vote.

And no, it isn't any more difficult than what it actually is. An employer and an employee agree what their labor is worth when the employee takes the job. If they don't like it, they are free at any time to quit their job and look elsewhere. There is a tacit agreement every single time that employee goes to work. They agree to exchange their labor for the rate agreed upon or they could just stay home. They are free to ask for a raise at any time they want and make their case to their employer. The employer can either agree or disagree. The employee can then decide to either stay at the job or leave and go somewhere else more lucrative.

It honestly isn't rocket science. People tend to vastly over-estimate what they are actually worth. Just because you want to be worth more doesn't mean you actually are.
 
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.

No one is saying everyone should be paid the same. Their should be a certain level that you can't go below however. Of course some should make more and prosper, and some should make less and suffer. But everyone should start on a equal playing field.

in the current society, some people get a get a great education, some people get a god awful education. Some people start way higher from the beginning, some start way lower. Through no "work" or fault of their own, simply through the crapshoot of birth. Why should they be punished? And why should morons be able to start so high and have such influence?
 
Here's one example. Say you're a homebuilder. You're smart, you work hard. In the current market, you make a killing. Then one day, the FED decides to raise interest rates to 20% because it feels inflation is becoming a problem. All of the sudden, folks can't afford to get home loans, and your business tanks.

You can be the best and brightest homebuilder in the world, your business is still going to suffer immensely.

Welcome to reality. Greater than 90% of all new businesses fail in their first 5 years. You have a right to try, that's not a guarantee that you will succeed, there are always external factors, often entirely beyond your control, that will affect your ability to successfully do business. The best and the brightest and, let's be honest, the luckiest, will be the ones left standing at the end. Many entrepreneurs have tried to start businesses over and over and over again, only to have them all fail. If you don't try at all, you'll never succeed though, that's why they keep trying.
 
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.

I'm not sure how to google it and find the answer. I just remember that we had to have a separate donation for the political action committee, and that those donations were voluntary and were above the regular union dues.
 
Welcome to reality. Greater than 90% of all new businesses fail in their first 5 years. You have a right to try, that's not a guarantee that you will succeed, there are always external factors, often entirely beyond your control, that will affect your ability to successfully do business. The best and the brightest and, let's be honest, the luckiest, will be the ones left standing at the end. Many entrepreneurs have tried to start businesses over and over and over again, only to have them all fail. If you don't try at all, you'll never succeed though, that's why they keep trying.

A lot of what you call "luck" boils down to policy, which we, the educated voting public, have a right and a duty to affect.
 
No one is saying everyone should be paid the same. Their should be a certain level that you can't go below however. Of course some should make more and prosper, and some should make less and suffer. But everyone should start on a equal playing field.

in the current society, some people get a get a great education, some people get a god awful education. Some people start way higher from the beginning, some start way lower. Through no "work" or fault of their own, simply through the crapshoot of birth. Why should they be punished? And why should morons be able to start so high and have such influence?

Isn't that what the minimum wage is? It's a level you can't go below (and I think that ought to be for everyone, even if you get tips, but that's another subject). There really isn't a level playing field, all people are different as we've been talking about and that "level playing field" starts long before you ever get to employment age, it starts when you go to school and learn how to live on this planet. If you screw up there, coming back successfully is much more difficult. Again, it isn't the job of the government or the job of society to make sure that the person takes their education seriously, it's the job of the individual and their parents.

And yeah, life is a crapshoot. Welcome to reality. Who ever told you life was fair?
 
A lot of what you call "luck" boils down to policy, which we, the educated voting public, have a right and a duty to affect.

No, in your example, some homebuilders will go under and others will survive. All have to deal with the same policies. Some just do so more effectively and efficiently than others.
 
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.

94% of black family's are headed by a single mom? Please qualify your horrendously racist statement. Let me tell you now, you can't... It's not true.

Also as someone from a city that's half black let me tell you how the education system really is for these kids. The schools have nurses one or two days a week, (thanks Corbet) I know multiple kids with high school diplomas that cannot read or right properly, don't know how to do simple algebra, and certainly have no chance of attending college due to these disparity's. Now if you go over to the burbs, they get great educations. Some of the best in the state actually. This is due to slashing education budgets in lieu of private prisons and fracking (thanks Corbet)

Maybe you should think and examine the situation from a objective point of view... Not your present one...
 
You think it's a great idea to be able to buy influence in Washington. Really?

No one should be able to buy influence in Washington or in any other political arena in the nation. Money, be it from big corporate sources or unions or even powerful individuals, should be eliminated.
 
94% of black family's are headed by a single mom? Please qualify your horrendously racist statement. Let me tell you now, you can't... It's not true.

Yeah, it actually is. "In 1992 Glick statistics show 94% of African-American segmented nuclear families were composed of an unmarried mother and children." ( Paul C. Glick, ed. by Harriette Pipes McAdoo (1997). Black families (3. ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage. p. 120. ISBN 0803955723.)

Also as someone from a city that's half black let me tell you how the education system really is for these kids. The schools have nurses one or two days a week, (thanks Corbet) I know multiple kids with high school diplomas that cannot read or right properly, don't know how to do simple algebra, and certainly have no chance of attending college due to these disparity's. Now if you go over to the burbs, they get great educations. Some of the best in the state actually. This is due to slashing education budgets in lieu of private prisons and fracking (thanks Corbet)

They can't "right" properly, huh? :roll:

And do you know how many black-only scholarships there are out there for people who actually want to go to college? If anyone offered a white-only scholarship, liberals would sh!t themselves.

Maybe you should think and examine the situation from a objective point of view... Not your present one...

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing of you.
 
No one should be able to buy influence in Washington or in any other political arena in the nation. Money, be it from big corporate sources or unions or even powerful individuals, should be eliminated.
Exactly.
 
Most of the deregulation that allowed the 2008 financial crash was done under Clinton, keep that in mind. The liberals removed the safeguards that would have stopped that from happening because Clinton wanted his legacy to look good. The .com bomb was his too because he wanted to make it look like he was good with the economy. He wasn't. And it's your OPINION that the people at the top are making too much but apparently, the shareholders don't agree with you and it's their job, not yours, to make that determination. If you don't like it, by all means feel free to buy stock in any company that you think the CEO is making too much and cast your vote.

And no, it isn't any more difficult than what it actually is. An employer and an employee agree what their labor is worth when the employee takes the job. If they don't like it, they are free at any time to quit their job and look elsewhere. There is a tacit agreement every single time that employee goes to work. They agree to exchange their labor for the rate agreed upon or they could just stay home. They are free to ask for a raise at any time they want and make their case to their employer. The employer can either agree or disagree. The employee can then decide to either stay at the job or leave and go somewhere else more lucrative.

It honestly isn't rocket science. People tend to vastly over-estimate what they are actually worth. Just because you want to be worth more doesn't mean you actually are.
No its the board that decides CEO salary. Shareholders vote on the board. To say what you said would mean our government represented the ppl. It does not.

Furthermore while Clinton did deregulate and contribute to the crash, its a drop in the bucket compared to the deregulation Regan did.
 
No its the board that decides CEO salary. Shareholders vote on the board. To say what you said would mean our government represented the ppl. It does not.

It must, we keep electing these people. Incumbents get re-elected with overwhelming regularity.

Furthermore while Clinton did deregulate and contribute to the crash, its a drop in the bucket compared to the deregulation Regan did.

None of which caused the 2008 crash. Try again.
 
Isn't that what the minimum wage is? It's a level you can't go below (and I think that ought to be for everyone, even if you get tips, but that's another subject). There really isn't a level playing field, all people are different as we've been talking about and that "level playing field" starts long before you ever get to employment age, it starts when you go to school and learn how to live on this planet. If you screw up there, coming back successfully is much more difficult. Again, it isn't the job of the government or the job of society to make sure that the person takes their education seriously, it's the job of the individual and their parents.

And yeah, life is a crapshoot. Welcome to reality. Who ever told you life was fair?

First of all the minimum wage is a joke. Its half of what a living wage is. That's what you shouldn't be able to go below, a living wage...

Secondly if you go to a school that's not worth a damn, its not your fault you don't get a good education... Its the schools and he systems... Allot of it (at least in my state) is to blame on republicans cutting billions from education and giving it to private prisons and natural gas company's... Also a living wage is worthless without universal healthcare and education. Even if you graduate most will put off higher education to get work/hustle to help their family's eat.
 
First of all the minimum wage is a joke. Its half of what a living wage is. That's what you shouldn't be able to go below, a living wage...

Nobody has ever said that it was a living wage, and a living wage for who? A single person? A family? If you're trying to raise a family on minimum wage, you're an idiot.

Secondly if you go to a school that's not worth a damn, its not your fault you don't get a good education... Its the schools and he systems... Allot of it (at least in my state) is to blame on republicans cutting billions from education and giving it to private prisons and natural gas company's... Also a living wage is worthless without universal healthcare and education. Even if you graduate most will put off higher education to get work/hustle to help their family's eat.

Because people are irresponsible and breed before they are financially ready for it, you mean? :roll:

Responsibility. I see it's a word you've never heard before.
 
Yeah, it actually is. "In 1992 Glick statistics show 94% of African-American segmented nuclear families were composed of an unmarried mother and children." ( Paul C. Glick, ed. by Harriette Pipes McAdoo (1997). Black families (3. ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage. p. 120. ISBN 0803955723.)



They can't "right" properly, huh? :roll:

And do you know how many black-only scholarships there are out there for people who actually want to go to college? If anyone offered a white-only scholarship, liberals would sh!t themselves.



Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing of you.

Got a link? I do! http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...cation_not_affected_as_much_as_you_think.html

Its grown from 20% in the 50s to 70% now... Again your jus wrong and that's quoting the census.

Actually they have happened, all biet much less... And theirs nothing wrong with things like that were founded specifically with the intent of giving scholarships to minority's to do so...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_Only_Scholarship liberals didn't say ****...

If the KKK or some other white group chose to give out white only scholarships we would not, as of would be hypocritical.

Sorry I misspelled something when I was typing on a smartphone on a forum (or the more likely thing it auto-corrected) just don't ever complain about grammar, as it dumb. Content of arguments matter grammar does not.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has ever said that it was a living wage, and a living wage for who? A single person? A family? If you're trying to raise a family on minimum wage, you're an idiot.



Because people are irresponsible and breed before they are financially ready for it, you mean? :roll:

Responsibility. I see it's a word you've never heard before.
So their children should be punished because their irresponsible? Classic neocon bull. We care about kids, until they are born. Then we don't care what happens to em.
 
Last edited:
No, in your example, some homebuilders will go under and others will survive. All have to deal with the same policies. Some just do so more effectively and efficiently than others.

But as a government "by the people," we are responsible to affect policy in such a way that is most beneficial for the people.

This is our government. The notion that we have to just "deal with the policies" is un-American and ridiculous.
 
So their children should be punished because their irresponsible? Classic neocon bull. We care about kids, until thy are born. Then we don't care what happens to em.

Um... YES! Actions have consequences, didn't your parents teach you that when you were growing up?
 
So their children should be punished because their irresponsible? Classic neocon bull. We care about kids, until thy are born. Then we don't care what happens to em.

Who said anything about punishing children?
 
Back
Top Bottom