• 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
Workers do have enough influence to get raises based on merit.
Sure they do, which explains stagnate wages since 1980.


your (sic) nothing more than a good intentioned , do nothing loudmouth, bleeding heart Liberal that should either put up of (sic) STFU.
Well said.

Your problem is that what I have put forward (all of the argument and stats) are ignored.
 
bump...
Sigh...lets explore some data:

piketty-saez-top10a.jpg



income-top10a.jpg



income-inequality4-14a.jpg
 
You are showing your Randian colors, "taxation is theft".



Yeah, we have a pretty good deal right now, wage stagnate for 90% since 1980.

Wonderful.

Wages are stagnant because labor chooses it to be so ... as hard as that is to swallow, it's true. If you want more, ask ... I sure as hell ain't going to volunteer it. But, if you ask, remember that you open up other avenues for me. Believe me, you'll know when you've asked for too much ... you will have to commute to China.

You want the government to do something you're not willing to do yourself ...
 
Actually, I do believe the $6000/year merit raise I received accurate reflects it. In order to get it, I actually have to do something first to earn. What you might find interesting is that I didn't have to bargain for it or provide any leverage. My employer came to me and said because of what I had done and what was expected of me, the amount if what I would be receiving above what I was making now.

So you believe that the from one year to the next, you increased the amount of revenue you drive for the company by about $6k? Not sure if that question really even makes sense, since I don't know what you do, but if it does make sense in the type of work you're in, and you did indeed bring in say $6k or $7k or $8k more of revenue than the previous year, I would agree that sounds like a very fair raise. That said, in my experience, in most companies, in order to get a $6k raise you actually need to increase your value more like $50k or $100k/year. If that isn't the case at your employer, that's great, and you should stick with them! But, if you are in a kind of work where it is harder for you to estimate how much more revenue you drove and you're just guesstimating that $6k sounds like a fair raise, you might actually be getting totally screwed and not realizing it, as most people are in these things statistically speaking.

The best way to have negotiating power is to offer something to the one doing the paying. If someone has such a low skill level that what they do is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, they don't have any.

As for merit raises not being reality to you, I can tell you than handing someone a raise because they exist isn't reality. It's a handout without anything to tie it to.

You seem to be trying to reduce our positions to binary positions where you're saying raises are driven by merit and I'm saying people should just get raises for existing. That isn't an accurate description of our positions at all. Of course merit has a big impact on raises and gives you negotiating power. And of course people shouldn't just get raises for existing.

What I am saying is that the impact of having high merit is becoming diluted. It used to be, and is supposed to be, that $1 more merit translates into almost $1 in additional compensation, but in reality it appears to not be working that way any more. These days, the norm is more like $1 of additional merit gets you, on average, $0.44 in compensation. You have millions of people who, for example, generate $350k/year in after-expenses revenue, make $55k/year, and are just glad they have a job. That isn't how that is supposed to work in a capitalist economy. Definitely increasing your merit will still cause your income to increase, just not by as much as it should or as much as it used to.

So, I think it is key to look at the reasons that has fallen apart like that and address them. That doens't mean just giving raises for existing or whatever, that means taking steps to restore a freer market for labor with more competition and more even negotiating power. That is the opposite of paying people for existing. I am saying compensation should be more closely tied to performance, not less.
 
Last edited:
So change the narrative from 1% to 10%

Actually, between his charts he is showing you the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%.

People talk a lot about the 1%, but really is it the 0.1% or even the 0.01% that is where the real "rich-poor" gap kicks in. Well up into the 1%, you're actually still talking about people who work jobs full time or run small businesses and make great, but still sane, incomes which are often relatively proportionate to their contributions to the economy. If somebody makes $450k/year working 70 hour weeks doing something important that they're really good at, I think they should pay sizable taxes, but I don't think that the mere existence of people in that sort of situation indicates a systemic flaw in our economy.

Then you hit this cliff around the top 0.1% where you transition to people whose income bears little relation to their contributions. The top 0.1% is people who draw money out of the economy because they happened to land in a lucky position more than because they actually did something useful. They happened to be the sales guy when a big corporation signed up for a new office product supplier and they get 5% of the contract each year pretty much for nothing other than shaking a few hands and taking a client out to a fancy dinner, or maybe their father died and left them $40m, or maybe they gambled with other people's money in the market and got lucky and got to skim a few percentage off the top. But even that is somewhat comprehensible- some people will totally luck out. IMO they should be taxed far, far, more heavily than they are, and probably we should be looking more closely at whether that is a wise use of our GDP, but it isn't a total disaster. People this rich have always existed and probably always will.

Where it really gets mind boggling is the top 0.01%. These are people who rake in just incomprehensible amounts of money, often literally for nothing or wildly out of proportion with what they actually do. People whose only "job" responsibility is calling up their broker once in a while to ask how much more they are worth now who are pulling in sums of money that would practically be impossible to spend. Many, or even most, of the people in this category never worked, never did anything useful, and we're wasting massive fractions of our entire nation's GDP just flooding them with money for no real reason at all. This is a systemic problem. It is sheer waste on such a massive scale that it is crippling our entire economy. Enabling this unimaginable sort of excess costs so much that working people are basically having to forego increases in their income entirely to accomodate it. This is where almost all the GDP growth for the past 15 years has gone- down this irrational black hole of graft.
 
Wages are stagnant because labor chooses it to be so... as hard as that is to swallow, it's true. If you want more, ask ... I sure as hell ain't going to volunteer it. But, if you ask, remember that you open up other avenues for me. Believe me, you'll know when you've asked for too much ... you will have to commute to China.

You want the government to do something you're not willing to do yourself ...

Yupper, labor is stagnate....

fig2_prodhhincome.jpg


income-top10a.jpg
 
So you believe that the from one year to the next, you increased the amount of revenue you drive for the company by about $6k? Not sure if that question really even makes sense, since I don't know what you do, but if it does make sense in the type of work you're in, and you did indeed bring in say $6k or $7k or $8k more of revenue than the previous year, I would agree that sounds like a very fair raise. That said, in my experience, in most companies, in order to get a $6k raise you actually need to increase your value more like $50k or $100k/year. If that isn't the case at your employer, that's great, and you should stick with them! But, if you are in a kind of work where it is harder for you to estimate how much more revenue you drove and you're just guesstimating that $6k sounds like a fair raise, you might actually be getting totally screwed and not realizing it, as most people are in these things statistically speaking.



You seem to be trying to reduce our positions to binary positions where you're saying raises are driven by merit and I'm saying people should just get raises for existing. That isn't an accurate description of our positions at all. Of course merit has a big impact on raises and gives you negotiating power. And of course people shouldn't just get raises for existing.

What I am saying is that the impact of having high merit is becoming diluted. It used to be, and is supposed to be, that $1 more merit translates into almost $1 in additional compensation, but in reality it appears to not be working that way any more. These days, the norm is more like $1 of additional merit gets you, on average, $0.44 in compensation. You have millions of people who, for example, generate $350k/year in after-expenses revenue, make $55k/year, and are just glad they have a job. That isn't how that is supposed to work in a capitalist economy. Definitely increasing your merit will still cause your income to increase, just not by as much as it should or as much as it used to.

So, I think it is key to look at the reasons that has fallen apart like that and address them. That doens't mean just giving raises for existing or whatever, that means taking steps to restore a freer market for labor with more competition and more even negotiating power. That is the opposite of paying people for existing. I am saying compensation should be more closely tied to performance, not less.


so someone that generates 350k in net profit, and is paid 55k for that effort is totally underpaid in your eyes?

remember uncle sammie gets his share, and the state gets their share

so how much is the manager above him getting?

and the owner above him?

what piece of the pie do you feel is appropriate?
 
So you believe that the from one year to the next, you increased the amount of revenue you drive for the company by about $6k? Not sure if that question really even makes sense, since I don't know what you do, but if it does make sense in the type of work you're in, and you did indeed bring in say $6k or $7k or $8k more of revenue than the previous year, I would agree that sounds like a very fair raise. That said, in my experience, in most companies, in order to get a $6k raise you actually need to increase your value more like $50k or $100k/year. If that isn't the case at your employer, that's great, and you should stick with them! But, if you are in a kind of work where it is harder for you to estimate how much more revenue you drove and you're just guesstimating that $6k sounds like a fair raise, you might actually be getting totally screwed and not realizing it, as most people are in these things statistically speaking.



You seem to be trying to reduce our positions to binary positions where you're saying raises are driven by merit and I'm saying people should just get raises for existing. That isn't an accurate description of our positions at all. Of course merit has a big impact on raises and gives you negotiating power. And of course people shouldn't just get raises for existing.

What I am saying is that the impact of having high merit is becoming diluted. It used to be, and is supposed to be, that $1 more merit translates into almost $1 in additional compensation, but in reality it appears to not be working that way any more. These days, the norm is more like $1 of additional merit gets you, on average, $0.44 in compensation. You have millions of people who, for example, generate $350k/year in after-expenses revenue, make $55k/year, and are just glad they have a job. That isn't how that is supposed to work in a capitalist economy. Definitely increasing your merit will still cause your income to increase, just not by as much as it should or as much as it used to.

So, I think it is key to look at the reasons that has fallen apart like that and address them. That doens't mean just giving raises for existing or whatever, that means taking steps to restore a freer market for labor with more competition and more even negotiating power. That is the opposite of paying people for existing. I am saying compensation should be more closely tied to performance, not less.

Apparenlty, having high merit wasn't deluted in my case.

What you have a problem understanding is that a capitalist economy allows those who think they aren't being paid enough to go elsewhere, even start their own business in order to maximize their worth. You also have a problem understanding that it's not your place to determine how much something should increase unless you are the one doing the paying of the wages. There isn't but one business for whom you can make that determination. It's one that you own. For the ones that you don't own, you have absolutely no say in what is being paid.
 
Sure they do, which explains stagnate wages since 1980.


Well said.

Your problem is that what I have put forward (all of the argument and stats) are ignored.

You've provided nothing more than rants about how businesses you don't own should pay higher wages. You've put nothing forward but typical LIberal bleeding heart rants from an emotional and five year old mentality. I'm sorry if your wages have been stagnant. Perhaps the problem is with you not your employer. Mine have steadily increased. I've been in the same profession for 27 years. While I changed companies, I currently make almost 4x what I made when I started in the business in 1987. If you haven't, that your problem.
 
You've provided nothing more than rants about how businesses you don't own should pay higher wages. You've put nothing forward but typical LIberal bleeding heart rants from an emotional and five year old mentality. I'm sorry if your wages have been stagnant. Perhaps the problem is with you not your employer. Mine have steadily increased. I've been in the same profession for 27 years. While I changed companies, I currently make almost 4x what I made when I started in the business in 1987. If you haven't, that your problem.
For someone who claims to be so mature and experienced, it is strange seeing such selfish "I'm successful so the problem is you" argument in light, full view of the fact that you are an anomaly. I'm glad you are (supposedly) successful, but that is not the story for the vast majority of US workers. US workers have not en mass become lazy or non-productive (as I have shown) and further, those that are reaping huge economic gains have not done the US many favors, their gains have not caused greater levels of employment or incomes....it has not trickled down.

There is not much point in debating you any longer, you do not want to acknowledge or accept macroeconomic data or argument about the causes for the data since the end of the 30 Great Years, but then I see that a lot from supply-siders that do not want to accept the failings of their ideology.
 
For someone who claims to be so mature and experienced, it is strange seeing such selfish "I'm successful so the problem is you" argument in light, full view of the fact that you are an anomaly. I'm glad you are (supposedly) successful, but that is not the story for the vast majority of US workers. US workers have not en mass become lazy or non-productive (as I have shown) and further, those that are reaping huge economic gains have not done the US many favors, their gains have not caused greater levels of employment or incomes....it has not trickled down.

There is not much point in debating you any longer, you do not want to acknowledge or accept macroeconomic data or argument about the causes for the data since the end of the 30 Great Years, but then I see that a lot from supply-siders that do not want to accept the failings of their ideology.

My success has nothing to do with your not being able to make it.

Interesting how you say those reaping huge gains haven't don't any favors. The Obama administration keeps telling us that unemployment is declining. Someone has to be hiring or the numbers YOUR President spout are a lie.

I agree, there is no need in debating you. You apparently are too low on the cognitive level to learn basic concepts like no one owes you anything in life or that if you don't like your situation do something about it. Since you haven't been successful, it seems you either didn't learn them or you are doing the best you can. Anyone that think an employer owes them more than what they agreed to make, and by staying they are agreeing, is a failure.
 
My success has nothing to do with your not being able to make it.
Dude, stop making this a personal argument.

Interesting how you say those reaping huge gains haven't don't any favors. The Obama administration keeps telling us that unemployment is declining. Someone has to be hiring or the numbers YOUR President spout are a lie.
Seriously, you are going to make the marginal changes in UE proof of trickle down?

I agree, there is no need in debating you. You apparently are too low on the cognitive level to learn basic concepts like no one owes you anything in life or that if you don't like your situation do something about it.
I'm not going to put up with the ad hominem personal attacks anymore.
Since you haven't been successful, it seems you either didn't learn them or you are doing the best you can.
You have no idea about my prosperity, and all you can do is to go personal.
Anyone that think (sic) an employer owes them more than what they agreed to make, and by staying they are agreeing, is a failure.
Again, you show that you have read the previous argument about the declining influence of labor in the US, or if you do know about it are intentionally make dishonest argument.
 
That essentially what I argued in my recent thread.

But to them I ask: How is it socialist to simplify our tax code? How is it socialist to be able to keep the fruits of your labor? How is it socialist to pay for what you take?

I saw that thread, and I noted the conspicuous absence of certain posters.

I'd love to see you and TNAR go back and forth, lol. Would likely be educational for me.
 
No he is showing income, and I showed wealth. There is a difference, it is significant, and the difference between wealth today and 90+ years ago when the UOSC study got its data back too there is not all that much difference - except in the US Population. In 1922 a total of 1.2 million shared the top 1% of wealth and today 3.2 million do. I realize that doesn't fit your parties wet dream of harvesting the proceeds of other peoples hard work to give it away to xbox loving low life voters that give you power - but tough - its the truth.


Actually, between his charts he is showing you the top 10%, the top 1%, the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%.

People talk a lot about the 1%, but really is it the 0.1% or even the 0.01% that is where the real "rich-poor" gap kicks in. Well up into the 1%, you're actually still talking about people who work jobs full time or run small businesses and make great, but still sane, incomes which are often relatively proportionate to their contributions to the economy. If somebody makes $450k/year working 70 hour weeks doing something important that they're really good at, I think they should pay sizable taxes, but I don't think that the mere existence of people in that sort of situation indicates a systemic flaw in our economy.

Then you hit this cliff around the top 0.1% where you transition to people whose income bears little relation to their contributions. The top 0.1% is people who draw money out of the economy because they happened to land in a lucky position more than because they actually did something useful. They happened to be the sales guy when a big corporation signed up for a new office product supplier and they get 5% of the contract each year pretty much for nothing other than shaking a few hands and taking a client out to a fancy dinner, or maybe their father died and left them $40m, or maybe they gambled with other people's money in the market and got lucky and got to skim a few percentage off the top. But even that is somewhat comprehensible- some people will totally luck out. IMO they should be taxed far, far, more heavily than they are, and probably we should be looking more closely at whether that is a wise use of our GDP, but it isn't a total disaster. People this rich have always existed and probably always will.

Where it really gets mind boggling is the top 0.01%. These are people who rake in just incomprehensible amounts of money, often literally for nothing or wildly out of proportion with what they actually do. People whose only "job" responsibility is calling up their broker once in a while to ask how much more they are worth now who are pulling in sums of money that would practically be impossible to spend. Many, or even most, of the people in this category never worked, never did anything useful, and we're wasting massive fractions of our entire nation's GDP just flooding them with money for no real reason at all. This is a systemic problem. It is sheer waste on such a massive scale that it is crippling our entire economy. Enabling this unimaginable sort of excess costs so much that working people are basically having to forego increases in their income entirely to accomodate it. This is where almost all the GDP growth for the past 15 years has gone- down this irrational black hole of graft.
 
Do you feel that whatever raises you get are an accurate reflection of your merit? For example, I have no idea what kind of work you do, but do you have a sense of how much revenue you create for your employer? If so, do you feel that the portion of that revenue that goes to you, compared to the portion that goes to the owner, is reasonable?

In a free market, if you generate (after all expenses other than your compensation) $100 an hour for your employer and your employer pays you $80 an hour, it would make sense for one of their competitors to hire you for $81, thus increasing their profits by $19. Then another competitor should offer you $82 to increase their profits by $18, and so on until competition over your labor has raised your compensation (including benefits and whatnot) to $99. That is how it is supposed to work. In fact, that is one of the main reasons a capitalist system is a good idea- people get paid roughly what they're worth. And, for most of US history, that is exactly what did happen. Up until about the mid 1970s, you would see a tiny blip in productivity where the average after expenses productivity would go up from say $45/hour to $46/hour and within a few months, the average compensation would go up from say $42 to $43 or so. In the relatively rare cases where productivity fell slightly, income fell the same amount. Companies have always taken profits, so the compensation was always a bit below the productivity, but only a couple/few bucks and hour.

But that stopped happening. Since the mid 1970s, productivity has increased roughly 300%, but income has only increased about 40% (both adjusted for inflation). Today, our average compensation is less than half of our after expenses (including after taxes) productivity.

So, while I love the idea of raises being driven by merit, that doesn't seem to be reality anymore. Seems to me like bargaining power rather than merit drive raises these days. Employers tend to have market positions or monopoly power that they can leverage to hold off competition for their employees and that gives them the leverage to dictate wages far below what the employees are actually worth. If we could return somehow to a situation where workers were again receiving something close to what they were worth, we would see the median income double or more. That would be amazing. But just pretending it already is happening doesn't get us there. We need to be thinking more creatively about how to even negotiating power back up and instill more competition.

Interestingly, it was the 60s and 70s when increases in government interference became more prevalent. People demand "fairness." Fairness and justice are abstract concepts that cannot exist. I fully support regulations preventing child labor. I do not support regulations demanding employers to pay over time for working more than 40 hours a week. I also do not support forcing employers to pay out benefits, either. And it's not because i don't want people to have benefits. It's because every time the government steps in and forces employers to do something, employers react by reducing jobs and hours employees can work. At one time, if an employee worked 40plus hours, it was legally considered full time and they had to be given benefits. Employers cut hours below that amount. Now if employees work more than 30 hours, they are considered full time and they have to be paid benefits.

Anyone care to guess what employers will do now? I know people working two or three jobs to get a full time paycheck. The government will put a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound and call it a solution.
 
so someone that generates 350k in net profit, and is paid 55k for that effort is totally underpaid in your eyes?

remember uncle sammie gets his share, and the state gets their share

so how much is the manager above him getting?

and the owner above him?

what piece of the pie do you feel is appropriate?

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.
 
Firstly, claiming that "The Top One Percent Of Earners Have Seen Their Incomes Go Up While Everyone Else's Hasn't" isn't true, because who makes up the top 1% changes every year. 75% of the tippity-top .01% households in 1995 were in a lower income group a decade later. People flow into and out of "the top 1%" all the time, and so to treat them as some kind of stationary group (the incomes of the top 1% / the share of wealth going to the top 1% / etc.) is a false measure. You're really saying that 'the amount of money you have to make this year to make it into the top 1% has changed".



To a large extent, the expansion of the range of earned income is a good thing. We have become better in society at matching possibility to opportunity. Used to be, if you were a high-achieving high schooler - good for you! Maybe you'll be a foreman! Our elite schools and industries were largely for the children of members, who had the time and resources (both soft and hard) to get them into Harvard, to get them trained in Medicine. Now, if you are a hard-charging high-achieving high schooler, well, Harvard is in reach, or MIT. When we match the greatest opportunities to the greatest talents instead of a genetic lottery, the completely predictable result is that we see far greater productivity, and that manifests itself in far greater individual income. Everyone here who think that its' bad that Steve Jobs is the force behind the iEverything, or that what Bill Gates did for computing hurt poor people, raise your hand.

To a large extent, the lack-of-movement at the bottom is a mixed bag. You sort of expect that high school sophomores in 2014 aren't going to be that much more value-added when it comes to flipping burgers or mowing lawns than high school sophomores were in 1995. The basic skill set and experience (approx: nil) is still there. Additionally, if you force up lower income wages, you reduce demand for labor - hurting the poor rather than helping them. I wonder what the income disparity / rise statistics would look like if we accounted for the fact that the real "minimum wage" is "zero", and that labor-market participation is fairly low. Proportionally, however, the lower-income strata see larger gains in income than the higher ones do. About half of the people in the bottom quintile have moved up a decade later, which matches about the half of general Americans who move around over the same period of time. As the Treasury Department (which tracked individuals, rather than only discussing descriptive percentages into which individuals floated in and out of) put it:

...conomic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period [1995-2005]: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups.....

However, there is a distinct feeling that the top of our bell curve has not moved upwards with the highest of producers, and while to an extent that is a product of good things, it is also an effect of a few bad things. Decreased family formation, for one. One of the reasons that households are making less is because there are more of them. Take a couple - Steve works full time and brings home $45,000; Jen works part time (the kids are in school) and brings home $20k. Average Household Income: $65,000. Now they get a divorce, but both keep their jobs. Average Household Income: $32,500. Multiply this across the reduced incidence of (successful) marriage in our society, and you see that it is a huge drag on our household income numbers. Since we generally report income as a household, that is in turn a huge drag on the statistics.


As for me, I'm not really worried about the people on the top. They seem to be doing okay for themselves. I'd rather try to figure out how to actually improve the situations of the people on the bottom.
 
Last edited:
What you have a problem understanding is that a capitalist economy allows those who think they aren't being paid enough to go elsewhere, even start their own business in order to maximize their worth.

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 also have a problem understanding that it's not your place to determine how much something should increase unless you are the one doing the paying of the wages.

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.
 
No he is showing income, and I showed wealth. There is a difference, it is significant, and the difference between wealth today and 90+ years ago when the UOSC study got its data back too there is not all that much difference - except in the US Population. In 1922 a total of 1.2 million shared the top 1% of wealth and today 3.2 million do. I realize that doesn't fit your parties wet dream of harvesting the proceeds of other peoples hard work to give it away to xbox loving low life voters that give you power - but tough - its the truth.

No, no, you're getting mixed up lol. 3.2 million is 1% of the population. That is the number of people who are in the top 1% for wealth, not the number of people who own 1% of the wealth lol. Like the "tallest 1% of the country" will always be made up of 1% of the population. You follow?

The top 1% of the population owns roughly 1/3rd of all the wealth in the country.
 
Interestingly, it was the 60s and 70s when increases in government interference became more prevalent. People demand "fairness." Fairness and justice are abstract concepts that cannot exist. I fully support regulations preventing child labor. I do not support regulations demanding employers to pay over time for working more than 40 hours a week. I also do not support forcing employers to pay out benefits, either. And it's not because i don't want people to have benefits. It's because every time the government steps in and forces employers to do something, employers react by reducing jobs and hours employees can work. At one time, if an employee worked 40plus hours, it was legally considered full time and they had to be given benefits. Employers cut hours below that amount. Now if employees work more than 30 hours, they are considered full time and they have to be paid benefits.

Anyone care to guess what employers will do now? I know people working two or three jobs to get a full time paycheck. The government will put a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound and call it a solution.

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.
 
No, no, you're getting mixed up lol. 3.2 million is 1% of the population. That is the number of people who are in the top 1% for wealth, not the number of people who own 1% of the wealth lol. Like the "tallest 1% of the country" will always be made up of 1% of the population. You follow?

The top 1% of the population owns roughly 1/3rd of all the wealth in the country.

they also pay far more taxes than most of America combined on a federal level
 
you are simply dismissing and excusing the capture of wealth by the top quintile and telling me that even though I know more than my father, i work longer hours, I have greater skills and am more productive, I should be satisfied that I make the same as he did. I should not expect greater levels of income for my higher levels of work.

This is a common argument from libertarians, do not see that that the top have captured a larger share. I have never understood this protection of the wealthy, it is as if they need your defense.

Even the source you linked to has a link the original data on mobility where so much of chances of mobility depend upon where you grow up....basically, the parents you choose. It is in fact, a lot about luck. But then the further one goes to right ideology, the more the emphasis is placed on morality, less on circumstance.

We did build this, we should share in the gains.

An envious and jealous Liberal talking about "morality"....ROTFLMMFAO...PRICELESS.
 
No, no, you're getting mixed up lol. 3.2 million is 1% of the population. That is the number of people who are in the top 1% for wealth, not the number of people who own 1% of the wealth lol. Like the "tallest 1% of the country" will always be made up of 1% of the population. You follow?

The top 1% of the population owns roughly 1/3rd of all the wealth in the country.

The top 1% (some facts)

* Aged 47 (that’s the average age).
* 90% of them have made their money on their own rather than inherit it (10%).
* 90% graduated from college (but 75% did not go to an Ivy-League school).
* 80% don’t tell anyone they are part of the elite of the nation and keep it quiet for fear of what people might say.
* Minimum income to qualify in the top 1%??? $367,000 in gross income. (or $342K, depending on your source - Top 1 Percent: How Much Do They Earn? | Bankrate.com)

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.
 
An envious and jealous Liberal talking about "morality"....ROTFLMMFAO...PRICELESS.
Yes, my argument....is all about "envy".


Again, instead of understanding that the argument by me is to reduce revolution (civil unrest) by reducing economic inequality, the argument is turned on it's head to where equalizing economic gains becomes communism.

But then as I have said many time, libertarians are among the most ignorant when it comes to history.

dust yourself off.
 
In case you missed it...
Wages are stagnant because labor chooses it to be so ... as hard as that is to swallow, it's true. If you want more, ask ... I sure as hell ain't going to volunteer it. But, if you ask, remember that you open up other avenues for me. Believe me, you'll know when you've asked for too much ... you will have to commute to China.

You want the government to do something you're not willing to do yourself ...
Yupper, labor is stagnate....

fig2_prodhhincome.jpg


income-top10a.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom