• 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
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

Nonsense ... that was not my point now, nor has it ever been my point.

Employers pay the wages they do because that is what it takes to get people to do the work ... it's really no more difficult than that. My job, as an employer, is to get you to do a million dollars of work for one dollar of pay. Your job is get a million dollars of pay for a dollar's worth of work.

The motivator is ... always has been, and always will be ... profitability. Any thing else is a liberal fantasy.
 
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.

If you perceive profit taking as waste, then your conceptual understanding of economics is both flawed and naive. Based on that premise, you're not qualified to discuss the subject.

Have a nice day.
 
Nonsense ... that was not my point now, nor has it ever been my point.

Employers pay the wages they do because that is what it takes to get people to do the work ... it's really no more difficult than that. My job, as an employer, is to get you to do a million dollars of work for one dollar of pay. Your job is get a million dollars of pay for a dollar's worth of work.

The motivator is ... always has been, and always will be ... profitability. Any thing else is a liberal fantasy.

Then we really don't need the illegals to harvest crops, we just need to pay people enough to do the job.
 
and the Congress.

Dittohead Not Quote:
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?

Interesting, nowhere do I see anywhere you mentioning Congress. Instead you were slamming businesses but it's a Texas Governor, a republican I might add that sent troops to the border to seal it. Instead you should have been slamming Obama but he is one of your pets, so you give him a pass. And now you bring up Congress like Dingy Harry will bring up anything for a vote that the House passes. But after November you will see all that change, the Senate republican leader will take up all kinds of legislating and pass it over to Dumbass to sign or veto. Putting him on the hot seat as though he is not already, being the worst president ever. Obama, what an idiot.
 

Poll: What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?


Pass pro-growth legislation that create jobs, thus raises the income for the middle class. Supply and demand. More demand for workers the higher the wages. Simple concept, yet Liberals don't understand it.
 
Dittohead Not Quote:
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?

Interesting, nowhere do I see anywhere you mentioning Congress. Instead you were slamming businesses but it's a Texas Governor, a republican I might add that sent troops to the border to seal it. Instead you should have been slamming Obama but he is one of your pets, so you give him a pass. And now you bring up Congress like Dingy Harry will bring up anything for a vote that the House passes. But after November you will see all that change, the Senate republican leader will take up all kinds of legislating and pass it over to Dumbass to sign or veto. Putting him on the hot seat as though he is not already, being the worst president ever. Obama, what an idiot.

Congress and the POTUS will do the bidding of whoever has the most clout, and the person with the most clout is the one with the most money. Those with money are the employers of unskilled labor, and therefore, have a motivation to keep the unskilled labor pool high and wages therefore low. Putting all of the blame for illegal immigration on the current POTUS ignores decades of inaction on the issue by both the executive and legislative branches.

Now, let's see if your prediction is correct: After the election, the Congress will send a workable immigration reform bill to the president, who will then have to either sign it, or veto it and show himself to be pro illegal immigration.

Personally, I don't think they will do squat either before or after the election. We'll soon see.
 
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.

Profit isn't waste, it is motive.
 
Nonsense ... that was not my point now, nor has it ever been my point.

Employers pay the wages they do because that is what it takes to get people to do the work ... it's really no more difficult than that. My job, as an employer, is to get you to do a million dollars of work for one dollar of pay. Your job is get a million dollars of pay for a dollar's worth of work.

The motivator is ... always has been, and always will be ... profitability. Any thing else is a liberal fantasy.

You've pretty much summed up the conservative position right there. 100% cynicism, 100% self interest, and either ignorance, or disregard of the larger economic consequences.

While you are squeezing a million dollars worth of labour out of your peons, you are also squeezing the economic life out of your country. Those same peons must have an income to buy products, or sales will fall. The balance between wages and prices is not the adolescent jousting match you may imagine, but the product of numerous factors, some of which are beyond the control of either party. Today labour is definitely the weaker partner, as capital ranges the world finding its best return, while labour is static- restricted to its own country, with some minor exceptions. Labour can be regulated by national authority, capital is much more elusive in today's global economy.

But, this matters not the the far right. There are always greener fields. Wages in Cambodia or Bangladesh are lower yet, and if US consumers go broke, there is a rising market in China to sell to. Entrepreneurial opportunity is everywhere.
 
Congress and the POTUS will do the bidding of whoever has the most clout, and the person with the most clout is the one with the most money. Those with money are the employers of unskilled labor, and therefore, have a motivation to keep the unskilled labor pool high and wages therefore low. Putting all of the blame for illegal immigration on the current POTUS ignores decades of inaction on the issue by both the executive and legislative branches.

Now, let's see if your prediction is correct: After the election, the Congress will send a workable immigration reform bill to the president, who will then have to either sign it, or veto it and show himself to be pro illegal immigration.

Personally, I don't think they will do squat either before or after the election. We'll soon see.

Let me ask you, what immigration bill has the dems presented to the president to sign? I mean they did control all three branches of Government. As for a republican congress they will be creating job bills, like sign here to start Keystone and kill the EPA etc.

From a money stand point it's the democrats that have the money and the most clout. They controlled all three branches of government and could pass anything they wanted anytime they wanted. But they did nothing, thus you have the money angle all wrong. It's the democrats that want an open border. They always have, they have never cared about jobs in this country, just votes. Obama is in charge of the worst pro-growth policies ever. The worst recover in US History. It is the liberals and their money that trump a few businesses. Now tell me how many illegals are working for big businesses, and of those how much money are they contributing to keep the border open.

I mean compared to Obama with is arms spread out inviting any and all illegals in, but you don't see that as Obama is your pet.
 
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?

Yes, that is roughly correct. Compensation prior to the 1970s varied some as a percentage of productivity, but it was generally around the 95% line.

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.

Of course it is different lol. The profits an owner takes are waste. They are created by charging customers more than the things you sell them are worth and paying employees less than they are worth. It's a business failing to perform well.

Now, to be clear, money a business owner makes up to their own productivity, that's the equivalent of their wages. That is not waste, that is them doing something useful and taking the amount of money for it that the market deems appropriate. I'm talking about profit taking- money taken above that line.
 
Profit isn't waste, it is motive.

No, it is. At least in economic terms. It is a company charging customers more than is economically optimal, paying employees less than is economically optimal, or both.

Remember those supply and demand line charts you saw in econ class? Price is supposed to be set by the market where those lines meet. At that price point, there is zero marginal profit. Competition has driven the price down until it hit cost and couldn't go any lower at that point.

Now, in reality, it is more complex. Some markets have efficiencies of scale, others have finite supplies, so you end up with situations where a company can legitimately make profit around the edges. But, the goal of the system is to minimize profits, not to maximize them.
 
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

Doesn't seem like you read my post before you hit reply.
 
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.

I'm not really interested in this stuff. Do you have any thoughts on the economic issues I'm raising?
 
Absolutely correct ... providing you are willing to pay the increased price for the food in the market.

Which won't be much, the last I heard, there was a study that showed even if you paid minimum wage to Americans going out into the fields, the cost of produce would go up a few cents at most. I'll gladly pay that to get rid if illegal labor.
 
You've pretty much summed up the conservative position right there. 100% cynicism, 100% self interest, and either ignorance, or disregard of the larger economic consequences.

While you are squeezing a million dollars worth of labour out of your peons, you are also squeezing the economic life out of your country. Those same peons must have an income to buy products, or sales will fall. The balance between wages and prices is not the adolescent jousting match you may imagine, but the product of numerous factors, some of which are beyond the control of either party. Today labour is definitely the weaker partner, as capital ranges the world finding its best return, while labour is static- restricted to its own country, with some minor exceptions. Labour can be regulated by national authority, capital is much more elusive in today's global economy.

But, this matters not the the far right. There are always greener fields. Wages in Cambodia or Bangladesh are lower yet, and if US consumers go broke, there is a rising market in China to sell to. Entrepreneurial opportunity is everywhere.


Your 'opinion' is just that ... and completely false. You need to do some studying ...

To start, I would suggest you review Thomas Jefferson's commentary about democracy being a collage of "competing self interests". Then, follow that up with Hernado De Soto's book, "The Mystery of Capital" .... that will get you started in the right direction.
 
Which won't be much, the last I heard, there was a study that showed even if you paid minimum wage to Americans going out into the fields, the cost of produce would go up a few cents at most. I'll gladly pay that to get rid if illegal labor.


But, we know that Americans won't work for minimum wage ... they get more on welfare. So, instead, we'll have to pay them $12-15, which will drive food cost up significantly. Then, because the canners have ALWAYS made more than the pickers, we'll have to raise their salaries. That will increase the cost of food even more!!! Then, just wait until the truckers find out how much the canners are making!! Etc., etc., etc.

Then, all these costs - you seriously expect the food provider to take a cut in profits? No way ... he's going to get his share, too.

It ain't simple ... but, that's what it takes.
 
Yes, that is roughly correct. Compensation prior to the 1970s varied some as a percentage of productivity, but it was generally around the 95% line.



Of course it is different lol. The profits an owner takes are waste. They are created by charging customers more than the things you sell them are worth and paying employees less than they are worth. It's a business failing to perform well.

Now, to be clear, money a business owner makes up to their own productivity, that's the equivalent of their wages. That is not waste, that is them doing something useful and taking the amount of money for it that the market deems appropriate. I'm talking about profit taking- money taken above that line.

Gotta love your circular logic ... even if it doesn't make any sense. It's not compensation because it's waste, and it's waste because it's not compensation. I don't know where you learned that, but you need to ask for your money back ... THAT was a waste!

I wonder, though ... if we accept your premise, and be assured I most certainly do not - who gets to define how much money the business owner takes for their own productivity, and who decides, and by what criteria, how much is profit-taking?
 
Gotta love your circular logic ... even if it doesn't make any sense. It's not compensation because it's waste, and it's waste because it's not compensation. I don't know where you learned that, but you need to ask for your money back ... THAT was a waste!

I wonder, though ... if we accept your premise, and be assured I most certainly do not - who gets to define how much money the business owner takes for their own productivity, and who decides, and by what criteria, how much is profit-taking?

Ok, lets just start from basics. There is an economically optimal price for goods. If you charge below or above that price, that is waste. Are you with me that far?
 
Then we really don't need the illegals to harvest crops, we just need to pay people enough to do the job.
Actually...we just need to de-incentize Americans to NOT work. People need to become a little more hungry for work. They need to fight for jobs, even those low income jobs. We need to stop making it so easy for US citizens to be miserable failures their entire life.
 
Ok, lets just start from basics. There is an economically optimal price for goods. If you charge below or above that price, that is waste. Are you with me that far?

Oh, I'm with you ... have always been with you ... I just adamantly disagree with you.
 
Oh, I'm with you ... have always been with you ... I just adamantly disagree with you.

I'm trying to figure out where you disagree. Again, do you agree that there is an economically optimal price and that charging more or less than that is inefficient?
 
Your 'opinion' is just that ... and completely false. You need to do some studying ...

To start, I would suggest you review Thomas Jefferson's commentary about democracy being a collage of "competing self interests". Then, follow that up with Hernado De Soto's book, "The Mystery of Capital" .... that will get you started in the right direction.

De Soto's book, according to the blurbs on Amazon, centers around the thesis that successful countries are that way largely due to the rule of law, and in particular financial law. Property rights, contract law, banking rules, etc, must be fair and also honestly enforced, or at least reasonably so. Quite clearly, any country is going to be better off with an honest and competently enforced set of financial rules. And I agree completely. It is exactly due to government intervention in the economy by way of setting rules and standards that best benefit the majority, rather than a privileged few, that we have arrived at the middle class societies seen today in the more advanced countries. In fact, there has never been an example of a successful nation that embraced pure capitalism, without the moderating effects of social legislation. The America you see today is the product of FDR's new deal, and Johnson's great society legislation of the '60s.

As for Jefferson, I have read some of his stuff, and it is interesting from an historical perspective. With economics though, I prefer to read those that are not two centuries out of date. I suspect that many conservatives like to refer back to those times because they feel the world is too complex and difficult today, and so yearn for simpler times. Alas, that is not possible. We are stuck with the world we have today, one in which many significant changes have occurred to society over the years. If you would like to read some more contemporary work in this field, by some award winning and highly regarded economists, I could recommend some to you.

As for my opinion, the opening line contained a small bit of hyperbole, but after that, fact reigned supreme. Indeed it is one of the salient facts of economic life today that capital has truly sprouted wings and taken off. Many of today's new ventures are capital intensive, but not all that labour intensive. There are much less people needed to man the work stations at Google, than there were at the first Ford factory. Those with capital have much more advantage and ability to obtain even more. Money flashes around the globe in the blink of an eye, finding profit in perhaps currency speculation in Tokyo, then whipping over to a corrupt hotel deal in Cambodia, finally sheltering for a bit in the Cayman Islands.

Meanwhile, the American worker is still here, and going no where. There has been a long term depression in wages caused by increasing automation and competition with low wage workers in the newly industrializing third world. This effect is further taken advantage of by employers such as yourself, who hope to squeeze a million dollars labour into a one dollar pay check, increasing the gap between the value of labour and accumulated capital.

And by and large, folks like you are being successful. The middle class is being squeezed into the lower class, as competition for jobs increases, and wages and working conditions decline. Wealth for a very small minority is rocketing upwards, while it is stagnant or dropping for the majority.

You can read all about it if you don't believe me. You won't find it in Jefferson though. You'll need an update.
 
No, it is. At least in economic terms. It is a company charging customers more than is economically optimal, paying employees less than is economically optimal, or both.

Remember those supply and demand line charts you saw in econ class? Price is supposed to be set by the market where those lines meet. At that price point, there is zero marginal profit. Competition has driven the price down until it hit cost and couldn't go any lower at that point.

Now, in reality, it is more complex. Some markets have efficiencies of scale, others have finite supplies, so you end up with situations where a company can legitimately make profit around the edges. But, the goal of the system is to minimize profits, not to maximize them.

No....not in America

Not in today's world

Profit keeps a company healthy...employees employed.....and the market working
 
Incentive is like oxygen to the economy. Without it, people atrophy. Most people do exactly what it takes to get by- not more but less if possible. Perhaps it's a law of nature..some distorted version of conservation. Either way, profit is motive for people to work, succeed, and produce. Remove profit, humans go back to sketching stick figures on cave walls. Sad but true..
 
Back
Top Bottom