• 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!

How do you feel about income?

Would you rather:


  • Total voters
    18
Buying power still goes up as time goes by. In 1900. The dollar was worhtt 20xs what it does today. However the average income was less than $500 or about $10,000 today. The average peson's paycheck couldn't carry them as far as today. Printing money won't make anyone richer, but creating new wealth does

Average Income in the United States Visualizing Economics

I'm not sure about 1900. I do know that my hourly wage in 1963 was the cost of 10 gallons of gasoline at that time, and that was for unskilled labor. I can also remember making $10,000 as a beginning teacher in '70 and buying a house for $13,000, or 1.3 x my annual pay.

That would have to translate to around $27 per hour for that college kid working in a sawmill I used to be in '63, or a beginning teacher making $40 grand or so buying a house for $52,000.

I'm not so sure average wages have kept up with inflation over the past 45 years or so.
 
The average hourly wage is about $17 today. It was much less than that in 1900 if you adjust for inflation. Can inflation outpace wage increases, of course, but that doesn't mean that buying power of the average Joe can't go up over time
 
wages don't need changed but the price to buy things needs to go back down we need to stop making better tech just cheaper there is no way we can afford to get a new TV when it costs 2,000 make tech to make it cheaper and the economy will take off





Click
 
wages don't need changed but the price to buy things needs to go back down we need to stop making better tech just cheaper there is no way we can afford to get a new TV when it costs 2,000 make tech to make it cheaper and the economy will take off


You can buy a new TV for about $120 today. It won't be plasma or flatscreen, but it will be color and at least a 21" screen. That's better than we had in the living room in 1970, and probably cheaper in absolute dollars.

All you have to do is be willing to forego having the top-of-the-line TV.
 
Hell, I just bought a 32" 1080p HDTV for under $500.

Of course, I went right back to being broke within a month of getting my inheritance. I'm hoping things with my business will take off shortly.
 
Today, income inequality in the US is too big, and I think it hurt the US economy. That's because people in poor families end up not being very productive, crime soars, etc. I think decreasing income inequality would be a good thing, but that is only in the US.

In other countries, in France, Norway and especially Sweden and Denmark income inequality is too small. The reality is, if European countries choose market reforms like the US, then they would be at the same economic level as the US. This never happened and today Europe in general is declining compared to the US.

There are two aspects to income inequality. Moral, and progress. There should be income inequality, because people who work harder in a firm should get a better pay (that's why unuions are terrible). Also, people who take an education, take a dirty job should get a better pay. It's about awarding hard work an effort. Also, we need income inequality to make the society progress, because if hard work isn't awarded then people become lazy. As long as it's not extremely unfair, then progress is more important.
 
Last edited:
Hell, I just bought a 32" 1080p HDTV for under $500.

Of course, I went right back to being broke within a month of getting my inheritance. I'm hoping things with my business will take off shortly.

What business are you in?
 
Today, income inequality in the US is too big, and I think it hurt the US economy. That's because people in poor families end up not being very productive, crime soars, etc. I think decreasing income inequality would be a good thing, but that is only in the US.

In other countries, in France, Norway and especially Sweden and Denmark income inequality is too small. The reality is, if European countries choose market reforms like the US, then they would be at the same economic level as the US. This never happened and today Europe in general is declining compared to the US.

There are two aspects to income inequality. Moral, and progress. There should be income inequality, because people who work harder in a firm should get a better pay (that's why unuions are terrible). Also, people who take an education, take a dirty job should get a better pay. It's about awarding hard work an effort. Also, we need income inequality to make the society progress, because if hard work isn't awarded then people become lazy. As long as it's not extremely unfair, then progress is more important.

Define fair income inequality.
 
What business are you in?

Hobby game design. Card games, board games, tabletop roleplaying. Got some vague plans for expanding into low-end computer games in the future.
 
Define fair income inequality.
There is no definition, it's different from person to person. But what's certain is that no income inequality and low income inequality is very unfair, because effort and hard work isn't rewarded. I'm not saying government should control wages, but there are ways to influence income inequality.

Do you compare economies by comparing their exchange rates? The reason the dollar is declining is because dollar is less used as a medium of exchange. However, be happy. It helps the US in every single way. It promotes exports from the US and reduces imports.

GDP is a good measure of economies. After the war Europe had a lot of catch up growth and was increasing relative to the U.S. In the last ten years European countries have been declining and more problems are coming in the future. To mention some
1. Fall in their ability to compete and outsourcing
2. Low birthrates, (1.3 in Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc.) and the aging of the population
3. Immigration isn't working at all. Just look at what Switzerland forbid a week ago. Also, immigrants have a higher tendency to be on welfare programs, and work less. The number of immigrants are increasing fast, very fast.
4. Work ethics are declining and number of hours worked have been declining.
5. Number of years in workforce is also declining.
6. People are not willing to change and think more socialism is the solution.
7. Taxes are already high in most European countries, and higher taxes will hurt their economies.

Germany, France have had a growth rate of 1.5%, the last ten years. Italy 1.0%. Spain has an unemployment of 20%. U.S. has high unemployment now (10%), but it is mostly demand-deficient and will improve a lot in better times. Most European countries have a lot of structural unemployment. Just look at how high their unemployment was before the crisis. Of the big countries, only U.K. seem to do fine, but U.K. isn't a left-wing country.
 
Last edited:
There is no definition, it's different from person to person. But what's certain is that no income inequality and low income inequality is very unfair, because effort and hard work isn't rewarded. I'm not saying government should control wages, but there are ways to influence income inequality.

It's baseless. Just because you work does not mean you deserve compensation. Just because you work harder than someone does not mean that you deserve more compensation than he does. Look up the subjective theory of value.
 
It's baseless. Just because you work does not mean you deserve compensation. Just because you work harder than someone does not mean that you deserve more compensation than he does. Look up the subjective theory of value.

Um, do you want to rephrase that a little more precisely?

I ain't gonna work if I don't get paid. I ain't gonna work harder than the next guy if it isn't going to get me anywhere, y'know? Little down-home wisdom there. :mrgreen:
 
Um, do you want to rephrase that a little more precisely?

I ain't gonna work if I don't get paid. I ain't gonna work harder than the next guy if it isn't going to get me anywhere, y'know? Little down-home wisdom there. :mrgreen:

It all depends on what you're working on. If you make microchips, you probably make more money in 5 hours than the guy making shovels makes in 25 hours. You're making something more valuable and more scarce, so of course your work is worth a lot more.
 
It all depends on what you're working on. If you make microchips, you probably make more money in 5 hours than the guy making shovels makes in 25 hours. You're making something more valuable and more scarce, so of course your work is worth a lot more.

Of course; scarcity makes value, to a large degree. Your original statement was a bit more vague than that though.

Scarcity can be a funny thing sometimes; sometimes it is artificially created. I was around for the "Energy Crisis" and gas-crunch of the late 70's... everyone was terrified that oil was almost gone. Turns out it was entirely artificial, generated by OPEC in an attempt to run the prices up.

Diamonds are another example. If all the world's diamond mines ran flat-out, their production would be so much greater that the price of diamonds would fall to a fraction of present market value. The value of diamonds is largely a function of artificial scarcity planned and conducted by the mine-owners and major distributors...one reason why I would never consider diamonds a very good investment. If anyone ever breaks out of that cartel the price could plummet.

Generally speaking I am a huge believer in the free market. Sometimes things do get a bit out of whack though. Has a CEO who presided over the near-collapse of a huge corporation really earned his hundreds-of-millions in compensation? I think not.... but I'm not claiming to have the answer to that, just noting that it kind of sucks.
 
It's baseless. Just because you work does not mean you deserve compensation. Just because you work harder than someone does not mean that you deserve more compensation than he does. Look up the subjective theory of value.

You have tendency to mix fairness with rights. My first question was simply. What is more fair? I think the most fair system rewards those who work hard and show initiative. It's the same with parenting. If your kid helps cleaning up the church for instance, you reward the kid with an ice cream or a movie ticket, because you think it is fair.

However, no one deserves higher pay than other people because they are working harder. If you pick a job that gives you a bad wage, then that's a shame, but it was your choice.
 
I wasn't just talking about scarcity though. It's scarcity and value. If typewritters suddenly went scarce, I don't think that people would pay much for them.

The energy crisis of the 70s was due to price controls. We didn't allow prices to rise, so we had long lines and shortages.

Cartels are a bad thing, but if they let prices go high enough, then people will start going for the expensive supplies of those resources and their monopoly will be gone.
 
About the only time I get upset is when I see like a school superintendent getting 300+k salaries while some school employees and beginning teachers are eating beans and rice.

This I totally agree with.

We hired some douchebag from California a few years ago to be the Superintendent of our ****ty school system and gave him a 300k salary.

Last year we were firing school employees, but I'll bet he has been getting a cost of living raise every year.

****ing assholes.
 
Perhaps people should live within their means and employers should just buck up and pay acceptable wages. That being said, ****ty pay is acceptable for ****ty work, i.e. McDonalds. Life isn't fair, work harder and you get on the Good side of "unfair".
 
^^What's acceptable? Be specific.
 
^^What's acceptable? Be specific.

Well, that depends on the Business owner and what workers are willing to work for. What with all the better business bureaus and whistle-blowers these days I think you'd be hard pressed to find horrible working conditions and unacceptably low pay as compared to say...the Industrial Revolution with kids in Steel Mills.
 
Well, that depends on the Business owner and what workers are willing to work for.

Very specific. :roll:

What with all the better business bureaus and whistle-blowers these days I think you'd be hard pressed to find horrible working conditions and unacceptably low pay as compared to say...the Industrial Revolution with kids in Steel Mills.

Which is probably better than what they were coming from.
 
Back
Top Bottom