• 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:

  • Increase all wages though increase income disparity

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Keep wages steady and decrease income disparity

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Total voters
    18
phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, which would you rather have?
 
phattonez said:
Well, which would you rather have?
Click to expand...
i don't care about income disparity. the only time people should make the same wage is when they work for the same company, at the same level, and perform identically.
 
I want to go with option 2, but I don't believe that anyone but the company should choose what they are paying someone and the employee can either take it or leave it...


hmmmmm....Life isn't fair, so I'd try and stray from concepts that try and force fairness...
 
Shareholder companies, the shareholders should decide.
Private companies, the owner(s) should decide.
Publically-funded jobs, the public should decide. (through their elected officials)

Although some of the massive corporate wages paid and "golden parachutes" that these guys that sit on each others boardrooms and vote each other is ridiculous, it's not really anyone's business unless they have a stake in the company.

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.
 
I don't like income tax.

I don't see how the United States has any legitimacy to take money from the "fruits of my labor". There's another term for taking a percentage of someone else's toil -- extortion?
 
I'm not asking about if the government forced this, I'm just saying, forget everything else. Forget how it's done. Would you rather have a higher income for everyone or a tighter distribution of income?
 
I'm worth more than a lot of other people.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not asking about if the government forced this, I'm just saying, forget everything else. Forget how it's done. Would you rather have a higher income for everyone or a tighter distribution of income?
Click to expand...

I'm not too keen on how this is even possible. I was just doing my duty of making a smart-ass remark.
 
Right now? I'd say that the level of income disparity is a problem and would prefer that growth slow a little bit to rectify this. Things have gotten out of hand in corporate America and it's causing a number of other problems in our society.

In general? I prefer growth to stability.
 
So what if the other guy's doing well? That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else is getting harmed as a result.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
So what if the other guy's doing well? That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else is getting harmed as a result.
Click to expand...

The higher the income disparity, the smaller the middle class. That's a recipe for social instability-- and when a handful of people are making thousands of times as much money as their employees, it means large amounts of money are being siphoned out of the productive economy instead of circulating properly.

It also means that our society is going to spend too much money for welfare for people at the bottom of society, instead of paying them proper wages for their labor.
 
liblady said:
i don't care about income disparity. the only time people should make the same wage is when they work for the same company, at the same level, and perform identically.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Perform identically? Are you saying that a person who does the same job, at he same level, but out performs his co-worker should get paid more?

What if his co-worker is a female? Or a minority? :2wave:

I think we all know the answer to that question.
 
apdst said:
Whoa! Perform identically? Are you saying that a person who does the same job, at he same level, but out performs his co-worker should get paid more?

What if his co-worker is a female? Or a minority? :2wave:

I think we all know the answer to that question.
Click to expand...

What does being a female or a minority have to do with this discussion? :shock:
 
phattonez said:
Would you rather have people be more wealthy or wealth more tightly distributed?
Click to expand...

Income by itself is a meaningless number without corresponding information about cost of living. For instance, would you prefer to be paid $125,000 in area A or $75,000 in area B without knowing how much it cost to live in either?

Hard to make a decision no? Likewise, I need to know outflows to make an educated choice in your poll.
 
obvious Child said:
Income by itself is a meaningless number without corresponding information about cost of living. For instance, would you prefer to be paid $125,000 in area A or $75,000 in area B without knowing how much it cost to live in either?

Hard to make a decision no? Likewise, I need to know outflows to make an educated choice in your poll.
Click to expand...

If you live a wealthier life. Just take it to mean that you can get more of the things that you want.
 
phattonez said:
If you live a wealthier life. Just take it to mean that you can get more of the things that you want.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't quite relevant between the poll choices. Increasing income disparity where cost of living is insane is quite different from increasing disparity where even the poor people can live well. Wealth is a relative concept dependent upon costs. Right now we consider $1 not to be of much wealth. Back in the 1850s $1 was a sizable chunk of change.
 
It doesn't have to be an either or choice.

Henry Ford figured it our nearly a hundred years ago: Pay the workers a decent wage, and they can buy the products that they produce. If they can buy those products, then the captains of industry can make more money, since they have a market.

If the average American has money, then business has a market, and that business can not only hire more workers, but can pay its CEO a high salary. If the average American doesn't have money, then business doesn't have a market, and everyone suffers, whether they're the floor sweeper or the head honcho.

So, the way to have a high pay for some is to make it possible for everyone to have a decent wage. It's called the percolate up theory. Unlike the trickle down theory, the percolate up theory actually works, and doesn't depend on voodoo economics.

We really should try it.
 
obvious Child said:
Except that isn't quite relevant between the poll choices. Increasing income disparity where cost of living is insane is quite different from increasing disparity where even the poor people can live well. Wealth is a relative concept dependent upon costs. Right now we consider $1 not to be of much wealth. Back in the 1850s $1 was a sizable chunk of change.
Click to expand...

Just consider a graph where the x-axis is the wealth that you have and the y-axis is amount of people. Would you rather the distribution be tighter about some value on the x-axis or where everyone moves up on the x-axis but the distribution grows larger?
 
phattonez said:
Just consider a graph where the x-axis is the wealth that you have and the y-axis is amount of people. Would you rather the distribution be tighter about some value on the x-axis or where everyone moves up on the x-axis but the distribution grows larger?
Click to expand...

You mean: where y=x or where x>y:2razz:
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the way to have a high pay for some is to make it possible for everyone to have a decent wage. It's called the percolate up theory. Unlike the trickle down theory, the percolate up theory actually works, and doesn't depend on voodoo economics.
Click to expand...

Everyone just loves to be a libertarian these days. High wages does not prosperity bring. You have it backwards.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The higher the income disparity, the smaller the middle class. That's a recipe for social instability-- and when a handful of people are making thousands of times as much money as their employees, it means large amounts of money are being siphoned out of the productive economy instead of circulating properly.

It also means that our society is going to spend too much money for welfare for people at the bottom of society, instead of paying them proper wages for their labor.
Click to expand...

Large income disparity can be symptom that something's wrong. However, disparity alone doesn't automatically mean anything. One person having something has little to no bearing on whether another is needy or not. The pie isn't fixed
 
phattonez said:
Well, which would you rather have?
Click to expand...

Well, you have to realize that merely increasing incomes across the board has no effect at all except stimulus from price lag. In the first case, where disparity is increased, the poor would be worse off when prices re-optimize. In the latter case where disparity is decreased alone one would at least limit political disparity that comes along with excessive wealth and perhaps draw down prices. Remember that money has an arbitrary relationship to wealth.
 
Helte/2Skelter said:
Well, you have to realize that merely increasing incomes across the board has no effect at all except stimulus from price lag. In the first case, where disparity is increased, the poor would be worse off when prices re-optimize. In the latter case where disparity is decreased alone one would at least limit political disparity that comes along with excessive wealth and perhaps draw down prices. Remember that money has an arbitrary relationship to wealth.
Click to expand...

Wealth increases. Production increases. I'm not just talking about inflation here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom