Income Inequality?

[Spartacus]

Yo seer:

I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist. Government control, in the end, has the same fault as corporate control: all power is concentrated in the hands of a corrupt few while the vast majority have little hope of bettering their own situation. To the extent that I feel comfortable subscribing to any large-scale socioeconomic system, my sympathies go to distributism

Satisfied?

[Sparko]

Yo seer:

I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist. Government control, in the end, has the same fault as corporate control: all power is concentrated in the hands of a corrupt few while the vast majority have little hope of bettering their own situation. To the extent that I feel comfortable subscribing to any large-scale socioeconomic system, my sympathies go to distributism

Satisfied?

Then why are you arguing for government to increase minimum wages?

[Spartacus]

Then why are you arguing for government to increase minimum wages?

Mostly because almost everyone in the thread is against it for what I perceive to be bad reasons (as well as some decent ones, but it's the bad ones I'm interested in).

[Sparko]

Mostly because almost everyone in the thread is against it for what I perceive to be bad reasons (as well as some decent ones, but it's the bad ones I'm interested in).

It goes against "distributism" too, so you should be against it right along with us.

I notice distributism also promotes "worker owned businesses" - and I am all for that. If a bunch of burger flippers want to start their own franchise as co-owners, and then share the profits as well as expenses, more power to them! I am betting that they end up making less than they do now though at least for a few years, once they factor in the cost of owning the business (building, equipment, advertising, taxes, healthcare, competition, etc) - and what do they do when someone wants to quit, or they need more employees? Buy out the old employees and allow the new employees to buy their way in as partners? In a way, it sounds a lot like stocks and shareholders. In fact, it would be the same thing (I started a business with some friends back in the 90's doing a dialup ISP with games and usenet access - like America Online, and we had to create shares to give each other depending on each person's contribution to the startup. We never could afford to pay salaries or compete with AOL or compuserve and eventually went out of business when the internet and web become more prevalent)

[Cow Poke]

Mostly because almost everyone in the thread is against it for what I perceive to be bad reasons (as well as some decent ones, but it's the bad ones I'm interested in).

Just for the record, I'm not so much against it as I am not convinced it will do what its backers claim. I DO KNOW, however, of a number of other things that have proven track records!

[Spartacus]

It goes against "distributism" too, so you should be against it right along with us.

When Sam's reasons for supporting a minimum wage hike are worse than your reasons for arguing against it, I'll aim in the other direction. Remember this post?

[Cow Poke]

To the extent that I feel comfortable subscribing to any large-scale socioeconomic system, my sympathies go to distributism

Satisfied?

I actually really LIKE this statement:

Source: Spart's article

Distributists are decentralists who believe most organizational functions (whether business, government, or labor) should occur at the smallest competent level as possible (subsidiarity). Institutions like local guilds and governments exist to curb large-scale control, whether bureaucratic or commercial.

© Copyright Original Source

I can't fire Harry Reid, but I CAN gather up a dozen or so similarly disaffected colleagues and walk down to Joe Inkenschnocker's barber shop and tell him he better not even THINK of running for Mayor next year.

[Cow Poke]

I actually really LIKE this statement:

Source: Spart's article

Distributists are decentralists who believe most organizational functions (whether business, government, or labor) should occur at the smallest competent level as possible (subsidiarity). Institutions like local guilds and governments exist to curb large-scale control, whether bureaucratic or commercial.

© Copyright Original Source

I can't fire Harry Reid, but I CAN gather up a dozen or so similarly disaffected colleagues and walk down to Joe Inkenschnocker's barber shop and tell him he better not even THINK of running for Mayor next year.

In fact, this refines my "smaller government" rant somewhat.... It's not necessarily SMALLER government I want, but more ACCOUNTABLE government!

[Jedidiah]

To the extent that I feel comfortable subscribing to any large-scale socioeconomic system, my sympathies go to distributism

Distributism is a great idealistic concept which I would support if I had the faintest belief that it could operate or even survive in the real world. In my youth I set out to describe for myself the ideal governing system. It came quite close to distributism. I gave it up with the realization that mankind could very easily subvert it.

[Spartacus]

Distributism is a great idealistic concept which I would support if I had the faintest belief that it could operate or even survive in the real world. In my youth I set out to describe for myself the ideal governing system. It came quite close to distributism. I gave it up with the realization that mankind could very easily subvert it.

Welcome to human nature. We screw things up pretty easily-- or haven't you read Genesis 2-3?

Distributism wants to give more individuals more power, rather than simply giving power to individuals to exercise on the behalf of the collective.

[Truthseeker]

Forgot to answer this. It clearly helps the millions of people earning minimum wage. As mentioned earlier, an increase to $9 or $10 per hour is expected to bring over five million people out of poverty and increase household income for millions more.

I just don't believe it! Someone earning a minimum wage is likely to be in poverty. Raising the wage floor only as much as you advocate is not likely to bring that person out of poverty. Likely to be out of a job "in fact." Must go on government welfare if not already.

I think I should also point out (again) that the bigger the raise, the more likely people are to lose jobs.

[Jedidiah]

Welcome to human nature. We screw things up pretty easily-- or haven't you read Genesis 2-3?

Which is why I ultimately gave it up.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's total nonsense Sam because it is about scale and how it appears to look. Want your 4 foot model to look as though it is a 1000+ foot ship? Just scale everything to match that sort of scale and your camera angles could make a 4 foot model appear to be a huge ship. Same logic works on a graph. If you start the graph at a number other than 0, you can make a gap appear much bigger than it might actually be, thus the reason that your graph might not start at zero to begin with. It might be trying to visually make the gap appear much bigger. Companies do this all the time when they are trying to get people to spend money on them. No different, in concept. Don't believe me? Just load up excel and make the same graph, starting at zero, for yourself and make another one starting at 95, as this one does. It's classic advertising 101 and I would of thought you'd be aware of visual tricks, such as this. Besides this doesn't even get into the changing demographics of our society over the past 2 decades either.

Did you take a stats class; when you were in high school or college? It is a classic visual trick, change up the scale of your graph and you can make the gap appear bigger or smaller. That is one of the major problems with starting your graph at a number other than zero and one of the reasons I always put plenty of skepticism into graphs. You can make the gap seem huge or small, all depending on how you set the scale. Plus, considering all that has happened in the past 20 years, it isn't surprising to see drops in family income, even if personal incomes themselves have risen. Data manipulation isn't that hard to do. I learned that one in school long ago. Just pick the right data sets, find the facts, make a convincing scale, which says things you want to hear or a point you want to make and thus the facts say whatever you want them to say. Even my teacher said that he could make stats say whatever he wanted them to say. You just got to know how to make them speak.

Your last paragraph seems to confusing household income with disposable income. Disposable income isn't measured or shown on the chart and doesn't play into the discussion, except insomuch as declines in real wages means less disposable income. But I don't think that's what you're trying to convey.

That is because you don't read Sam. Personal income is different than household income. Household incomes can rise and fall, even if personal incomes rise. I know that, why don't you? That is why you need to be critical of the data you are presented. Why are they presenting household income vs personal income when living situations have changed up over the past 2 decades? My generation waits to get married later in life than my parents generation. I was 25 when I got married. My parents were 18 and 21 respectively. Would that make it appear that my income is lower than my parents, if you count income by household instead of by individual? Like I said, you can make stats say whatever you want them to say. You just got to know how to do it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Welcome to human nature. We screw things up pretty easily-- or haven't you read Genesis 2-3?

Distributism wants to give more individuals more power, rather than simply giving power to individuals to exercise on the behalf of the collective.

And when those people, who you want to take their money from, say "Screw this" and move away. What do you do? Take money from a group that can't so easily pack up and move away?

[lilpixieofterror]

Distributism is a great idealistic concept which I would support if I had the faintest belief that it could operate or even survive in the real world. In my youth I set out to describe for myself the ideal governing system. It came quite close to distributism. I gave it up with the realization that mankind could very easily subvert it.

Yep, just look at the exodus of companies from higher tax states (such as California) to lower tax states (such as Texas). You could also look at the exodus of companies changing their headquarters from the US to China, Canada, or a country with lower taxes. There is proof that attempts to redistribute wealth just gives you a larger class of poor people as more and more rich people move away to avoid your redistribution attempts. Thus redistributionism is a failed policy that never works, in reality.