Income Inequality?

[Sparko]

Do you actually read what you type?

Apparently better than you do.

[Spartacus]

Apparently better than you do.

You criticize me for saying some CEOs make too much... then admit that some CEOs make too much.

[Sparko]

You criticize me for saying some CEOs make too much... then admit that some CEOs make too much.

I criticized you for thinking you or anyone else has the right to tell them what to do with their money and business and using the excuse that they earn too much. I never said they were all honest. Most are though, like I said, most businesses are small mom and pop businesses and they are not out to stick it to their workers. Neither are most of the big companies. You want to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

and back to your situation. I believe I know where you live. Near a huge city. and you want to tell me that there are no jobs available for you, not even flipping burgers? I don't believe you.

What are you going to school to learn, anyway?

[Sam]

I can only speak for me, but this a total misrepresentation of my position -- I didn't say it was "fine" - I'm saying it's reality.

It's clearly not "reality," in the sense of an unalterable state, since we can compare the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the New Gilded Age to eras in American history when inequality was not as high, like the post-war period of the 1950s to the 1970s.

If y'all are arguing, as seer and Sparko have explicitly done, that "government" has no "right" to "steal" from high-wealth individuals in the form of (ETA: re-distributive) taxes, you are pretty much arguing that high inequality is fine — you've removed the only plausible avenue of reducing such inequality and at the very least resigned yourselves to a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth being held by a tenth of a percent of the population.

If, however, you actually -want- lower inequality, you have to tell us how you think that can be achieved. Vocational training won't do it, nor will "moving up" in employment — middle-class income and wealth have stagnated or declined over the past 30-40 years. That's not because people haven't been working hard and advancing in their careers. It's because the very top percent of people in the workforce — executives and financiers, mostly — have taken that money that used to go to employees and laborers for themselves and their shareholders. So if it's not fine that income inequality and wealth inequality are in this state, you have to explain your solution and explain how it actually fixes the problem we have now, not the problems we had 50 or 60 years ago.

[Spartacus]

I criticized you for thinking you or anyone else has the right to tell them what to do with their money and business and using the excuse that they earn too much. I never said they were all honest. Most are though, like I said, most businesses are small mom and pop businesses and they are not out to stick it to their workers. Neither are most of the big companies. You want to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

It seems unjust for a very tiny minority to have such an extreme overabundance of material goods while others go hungry. What exactly can or should be done about that, I don't know.

As for the rest, I'm not asking you for career advice, and it's not your problem in the first place. I'd thank you to drop the elaborate ad hominem.

[Darth Executor]

In a free market employee compensation is decided by market forces. Everybody tries to make as much money as possible, so an employer cannot just "take" money whenever they feel like it. The only way you can do good work and be underpaid is if there is considerable competition for their jobs. And it doesnt' take a genius to figure out which policies are largely responsible for this. While you and Spartacus cry crocodile tears for America's poor you're more than happy to put them in the welfare line while giving their jobs to Mexicans and others, without an influx of which your religions (progressivism and Catholicism respectively) would suffer harshly from the demographic collapse that naturally results when one follows progressive social policy.

[seer]

If y'all are arguing, as seer and Sparko have explicitly done, that "government" has no "right" to "steal" from high-wealth individuals in the form of (ETA: re-distributive) taxes, you are pretty much arguing that high inequality is fine — you've removed the only plausible avenue of reducing such inequality and at the very least resigned yourselves to a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth being held by a tenth of a percent of the population.

First Sam, this is completely disingenuous. If you want to know where the real money is it is in the middle class. When our liberal Governor in Connecticut wanted to make things more fair he gave us the largest tax increase in our state history - which fell primarily on the middle class. And in years past when our state instituted a number of "millionaire" taxes the millionaires simply left. Second, people move in and out these classes. The poor today could be rich tomorrow, the rich today could be poor tomorrow - it is all fluid. And income inequality is normal - not all men are ambitious, some men are simply lazy or don't value education.

[Sparko]

It seems unjust for a very tiny minority to have such an extreme overabundance of material goods while others go hungry. What exactly can or should be done about that, I don't know.

good answer.

As for the rest, I'm not asking you for career advice, and it's not your problem in the first place. I'd thank you to drop the elaborate ad hominem.

You are the one who said there were no jobs available. Not even burger flipping. I know that is not true. So you can call it ad hominem if you wish, but the conclusion is still that you could take a job somewhere if you really wanted to. And according to Paul, you should. So don't go preaching what other people should do with their money, or how employers are making too much and should be giving it to workers instead if you are not even willing to go get a job yourself.

I was asking what you were going to school for to see what types of skills you had other than flipping burgers.

Heck you could even join the military (perhaps the chaplain corp, or some other non-combat role) if you can't find a job flipping burgers. There is always SOMETHING out there. You could even start your own business.

[Cow Poke]

It's clearly not "reality," in the sense of an unalterable state,

But if you plan on taking something from "what is" to what you want it to be, you have to at LEAST understand what is.

If y'all are arguing, as seer and Sparko have explicitly done, that "government" has no "right" to "steal" from high-wealth individuals in the form of (ETA: re-distributive) taxes, you are pretty much arguing that high inequality is fine

Ah, so now YOUR solution is the "only plausible avenue"? wow.

now, not the problems we had 50 or 60 years ago.

Sam, you're a dunderhead.

[Spartacus]

You are the one who said there were no jobs available. Not even burger flipping. I know that is not true. So you can call it ad hominem if you wish, but the conclusion is still that you could take a job somewhere if you really wanted to. And according to Paul, you should. So don't go preaching what other people should do with their money, or how employers are making too much and should be giving it to workers instead if you are not even willing to go get a job yourself.

I was asking what you were going to school for to see what types of skills you had other than flipping burgers.

Heck you could even join the military (perhaps the chaplain corp, or some other non-combat role) if you can't find a job flipping burgers. There is always SOMETHING out there. You could even start your own business.

Forgive me for not being particularly inclined to discuss my current situation or how I got to where I am. If I were to discuss it, it would not be here.

[Sparko]

Forgive me for not being particularly inclined to discuss my current situation or how I got to where I am. If I were to discuss it, it would not be here.

OK. I wasn't trying to pry, just offer suggestions and solutions. Your business is your business.

[Cow Poke]

If, however, you actually -want- lower inequality, you have to tell us how you think that can be achieved. Vocational training won't do it,

Who said anything about vocational training? But, since you brought that up, there happens to be a vocational training center nearby that teaches welding --- people who graduate that course are hired by local industry, and the going START rate is $22/hour. There's also a diesel mechanics vocational training center up the road... their graduates ALSO make well over TWICE the minimum wage. But this isn't good enough for you, Sam, because it doesn't ALSO reward the lazy person who just does barely enough to get by!

nor will "moving up" in employment —

That's just bonehead stupid... AGAIN, it certainly helps the person who TRIES! Now, it may not help those who have no drive or aspirations to move up, but it certainly helps those who "move up".

middle-class income and wealth have stagnated or declined over the past 30-40 years.

I'm beginning to think you're THAT GUY who WANTS to keep everybody dragged down ... "no, don't even try - the system is rigged against you..."

That's not because people haven't been working hard and advancing in their careers.

Have you ever actually HIRED people, Sam? Have you ever MANAGED anybody? Do you WORK?!?

It's because the very top percent of people in the workforce — executives and financiers, mostly —

So, this is all about CLASS ENVY.

have taken that money that used to go to employees and laborers for themselves and their shareholders.

SOME of them have held onto it because of the UNCERTAINTY in the market due to goofy stuff like OBAMACARE and other government overreach stuff that seems to change from week to week.

So if it's not fine that income inequality and wealth inequality are in this state,

I already told you that.

you have to explain your solution and explain how it actually fixes the problem we have now, not the problems we had 50 or 60 years ago.

I did, you dunderhead --- 80% of the currently unemployed or UNDERemployed people in my class will graduate and move to employment or BETTER employment. This is the NINETEENTH YEAR we've done this, TWICE a year, averaging 11 to 15 students per class, with 80-90% graduation/success rate. Compare that to government "Job training programs" where they might spend half a million dollars and SIX PEOPLE get a job.

They won't just be "handed a raise for doing nothing". They will WORK for it, EARN it, and they will have pride knowing it wasn't a handout. But all YOU seem to care about is that there are people making WAY MORE MONEY than you'll ever see in a lifetime.

[Truthseeker]

I found an interesting example of the increasing wealth of the world. Before 1990 the German retailing giant Metro Cash & Carry did business in these countries:
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Denmark
France
Italy
Spain
In the 1990s the retailer expanded to more countries:
Turkey
Portugal
Greece
Hungary
Poland
China
Romania
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
After that, more countries joined the Metro empire:
Slovakia
Croatia
Russia
Japan
Vietnam
India
Ukraine
Moldova
Serbia
Pakistan
Kazakhstan

Note in particular the last country. One would think from world statistics that it's not worth setting up a megastore there. But Jeff D. Opdyke has visited Kazakhstan and reports that it's probably much wealthier than that.

[Sam]

Who said anything about vocational training? But, since you brought that up, there happens to be a vocational training center nearby that teaches welding --- people who graduate that course are hired by local industry, and the going START rate is $22/hour. There's also a diesel mechanics vocational training center up the road... their graduates ALSO make well over TWICE the minimum wage. But this isn't good enough for you, Sam, because it doesn't ALSO reward the lazy person who just does barely enough to get by!



That's just bonehead stupid... AGAIN, it certainly helps the person who TRIES! Now, it may not help those who have no drive or aspirations to move up, but it certainly helps those who "move up".



I'm beginning to think you're THAT GUY who WANTS to keep everybody dragged down ... "no, don't even try - the system is rigged against you..."



Have you ever actually HIRED people, Sam? Have you ever MANAGED anybody? Do you WORK?!?



So, this is all about CLASS ENVY.



SOME of them have held onto it because of the UNCERTAINTY in the market due to goofy stuff like OBAMACARE and other government overreach stuff that seems to change from week to week.



I already told you that.



I did, you dunderhead --- 80% of the currently unemployed or UNDERemployed people in my class will graduate and move to employment or BETTER employment. This is the NINETEENTH YEAR we've done this, TWICE a year, averaging 11 to 15 students per class, with 80-90% graduation/success rate. Compare that to government "Job training programs" where they might spend half a million dollars and SIX PEOPLE get a job.

They won't just be "handed a raise for doing nothing". They will WORK for it, EARN it, and they will have pride knowing it wasn't a handout. But all YOU seem to care about is that there are people making WAY MORE MONEY than you'll ever see in a lifetime.

allocating wealth

[Cow Poke]

I don't think you even realize what the topic of discussion is, at this point.

Yeah, it's the classic democrat strategy....

1) identify a problem
2) propose a government solution
2) eliminate ALL other solutions as even plausible
3) tax, spend, spend very inefficiently, blame the GOP, NEVER solve the problem
4) goto 1