U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2018, 05:58 PM
 
24,720 posts, read 26,785,278 times
Reputation: 22714

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Of course its your concern, because money equals political power. And political power is a zero sum game. The less you have relative to others, the less power you have. You are arguing for a system they have in third world countries, where a tiny number of people hold a massive amount of the wealth in the country. That means they can buy legislation and the courts and further rig the system to their advantage.

There is a reason why inequality was much lower in the period of strong economic growth in the 1960s. Moving towards an oligarchic system where the elected officials serve a tiny number of very rich donors is third worldish.
I don't disagree with the bolded, but I would also point out that single parent families were relatively rare in the 1960s. Acceptance of divorce and single parenthood has exacerbated income and wealth inequality. Even liberal leaning researchers are now admitting it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.ca48b078bbf7
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2018, 05:34 PM
 
3,994 posts, read 8,726,638 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
why shouldn't they be earning the same with some inflation adjusting ? , unless they moved up the ladder it is likely their job slot is what it is and how markets value it .

there is really no reason a job should become anymore valuable just because of time . in fact many became less as unions had less of an effect artificially propping up wages for jobs that are worth less . automation also made many jobs worth less .

this thing about wage growth having to happen is silly logic . moving up the ladder and learning skills is how most of us advanced
Because as technology and the world advances, life is supposed to get easier/better for people
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2018, 05:02 AM
 
64,577 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 43002
it does , but that still has nothing to do with how the markets value a job function . i mean all our lives are easier and better from technology . technology has given us better value for the dollars we do have . but none of that has to do with the amount of dollars we have , it only makes for more efficient use of what we do have.

technology lets me buy a better quality pair of mens dress shoes from china for 80 bucks then the 180 fine Italian dress shoes i used to buy for my suits .
technology lets us buy big screen tv's for the price of a small color tv in the past .

so pay for existing job functions has nothing to do with technology making our lives better .amounts of money and our personal lives and relationships being better are a separate issue .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2018, 07:27 AM
 
394 posts, read 244,865 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan View Post
Because as technology and the world advances, life is supposed to get easier/better for people
In 1960 this response would have been encased in an envelope with a stamp on it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2018, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14933
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
the median worker is producing more and more without getting any benefit from that.
Do you have a source for that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2018, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14933
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Paying people more lets them spend more, which allows production to go up.
So you're advocating giving workers money they did not earn and do not deserve? Just checking here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2018, 08:25 AM
 
64,577 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 43002
that premise was shown to be false . when we had the stimulus rebate the people who were supposed to spend more on the lower end either put the checks toward existing debt or saved it for a rainy day . in any case it did not provide any stimulus.

if we apply it to corporations , paying more in wages reduces their bottom lines making the shares worth less . that could discourage those most likely to spend more when markets are higher less likely if stocks do not do as well from increased labor cost
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top