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.
Why is there income inequality? B/c workers are being shortchanged for being more productive. Executives reap most, if not all, the benefits of their workforce.
Why is the middle class shrinking? Outsourcing of jobs is just the tip of the iceberg. The middle-class is shrinking to fund the extravagances of the executive class.
Why is nothing being done about it? B/c we have lemmings, parrots, and sycophants denouncing their own interests b/c their corporate masters tell them to. Boo unions, boo people asking for more money, boo higher taxes on the rich... and most of that noise is coming from the people just eking by too.
The graphs goes down in pay while production goes up because of the cost of production. As people get better at something, the cost of doing it goes down. Also, since the '60s, the lower (or poor) class has bounced between 12% and 16%. The middle class has to be moving into the upper class. If not, the percent of the lower class would be in the 20s or 30s of percents by now. By the way, it's not the same people generation after generation in any class. What are doing to make yourself more valuable to someone so you can get more money? I compare MY success or lack thereof to what I have done in the past, not by seeing how much I have or don't have compared to someone else.
Interesting that the end of the gold standard seems to almost perfectly coincidence with real wages dropping. Meh, just a coincidence I suppose.
Same theory seems to hold for CEO pay also. Again, just a coincidence because all of those conspiracy theories that QE and fiat currency only benefits the uber-wealthy is nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with company paying CEO a lot. A good CEO is a very valuable access. Just look at what Steve Jobs did for Apple. With Jobs, Apple will probably struggling. There will be no iPhone, iPod, Ipad. There are no no Apple accessories, which created wealth and jobs for many 3rd party companies.
Any so call "inequality" without looking at inflation and government is not worth looking. Inflation is the primary reason why there is income inequality. The real wealth is not growing in the middle/poor class. Your savings worth less as day progress.
Government growth lead to inflation, lead to less government resource. If you plot the size of government & inflation vs the size of middle class, you will see an inverted correlation. When size of government growth and/or inflation increase, the size of middle class shrink.
There is nothing wrong with company paying CEO a lot. A good CEO is a very valuable access. Just look at what Steve Jobs did for Apple. With Jobs, Apple will probably struggling. There will be no iPhone, iPod, Ipad. There are no no Apple accessories, which created wealth and jobs for many 3rd party companies.
Any so call "inequality" without looking at inflation and government is not worth looking. Inflation is the primary reason why there is income inequality. The real wealth is not growing in the middle/poor class. Your savings worth less as day progress.
Government growth lead to inflation, lead to less government resource. If you plot the size of government & inflation vs the size of middle class, you will see an inverted correlation. When size of government growth and/or inflation increase, the size of middle class shrink.
I also find it interesting that during one of the biggest booms of recent years, the dot bomb extravaganza, wages were very high and unemployment was ultra low. Food was affordable, a gallon of gas was in the $1 range, utilities were cheap, and used cars were super cheap, ergo the cost of living was low for many. Everyone was partying for the most part. Yet, the CEO multiplier was at the highest it's been.
The graphs goes down in pay while production goes up because of the cost of production. As people get better at something, the cost of doing it goes down. Also, since the '60s, the lower (or poor) class has bounced between 12% and 16%. The middle class has to be moving into the upper class. If not, the percent of the lower class would be in the 20s or 30s of percents by now. By the way, it's not the same people generation after generation in any class. What are doing to make yourself more valuable to someone so you can get more money? I compare MY success or lack thereof to what I have done in the past, not by seeing how much I have or don't have compared to someone else.
Charles Sands
37129
Even if your explanation of the cost of productivity declining was the only reason (which it isn't), how does that justify the stagnation of wages when part of the calculation of your wages includes productivity?
And You can't just look at how much you earn to see if you're being paid fairly. Let's say you routinely get promoted, but the guys before you got 10% raises, and you only get 5% raises. Yeah, you're earning more, but if you were being paid fairly, you'd be getting 10% raises instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Interesting that the end of the gold standard seems to almost perfectly coincidence with real wages dropping. Meh, just a coincidence I suppose.
Same theory seems to hold for CEO pay also. Again, just a coincidence because all of those conspiracy theories that QE and fiat currency only benefits the uber-wealthy is nonsense.
I see it as the growth in inequality corresponds to the massive adoption of trickle-down economics that dissuaded sharing in favor of hoarding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000
There is nothing wrong with company paying CEO a lot. A good CEO is a very valuable access. Just look at what Steve Jobs did for Apple. With Jobs, Apple will probably struggling. There will be no iPhone, iPod, Ipad. There are no no Apple accessories, which created wealth and jobs for many 3rd party companies.
Any so call "inequality" without looking at inflation and government is not worth looking. Inflation is the primary reason why there is income inequality. The real wealth is not growing in the middle/poor class. Your savings worth less as day progress.
Government growth lead to inflation, lead to less government resource. If you plot the size of government & inflation vs the size of middle class, you will see an inverted correlation. When size of government growth and/or inflation increase, the size of middle class shrink.
Inflation affects all sides of the equation, not just the workers. CEOs wages are being affected by the same inflation as workers wages, so it doesn't explain or excuse the gap. And I would dispute your correlation on gov't growth & the size of the middle-class as one has nothing to do w/ the other. The size of our national debt does not affect wages, and the size of gov't does not negatively affect the private sector.
If you have something that shows otherwise, I'd like to see it.
I see it as the growth in inequality corresponds to the massive adoption of trickle-down economics that dissuaded sharing in favor of hoarding.
What the heck does "trickle down" mean? BTW, Carter and Bill Clinton adopted supply-side economics? LOL.
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.
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.
