Even Wall St. Thinks Income Inequality Could Capsize US Economy (Clinton, Dodd)

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Actually, the best thing that could be done would be to return to an employees' job market rather than the employers' market that we have now. Then even many unskilled workers could demand higher pay.

As to how we get there, we would certainly disagree but I think (broadly) simply reducing burdens on businesses is the best way - particularly focusing on reducing burdens that increase the cost of labor to the employer.

You're contradicting yourself here. If you have an employees' market you are increasing the cost to employers. If you increase the labor supply, get rid of min wage, get rid of safety requirements, etc. you are decreasing the cost to the employer and getting the employer market we have now.

Business won't start to hire more until they have a reason or demand for labor. Demand for labor won't pick up until demand for services picks up.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by lycos679

You're contradicting yourself here. If you have an employees' market you are increasing the cost to employers. If you increase the labor supply, get rid of min wage, get rid of safety requirements, etc. you are decreasing the cost to the employer and getting the employer market we have now.

Business won't start to hire more until they have a reason or demand for labor. Demand for labor won't pick up until demand for services picks up.

And demand for services will rise if income levels of the average citizen rises......

You know by doing things like raising the minimum wage.....

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by greywar

As the OP pointed out, increasing wealth inequality is harming our economy.

You haven't proven that, and it isn't even possible.

Originally Posted by greywar

And i am not even sure more education will help us, theres some nuances to how many educated people a economy needs.

Um, how do you expect to get into a 5th Level R&D Economy without education?

The reason you aren't there, is because your education system sucks.

Originally Posted by greywar

Some examples on ways we could use it that would increase our collective wealth:

Propaganda....

Equivocation

Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.

Originally Posted by greywar

Single payer healthcare

Will not increase Wealth.

You don't even understand the economics of healthcare and how your healthcare system came to be the nightmare it is.

And who made your healthcare system the nightmare it is? That would be American Hospital Association with the hot and eager help of your government.

Originally Posted by greywar

Federalized higher education

More propaganda....

Intensional

The mistake of treating different descriptions or names of the same object as equivalent even in those contexts in which the differences between them matter.

Higher education in the US is federalized....what you want is to violate the Constitution and nationalize education under the control of the government-pretending-to-be-a-federal government.

Like nationalizing your primary and secondary education systems has worked so freaking well.....not.

Originally Posted by greywar

student housing being paid for

It's already paid for....they can stay with their parents.

There's plenty of excess Quonset Huts in the Mojave. They'll sleep 42 people.

Originally Posted by greywar

R&D

That requires Education, which you don't have, because you let the government violate the Constitution and destroy your education system.

Originally Posted by greywar

Personally I think theres a good argument for a basic income system,....

Everyone's entitled to an X-Box and a Sega, plus an i-Phone and a Kindle-Fire.

Originally Posted by greywar

But capitalism sows the seeds of its own failures by increasing the inequality of income and wealth-and eventually everyone isn't doing as well, only those at the top.

Anthropomorphism

This is the error of projecting uniquely human qualities onto something that isn’t human.

Capitalism does no such thing.

People fail, not Property Theories and not Economic Systems.

Leave it to a Liberal to lay blame upon an inanimate concept instead of person.

Originally Posted by greywar

Inflation is very general in how its figured,....

No, it is not, but then you've repeatedly proven you don't understand the various forms of Inflation, their causes or their possible solutions.

Originally Posted by greywar

I always love Mirceas requirements that you must find a exact comparison between two things, otherwise you can't discuss it. Its a nice way to try and close down a discussion.

Lying

A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument’s premise, then it is an example of the fallacy of questionable premise.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked that you don't know how to differentiate anything.

You compare two or more things that are similar....similar is the operand.

You contrast two or more things that are dissimilar...and yes, dissimilar is the operand.

Similar means "resembling without being identical."

Originally Posted by greywar

Person A "Apples and oranges are good for people to eat", Mircea: "You cannot compare apples and oranges, they have completely different colors"

Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.

No doubt it is impossible for you to tell the difference between a monarchy and republic.

Originally Posted by greywar

No Mircea, im not trying to score points by saying Mother Jones is a bad source, I am being intellectually honest with people. You should try it.

I do nothing but exemplify intellectual honesty.

If you recall, you're the intellectually dishonest one constantly equivocating Income and Wealth.

But, then, you're arguments are so weak and lame you have to resort to such fallacies to mislead people.

Originally Posted by greywar

Actually yes they often are. Inequality is kind of the POINT of capitalism.

Capitalism is a Property Theory. Seems you can't tell the difference between Property Theories and Economic Systems.

Originally Posted by greywar

And at certain levels inequality is awesome in the results it produces. Denying reality is not the basis of an argument.

You haven't proven your baseless claims.

Originally Posted by greywar

I'm sorry, was my point too complex for you? Income is money coming in, a certain portion of which is used to pay for your basic need, the excess of which can be used to increase your wealth.

And those are personal choices made by individuals.

Whether people have disposable income or not, is a personal choice.

For those people who have chosen to have a disposable income, it requires additional personal choices to parlay that excess income into wealth.

Which part of "personal choice" do you not understand?

Oh, wait....you thought you just put money into a cookie jar and it magically turns into 6,000 bonds worth $7.2 Million.

Originally Posted by greywar

So, while income inequality is bad, over time the wealth inequality gets FAR worse,.....

And pray tell, what causes the value of land to increase?

Um....Inflation.....wanna guess which kind of Inflation?

Wealth is not necessarily cash.

How much wealth is cash?

Oh, that's right......you still haven't figured out which US government web-site will give you that answer.

Originally Posted by greywar

... and accelerates the income inequality as the income from the wealth increases beyond someones basic needs. Im sorry you are still befuddled by this.

That's not how it works.

That is a circular argument, not to mention you still refuse to objectively define "basic needs" in no uncertain terms.

Originally Posted by greywar

So, while income inequality is bad, over time the wealth inequality gets FAR worse, and accelerates the income inequality as the income from the wealth increases beyond someones basic needs. Im sorry you are still befuddled by this.

Yes, that is Tautology at its finest.

Originally Posted by greywar

Yes I'm sure you're right, I can't seem to comprehend inflation. yup, that must be it. Sigh. Mircea while you may sit there thinking "hahahha I scored a point", the reality is all you are doing is making your arguments look foolish.

You don't understand Inflation.

You can't even explain why the value of land increases.

Who looks foolish now?.....

Mircea

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by lycos679

You're contradicting yourself here. If you have an employees' market you are increasing the cost to employers. If you increase the labor supply, get rid of min wage, get rid of safety requirements, etc. you are decreasing the cost to the employer and getting the employer market we have now.

Business won't start to hire more until they have a reason or demand for labor. Demand for labor won't pick up until demand for services picks up.

I meant decreasing the cost of labor due to costs other than wages.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by lycos679

You're contradicting yourself here. If you have an employees' market you are increasing the cost to employers. If you increase the labor supply, get rid of min wage, get rid of safety requirements, etc. you are decreasing the cost to the employer and getting the employer market we have now.

Business won't start to hire more until they have a reason or demand for labor. Demand for labor won't pick up until demand for services picks up.

Which hasn't happened because the monetary policy has been used to benefit the few.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

But on Tuesday, the argument was made by an unexpected source: Standard & Poor's (S&P), a Wall Street firm providing ratings and analysis on stocks and bonds, issued a report pointing out economic disparity's role in "dampening US economic growth."

Even Wall Street Thinks Income Inequality Could "Capsize" the Economy | Mother Jones

Wall Street may think income inequality is a problem but not a big enough problem to do anything about it!!!!

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by greywar

And demand for services will rise if income levels of the average citizen rises......

You know by doing things like raising the minimum wage.....

And many businesses can't afford it. Even more would raise prices to survive. Even more would cut the number of workers or simply resort to offshoring.

Also, since executives are oh so greedy, isn't it logical they would find some way to increase revenue or cut other costs (possibly leading to poorer or even unsafe products or simply fewer employee benefits) so they still could have large amounts of money for themselves?

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by greywar

The underlying dynamic of the labor market would not change at all. Your idea would just increase profits. What EXACTLY in your idea would cause them to say "Oh look more money, lets pay workers more". I mean sure at first it sounds reasonable, but then you look at history.

Since 1970 productivity has become de-coupled from compensation. The gains in productivity have not gone to the average worker. That a fact. Your "reduce the tax burden" would have the EXACT same result as the increases in productivity. Does that make sense? The source of the increased income doesn't change the result.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that employees, at times, have had power. This has been the case to an extent as recently as the mid 2000s and certainly in the late 90s. People who don't like the pay can say "pay me more or I'll quit." If a large number of unskilled workers are able to have this attitude, businesses are forced to raise pay.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by greywar

And demand for services will rise if income levels of the average citizen rises......

You know by doing things like raising the minimum wage.....

Or they could offshore the jobs. I called a customer service line last week expecting to talk to someone in India and I ended up talking with someone in KY or SC. At some price level that job will not be worth doing in the USA and the company will transfer the call center overseas.

[greywar]

TLDR version of Mirceas response:
Its impossible for wealth inequality to harm us!
5th level economy!
Our eduction sucks!
blah blah
You don't understand economics
blah blah blah fallacies
education sucks
College students should live with their parents or in a qounset hut with 42 people
You're uneducated, and its your fault
blah blah fallacies
Its peoples fault
You dont understand inflation
blah blah fallacies
Capitalism is not a economic theory
its your fault
please write a paper about this, and wealth is not cash (greywar-duh but it is convertible generally)
Define basic needs in no uncertain terms if you want to discuss this.
Followed up by various foolish insults.

Pretty wordy guy. Mircea, I do not need to define basic needs to discuss this. When I say the income that is larger then the basic needs can go into wealth creation does it matter if thats 20K a month, or 100K a month, when i am discussing incomes in the million dollars a month range?

The rest of your post is basically nonsense without any real factual discussion going on. Please post a short succinct discussion point instead of a mass of word wall full of mostly insults and nonsense? In other words, try and have a conversation, not a argument where you win by sheer volume of accusations, and insults.

Heck try and show that massive wealth inequality doesn't harm us despite the OP having links showing that people far smarter then you disagree.