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.
I question if people who comment have even read through this thread.
No one is saying everyone should have equal pay. What is being said is...... ahhhhh forget it. I dont feel like repeating myself today. Especially if people don't want to read through the tread and whats been said over, and over, and over again.
Still, no one has answered the question:
What would happen to society if the lower 50% (or 43% according to the United Way Alice Project) refused to do their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill these positions?
The toilet scrubbers, bus drivers, fruit pickers, burger flippers, cashiers, retail workers, food preparers, farm workers, home health aids, bakers, cleaners, machine operators, child care workers, assembly line workers, dishwashers, call center workers, legal aids, medical assistants..... the list literally can go on and on and on. And on and on and on.
What would happen to society if 25% of the lowest earners refused their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill these jobs?
The lowest 10%?
The lowest 5% (that is 1 out of every 20 people)?
The lowest 2% (that is one out of every 50 people) refusing to do their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill their role?
What would happen to society as a whole? If that fruit doesn't get to your grocer because no one picks it. Because no one drives it to the grocer. Because no one stacks the shelves. If no one drove fuel from refiner to the pumps. If no one maned the refineries. If no one repaired the trucks to get the fuel and food to the grocer. If no one sold the parts to build the truck to get the fuel and groceries to the grocer. The list goes on and on. If no one filled these roles and no one offered to re-fill them because it was "beneath them". What would happen to the CEO of these companies? The executives? The upper management? What would happen to the stock market if 43% (or even 5%) dropped out and the remaining refused to fill the them? What would happen to your personal 401k's? What would happen you? What would happen to your family? Not just with 401k's and the stock market but you not getting food, or fuel, or medicines, or cleaning products, or everyday products or electricity, because no one wanted to drive, sell, package, manufacture, deliver, produce, pick - and on and on and on). The list goes on and on. As the United Way Alice project showed, its about 43% of the population struggling to meet basic needs. What would happen to you, your family, the stock market, 401Ks, the 1%, the top 50%, 30%, 60% (insert another % here), everyone, all of society as a whole if the 43% just refused to show up and everyone refused to fill these postions? Could all these posititions be re-filled if 43% of people just were wiped out/didnt show up/refused to do them? http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news...udy/index.html
By the way, this has nothing to do with "listening to talking heads", or Bernie Sanders, any other person or group". Please dont project. While this may apply to some people, I personally am not going to let any person/group ultimately decide my own opinions for me. While I try to take others opinions and view points (on both sides) into forming my personal opinions, I've had my opinions way before they came into the picture and have formed my own opinions based on seeing the suffering and struggle of others. So please don't deflect or minimize it as, I, or anyone else is just a sheep or parrot "listening to talking heads/person's of interest", and just regurgitating and repeating what they say like a recorded message. Or as someone/a people who can't research the data (regardless of what Fox News, CNN or any person/group says) and form our own opinions and reason on the matter. Come one. Give me and other people more credit then that.
The same can be said for those with an opposing viewpoint. Those that believe there is no income inequality problem, that there is but income inequality is not causing suffering (or the current system is ok). After all, those that believe these things are in the minority and are a shrinking group. And those with those viewpoints are just "listening to the talking heads of Main-Stream-Media, then these are the things that they repeat amongst themselves." Right?
I encourage each of us do our own thorough research on the matter. What does that thorough research show if we are truly being honest and as unbiased as possibe? Is there truly an income inequality problem in this country? Are large companies and the wealthy given large loopholes to avoid paying a large amount of taxes? Are current laws written so that a large portion of people working are not getting a "fair shake" at pay and benefits? Is there a tremendously large disparity of income distribution (where people at bottom 46% working their butts off full time but making less then bare minimum to survive - and people at top are taking way more then what they need), in this country? Is there suffering that comes from it? Is it negatively affecting society as a whole? No one is advocating getting rid of capitalism but is our system very "predatory" and can this predatory behavior be reduced through various means? Was the economy and these business practices predatory all throughout US history, or was there some decades where this was not the case? What does your research show on all these things?
The other question, I have never got a reasonable answer on, is what is wrong with paying people a living wage (bare minimum to survive) as a starting point, not less, based on geographic location, if they are working a legal full time job,even if this means profit/pay at the top half is reduced to a degree?
Last edited by txbullsfan; 05-21-2018 at 11:19 AM..
What would happen to society if the lower 50% (or 43% according to the United Way Alice Project) refused to do their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill these positions?
The lowest 10%?
The lowest 5% (that is 1 out of every 20 people)?
The lowest 2% (that is one out of every 50 people) refusing to do their?
The flip side is what would happen if the top 0.01% stopped working?
It's interesting that our society is structured so that the greatest riches are extracted by persons who are providing little to no benefit, and often outright harm. If you look at the bottom, it is easy to see that those people are providing a valuable service. But it isn't "valued" because we have a surplus of labor and plenty of people can do that work passably well.
The flip side is what would happen if the top 0.01% stopped working?
It's interesting that our society is structured so that the greatest riches are extracted by persons who are providing little to no benefit, and often outright harm. If you look at the bottom, it is easy to see that those people are providing a valuable service. But it isn't "valued" because we have a surplus of labor and plenty of people can do that work passably well.
Are you saying the .01% provide little to no benefit, and often outright harm?
Are you saying the .01% provide little to no benefit, and often outright harm?
Yes, like:
Finance and market manipulation (and collapse).
Media manipulation.
Buying politicians.
Anti-competitive practices.
Extracting ever greater rents.
Promoting trade policies that hurt the greater economy to their benefit.
I question if people who comment have even read through this thread.
No one is saying everyone should have equal pay. What is being said is...... ahhhhh forget it. I dont feel like repeating myself today. Especially if people don't want to read through the tread and whats been said over, and over, and over again.
Still, no one has answered the question:
What would happen to society if the lower 50% (or 43% according to the United Way Alice Project) refused to do their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill these positions?
The toilet scrubbers, bus drivers, fruit pickers, burger flippers, cashiers, retail workers, food preparers, farm workers, home health aids, bakers, cleaners, machine operators, child care workers, assembly line workers, dishwashers, call center workers, legal aids, medical assistants..... the list literally can go on and on and on. And on and on and on.
What would happen to society if 25% of the lowest earners refused their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill these jobs?
The lowest 10%?
The lowest 5% (that is 1 out of every 20 people)?
The lowest 2% (that is one out of every 50 people) refusing to do their jobs and no one else (not one) offered to fill their role?
What would happen to society as a whole? If that fruit doesn't get to your grocer because no one picks it. Because no one drives it to the grocer. Because no one stacks the shelves. If no one drove fuel from refiner to the pumps. If no one maned the refineries. If no one repaired the trucks to get the fuel and food to the grocer. If no one sold the parts to build the truck to get the fuel and groceries to the grocer. The list goes on and on. If no one filled these roles and no one offered to re-fill them because it was "beneath them". What would happen to the CEO of these companies? The executives? The upper management? What would happen to the stock market if 43% (or even 5%) dropped out and the remaining refused to fill the them? What would happen to your personal 401k's? What would happen you? What would happen to your family? Not just with 401k's and the stock market but you not getting food, or fuel, or medicines, or cleaning products, or everyday products or electricity, because no one wanted to drive, sell, package, manufacture, deliver, produce, pick - and on and on and on). The list goes on and on. As the United Way Alice project showed, its about 43% of the population struggling to meet basic needs. What would happen to you, your family, the stock market, 401Ks, the 1%, the top 50%, 30%, 60% (insert another % here), everyone, all of society as a whole if the 43% just refused to show up and everyone refused to fill these postions? Could all these posititions be re-filled if 43% of people just were wiped out/didnt show up/refused to do them? 43% of U.S. families can't afford basics of middle class life
By the way, this has nothing to do with "listening to talking heads", or Bernie Sanders, any other person or group". Please dont project. While this may apply to some people, I personally am not going to let any person/group ultimately decide my own opinions for me. While I try to take others opinions and view points (on both sides) into forming my personal opinions, I've had my opinions way before they came into the picture and have formed my own opinions based on seeing the suffering and struggle of others. So please don't deflect or minimize it as, I, or anyone else is just a sheep or parrot "listening to talking heads/person's of interest", and just regurgitating and repeating what they say like a recorded message. Or as someone/a people who can't research the data (regardless of what Fox News, CNN or any person/group says) and form our own opinions and reason on the matter. Come one. Give me and other people more credit then that.
The same can be said for those with an opposing viewpoint. Those that believe there is no income inequality problem, that there is but income inequality is not causing suffering (or the current system is ok). After all, those that believe these things are in the minority and are a shrinking group. And those with those viewpoints are just "listening to the talking heads of Main-Stream-Media, then these are the things that they repeat amongst themselves." Right?
I encourage each of us do our own thorough research on the matter. What does that thorough research show if we are truly being honest and as unbiased as possibe? Is there truly an income inequality problem in this country? Are large companies and the wealthy given large loopholes to avoid paying a large amount of taxes? Are current laws written so that a large portion of people working are not getting a "fair shake" at pay and benefits? Is there a tremendously large disparity of income distribution (where people at bottom 46% working their butts off full time but making less then bare minimum to survive - and people at top are taking way more then what they need), in this country? Is there suffering that comes from it? Is it negatively affecting society as a whole? No one is advocating getting rid of capitalism but is our system very "predatory" and can this predatory behavior be reduced through various means? Was the economy and these business practices predatory all throughout US history, or was there some decades where this was not the case? What does your research show on all these things?
The other question, I have never got a reasonable answer on, is what is wrong with paying people a living wage (bare minimum to survive) as a starting point, not less, based on geographic location, if they are working a legal full time job,even if this means profit/pay at the top half is reduced to a degree?
What is "wrong" is that money doesn't grow on trees, and that money you are paying people to survive has been stolen from someone else that earned it. Now, I know the pathologically envious of you out there will say that those people truly didn't earn it, because they were smarter, better looking, etc. But that's another argument.
As for "what will happen" if 50% of people stopped working? That's pretty simple. They would starve.
Now, I know the pathologically envious of you out there will say that those people truly didn't earn it, because they were smarter, better looking, etc. But that's another argument.
It might surprise you to know how many people who disagree with your view are not envious... and smarter, better looking, and richer than you are.
How a person "gets money" depends on how the game is set up. Increasingly in the US the game is rigged to favor destructive (or at least not productive) activity as the fast track to riches. For the last 40 years working hard at a productive job has seen ~zero increase in wages.
What is "wrong" is that money doesn't grow on trees, and that money you are paying people to survive has been stolen from someone else that earned it. Now, I know the pathologically envious of you out there will say that those people truly didn't earn it, because they were smarter, better looking, etc. But that's another argument.
As for "what will happen" if 50% of people stopped working? That's pretty simple. They would starve.
Good grief, wanting to not die is "envious"? You are taking the concept of merit to an absurd extreme that would cause society to break down. If people have to take property by force in order to live, they're going to do it. And now you are out all the money it costs to put metal bars all around your house.
At least in prison they will have access to food, shelter, and health care.
Finance and market manipulation (and collapse).
Media manipulation.
Buying politicians.
Anti-competitive practices.
Extracting ever greater rents.
Promoting trade policies that hurt the greater economy to their benefit.
To name a few.
You are right. I have listed a few examples.
Finance and market manipulation (and collapse). These people provide loans for housing, cars, and building businesses. I can get by without loans.
Media manipulation. Facebook being one of the worst. CNN has done one of the worst media jobs in the history of the USA.
Buying politicians. Sierra club, Humane Society, tenant advocates, etc.
Anti-competitive practices. Trade Unions. School teachers. Colleges.
Extracting ever greater rents. Landlords and investors that have created housing opportunities.
Promoting trade policies that hurt the greater economy to their benefit. Any trade with China or Mexico.
I get that it is easy to dehumanize humans for each of us (to one degree or another). "They are not part of our tribe". "Their skin color is different". "Their beliefs are different". Their (insert "X" reason here) is different. After all, it is "them" and "their problem", "not us". Why would we concern ourselves with "them" when we have "us" and those like "us"? "We made it, so that means, so can 100% of everyone else regardless of the system or the circumstances."
In dehumanizing feeling, thinking, conscious human beings we can deflect injustices and other harms done to group "X". One only has to open a history book to see that this is the case, not just one time, but all throughout history.
In deflecting and ignoring these injustices, we can either deflect personal responsibility or rationalize the injustices so that it fits our particular worldview.
Group "X" deserves injustice "X" because they are "insert "X" reason here". This is no different when we are talking about "labeling socio economic groups". Subgroups deserve the position they are in because they are "insert "X" excuse here". When presented with evidence that those groups make up a sizable portion of people and that this predicament is negatively affecting them through various means, some people deflect and rationalize why it is not only acceptable, but best. Its unfortunate.
None of the above means anything in an economics/personal finance forum. In economics, there is no such thing as "dehumanizing." It does not exist. It is null. Ditto for "injustices and other harms done to group 'X' ."
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
I dont think anyone in this whole thread says that a person just starting out with less education/skills etc. deserves to make the same as someone with these things.
There is no such thing as "deserves." It is null. Undefined. This is an economics forum, and in economics there is no such concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
What has been repeated over and over again, is that the starting point, for full time work, needs to be livable/bare minimum (not below) for the specific geographic area.
This is an economics forum. There is no such thing as "needs." Economics is the study of unlimited wants and desires in a world of limited resources. There are no needs - it is a null concept. All that exists are wants and desires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
There is nothing unreasonable or impossible about achieving this. The other thing that has been repeated, over and over again, is that there is tremendous, as in really big, as in its not insignificant, gap between those who hold most of the wealth and everyone else.
Is there a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
This would be absolutely ok, make as much as you want, if that system where not significantly negatively affecting a very large portion of people. The system is indeed negatively affecting a large portion of people, therefore, humanely and compassionately, it is not ok to continue "status quo".
Untrue. There are no negative externalities that you've identified. There is no such thing as "humanely" or "compassionately". Those concepts do not exist. This is an economics forum.
We need less income inequality, that's why I support movements like the fight for $15.
Which of course directly kills those jobs as Seattle found out. The market determines the value of labor, nothing else. If my company can’t make $15 per hour on your hour of work I can’t afford you. Fact. If I can find a way to automate more of my company and reduce employees from 12 to 8 let’s say, I do that. Now those 8 all make $15 instead of $10 or whatever but the other 4, the dumbest ones, are gone. That doesn’t help the economy. It’s artificially messing with the system and honestly only the most economically clueless don’t understand these basic facts.
It’s like when I have a videographer tell me he won’t accept $600 for the day. Well ok but that’s my budget because my clients won’t pay more for a video than what I charge so I have to find another videographer. If one day I can’t find talent at that level I have no choice but to raise my pay and raise my rates and hope my clients don’t find a cheaper solution. These are just market forces.
What “it costs” for a single person to live in a city has nothing at all to do with what their labor or skills are worth to a business.
The whole term “income inequality” is offensive to the extreme. It’s meaningless. Nobody promised you’d make the same as anyone else. We have a global economy. Two hundred years ago maybe I trade furs with a few nearby posts and I’m limited by geography. Now iPhones are sold worldwide to 7 billion people potentially not 5000 people in one town. There will be much more wealth concentrated on the winners with more people. It’s obvious economic reality. If I play a poker tournament with my 5 best buds and buy in is $10, either it’s winner take all and I make $40 profit or it’s $35 to the winner and $15 to 2nd. If I play in the World Series of Poker with 15,000 players and I win, I’m going to be REALLY rich! The pool is larger so the difference between first and last is larger. This is such a basic math thing I don’t get why liberals don’t understand it.
Where conservatives can’t understand the idea of people freely controlling their own bodies, liberals can’t understand extremely basic economic principles and controlling your own money.
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.
