The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. (Clinton, Obama)
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.
There is so much talk these days about income inequality per capita, income inequality along protected characteristics and how income for the rich should be handled.
It seems odd that often these appear to be linked.
Should doctors and warehouse workers make the same?
If Google and 7-Eleven franchises both have cashier jobs, should they pay the same?
Does the CEO pay of either Google or 7-Eleven have any bearing on setting the wages for the other employees?
Why are these items linked?
The premise for this debate is looking at characteristics of when people should be paid the same. Namely should the difference be based upon company title and whether one influences the other?
I think the conversation should be, "Has equal pathway to success been provided for all Americans"?
I believe it has. Anyone who can be accepted to college can now attend by using loans or grants. This wasn't true in 1965. In 1965, either you had the money or you did not and either you were the right race or you were not. And even after college you could be rejected for employment or housing based on whatever the powers that be decided.
Opportunity equality has clearly been established. The government should not concern itself with income equality except as it may apply to race, sex, etc.
To pay people who have unequal skill ability and education the same amount contributes to people having no goals and nothing to work towards. Many of the extremely rich, have everything and anything money can buy, some continue to shoot higher and higher, others take extreme risks, there are those that see needs in our society and contribute. Yet there are also those that escape through medication because there are no longer any goals to work towards.
To pay people equally would have a devastating effect on society and many would feel, why should I work and have standards when others don't and receive the same.
I think the conversation should be, "Has equal pathway to success been provided for all Americans"?
I believe it has. Anyone who can be accepted to college can now attend by using loans or grants. This wasn't true in 1965. In 1965, either you had the money or you did not and either you were the right race or you were not. And even after college you could be rejected for employment or housing based on whatever the powers that be decided.
Opportunity equality has clearly been established. The government should not concern itself with income equality except as it may apply to race, sex, etc.
It's absurd to believe that poor people and rich people have identical opportunities. Although I admit, it's definitely possible to become a multi-millionaire, or even a billionaire. But come on dude (or dudette), no advantages for the rich?? Join reality with the rest of us. Well, at least a few of us live close to reality
Why is wealth inequality higher than in 1965? Poor people are lazy, immoral, and stupid, and rich people are hard-working, moral, and smart? OR maybe it has do do with the cumulative and inequality-promoting nature of capitalism and billionaires exerting their will with their seemingly endless power?
Why is wealth inequality higher than in 1965? Poor people are lazy, immoral, and stupid, and rich people are hard-working, moral, and smart? OR maybe it has do do with the cumulative and inequality-promoting nature of capitalism and billionaires exerting their will with their seemingly endless power?
I'm a hard-right, Trump-voting conservative. But even I will say your point is excellent. At the same time, redistribution of wealth and/or income is most certainly NOT the answer.
The 50's were America's golden age. Back then, crime was low, families were strong, and even the poor were not THAT poor. If we can bring back the good parts of the 50's and not the bad, we can bring back some level of equal opportunities.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 11-02-2021 at 05:40 PM..
Reason: Removed disguised obscenity. Don't do that again in Great Debates.
To pay people who have unequal skill ability and education the same amount contributes to people having no goals and nothing to work towards. Many of the extremely rich, have everything and anything money can buy, some continue to shoot higher and higher, others take extreme risks, there are those that see needs in our society and contribute. Yet there are also those that escape through medication because there are no longer any goals to work towards.
To pay people equally would have a devastating effect on society and many would feel, why should I work and have standards when others don't and receive the same.
If a socialist were running for the head of all baseball they'd say it's not fair that Olympians received gold metals for being the best in the world while my kid playing T-Ball only gets a participation ribbon for the team's 4th place finish. They'd argue all should be equal and get votes from people thinking they'd all get gold metals....only to find everyone will get gold colored plastic metals....possibly with chocolate in the middle.
Thus, why would someone continue to train and become elite....eventually fear becomes the only remaining motivator as there are no carrots to be granted. To the degree of...don't defect or your family gets it.
In 1984 Fortune produced its first listing of the world's richest people. Sitting atop the list was the reclusive Daniel K Ludwig. He was an 8th grade drop-out that salvaged a boat when he was 9. He worked for people, learned the trades and not the job and got early riches when he started his own business transporting lumber and molasses....eventually migrated into oil supertankers before spreading out into oil refining, ranching, real estate and insurance. He developed mines around the world.
In Panama, he acquired a massive piece of land and planted oranges there. Yet before the trees entered prime harvest....they were seized by the government. The government failed to be able to use the asset and eventually sold it back to capitalists. Sometimes you need those high priced CEOs to make something work
It's absurd to believe that poor people and rich people have identical opportunities...................
That's not the point, of course. The point is, pathways have been cleared for everyone to move up the ladder. I can think of two recent Presidents who arose from almost nothing, and can point to millionaire CEO's using the same metric.
No matter what your background you can rise. Hating rich people does not promote poor people.
Some people are born on third base, others aren't. Legislation will not change that.
in spite of all the dire warnings of the have-nots starting a "revolution" I see no ill effects of people leaving the workforce. We had so many unnecessary jobs to begin with I guess.
Cassius has a lean and hungry look.
In the United States, most poor people are obese. Obese people don’t start revolutions. You revolt because you’re starving.
I'm a hard-right, Trump-voting conservative. But even I will say your point is excellent. At the same time, redistribution of wealth and/or income is most certainly NOT the answer.
The 50's were America's golden age. Back then, crime was low, families were strong, and even the poor were not THAT poor. If we can bring back the good parts of the 50's and not the bad, we can bring back some level of equal opportunities.
That’s revisionist history. In the 1950s, the standard of living was really low. Most people only had a high school education. They lived in very small houses. They usually only owned one automobile. In 1950, only 34% of High School grads went to college and the vast majority were white men.
That’s revisionist history. In the 1950s, the standard of living was really low. Most people only had a high school education. They lived in very small houses. They usually only owned one automobile. In 1950, only 34% of High School grads went to college and the vast majority were white men.
Public transit was much better and much safer back then---streetcars and interurban trains ran even in modest-sized cities. So there was less need for everybody and their brother to drive. There was far less need to go to college, either. Trades and other jobs were so plentiful, you could get hired pretty much by walking in off the street, provided you could do the job.
That's not the point, of course. The point is, pathways have been cleared for everyone to move up the ladder. I can think of two recent Presidents who arose from almost nothing, and can point to millionaire CEO's using the same metric.
No matter what your background you can rise. Hating rich people does not promote poor people.
Some people are born on third base, others aren't. Legislation will not change that.
Just because something is not IMPOSSIBLE doesn't mean the pathways have been "cleared".
I can find one example of almost anything you care to mention - and that is more a case of "the exception proves the rule" not that the rule is nonexistent. Don't say you believe that because we had a black president that the pathways are clear. What then does it mean that we've not yet had a woman as president?
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.
