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.
What "income gaps" are you talking about? Do you think everyone should make the same money? Why?
Salaries and wages are based on the market, and the particular job. You can't make everyone equal that way. That's ridiculous!
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "income gap".
Correction, Salaries and wages are based on the Global Market. If it is cheaper to do a manufacturing widget assembly job in India, then off to India your job goes, where someone can do it cheaper.
If your a Big Banking Executive, or Mega Corporate Mogul, your compensation is not based on the global markets though, but based on the board of directors and share holders, whom all rely on spreading the wealth around .....to each other, otherwise, rather than compensation going up 20% as it has been in one year, it would be going down as everyone else wages have in this global market, to meet to the ceo pay around the world.
"The U.S. executive pay levels have always dwarfed pay for companies elsewhere in the world," said Sarah Anderson, a fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, which is critical of Wall Street, and co-author of the recent study "America's Bailout Barons."
"They have claimed it is impossible to recruit people without paying such compensation. Yet, if you look at the pay levels in Europe and in a lot of Asian countries, somehow they manage to find people who can run major global firms while making a fraction of what they make in the U.S.," she said.
For a graphic comparing bank chiefs' pay around the world, click here
It is a global free market for the little people.
Patriotism and best interest of the country should be for the little people.
Responsibility should only be for the little people.
Voting and government involvement should not be for the little people.
Going to war for your country should be for the little people.
So tell me why in this global market, wage compensation is trending down for everyone except the top one percent whose wages have been going up?
You don't think workers work hard enough to get the right compensation? You really need to do research. You really think 325-to-1 is justifiable? What is more important that the CEO does? Okay, he has accountability, but so do the workers. Workers work long days on the floor with stagnating wages while the CEOs get compensated to bringing the company down.
Wait, do you even know what a golden parachute is?
Do you really think that you have some super special secret knowledge, most people know what a golden parachute is. Quite frankly its not much different than the over inflated pensions that many state, federal, and other unionized employees get where they make more in retirement than they did during their average working career.
Correction, Salaries and wages are based on the Global Market. If it is cheaper to do a manufacturing widget assembly job in India, then off to India your job goes, where someone can do it cheaper.
If your a Big Banking Executive, or Mega Corporate Mogul, your compensation is not based on the global markets though, but based on the board of directors and share holders, whom all rely on spreading the wealth around .....to each other, otherwise, rather than compensation going up 20% as it has been in one year, it would be going down as everyone else wages have in this global market, to meet to the ceo pay around the world.
It is a global free market for the little people.
Patriotism and best interest of the country should be for the little people.
Responsibility should only be for the little people.
Voting and government involvement should not be for the little people.
Going to war for your country should be for the little people.
So tell me why in this global market, wage compensation is trending down for everyone except the top one percent whose wages have been going up?
Every non-union employee that I know earns higher wages than union workers.
Where's the patriotism towards the tax payers when the public sector unions want to keep bleeding tax payers in order to keep their fat benefits packages?
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,154,562 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
There will never be a legit economic boom without increased wages for employees.
Why do you think wages are stagnated?
The Right Wing Cons have been methodically and systematically, working towards eliminating Minimum Wage and driving the salary/wage structures down to dirt level. It has been and continues to be their agenda to drive salaries/wages down to Third World levels. As well as eliminate all benfits, sick day pay, vacation pay and as many holiday pay days as they possibly can. So the corporations can continue to make a gazillion precent profit and poison our air, water and soil to the point of toxic levels; without the laws of regulations to impede them.
You know how the Right Wing Cons are so concenred with "The Future Of This Country".
The truth is, this country has not had true capitalism for many decades. What we have is the rich and wealthy methodically creating as many monopolies as they possibly can and restricting and reducing the possibility for competition.
Furthermore, they have been lobbying and corruptly manipulating the system, so they never have to suffer consequences for any risks or gambles they may take with their own money. And we've all seen the mechanisms at work over the last three decades. Especially over the last 11 years.
But the Left Wingers aren't much better, they're equally involved in similar agendas. They just take different paths to get there.
Every non-union employee that I know earns higher wages than union workers.
Where's the patriotism towards the tax payers when the public sector unions want to keep bleeding tax payers in order to keep their fat benefits packages?
Buddy, numbers are your friend. Union workers earn nore than non-union workers. Metros with higher concentration of union organizations have better economies than places with non-unions do.
Every non-union employee that I know earns higher wages than union workers.
Where's the patriotism towards the tax payers when the public sector unions want to keep bleeding tax payers in order to keep their fat benefits packages?
I don't support public sector unions.
Hell, I would rather we go back to a limited form of federal government rather than making things worse with their policies and leave it up to the state.
Instead we have a lot of corruption and parasites that are using MY government to stuff their pockets, via offshore policies, regulations and rules that stifle competition, not to mention welfare for the bailouts.
It all needs to come crashing down.
As it is right now, it is the big banks and mega corporations that are controlling this country, and represent a financial terrorism threat that needs to be obliterated.
If you cut the snake off at the head, which is the fed, they will die, because it is through the federal government they play rotating chairs to stuff their pockets and gain more power.
No more empire building military for these cockroaches
Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that.
On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.
The top one percent — “the rich” who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left — saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.
Meanwhile, the average taxpayers’ real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.
Yes, but wealth is also created by the private sector and the creation of wealth offsets the creation of money. Issuing new currency which doesn't correspond to an increase in GDP is inflationary.
The problem is in modern America this common wisdom that the private sector creates real wealth rather than paper wealth or virtual wealth is increasingly a false statement. The modern dictum is that money creates wealth and that one should let his money work for him not work for his money. This is illustrated by the increasing fraction of the GDP generated by the financial industry (aka Wall Street Investment Banks like Goldman or Morgan-Chase). In fact about 25% of our GDP is created by these organizations whereas only 16% comes from manufacturing. In fact when you add health care and Government services you have accounted for over half of the US economy as measured by its GDP. A problem is these sectors of the economy don't create over half the jobs in the USA. The shrinking or stagnant manufacturing, non-government services, construction and extractive industries like agriculture, wood products, oil and gas and mining are where most Americans actually work. These are the sectors ruthlessly trimming payrolls and most Americans do not grasp what are called weighted averages. Finance, healthcare and until recently Government services had healthy growth rates and were hiring workers. They more than compensated for the loss of jobs and reduced output in things like manufacturing so the nation was I repeat NOT IN A RECESSION and this has been true since the 1990s with the exception of the period since the 2008 Financial Panic. Since early 2009 the nation has been in a "Financial Recovery" and it has been strong enough to compensate for the recession in things like manufacturing or non-government services so the nation has a modest 1-3% net "averaged" growth rate.
Anyone who follows the media has probably heard many times that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and incomes of the population in general are stagnating. Moreover, those who say such things can produce many statistics, including data from the Census Bureau, which seem to indicate that.
On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.
The top one percent — “the rich” who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left — saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.
Meanwhile, the average taxpayers’ real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.
Income and wealth are two different things. Okay, they saw their income decrease, but their wealth has increased. Steve Jobs has a dollar salary, but he has wealth.
Furthermore, if income of the bottom have increased, why are their buying power not strong?
Furthermore, Sowell is not calculating his figures properly. He's not using median.
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.
