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.
This may be quite idealistic but I like to see less gap between rich and poor.
However, I generally oppose achieving the smaller rich-poor gap through government intervention.
If I had to choose between free markets and a government-induced artificially small rich-poor gap, I'll choose free markets. (Whether or not this can be achieved through free markets alone, I do not know.)
If I had to choose between free markets and a government-induced artificially small rich-poor gap, I'll choose free markets.
This is one of those questions where you asked if I could eat all the chocolate cake that I would like and it wouldn't make me sick which would I prefer chocolate cake or raw carrots. I would pick chocolate cake every time. So when it comes to the question, would I prefer the markets to bring some equitable distribution of wealth or would I prefer government intervention, my answer would be the same, I would prefer free markets. The problem is that sooner or later free markets become increasingly less free as certain widget makers garner an ever increasing hold on the market producing distortions in the price for goods and services. So what is to be done when those distortions lead to inefficiencies in the distribution of wealth should those inefficiencies be left to fester only to manifest themselves is social unrest or does the government intervene to head off that eventuality? If that is the ultimate choice, then I would choose carrots.
Income equality is a fallacy. It is only achieved through hard work and skill sets. If you have neither, you will NOT be economically equal to anyone but the poor.
It is only achieved through hard work and skill sets. If you have neither, you will NOT be economically equal to anyone but the poor.
The only problem with that argument is that we even exclude the poor that the working poor from the data we can clearly demonstrate that individuals who do work hard, possess the necessary skills, receive less remuneration for their work in relationship to those who run the firms that they work for.
The only problem with that argument is that we even exclude the poor that the working poor from the data we can clearly demonstrate that individuals who do work hard, possess the necessary skills, receive less remuneration for their work in relationship to those who run the firms that they work for.
No shyt Sherlock. It will ALWAYS be that way. Why should an underling get the same pay as the people who are actually running the joint? Do YOU as a child get a say in how your parents run the household? Of course not silly.
Income equality is a fallacy. It is only achieved through hard work and skill sets. If you have neither, you will NOT be economically equal to anyone but the poor.
I have had a higher income than the vast majority of Americans, since day 1 of my professional career. Your logic dictates that I am in that position because I'm among the top 5-10% of America's hardest working people, and that a person making less cannot have the skill set that I don't.
Why should an underling get the same pay as the people who are actually running the joint?
I have no idea since no one is talking about the need or more importantly the desire for a flat lined distribution of income.
As I pointed out previously, when we talk about income distribution and equity we are talking about the equitable distribution of profits. This doesn't mean that joe or jane on the factory floor should make the same amount as their line supervisor, the plant manager or the CEO of the company. What we are talking about is the level of income of that workers taking home as a higher percentage of the wealth that they have a hand in producing.
Ovcatto is not saying the "same pay" he is saying the relative pay has gone way out of whack. And that is true.
CEO's salaries in relation to the underlings has gone through the roof.
And even CEOs who fail their company and workers are Rewarded with Golden Parachutes. It is a disgrace.
That's not what they are saying. Income equality is not achieved through income INEQUALITY. How can you be equal if you're not? That's liberal logic for you. Who cares what CEO salaries are, it's none of your business. As long as you are being paid market wages for YOU SKILL SET, that is equality. You want more? Learn more and do more, it's that simple.
I have no idea since no one is talking about the need or more importantly the desire for a flat lined distribution of income.
As I pointed out previously, when we talk about income distribution and equity we are talking about the equitable distribution of profits. This doesn't mean that joe or jane on the factory floor should make the same amount as their line supervisor, the plant manager or the CEO of the company. What we are talking about is the level of income of that workers taking home as a higher percentage of the wealth that they have a hand in producing.
You get paid according to your skill set, no more no less. That money is not yours, it's the corporations money. They earned theirs and you earned yours. You jealous MFers are a piece of work. What you are saying is just like saying, "hey, I live in your same neighborhood and I don't make as much as you and have as much, so give me a piece of YOUR pie!"
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.
