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.
Sigh. so much wrong in so many of the replies. Lets go...
increasing the minimum wage would reduce in less jobs. Study after study has shown this to be false. In fact this is one of those "in theory" vs "in reality". In theory everyone has perfect knowledge, and none of the people involved have any ability to negotiate. they're powerless to act against the formulae as it were. In reality...increasing the minimum wage has little to no affect.
Obama has lowered energy production and raised corporate taxes, if he would stop doing that everything would be better. This year we became the largest oil producer in the world, and are exporting oil for a change. Natural gas prices have been hitting all time lows....all the while still protecting our ecology, and not becoming China. I've been there, in the pollution. You dont want that despite what people say here. Trust me. And good news on the corporate tax side too! 2011 was a 40 year low as a % of profits, and 2012 was well below averages. However the plan seems to be to move them back to their averages over the next few years. In other words...no he hasnt created more taxes-in fact under his presidency they've paid LESS then average.
Another one from this thread "yeah if I had 1200 a month coming in, I'd quit my job, and do income producing things at home".....uhmmm yeah thats so horrible. I bet a lot of people might do that, and thats great. small business's are the heartbeat of America! Might I "quit my job"? I might...to do something that might be even more profitable but with higher risk. It could easily spur a new revolution in this country of people taking chances, and making new products and services....of innovation.
anyways lets just qoute folks and I will respond.
Quote:
Anyway... statistically speaking, the majority of income ALWAYS goes to the top - that's why there's even a top income group, because they earn the most income.
Actually from 1940 to 1970 the increase in income due to increases in productivity was shared almost perfectly equally between all 5 quintiles. Its only been since 1970 that that has changed.
Quote:
The question is - is that group of people the same? Probably not.
This was true at one point, not as true anymore.
Quote:
Your minimum wage statement shows me that you don't get it. Here it is in a nutshell.
Business A - has 100 employees paid at $7.25 per hr. They work 30 hours per wk. Therefore the owner allocates $21,750 dollars to those 100 employees.
Now minimum wage is $10.10. 100 employees... 30 hrs/wk. Now the owner has to allocate $30,300 for those same 100 employees.
Based on current sales, the owner can't allocate the extra $8,550. So either he raises prices, which may hurt sales - OR - he lays off employees. In order to get back to allocating $21,750 for those minimum wage employees - he must get rid of 28 employees. And now 72 employees will have to do the work designed for 100 employees.
Theres a really serious flaw in this. and that is that income remains unchanged even as the disposable income of the people who are his customers increase. Yes if his sales or prices dont go up...then that is true. Theres this truly insane assumption that minimum wage and costs are a 1-1 relationship. They aren't. and in fact its been shown that increases in minimum wage do not translate into large increases in inflation.
Quote:
Are all McDonald franchise owners "millionaires" ?
Funny you should ask that...but the vast majority of them are. and if they have two mcdonalds then yes they are. Average price for a mcdonalds is .6-1.4 million. The franchise cost is 45K, plus the building and operating expenses for the rest.
Quote:
Obama has been great for the super wealthy, the worst modern President for the poor and middle class.
Math does not lie. Obama = a disaster for the poor and middle class.
Not sure if he has been the worst, but he certainly hasnt been able to help. But on the other hand....I can't realistically see how he could have changed it. Certainly not in the middle of the crisis of the depression-ie his first term. Will his second term do better? I doubt it. Sadly Romney wasnt a better choice for this, even he made that clear with his 47% comment.
Quote:
Exactly. People work outside the home for one reason. To generate money to purchase the basic things they need to feed and protect their family. Anything else is a luxury. Taking away the incentive to do better than the next guy would stifle this country and it would be like Africa or Iran where the people are still living in huts and living hand to mouth.
On one hand you say taking away the incentive to doing better then the next guy, and then you say people work outside the home for one reason-to earn the basics. Which is it? If its to do better then the next guy-then a base guarenteed income wont change that at all. If its to get the basics...well hey then slavery for all would be MUCH better. Right? The answer is-its mor complex. Its both. And those that want the minimum....I got news for you. they arent working now.....and if they did want to work, we dont have the jobs.
Quote:
It shouldn't matter how much millionaires make if it is done legally. Our economy is not a zero sum gain system.
Policy that results from envy and jealousy usually is not good policy.
Its not a zero sum gain system? Really? What makes you believe that? maybe on a world wide basis....but locally? not so much. Additionally, when the rich can game the system in every way possible, be immune to most laws, and hey-if they need a liver? Guess what....even if they have cancer and are going to die anyways...they will get a liver while someone else wont. (See Steve Jobs) If it is done legally? Don't make me laugh. Take a look at how many laws big companies break, where the fine is less then the profit they made...assuming they even got caught. And in a economic climate where all the real profitable opportunities go to those who have money already....well you aren't living within the same reality I am. As my income has gotten higher I've started to be able to nibble at the edges of some of these...something that 90% of the people in this country will never ever get a chance at.
Quote:
Why again, in exact terms please, must incomes be equal? I understand from the pure Marxist theory of "from each, to each" version of equality, even though I obviously disagree with any and all Marxism, but in an alleged federal constitutional republic founded on inalienable rights and all that, and given that each individual is not exactly the same as every other individual...why must incomes be equal?
No one is saying incomes must be equal, this is hyperbole. If you really think anyone here is saying that, then name them, I certainly feel that would be horrible. But I do feel that we as a developed nation need to have a minimum income that maintains a reasonable amount of dignity. And I beleive our current system is overly complex, and causes people to make logical decisions to NOT try and improve their lot, as doing so costs them more then it can benefit them. Its why I want a non means tested guaranteed income. In other words, I want someone who is on welfare today to have about the same income (while eliminating ALL of the other welfare or benefits-including the minimum wage) BUT....to be able to say...you know...I could have this...but if I got a job...id have this AND more.
so you do some math and come up with:
Quote:
OK, back to my question - if I can get paid $102,580 for doing ANYTHING, I am telling you right now that my "anything" will be as little as I can possibly get away with, guaranteed.
Again more hyperbole. No one in their right minds wants this. Accusing others of that is both foolish and intellectually dishonest. You are attempting to re frame the discussion into something it isn't.
We want a share of the pie that has resulted from our increased productivity. increased minimum wage is one way to do that, guaranteed income another. But in the end...we want opportunity, we want to have a chance.
Quote:
The answer is smaller govt.
I love that people reply like this. no justification, no nothing. What 1+1? "Smaller government, thats what it takes to make a marriage between a man and a woman!" What the......"What about" "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" "well yes but when we need to" "smaller govt"
Quote:
Roll back taxes to where they were 45 years ago and see to it that any company that wants to do business with or in North America will adhere to our occupational safety, industrial pollution, and wage standards. People are the same, it's the rules that have changed.
remember when I said magic fairy dust? Well....damnit....yeah. That might work. uhmmm....errrr....damn. I hereby declare you "magic fairy dust post of the day" Except....Id make it 60 years ago. 45 is 1968 right when this large inequality split really started. Other then that...yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
OK, explain how then. If incomes simply MUST be "more equalized" so that 90% of the wealth of the nation is not concentrated in too few, please, give me the ballpark equalization parameters. By all means.
See, as a fan of free markets and the Invisible Hand, I know that I have no idea what any job should pay other than my own which I and my employer negotiated, so I don't need to suggest an "equalization" method. I accept income inequality because I accept supply and demand inequalities, and I was present the day they taught economics in Economics class.
But you are saying incomes must be equalized, so this puts the burden of at least a generalized plan on you. So please tell me HOW you will force this equalization.
If he won't, I will. Guaranteed minimum income, and reasonable health care based on a 50% tax rate of all income no matter the source no minimum amount. State taxes no longer are allowed to affect income, and instead affect wealth. IE real estate or wealth. All federal government expenses paid for on a month to month basis, and debt paid down 10% per year. Period. Pass a new bill that has spending, everyone see's their income drop. Buy a new aircraft carrier, and everyone sees a charge on their monthly income so everyone see's their income drop by $20 that month with a line item-nimitz class carrier. Anything that costs more then 300 million must have a line item. Anything under that must be grouped into a line item big enough to equal that in a logical fashion. No government borrowing outside of times of war. And even during those times everyone gets a statement showing how much it will drop their future income as a line item.
its the tax rate and basic income level that would slow/stop the inequality. Yes you make a trillion, but 50% goes to everyone else....so you make 500 billion..so does everyone else. BUT....you still make 500 billion...
Quote:
the problem is that obama doesnt want equal opportunities, he wants equal outcomes, he wants to make everyone equally poor, and that is why he is harping on "income inequality". and that my friend is one of the big tenets of marxism.
sigh. no its not Marxism. Look the term up. Nor does accusing him of wanting equal outcomes make it true. Come back to us when we have equal opportunities. Cause thats no longer remotely true.
Quote:
OK - what am I missing? Usually if one fights against inequality, they want equality...
thats like saying that people who fight against drowning want the world to have no water. Does that help you understand? When people are "fighting inequality" possibly it would be more correct to say people are "fighting extreme inequality". The vast majority of these people think some inequality is good-especially when its the result of an individuals effort. But the extreme levels we have now aren't good for our society or competitiveness.
Quote:
Obama thinks raising min wage to $10 over the next three years will do it.
That will just delay things. Seriously its putting a bandaid on a gushing neck wound while standing in the middle of the road as a car comes around the corner.
In the end though, everyone makes this about Obama on the right....but its not. He isn't a dictator, he doesn't run the country. Our house and senate do. Its why they have the lowest ratings in history.
I don't think President Obama see's those policies in that manner.
Of course he doesn't. He is a proven incompetent fool driven by ideology, not results.
Quote:
I don't think American history shows those policies destroying the middle class or hurting the poor.
Math and economics show they damage they cause. Political propaganda disguised as history doesn't.
Quote:
Yes the health care law does line the pockets of Insurance companies, but this law is based on the conservative solution to lack of health insurance so of course it benefits private insurance companies.
The ACA is designed to kill off private health care. The classic liberal solution to lack of insurance coverage is to tear down the walls the fascists have created to kill it off.
You could not buy health insurance across state lines prior to ACA! Now with the health care killing ACA in place, you can not even purchase across county lines!
The ACA is magnifying the negatives of our health care system. With even less choice and less freedom, things are getting bad very quickly. The solution was more healthcare freedom, not less.
I don't speak for President Obama. Usually though what the people who discuss income inequality are getting at is that as productivity improves it used to be for a brief period of time that the incomes of the nation's workers grew.
Since the late 1970's that no longer happens. So you have seen massive gains in productivity by workers, while their incomes have remained stagnant.
Also, when people talk about income inequality, they are making a comparison between past levels of income inequality and the present.
So they'll point out that in 19whatever that the bottom 10% of income earners had this percentage of the nation's income and the top 10% had this percentage of the nation's income and they compare that with the current levels of the shares of the incomes of those groups.
I think it is fairly straight forward.
President Obama want to raise the minimum wage, lower the cost of health care so that more of employer compensation is income and not health insurance, increase taxes on wealthy people to spend on lower income and middle class people, re instate the estate tax, strengthen unions, and some other stuff.
So in your first paragraph, I don't see income inequality being addressed. You just want better income for workers. Nothing wrong what that.
I don't think incomes have remained stagnant. I think purchasing power of our income has remained stagnant, or has even slumped some. That's a bigger problem than merely dealing with incomes.
Comparing incomes with others is bad news. I can see wanting to get people to the point where they can support themselves. But worrying who has what, and what I don't have, and whining about it's not fair... bad news if you are making policy.
I have already explained how the minimum wage puts people out of work. It simply shifts money around. It does not add money to the pie through increased productivity.
Of course he doesn't. He is a proven incompetent fool driven by ideology, not results.
Math and economics show they damage they cause. Political propaganda disguised as history doesn't.
The ACA is designed to kill off private health care. The classic liberal solution to lack of insurance coverage is to tear down the walls the fascists have created to kill it off.
You could not buy health insurance across state lines prior to ACA! Now with the health care killing ACA in place, you can not even purchase across county lines!
The ACA is magnifying the negatives of our health care system. With even less choice and less freedom, things are getting bad very quickly. The solution was more healthcare freedom, not less.
No this is not historically accurate. Strong unions, and a higher minimum wage didn't do the things that you say. This is objective reality.
No the ACA is designed to save private insurers by giving them lots more paying customers.
The rest of your post is fantasyland conservative conspiracy garbage. Worthless.
Sigh. so much wrong in so many of the replies. Lets go...
increasing the minimum wage would reduce in less jobs. Study after study has shown this to be false. In fact this is one of those "in theory" vs "in reality". In theory everyone has perfect knowledge, and none of the people involved have any ability to negotiate. they're powerless to act against the formulae as it were. In reality...increasing the minimum wage has little to no affect.
The studies showing little or no effect measure small increases in the minimum wage.
But people are floating around numbers like $15/hr and $20/hr. That's not just a dollar or two increase. That's more than doubling it.
Increasing labor costs by 20% is a whole lot different than increasing them by 100%.
Anything to distract from the problems of Obamacare, I guess.
It's not like Obama means anything that he says, that's for sure.
With a fifty year high in the US poverty level, fifty million on Food Stamps, record long unemployment during his terms in office, and his own heath care law creating fresh new incentives to hire fewer full-time employees, and reduce the hours of part-time employees, Obama is a driving force for widening the income gap.
Decades ago, the government added a whole new laundry list of mandated, burdensome compensation for full-time employees, those working a 40 hour week. In following decades they added increases to the minimum wage. Then the ACA adds another costly laundry list of employer mandates for full-time, and 30 hour part-time employees.
The employers are not a bottomless source of wealth, so they read the same laundry lists, and find ways to reduce the number of employees who qualify for the laundry list, and we end up with more people working part-time, and more working under 30 hours.
We have some companies with low skill employees, hiring two people to work 18-20 hour a week, just to escape the mandates imposed upon them from government, if they just hired one full time employee. But does government imposition of labor laws and regulations, which incentivizes employers to hire fewer full time employees ever get factored into the metrics for the studies on wealth disparity? No.
I did not bother reading the links from the OP, but so many of these studies deal with skewed numbers, because they do not take into account the moral decay of our society these past few decades, and corresponding increase in out of wed lock birth, the rise of the divorce rate which all lead to an increase in the single parent homes.
These partisan groups and their studies cling to the old metrics for measuring the income gap and their statisticians throw together charts and graphs and apply them today, while ignoring everything else, because it helps them arrive with a politically advantageous result.
So in your first paragraph, I don't see income inequality being addressed. You just want better income for workers. Nothing wrong what that.
I don't think incomes have remained stagnant. I think purchasing power of our income has remained stagnant, or has even slumped some. That's a bigger problem than merely dealing with incomes.
Comparing incomes with others is bad news. I can see wanting to get people to the point where they can support themselves. But worrying who has what, and what I don't have, and whining about it's not fair... bad news if you are making policy.
I have already explained how the minimum wage puts people out of work. It simply shifts money around. It does not add money to the pie through increased productivity.
I don't care how you see, clearly better incomes for workers will probably reduce income inequality. But oh well.
I don't care if you don't think incomes have remained stagnant, plenty of objective data shows that income has remained stagnant for a long time.
Again, this is not about comparing incomes, this about historical comparisons about shares of the income that the bottom 10% of wage earners had versus the top 1% etc and seeing the increasing level of income inequality as hurting that bottom 10% as they get poorer while others get wealthy.
This is not about fairness, there is a fair amount of data that suggests that this level of income inequality hurts economic growth, hurts the overall economy.
There is a fair amount of data that shows that children born into poverty suffer negative consequences on their future earnings which again hurts our economy.
The minimum wage doesn't put people out of work. There is no data to prove that "belief" and that is all it is a belief at this point. Start looking at data on income inequality, economic mobility, and the impact of the minimum wage.
No this is not historically accurate. Strong unions, and a higher minimum wage didn't do the things that you say. This is objective reality.
Detroit is reality. Unions are labor cartels that first came about to keep black people from working in factories.
Quote:
No the ACA is designed to save private insurers by giving them lots more paying customers.
False. The only thing that will save insurers from the destructive ACA is a massive govt. bailout.
If you like govt. bailouts to big insurance, you'll love the ACA.
Quote:
The rest of your post is fantasyland conservative conspiracy garbage. Worthless.
I'm not the one living in a fanstasyland where math, science, economics, and results are ignored.
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.
