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.
The beauty of the free market is that your income is determined by the market (what's your output/production/worth).
Doctors are paid more than nurses.
Nurses are paid more than the administrative assistant of the office.
The manager of McDonalds is paid more than the guy working the fryer.
Pretty simple.
It'll always be this way.
As they say in Caddyshack: "The world needs ditch diggers to".
Except that the free market in wages doesn't extend to a free market in housing which it the biggest reason minimum wage workers say they can't live on minimum wage.
Except that the free market in wages doesn't extend to a free market in housing which it the biggest reason minimum wage workers say they can't live on minimum wage.
Then they better look for better paying jobs. MW was and is never meant to be a living wage.
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker Income inequality is paying Barack Hussein $400K year as an entry-level employee of the federal government with no experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The nation has never had a president who had prior experience of being a president.
Maybe he should have said "Income inequality is paying Barack Hussein $400K year because he's black"
If he were white, he'd not have near the support he does. That's saying a lot considering his approval ratings are sub 40. Clinton claimed to be the first black President, while Obama pretends to be. He's just another Harvard politician who turns his black on when it suits him.
As for all this equality talk: It isn't a free market or capitalism that hurts the poor; it's the dilution of money. The very thing the FED claims they do to help, is actually the reason the gap is widening. Their policies help the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and wipes out the middle class.
So what you're saying is that your so new and green to matters of pubic concern that you think that the discussion about econonic justice just started. The self-importance of youth perhaps - nothing happened before they opened their eyes. One of my friends at church is the daughter of Walter Reuther. He gave a speech on economic justice at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, just before another speaker got to the microphone - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Contrary to the products of poor education, the context of the "I Have a Dream" speech was not simply civil rights. The rally was March on Washington for Jobsand Freedom. Arguably, people have been pursuing "an indicator or measurement" regarding economic justice since biblical times. Jesus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many other leaders of western society have, at times in the distant past, fought for economic justice. Today's fight for economic justice have ties back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when employers first started exploiting excessive financial power to foster injustice in the valuation of work.
I recognize your fear forces you to spew nonsense to try to rationalize your position, for example insisting the economic justice is socialism. However, don't think that you'll get an unrebutted soapbox for such inane nonsense.
In other words, you have no legitimate rebuttal to moral repudiation of what you support, so you decided to just try to make it seem like you have some legitimate reply when you really didn't. Go back, and read my message again, and then post a reply that shows you have moral fiber, true concern for doing things right now for the people suffering the consequences of poverty right now, rather than spewing more bull supporting egoistic avarice.
So your rhetorical tactic is denial. That completes a trifecta of evasions of morality we've seen in this thread: Ignorance, bombast, and finally denial.
Denial my Aunt Fanny. I'm saying it's a BS phrase devoid of objective meaning.
You have obviously didn't read my other posts. Capitalism is inherently unfair.
EVERY system is unfair and has winners and losers. Socialist Cuba is unfair with (a few) winners and (many) losers. The USSR was unfair with winners and losers., etc, etc.
The only question is how shall the winners be selected. Capitalism provides the MOST fair system for selecting winners and losers.
You either have a finite amount of income or an infinite amount of income.
If it's not finite, it must be infinite.
If it were finite, we'd all be sharing the first stick that early man picked up off the ground.
Income isn't money. Money is just a token of income. Income is the amount of resources coming under your control.
As I type this, the Hycroft gold mine in Nevada is introducing more "income". As I type this, Plumb Creek Timber in Washington is introducing more "income". Whenever you perform any work that helps create a product or accumulate resources, you have added income into the system.
The first year cars were produced to be sold, only the extremely rich could afford them. Today, $2000 can purchase a faster, safer, more comfortable and more reliable car than the richest man could purchase at that time.
As others have said, it's not a zero sum game. The amount of "riches" is constantly increasing, and those in the United States in the bottom 10% would be considered at least middle class in other parts of the world and in the past of the US.
Good post. In fact, the bottom 10% in the USA would be upper class in many countries like India and South Africa.
I disagree. You're moving the goalposts here, since income is (by definition) measured in units of currency.
in·come
ˈinˌkəm
noun
1. money received, esp. on a regular basis, for work or through investments.
"he has a nice home and an adequate income"
synonyms: earnings, salary, pay, remuneration, wages, stipend;
Key word being "money." You cannot grow income in the ground; you can, however, grow cotton out of the ground and sell it, creating income. (And no, gold isn't money, either.)
Cars are also not income. Income is measured in units of currency.
Income is not just money.
If a farmer pays me 100 pounds of beef for fixing his fence, that's income for me.
So yes, there is an infinite amount of income in our world. There is an infinite amount of GDP in the world and like money, the world GDP increases almost every year.
But even if you limit income to money, it's infinite. Today there are 11 trillion dollars in the world. 20 Years ago there were 3 trillion dollars.
If a farmer pays me 100 pounds of beef for fixing his fence, that's income for me.
So yes, there is an infinite amount of income in our world. There is an infinite amount of GDP in the world and like money, the world GDP increases almost every year.
But even if you limit income to money, it's infinite. Today there are 11 trillion dollars in the world. 20 Years ago there were 3 trillion dollars.
So you are saying that the stagnation of incomes in recent decades is perfectly natural...
That would depend on how you define "Income."
If you define "Income" ---incorrectly --- as wages/salaries only, then the answer is YES.
If you correctly define "Income" as the total of earned income from wages/salaries plus the total of unearned income generated by assets, then the answer is MAYBE.
"MAYBE," because it would depend on the nature of the assets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
then does it not follow that we all lack moral standing to blame Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (I and II), Clinton, and Obama for stagnant wages?
Not necessarily.
Nixon: levied a Wage & Price Freeze to combat Wage Inflation, and he did so, because FDR also enacted a Wage & Price Freeze to stop Wage Inflation. They were both wrong -- a better course of action would have been to temporarily freeze Prices, but allow Wages to float until an equilibrium was reached.
Carter: took actions harmful to Americans by blocking US ascension into the 5th Level Economy.
Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger and Obama: All undertook misguided efforts to prevent wages from stagnating at faster rates.....which is coming back to haunt you now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Zoning regulations, especially minimum lot size requirements, preclude home purchase by many lower-income individuals.
You are not forced to buy the lots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
These people are left with the less desirable, and often unwanted options of renting or being homeless.
Or relocating.
Or sharing living accommodations.
Or taking action to improve their financial situation so that they can purchase lots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Faced with only the alternative of being homeless, most of these people rent. Are theseconsumer transactions not involuntary or coerced?
They are 100% voluntary.
My sister lived in Arlington, Virginia. She didn't want to raise my nephews in an apartment. She wanted a home and land and for them to have horses and dogs and cats and goats.
It's real expensive in Arlington, Virginia.
She packed up the car and moved to Boseman, Montana, where she could have a double-wide 3-bedroom trailer on 4 acres of land for $150/month rent.
With all the money she saved, she moved to upstate New York by the Finger Lakes.
I mention that because ----unlike you --- she didn't stand around whining and crying demanding that the rest of the world bend over backwards and jump through hoops to accommodate her.
Zoning laws.......we don't need no stinking zoning laws...
Naturally....
Mircea
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.
