OK, I saw a speech last night, where Obama said "income inequality is a threat to the American dream". Hilary has also railed against the downside of income inequality.

In all seriousness, can someone explain to me how income inequality actually harms anyone? Because I don't get it.

The average NBA player makes more than I do. That contributes to income inequality. Next year, the average NBA player will get a bigger raise than I will, which exacerbates income inequality. The difference between my salary, and theirs, will increase. Income inequality will get more severe.

How does that hurt me? Why should I care? Answer - it doesn't, and I don't.

The way I see it, this can only impact me if wealth is finite, like a pizza. It only hurts me if every dollar an NBA player gets, means there's one less dollar for the rest of us to scrounge for. Does anyone believe there is a speck of truth to that?

Maybe one can make a slightly less insane argument that wealth is finite within a single corporation, that the more a CEO makes, the less his employees can make. Let's say I buy that argument. The left's number one corporate target for overall meanness, is Walmart.

I looked it up. The Walmart CEO made $19.1M in the last fiscal year. Walmart has 1.4 million employees in the US. So even if we assume the Walmart CEO is willing to work 70 hours a week for absolutely nothing, and every cent of that goes to the US employees, that works out to $13.64 for each employee. Now they can all go buy a house on Nantucket and send their kids to Phillip Exeter?

The rich have more disposable income to invest than normal people. Therefore, elementary school arithmetic guarantees that the rich will increase their net worth faster than everyone else.

The wealth gap will widen. That may not be "fair", since no one needs a $100 million boat while others are homeless. I concede the gap isn't "fair". But who, specifically, is it hurting, and how?

Unless you are talking about theft, one person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. It simply doesn't work that way.

It seems to me that those inclined to vote Democratic, are constantly looking to blame someone else for whatever financial issues they are facing. It's a lot easier to blame someone else than it is to take responsibility.

I want everyone to be comfortable, and it pains me that not everyone is. But the income earned by the wealthy, except in cases of theft, simply isn't "taking" anything away from anyone else.

It's like the 2 fish verses 1 fish mentality 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the elected left talks about income inequality they always talk about greedy CEOs, bankers, Wall Street hedgefund owners etc. (But they have no problem taking their money.) They never mention thay they are the 1% or villianize the the athletes, actors, and other members of the 1% that share their ideology. It's always the conservative 1% that is greedy and needs to pay their fair share.

It's the typical hypocrisy of many, not all, on the left. The rich need to pay more....yet I would wager to bet that every elected politician calling for higher taxes on the rich takes every deduction they can and has a finiancial advisor helping them keep more of their money.

Just look at the hypocrisy from the hosts at MNSBC -Sharpton 4.5 million in back taxes, Toure -59K, Harris -70k, Reid 5k - All on record complaing the rich don't pay enough, unless of course it is them!

Am I jealous at the millions others may have, sometimes, but do I think they don't pay enough in taxes, no. Just look at the IRS numbers, the top 10% pay the vast majority of taxes collected. Which by the way is at a record high.

If the salary of an NBA player goes up then so does the price of a ticket to the game. If you enjoy taking your family to a game of any sorts,tell me it doesn't hurt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the salary of an NBA player goes up then so does the price of a ticket to the game. If you enjoy taking your family to a game of any sorts,tell me it doesn't hurt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a lot more complex than that. It's part of the total economic system being bent, stretched, expanding as more money is filtered into its various parts. The high paid Athlete, show biz, entertainment market in general is similar on a more expensive scale to the middle and lower paid labor market in effect when its wages go up. When wages in the rest of the market go up, the prices of the products do as well. But other factors, in a healthy market, compensate by leveling or overall raising in other ways.

Various discount ways to deliver products are devised, as well as being accompanied by the usual inflationary effect of wages rising all around as prices rise. Prices today for most things are much higher than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago by average factors of 4 to 15 times higher, or more. And wages have also risen by similar factors.

The dramatically rising wages in professional sports, in one way, have made going to games accessible to more fans than in the lower paying past. More money has attracted more to choose a sport over another profession, to be more dedicated and better at it, to devote far more time in training, etc. And so, because the pool of highly skilled athletes has expanded, more teams are able to be created and dispersed into cities that once did not have a team. Far more fans can attend games than in the past. And, of course, all the surrounding business and infrastructure is expanded as well. More jobs, better facilities, more things to do, growth, in general, is a product of more money being earned and spent.

And the great influx of money also makes attractive the expanded opportunities of the stay at home viewers. Viewing channels are created, sports talk shows abound, the aftermarket in clothing and paraphernalia booms, and so on. The present is the sports home-viewer's heaven. Huge high def TV's at lower costs than some original televisions, an endless variety and supply of stuff to eat and drink in well furnished man-caves which are more and more being availed by the fairer sex as well.

Sure, the immediate impact on some "hurts." But for most . . . it's all good.

If the salary of an NBA player goes up then so does the price of a ticket to the game. If you enjoy taking your family to a game of any sorts,tell me it doesn't hurt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ty for simplicity, this post started to hurt my.brain as soon as i saw Obama and Hillary' s names.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the salary of an NBA player goes up then so does the price of a ticket to the game. If you enjoy taking your family to a game of any sorts,tell me it doesn't hurt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah, a desperate totalitarian attempt to connect dots.

Here's the thing...if there was a law that said I had to buy season tickets to the Celtics, then yes, it would be hurt. But there isn't. See, there is this thing called free will, by which, the NBA cannot force me to go to a game, it is my choice. If I choose to pay the higher prices, then the only person inflicting that additional financial burden on me, is myself. If I choose not to go to games anymore, and enough people feel the same way, they will be forced to lower prices to get me back.

It's called the free market, and as long as there is some regulation to prevent abuse, it works pretty well.

Ty for simplicity, this post started to hurt my.brain as soon as i saw Obama and Hillary' s names.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was simple...it was also demonstrably false. No one can force me to buy a higher-priced ticket, I only buy it if I choose to do so, in which case no one is forcing that burden on me, but rather, I am assuming that responsibility myself.

Liberals aren't very fond of the concept of personal responsibility...

Cost of living increases. Ceo and upper management get a raise. You don't. In fact you are required to give up your over time pay and work less hours but do as much work.
That's a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't affect you that much because you're middle class and you have a pretty good handle on life. Thing is you're middle class and you have more wealth than a huge majority of the country. If we're talking globally you're in the 99%. The other small percent above you prob 3% of the country have an astronomical amount more than you, and the ones below your class are living in squalor. Get it? Its not supernatural, income inequality means more poor people and a weaker economy...

The left never looks at the wealthy for what the do and that's create jobs .
I make my living working for people much wealthier then I and i am greatful for it .
Whole economies revolve around the mega wealthy .
They are much better at job creating then the Government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cost of living increases. Ceo and upper management get a raise. You don't. In fact you are required to give up your over time pay and work less hours but do as much work.
That's a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But as I showed with the Walmart example, even if the CEOs worked for free and gave their salaries to the employees, it's not a meaningful amount of money for each employee. It's not worth talking about.

Blaming CEOs makes for a great sound byte. But it makes zero sense when you think about it. It's so easy to tell people that nothing is their own fault, that someone else did this to them.

So I answer the question but since Mr Paradox can't grasp the simplicity of such,new tangents are invariably introduced. Somebody must have really picked on you at recess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As much as I dislike your president and the clintons inequality basically got its start in the late 80's with corporations and wall street and with the middle class starting to shrink.Inequality for the middle class started when corporations started to give upper managers and CEO's pay raises thru corporate shares and giving much of the profits to shareholders and giving back little to its workers and not putting profits back into factory infrastructure. Also corporations started buying back shares and splitting shares to stockholders making some rich.....if U R not in the stock market U should be.

Nobody that works believes in equality unless U R on the bottom of the pay scale...do not tell me that U do....if U think U do here is what I want U to do....pick 9 people that U do not know take your weekly pay check and divide it equally amongest the 10 of U that is money equality......:)

Can U imagine movie stars or professional players let alone the clintons believing in equality.....how many would go to the homeless shelters and devide their wealth.....LOL...:)

If it was not for the rich, the poor would not be working....:)

It doesn't affect you that much because you're middle class and you have a pretty good handle on life. Thing is you're middle class and you have more wealth than a huge majority of the country. If we're talking globally you're in the 99%. The other small percent above you prob 3% of the country have an astronomical amount more than you, and the ones below your class are living in squalor. Get it? Its not supernatural, income inequality means more poor people and a weaker economy...

I agree that I'm middle class and comfy, and that I'm better of than 99% of the world when you consider places like Haiti and Africa. I agree. But the uber wealthy in this country are NOT TAKING money away from those people.

The vast majority of wealthy people,got wealthy because they came up with a way to make people want to givethem a little bit of theit money, by their own choice.

"The other small percent above you prob 3% of the country have an astronomical amount more than you"

That's absolutely true. But th efact that they have more doesn't result in me having less. If Bill Gates didn't exist, that doesn't mean that his billions would be spread out to those who need it. It doesn't work that way. He created that wealth, he didn't confiscate it from soneone else.

If the rich get richer, that does not mean that there's less wealth available for the rest of us. Wealth is not finite, it';s not like a pizza where a bully eats half on his own, leaving little for the rest of the group. Wealth doesn't work like that.

So I answer the question but since Mr Paradox can't grasp the simplicity of such,new tangents are invariably introduced. Somebody must have really picked on you at recess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your answer was demonstrably false. In that example, you made it seem like the NBA is reaching into my pocket, against my will, to pay for Lebron James' higher salary. It doesn't work that way. If I choose to buy the higher priced ticket, I can't then complain that they are stealing from me.

And if we're talking about the truly uber wealthy, much of their income comes from dividends and capital gains on investments. How does that represent theft of anyone else's money? How does that hurt anyone else?

Jim. Come on man. Dividends come from corporate profits. The less money a cooperation pays its employees, the more profits are made and the higher the dividend potential is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim. Come on man. Dividends come from corporate profits. The less money a cooperation pays its employees, the more profits are made and the higher the dividend potential is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a valid, fair point.

But if I'm a CEO, and I pay my employees meager wages to improve profits to increase dividends, isn't it true that no one will want to work there?

What you say is 100% true, but paying slave wages isn't the only way a company makes profits.

Jim.. Do you know how many people are miserable at their jobs? A whole lot. They would leave in a heart beat if they could find a better paying job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the salary of an NBA player goes up then so does the price of a ticket to the game. If you enjoy taking your family to a game of any sorts,tell me it doesn't hurt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You couldn't pay me enough money to go to an NBA game....

Jim.. Do you know how many people are miserable at their jobs? A whole lot. They would leave in a heart beat if they could find a better paying job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Count me among the miserable. But whose fault is that? How do I blame that on the rich? I have a dull job. I knew that going in...

You couldn't pay me enough money to go to an NBA game....


Agreed and for me that is any game.....front row seat at home with instant replay and about 87 cents for bacardi and coke and do not have to wait in line to go wee wee....:cheers:

Jim.. Do you know how many people are miserable at their jobs? A whole lot. They would leave in a heart beat if they could find a better paying job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know how much that was always true, even before there was less "income inequality"?

Do you know how many people are miserable at even higher than average paying jobs? Or even higher paying than that?

Are we to assume that income equality will make people love their jobs? Wouldn't it drive those with more ambition and ability to strike out on their own to find or create something in the way of compensated work that was more satisfying to their souls--whatever they considered their souls to be? Even if it paid less?

Start with yourself. Is your satisfaction with your life dependent on income equality? Does the existence of billionaires diminish your quality of life? Examine what are those things which make your life worthwhile. And what is necessary for the society you live in to allow you, encourage you, or guarantee to you, the ability to do those things that make you life worthwhile.

Historically, there used to be a compact between corporations and labor so that the so-called rising tide floated all boats. That compact, for lack of a better term, ended in the 80s when Mr. reagan took on the air traffic controllers and started the union-busting ideology that is so prevalent today. Just imagine if there were no unions; non-union employees would be getting slave wages like the 30s and 40s, there would be no upward mobility, etc., etc. The greed of Wall Street and their co-conspirators in Congress have, basically, wiped out the American Dream for the majority of Americans. Corporations want more work and output for reduced wages (remember, the Cost of Living goes up, wages stay stagnant). Tell me if you are better off now than before 2006 or so??? The migration of jobs overseas started in the 70s and we are left with sports and dancin' with the stars; that's America's output now; entertainment above all things to keep our eyes off the ball. Yes, we have the best government money can buy…

Does the existence of billionaires diminish your quality of life?

Are you kidding me.

Simple answer. F*CK yeah.

Enough said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Historically, there used to be a compact between corporations and labor so that the so-called rising tide floated all boats.

Historically, it was not a compact, but became so when the federal government forced corporations to submit to collective bargaining. The historical relation between wages and labor, in its purest sense, was due to market forces. But governments, also historically, have always managed to distort that relationship, sometimes in favor of corporations, sometimes in favor of labor, but always in favor of government. And, historically, when market forces were least distorted by government, the so-called rising tide did float many boats. But rising tides also can sink boats. And "the market" is not totally comparable to the tides.

That compact, for lack of a better term, ended in the 80s when Mr. reagan took on the air traffic controllers and started the union-busting ideology that is so prevalent today.

Mr. Reagan was closer to FDR regarding unions than the union leaders of today. Reagan took on GOVERNMENT employee unions in the air traffic controllers controversy. FDR, the great labor union hero, though he aided private sector unions, was against having government unions. And with very good reasons, as exemplified by the fiscal and operational problems that federal and local governments have today because of union contracts.

Just imagine if there were no unions; non-union employees would be getting slave wages like the 30s and 40s, there would be no upward mobility, etc., etc.

Before industries or corporations became heavily unionized, their worker's wages were usually better than what they would have had if they were employed elsewhere. The so-called Industrial Revolution was a tide that lifted many boats. And the industrial corporations after that, even before unionization, paid well above average wages. The idea that their compensation pre-union were "slave wages" is nonsense.

And upward mobility was a mark of American culture long before industrial or corporate unionization. The mobility was driven by entrepreneurship, innovation, ambition, and a free society which permitted it. It was not that those things depended on the existence of unions, it was, rather, that unions depended on those things in order to have a prosperous base in which to organize. If anything, the nexus between unions and government creates a status quo in which growth and mobility are less possible.

The greed of Wall Street and their co-conspirators in Congress have, basically, wiped out the American Dream for the majority of Americans. Corporations want more work and output for reduced wages (remember, the Cost of Living goes up, wages stay stagnant).

As far as there is really such a thing as "the American Dream," beyond the desire to be free from overbearing government, you may be on to something. When it is left to government to define and create what that dream is, it is then within the government's power to redefine or "wipe out" that dream. If the connection between Wall Street and the Federal Government (which definitely includes the President, not just the Congress) is so close that they start to become indistinguishable, they can dole out whatever dreams they wish.

If corporations and their Wall Street financiers were restricted to pure market forces, their income would be based on actual production, consumption, and competition. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, but he understood that profits were made by sales, and he created assembly line production to mass manufacture his cars, and knew that his workers as well as the rest of the mythic "middle class" had to be able to afford to buy them. So, well before unions took hold, as much as they did, the American standard of living was that much more enhanced. This can be said about the industrialists who preceded him, some of the most successful of them being called "Robber Barons." But the least successful needed government regulations to protect them against their "monopolystic" competitors. So the government/corporate nexus began in earnest and has grown into the tightly controlled government/big business complex we have today.

And, like the FDR administration which solidified that complex and who strove in the face of a depression to keep prices and wages up by government spending with creation of non-market make-work projects and highly coercive and restrictive regulations on the private sector (including the union beloved NLRB), the progressive and quasi-progressive administrations which have followed, became deeper and deeper intertwined with the private sector "economy" to the point of being a de-facto CEO. And the continuation of government intrusions to "fix" economic downturns by propping up failing corporate giants and trying to maintain union presence, all rather than letting the market naturally cure itself, furthers government power and control, but diminishes market forces into obsolescence.

So now we have, not the military/industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us against, but the much more pervasive government/big business complex. And this monstrosity cannot be abandoned by progressive government, since it is its child. It must, somehow be nourished and maintained.

Wall Street must be bailed out by government. Big automotive companies and their union employees must be bailed out by government. Trillions of stimulus money unconnected to market forces must be infused into the pockets of the banks. Unions must be propped up by the NLRB attempting to deny a big corporation from moving to a right to work state.

And if all else fails, do the old slight-of-hand. Pretend you are for protecting the "middle class" while permitting and encouraging a huge influx of low skilled illegal immigrants who will work for lower wages. Of course, the government prefers not to mention that wage stuff. It talks about compassion for the poor, and rails against a straw man racism against latinos. The hope must be, somehow, that the corporations will actually loose-up some of that stimulus money to hire the immigrants at a more profitable low wage, thus increase employment statistics, and maybe provide some more wage-earners to fund future Social Security payouts. That it will create more SS recipients in the future is merely a growing bubble that some future administrations will deal with.

Of course, this underlies a realization that the inflationary cycle created by government spending and growing social transfers has given us an unsustainable "trajectory." That was also rather quietly admitted when the government forced the auto unions to redo contracts and start out with lower pay and less generous benefits for new workers when it briefly owned GM and Chrysler. It's peculiar that the government doesn't recognize it also should do the downsizing that it made the auto companies do.

And, of course, there is the biennial call for higher minimum wages. But the government Wonks aren't dummies. They know that's mostly counterproductive. But, they rely on business to adjust by raising prices, or cutting costs, or eliminating jobs, or doing those things with more robotic production. In the meanwhile, the government looks like it is trying to help the poor. And, of course, unions love rising minimum wages since they become a base mark from which their wages should rise.

So, government "fixing" of economic problems mostly leads to the inflated cost of living that you don't like, and, along with efforts to level societal inequities, leads to a shrinking of the so-called middle class. And, because big business is forced to downsize its workforce, more of the profits will go to the CEO's.

Tell me if you are better off now than before 2006 or so??? The migration of jobs overseas started in the 70s and we are left with sports and dancin' with the stars; that's America's output now; entertainment above all things to keep our eyes off the ball. Yes, we have the best government money can buy…

Would the jobs have migrated as much if government distortion of our market forces had not occurred? And what about government's answer to that distortion by replacing the migration of U.S. jobs to low paid workers in other countries with the migration of low-paid workers into the U.S.?

Sure, big business can "buy" government regulations which eliminates or minimizes its competitors, but what about government being able to print more money than any business can earn and buying into its quasi-ownership of the private sector by bailing out their preferred "greedy capitalists" when they fail.

And because of this government/big business complex, what happens to smaller businesses which cannot operate as easily as the big ones under the massive regulations that government imposes. The true heart and soul of the "middle class" is not the unions. It is the small business owners and their employees. As those businesses shrink under the burden of government regulation, so does the "middle class." And so does the dependence of a growing population divert from working wages to government transfer of money.

And, ultimately, so grows the power of government.

Are you kidding me.

Simple answer. F*CK yeah.

Enough said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would just love to see you elaborate on that. How does the existence of billionaitres diminish your quality of life? Maybe a specfic billionaire hurt some people on the way up, but in general, how are the rest of us hurt by the existence of these people? Are you going to claim that if those billionaires didn't exist, their money would be spread arond to the rest of us? It doesn't work that way.

We are helped by their existence, here's how. Most of them pay a lot of tax dollars, which lowers the burden on the rest of us. Most of them give a lot of money to charity, which helps people in need. And unless thet stuff all that money in their mattress, they either (1) spend it, (2) invest it, or (3) put it in the bank. In any of thos ecases, their money is in circulation, helping th eeconomy, which helps everyone.

Jim. Where to the billionaires reap the billions from? One way it happens is from paying workers as little as possible to skim all that cream from the profits and goes right to the top. Wages have stagnated.. Profits have risen and the rich keep getting richer. If you want to see this country prosper greatly, support any cause that will help the middle class. A strong middle class is the key to a thriving economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim. Where to the billionaires reap the billions from? One way it happens is from paying workers as little as possible to skim all that cream from the profits and goes right to the top. Wages have stagnated.. Profits have risen and the rich keep getting richer. If you want to see this country prosper greatly, support any cause that will help the middle class. A strong middle class is the key to a thriving economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, unless we own our own business, we all work for someone who presumably pays us less than we wish we were getting paid. Lots of those billionaitres (Bill gates, Michael Dell) made an awful lot of people rich along the way.

My employer pays me as little as possible to keep me here. That's called "real life". It's not unfair, not in the slightest.

"skim all that cream from the profits and goes right to the top"

If I want access to more of the cream, I can work my way higher up the ladder, or I am free to start my own company. There is absolutely nothing unfair about it.

Nebe, when you buy a new car, do you just pay sticker price so that the salesman can get a nice commission, or do you try to get the best deal you possibly can?

You are confusing "what you want", with "what you are entitled to". i would love to have my CEOs pay. If I want it bad enough, I am free to do what I need to do, in order to be qualified to have his job.

If my compensation is unfair, I am free to leave and work for a competitor.

i just don't get this attitude of always, always, always blaming the swells (more accurately, blaming the conservative swells...liberal swells are acceptable) for the shrinking middle class. It just doesn't pass the commn sense test.

Would the world be better off if more rich people spread their wealth around? Certainly. The less poverty, the better. But just because the wealthy have the ability to alleviate some poverty, that doesn't mean they caused said poverty, not by a long shot.

Also, the rich keep getting richer, because they have more disposable income to invest. There is nothing bad about the rich getting richer. Would it be better if no one got richer?

Nebe, put it this way...

Bill Gates founded Microsoft. h ehas tons of employees, and to please his stockhoders, he doesn't pay them more than he needs to. Agreed so far?

You say that's bad. Let's pretend Gates was never born. Microsoft no longer exists. What reason is there to believe, that the majority of current Microsoft employees would be better off, if Gates hadn't founded Microsoft?

If someone starts a new company, that means he mght need employees, and that means more jobs, which means salaries increase due to increased competition for employes.

You also say those at the top keep most of the cream, or something like that. I don't think so. The favorite liberal symbol of corporate evil is Walmart. The Walmart CEO made $35M last year, and there are 2.1 million Walmatrt employees worldwide. Do the math. If teh CEO works for free, and gives every cent of that to rhose employees, it works out to $16.67 each. Whoop-dee-doo.

Do you see? We cannot put any menaingful dent in poverty my confiscating more from the rich. There aren't enough rich people, and they aren't rich enough.

It's SO EASY to blame the wealthy. But the math, and common sense, suggest it's not logical.

If Gates had not created M$, my life would certainly be different - better? Probably not (though maybe less stress ;) )

If it were not for rich people, Democrats would have no pockets to explore

:buds:

I hear you Jim and I agree a little... However, the real crime is that a person earning around minimum wage can't even afford to rent an apartment. Minimum wage was created so a person could earn a living wage. Not a starvation wage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm changing subject a little. Sorry
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear you Jim and I agree a little... However, the real crime is that a person earning around minimum wage can't even afford to rent an apartment. Minimum wage was created so a person could earn a living wage. Not a starvation wage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have always considered minimum wage as being a starting wage. Something that people with no skills , such as a teenager earn .
If you're making minimum wage the last thing you should be doing is starting a family. Stay home and live with your mother
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Minimum wage was created so a person could earn a living wage. Not a starvation wage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that were so, then raising the minimum wage would be futile since all those needing the raise would have died . . . probably starved to death.

No. They go on welfare and you and I pay for the food stamps and other subsidies.
Meanwhile the profits soar and shareholders smile
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. They go on welfare and you and I pay for the food stamps and other subsidies.
Meanwhile the profits soar and shareholders smile
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you own any mutual funds ? I ask because it's always fun to establish the level of hypocrisy during these discussions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm changing subject a little. Sorry
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not changing the subject much. Like you, I want everyone to be able to afford a nice, clean, comfortable, safe place to live. That's not too much to ask. I agree with you there, and I hate that we fall so short.

But in our economy, SOME jobs cannot justify a wage that you can support a family on. SOME jobs are unskilled, entry level positions. Rather than arbitrarily say that all those jobs must pay $35k a year, we need to help people acquire the requisite skills for jobs that actually are worth a living wage. We can't pay cashiers and bus boys and ticket-takers, $35k a year. It doesn't work that way.


Have a good one.

No. They go on welfare and you and I pay for the food stamps and other subsidies.
Meanwhile the profits soar and shareholders smile
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well . . . It was the other way until Obama changed it back to the pre-other way. That is, Clinton, after being pushed into it by the Republican Congress, had changed welfare so that to qualify for it, after a base minimum time, the recipient had to get a job, part-time or minimum to low wage, in order to continue getting welfare checks. That was the famous Clinton welfare reform (at least he got the credit for it) which actually worked. The welfare recipients actually did find jobs which supplemented their welfare checks and gave a positive role model to their children rather than encouraging the previous model of generations bred on welfare and then continuing to practice that model passing it on to the next generation.

Of course, Obama considered that too harsh, so got rid of it and made it more comfortable once again to revert to old ways where they didn't have to find work, and expanded the food stamp program. BTW, in another thread, you seemed to support the food stamp thing and criticized Republicans for wanting to cut back on the amount of food stamps.

Curious how you tie in soaring profits with welfare, food stamps, and other government subsidies. Profits have soared in the past without the expansive government transfers we have today. The notion that profits are a result of or contribute to welfare subsidies is peculiar. Is there some magic number of people getting government subsidies which create soaring profits? Would the profits not soar if there were too few welfare recipients, or too many. Have the politicians and big money folks figured out just the right number, or accidently fallen into it? Maybe big business will have to tell Obama when to cut off the cash flow if too many get on welfare. If not, if the more the merrier, then let the number grow. Fire everybody and put them all on welfare. Profits would be stupendously gigantic . . .

. . . talk about income inequality . . .

I think big industry, such as the automotive, get profit by selling product. Generally speaking, they don't sell many new cars to those on minimum wage or welfare. There are exceptions, of course . . . there are, strangely, some fairly well off folks on welfare.

Are you suggesting that companies should hire more workers than they actually need in order to have soaring profits? Or to pay them more than competitive wages and benefits in order to have soaring profits? Isn't that one of the main reasons the Big Three American auto companies got into an unsustainable fiscal predicament, and two of them were bailed out on our dime.

Or are you saying that soaring profits are a sign of things not being right? That profits should not be allowed to soar? That product prices should be lowered, or employee wages should be raised, or both, to a level where profits are more moderate, more seemly? It seems to me that striving for moderate profits in a competitive market would lead to failure. Unless, of course, there was an agreement forced on all companies to not strive for more than a comfortable mediocrity. Collective bargaining was supposed to accomplish that, but, somehow, that didn't work out too well for GM And Chrysler.

I understand about "living wage" and "slave wages." I am a retired UAW member. I was in that union both in the private and public sector. I understand union rhetoric very well. But I wondered why anyone actually believed any of it. It always amazed me how people badly wanted to get those great union jobs, but how every three years they precipitously became oppressed victims. I remember the exciting days of Walter Reuther negotiating with GM representatives and "winning great contracts" and the shaking hands across the table while grinning into the camera. But, within two years, just in time for the next yearly round of negotiations, the deal wasn't great anymore. It stunk. GM was greedy. What was a great living wage two years ago became almost slave wages. Then I went to work in the Detroit Municipal system. Detroit was a great city then--before the workers got unionized. We were paid a little less at the low to mid levels than those in the auto companies. But we had a bit better benefits and far better job security. It provided a comfortable, "moderate," life style, But to make a long story short, the big national unions were voted in, and the same three year pattern I experienced at GM was copied by municipal employees. And, eventually, the great city became not great at all.

But the truth is that in my adult work experience I was always paid a "living wage." As was most everyone else I've known. And "income inequality" has existed in all my memory. I can't recall it diminishing my appreciation for and enjoyment of life in the USA. So, now that the income gap is, supposedly, even greater, that is supposed to be destroying the "middle class." We will now be ground into wage slavery.

So, when we don't recognize the huge role "benevolent" government has played in bringing us to this middle class destruction, and we perceive that it is the rapacious one percenters who are responsible, we have to assume that they have the vast majority of material wealth in their possession, therefor not available or stolen from the rest of us. Even though that is obviously not true. The 99 percent consume far more food and energy, own more cars and houses and clothes . . . etc. But the one percent own 40% of the financial wealth. Umm . . . what are they going to do with it? Buy all our food and cars and homes and clothes off our backs. It seems to me that depriving the rest of us of our material comforts, or the means to acquire them, makes absolutely no rational sense. In fact, quite the opposite, investing in the production and sale of those things to us rather than buying them or stealing them from us would be the rationale use of their financial wealth. The destruction of the so-called "middle class" would seem to be the farthest goal the top 1% would have in mind. If their wealth depends and grows by selling to us, why would they want to impoverish us?

I guess you might as well go ahead and believe the Marxist rhetoric if that gives you a sense of understanding of how things work, and what causes what, and what the cure is . . . vote for Bernie Sanders.

Let's try this again.
A single mom has 2 kids and can only find a job at Walmart for $7.50 an hour.
Her apartment costs $800 per month, food is around $500 for her family. Gas to get to work is another $100.
Clothes, other necessities to live.. Another $100.
Let's round it to an even $2000 a month overhead.

If she worked 50 hours a week she's only at $1500.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forgot the cost of daycare. For 2 kids.. What's that? $200 a week?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's try this again.
A single mom has 2 kids and can only find a job at Walmart for $7.50 an hour.
Her apartment costs $800 per month, food is around $500 for her family. Gas to get to work is another $100.
Clothes, other necessities to live.. Another $100.
Let's round it to an even $2000 a month overhead.

If she worked 50 hours a week she's only at $1500.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does she have two kids? Where is the father?
Walmart receives over 65% of their revenue from government entitlements through welfare and EBT.
Don't forget to add in the $52,000 in additional government benefits she qualifies for. She's doing okay believe me
She is double dipping
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would just love to see you elaborate on that. How does the existence of billionaitres diminish your quality of life? Maybe a specfic billionaire hurt some people on the way up, but in general, how are the rest of us hurt by the existence of these people? Are you going to claim that if those billionaires didn't exist, their money would be spread arond to the rest of us? It doesn't work that way.

We are helped by their existence, here's how. Most of them pay a lot of tax dollars, which lowers the burden on the rest of us. Most of them give a lot of money to charity, which helps people in need. And unless thet stuff all that money in their mattress, they either (1) spend it, (2) invest it, or (3) put it in the bank. In any of thos ecases, their money is in circulation, helping th eeconomy, which helps everyone.

Let's have a beer some time .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's try this again.
A single mom has 2 kids and can only find a job at Walmart for $7.50 an hour.
Her apartment costs $800 per month, food is around $500 for her family. Gas to get to work is another $100.
Clothes, other necessities to live.. Another $100.
Let's round it to an even $2000 a month overhead.

If she worked 50 hours a week she's only at $1500.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, here's what you (and most liberals) arte leaving out of your little hypothetical scenario...we are responsible for our actions, and if th ebest job you can get is $7.50 an hour, you have no earthly business having children. Nebem how much of your hard-earned money am I entitled to, if I make stupid decisions? If I cash out my 401(k) and by lottery tickets, and then I go bankrupt, how much of what you have worked for, am I entitled to?

You don't need to itemize expenses. Everyone knows that it's tough to raise kids on $7.50 an hour.

We can't solve this problem by throwing money at it. If we could solve it that way, we would have, as we have spent tend of trillions on the war on poverty, and we haven't reduced poverty.

So what you are saying is "#^&#^&#^&#^& the poor". Got it.
Glad to see your Christian values are intact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Furthermore. Whose making a bad decision? The person who ships factory production overseas or the worker who looses his or her job from that decision and has to work at McDonald's ? Everything isn't black and white
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Furthermore. Whose making a bad decision? The person who ships factory production overseas or the worker who looses his or her job from that decision and has to work at McDonald's ? Everything isn't black and white
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What about the kids that were stoned all the way through high school and did not challenge themselves enough to chase education or skills and now cannot advance beyond the lousy job. Or their work ethic is too poor to keep one?

The problem is that the balance is lost, for every good example you have you have there are bad example too. Now out of "fairness" and not taking sides or wanting to make someone feel bad, everyone gets the opportunity not to chase opportunity. it is not sustainable.

Yes - the company that shipped a 1000 jobs overseas is part to blame, just as the 1000 kids that never chased the dream.

Most of us have worked the $4 per hour minimum wage job and we worked on skills, education, or chased opportunity to move beyond that.

Used to be that if you worked hard enough on your self you could improve your lot & luck in life, that message is getting lost.

What about the kids that were stoned all the way through high school and did not challenge themselves enough to chase education or skills and now cannot advance beyond the lousy job. Or their work ethic is too poor to keep one?

The problem is that the balance is lost, for every good example you have you have there are bad example too. Now out of "fairness" and not taking sides or wanting to make someone feel bad, everyone gets the opportunity not to chase opportunity. it is not sustainable.

Yes - the company that shipped a 1000 jobs overseas is part to blame, just as the 1000 kids that never chased the dream.

Most of us have worked the $4 per hour minimum wage job and we worked on skills, education, or chased opportunity to move beyond that.

Used to be that if you worked hard enough on your self you could improve your lot & luck in life, that message is getting lost.

"What about the kids that were stoned all the way through high school and did not challenge themselves "

Bingo.

Even in college, I knew plenty of very smart kids who drank every day and picked easy majors that required little work and offered little job prospects. Those people are all struggling today, and there's nothing wrong or unfair about that. And I'll help them when I can, but here are limits to the level of sacrifice I'm willing to make for people who freely chose to make stupid decisions.

"Used to be that if you worked hard enough on your self you could improve your lot & luck in life"

Of course it's still that way, and it's not all that hard. Get th ebest grades you can get. If you cannot afford college, get a good paying job at a place like UPS and go to school part time, working towards a degree, or larn a trade, or join the military.

Nebe, did you see those looters in Baltimore? Half naked, drugged out of their minds, underwear halfway up theiur back, covered in tattoos, can't speak English. Sorry, don't tell me I caused any of that while coaching Little League and going to church on Sundays, I don't want to hear that crap.

SOme peole, of course, are poor because of bad luck, and nothing else. I want those peopple to get all the help they need. Most, in my estimation, are por because they (and probably their parents) freely chose to make stupid decisions. Much of the responsibility fo rthat, should lie with them. We need programs in place to help more people better themselves, no doubt. But no matter how many times they say it on MSNBC, we ain't fixing this by throwing other people's monet at it.

Furthermore. Whose making a bad decision? The person who ships factory production overseas or the worker who looses his or her job from that decision and has to work at McDonald's ? Everything isn't black and white
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The person who chose to do no homework in high school and get C's, instead of doing some work and getting B's, made an idiotic decision. Almost every person I have ever met, had the ability to get B's in high school with a little work ethic. And I teach my kids, that their decisions will sometimes have consequences that they have to accept, and that you don't limit yourself to the consequences you happen to like.

So what you are saying is "#^&#^&#^&#^& the poor". Got it.
Glad to see your Christian values are intact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sigh.

I didn't say **** the poor. I said that most (not all) of them, have nobody butthemselves, and maybe their parents, to blame fo rthe fact that they are poor.

Nebe, look at it from the other angle. Two similar kids in high school, same potential. One works hard, does everything right, graduates from college, gets a good job.

The other drinks and smokes pot, barely graduates from high school, now earns minimum wage at McDonalds and is stuck.

Nebe, does the first person deserve to enjoy the rewards of his work and good decisions, or not? If you think that person deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor, you are a Republican. If you think the first person is obligated to hand over much of what he worked for to even off teh outcome between the two, you are a Democrat. There it is.

I don't want anyone starving. But I won't lose one second's sleep if someone who chose to slack, can't afford a TV or a cell phone.

What about the kids that were stoned all the way through high school

I went in the Navy :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I went in the Navy :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, my buddies joined the Navy and I tried to join, but wasn't healthy enough . . .not because I was stoned through high school though . . . maybe it was just the income inequality at the time caused me poor health. It's said that the income inequality don't just cause slow economic growth, loss of jobs, slave wages, destruction of the middle class, but even gang violence, school drop-outs, general stupidity, and most of the social ills as well as poor health and all sorts of mental instability and poor self-esteem. Damn, if our government didn't near fix all the causes for those things and along come this new culprit to start it all over again!

I guess it wasn't inequality enough, until now, to totally destroy the country. But it's so bad now that we're more and more becoming unhinged. Men turning into women . . . even marriage coming out of the closet and turning gay. Babies turned from a blessing into a disease that need to be cut out of you.

But hell, they're saying that's the new freedom, so what's the fuss? What's the worry? And these millennials they talk about don't seem to want to own anything anyway. They'll be taking charge shortly and income probably won't be an issue. They won't have much by the sound of what they think about money. Maybe they're on to something.

Anyway, I thought I'ld google about what effects the income inequality had. Damn if I don't think the millennials ain't right? I got dizzy, if not mystified, by how cock sure the economic experts were about the effects of the income inequality, while at the same time they had different opposing views, and the google person would constantly intervene that nothing was proved. So I come away from it that the income inequality might cause all those bad things I said before . . . or not.

In the meantime, the millennials hear some politicians, who are rich as Croesus, going on about how they're going to bring the super rich to their knees if they get elected. Damn if it ain't stupid for rich people to say they're going to make the rich people pay for everything. And damn if it ain't stupid to believe them. I've been hearing that for a long time. But the rich get richer and the politicians right along with them.

In the meantime, the politicians cover their asses by giving the rest of us of food stamps and what they call health care and money back for this and that from the taxes they took from us, and keep the really poor folks on their side by not even taking taxes from them. And, just to make sure, in case enough Americans who are put out of work by the income inequality actually believe that they shouldn't, and wouldn't, work for what they've been told are slave wages offered by the m'effen business pigs . . . just too make sure the pigs have enough slaves to make them billionaires, the anti-rich . . . but rich . . . politicians bring in millions of Mexicano types who will gladly work for the slave wages. And maybe they'll bail out some big company whose supposed to be too big to fail (or donates too big to let go). So the politicos have everybody, from top to bottom, in their pocket.

So maybe the millenials are right not to want any part of it. But . . . nah . . . people are people. If they ain't right with God, they'll get in with the devil.

So what you are saying is "#^&#^&#^&#^& the poor". Got it.
Glad to see your Christian values are intact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow! I thought you were opposed to people needing some little book telling them how to live? What were your two simple rules . . . be cool and don't be a jerk? Or something like that? What, so now you're chastising Jim for not keeping his Christian values intact? From what you've said about Christians, besides implying they're weak minded for needing the little book, I would have assumed that breaking loose from Christian values would be applauded by you. I guess it's convenient to throw Christian values at someone if it somehow validates your argument.

But, you can be forgiven (one of those weak-minded rules from the little book) for misapplying or not understanding Christian values. Christian values and responsibilities regarding the poor have nothing to do with government aid to them. Quite the contrary, if a Christian transfers his personal responsibility to be charitable from himself to the government, he places government not only above himself, but above God. Jesus' commandment to love one another and to give compassion and material sustenance to the needy was a commandment to your personal soul and was ultimately a gift to God even more than a gift to the poor. Nowhere did Jesus require that civil, secular government do anything for the poor, nor anything else. Nor did he say that petitioning government aid, or creating a government safety net for the poor would get you points in the eyes of God.

Liberation theology, on the other hand, in my opinion, is a step closer to the religion of socialism and a step away from fundamental Christianity. The Current Pope, at times, steps in that direction. Maybe Bernie Sanders, as President, could persuade the Pope to kneel before the State as a co-God with the God of Christianity and make Christianity more acceptable to you.

Furthermore. Whose making a bad decision? The person who ships factory production overseas or the worker who looses his or her job from that decision and has to work at McDonald's ? Everything isn't black and white
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Bad decision" is a value judgment. And your question is rhetorical in that it frames, or judges, the decision by your values. You, obviously, believe that producing product overseas is bad. I assume that the person who "ships" it overseas thinks it was good, beneficial to the company, to do so.

I also assume that you value the jobs as a service to the employees rather than as an asset/liability to the company. You and Bernie Sanders would probably agree on that. I'm guessing that both of you would prefer that companies ran their business the way government does its. Even though, examples of those that operate sort of that way eventually, if they succeed in staying in business at all, get bloated, full of waste, and amass unsustainable debt. But, as long as Big Brother government can bail them out, that's OK.

I also assume that "shipping jobs overseas" is a decision to balance production, profit, and sustainability rather than a mean spirited sticking it to American workers.

I also assume that there is a level of excess wage that a company can sustain if the total process of production, delivery, and sales is still as, or more, profitable than "shipping" the jobs elsewhere. There was a time, in the 1950's/1960's if I recall correctly, when the wage structure in the auto industry was four times more costly in the U.S. than it would have been in Mexico. But the cost of moving jobs to Mexico would have incurred other costs, such as building infrastructure and so forth, so would have been overall more costly. But when the differential became 7X rather than 4X (and rising) it was economically responsible (good decision rather than bad) to move some jobs there. That became a growing pattern for corporations as the cost of producing in the U.S. kept rising, and the cost in less developed countries remained stagnant. That may be trending in the other direction as wages have become stagnant here and starting to rise a bit elsewhere. If that keeps up, we may have more and more job growth here. That remains to be seen--if the government can manage to let it happen without more of the regulatory distortions which also had caused the price of labor to rise here in the past.

As you say, everything isn't black and white. I don't think Bernie Sanders would be prone to let the markets correct themselves.