Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:21 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Wealth Distribution Is Good For The Economy Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2013 7:53:31 PM

When wealth is spread out among many people they have increased discretionary spending power. When they buy things it helps the economy.

Conversely, when wealth is concentrated in great amounts held by a relatively few number of people there is a lack of wealth distribution; and most people have little discretionary spending power. They don't buy as much; so the economy slows down. That is what had been happening for the last 35 years.

It is better for the economy for most people to be doing fairly well than it is for a few to be doing extremely well and most people just getting by. Therefore, in order to improve our economy we should be looking for ways to reduce wealth inequality.

Raising the minimum wage is one way to ensure that the lower paid workers have more buying power. Another way would be to limit the income of the executives of large corporations to a multiple of their average workers income. Breaking up the largest corporations and banks so that there is more competition in markets would also help. Increased unionization also reduces wealth inequality. It would be very beneficial to take away the special treatment the biggest banks get from the Federal Reserve and allow market forces to work naturally.

"The primary mechanism for uploading wealth is debt-based creation of new money under the system of fractional reserve lending under the central control of the private bank-owned Federal Reserve, which supplies money, at interest, to the U.S. Government. Commercial banks create electronic entry money when they make loans, typically up to ten times the amount in their reserves. This contributes to cyclical asset hyperinflation bubbles and busts, in which the Big Five money-center banks are key players and from which the super-wealthy emerge relatively wealthier. This has resulted in a virtually permanent super-elite."

"In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[9] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[8][9][10]"

"A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[7]"

wiki: Wealth inequality in the United States

[7.] ^ Norton, M.I.; Ariely, D. (2011). "Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 9–12.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/19/2013 7:54:46 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 6:01:56 PM

To say that paying workers more for their efforts is hurting the employers is the same as saying that workers were overpaid decades ago when the economy was more robust and employers took a smaller cut (and were still richer than the workers).
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 3:44:50 PM

flyboyUT - "The fallacy of pay people more so they spend more is nonsense. The idea is without merit except in one case - if the workers produce more to ear more. Then it will work."

There's one other case where it will work without increasing inflation: if the owners skim less off the top so they can pay the workers more. That doesn't increase costs, it simply distributes them more equitably.

And much of recent history shows the effort by employers to get employees to produce more so they can be paid less.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 7/27/2014 3:48:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,057
Points:1,374,740
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 3:41:15 PM

RJ if the workers really want to share in the profits of the company then they need to actually invest in the company. Maybe the management could do a stock option plan where a part of the workers wages are used to buy company stock (usually at a slightly reduced price) or the people could even buy it on the open market.

The fallacy of pay people more so they spend more is nonsense. The idea is without merit except in one case - if the workers produce more to ear more. Then it will work. But just to arbitrarily raise everyone's wages by 10% or whatever will have no effect except to fuel some level of increased inflation - which ends up hurting those who did save part of their wages and invest in the economy.

Efforts to make the dollars I earned and saved 50 years ago worth increasingly less is not desirable my friend.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 3:23:27 PM

mudtoe - "And I saw zero linking the two."

Only because you refuse to look. Increasing pay increases consumer spending, which increases demand, which creates more jobs. Simple market capitalism. 7;-]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 3:21:07 PM

nstrdnvstr - "Those that own the means of production deserve their return because of the risk they take with their capital."

Once again, that's not the question. The question is, do they deserve the amount of return they're currently taking?

Or, would we all be better off if more of that return went to the actual workers, instead of to the owners?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 3:05:09 PM

rjh: "This is economics, remember."


And I saw zero linking the two. It's the leftest global warming logic. CO2 is going up, and therefore it must be affecting the weather. All the stuff in the middle is missing. Some facts and figures, things such as the total payroll of minimum wage jobs before the hike, the total payroll of minimum wage jobs after the hike, the total number of minimum wage earners before, the total number of minimum wage earners after, the percentage of the total payrolls in the area that are for minimum wage workers, etc., are required to support the claim.

Analyzing stuff like that would allow someone to tell whether or not the minimum wage hike helped or hurt minimum wage workers, and whether or not the money paid to minimum wage workers is sufficient percentage wise to even have an effect on the total economy of an area. Of course those things are not provided, just like the global warming data is not provided or falsified, because it would enable someone to show that the premise itself is false.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,182
Points:4,435,780
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 27, 2014 2:36:56 PM

rjhenn, "A few people are willing to pay for something because they own the means of production and skim off the work that others do. Some of that is justifiable, because they make the work possible in the first place. The question is how much is justifiable and how much is just because they can."

Those that own the means of production deserve their return because of the risk they take with their capital.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 6:02:31 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Perhaps we should discuss exactly how "wealth" is created.

After all, distribution, or redistribution, isn't possible until wealth IS created.

And government only prints money. It never creates wealth."

Wealth is created by people working to make things. People work to make things because other people are willing to pay for them. Most of those other people are willing to pay for something because they're being paid for the work they do.

A few people are willing to pay for something because they own the means of production and skim off the work that others do. Some of that is justifiable, because they make the work possible in the first place. The question is how much is justifiable and how much is just because they can.

Government has little or nothing to do with it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 5:57:01 PM

mudtoe - "And where exactly is the causality linkage?"

This is economics, remember.

"Finally he admits it! We knew from the beginning that all this crap about "wealth DISTRIBUTION" not being "wealth REDISTRIBUTION" was just that, excrement. It took about six months to get this admission, but finally it's here. If you let a liberal talk, or in this case post, long enough, their true intentions and agenda will always be revealed."

Since Steve didn't say anything that hasn't been said at least a dozen times before, you're just bloviating.

Again.

"It's very similar to how all those 130 environmental groups last week called for an end to capitalism as the only cure for global warming. They too got impatient and finally let the cat out of the bag, even though it was a pretty transparent bag."

I'm still looking for something that says that those "130 environmental groups" actually had anything to do with that declaration, rather than it being the usual propaganda ploy we've come to expect from the Venezuelan government.

Of course, once again, reality doesn't matter as much as what you want to believe.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
All-Star Author Denver

Posts:592
Points:6,645
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 12:01:30 PM

Perhaps we should discuss exactly how "wealth" is created.

After all, distribution, or redistribution, isn't possible until wealth IS created.

And government only prints money. It never creates wealth.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 11:54:21 AM

"Finally he admits it!"

Only if you putting the words in my mouth constitutes it. Otherwise I'll stick with what I actually said.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 10:26:21 AM

SS: "Instead of thinking of it coming from somewhere, think of it coming BACK from the greedy. "



redistribution
re·dis·tri·bu·tion
[ree-dis-truh-byoo-shuhn] noun

1. a distribution performed again or anew.
2. Economics . the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.



Finally he admits it! We knew from the beginning that all this crap about "wealth DISTRIBUTION" not being "wealth REDISTRIBUTION" was just that, excrement. It took about six months to get this admission, but finally it's here. If you let a liberal talk, or in this case post, long enough, their true intentions and agenda will always be revealed.

It's very similar to how all those 130 environmental groups last week called for an end to capitalism as the only cure for global warming. They too got impatient and finally let the cat out of the bag, even though it was a pretty transparent bag.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 7/26/2014 10:28:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 10:13:17 AM

Previous post S/B

That wealth would be more fairly distributed than the current situation if it were not being seized away from those who earned it BY those who didn't.

Instead of thinking of it coming from somewhere, think of it coming BACK from the greedy.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 8:41:57 AM

That wealth would be more fairly distributed than the current situation if it were not being seized away from those who earned it BT those who didn't.

Instead of thinking of it coming from somewhere, think of it coming BACK from the greedy.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,182
Points:4,435,780
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 7:15:06 AM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "So tell us, where are you getting this wealth that will be "distributed"?

Where exactly is it coming from?"

The same diversion that's been dealt with many times before."

It is not a diversion, that "wealth" has to come from somewhere.

Just because you don't ant to think about where it comes from doesn't mean it is irrelevant.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,182
Points:4,435,780
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 7:13:44 AM

SemiSteve, "If everyone were to take your advice and transcend above low skill jobs, how would these tasks ever get done?"

Umm... maybe by the new workers graduating from high school and immigrants that become available everyday???
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,182
Points:4,435,780
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 7:11:03 AM

SemiSteve, the unemployment rate went down due to more jobs, but how many of those were full time jobs?

Most of them were part time.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 26, 2014 6:59:33 AM

Casualty linkage? What the heck is that?

Is that the part of 'employment went up' that you don't get?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 7:13:00 PM

And where exactly is the causality linkage? Maybe it was because the sun rose in the east in those states. That seemed to be happening there at the same time. Guess the two are related. Do you happen to see a hockey stick graph anywhere in there?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 7:07:43 PM

Excerpts from the earlier link:

At the beginning of 2014, 13 states increased their minimum wage. Of these 13 states, four passed legislation raising their minimum wage (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island). In the other nine, their minimum wage automatically increased in line with inflation at the beginning of the year (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state).

As was the case with the earlier analyses by GS and CEPR, employment growth is still faster in states where the minimum wage went up.

Of the 13 states that increased their minimum wage in early 2014, all but one (New Jersey) are seeing employment gains. Furthermore, nine of the remaining 12 states are above the median for this period. The average change in employment for the 13 states that increased their minimum wage is +0.99% while the remaining states have an average employment change of +0.68%.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 6:01:43 PM

rjh: "is not Washington _state_. "


Substitute Seattle for San Francisco. Same answer, different high tech companies.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 5:55:06 PM

mudtoe - "Oh yea, I forgot, the liberal wants a victim in every circumstance, and there wasn't one here, so all was not right with the world as far as the liberal was concerned."

As opposed to what "the rich" appear to want, which is simply the widest possible gap between themselves and everyone else?

"The D.C. area"

is not Washington _state_.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 4:44:52 PM

rjh: "Diversion again. Who said anything about North Dakota? The examples I remember included Washington state and San Francisco, not North Dakota. "


Same deal. The San Francisco area is filled with high tech companies and jobs, such as Google, which I daresay has far more to do with how the local economy is doing than businesses that hire minimum wage workers. The D.C. area is awash in tax dollars confiscated from the rest of us and the surrounding counties are among the wealthiest in the nation for that reason. I'm sure those tax dollars have far more to do with what's happening in the local economy than does the minimum wage.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 7/25/2014 4:45:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 4:39:54 PM

SS: "I also see that you didn't answer the one about how these tasks get done without such workers."


Read again, I said low skill low pay jobs are for new workers entering the job market for the first time without any skills. Once they have some experience and skills they move on to better jobs while more new workers take their places. What part of that did you fail to understand?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 4:36:39 PM

rjh: "IOW, she was taking advantage of them about as much as they were taking advantage of her."


Apparently each got what they wanted and all was right with the world. What more could a liberal want? Oh yea, I forgot, the liberal wants a victim in every circumstance, and there wasn't one here, so all was not right with the world as far as the liberal was concerned.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 3:40:17 PM

"Is there any way to run a business which utilizes low skill workers and also respect them for their contribution? "mud: "I assume respect in this context is a liberal codeword for higher pay."

You have incorrectly assumed. I said respect because that was what I meant.

Is there any way to run a business which utilizes low skill workers and also respect them for their contribution?

I also see that you didn't answer the one about how these tasks get done without such workers.

If everyone were to take your advice and transcend above low skill jobs, how would these tasks ever get done?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 1:31:31 PM

mudtoe - "As an example,"

IOW, she was taking advantage of them about as much as they were taking advantage of her.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 1:29:54 PM

mudtoe - "Non-sequitur. There are a whole lot of other factors at work which skewed the results. As an example, nobody working at McDonalds in the oil and gas boom areas of North Dakota is making anywhere near minimum wage; they are all making many multiples of it because there is a labor shortage in the area. So if you raise the minimum wage in a boom area with a labor shortage and then crow about how the boom was caused by the minimum wage hike, that is manifestly false."

Diversion again. Who said anything about North Dakota? The examples I remember included Washington state and San Francisco, not North Dakota.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 1:28:19 PM

rjh: "So you regard every job you've ever offered anyone else as a dead end job? "


It's up to the person doing the job to decide if it's dead end, not up to the employer. A dead end job for one person may not be considered so by another.

As an example, the wife of a coworker of mine a number of years ago took a job at a high end dress store, not because she needed the job or because they needed the money, but because she wanted to get out of the house. The pay was lousy but she got a big discount on high end dresses, which she could easily afford with their household income. For her the job wasn't dead end because she got out of the house and got to socialize, and she got to buy expensive dresses at a big discount. Now, for a single mom trying to make ends meet that would be a dead end job because there really weren't any promotion chances (it was a family owned store), the pay wasn't good, and she couldn't afford the dresses anyway even with a big discount.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 1:20:15 PM

rjh: "Which, of course, ignores the previously referenced data that indicates that areas with a higher minimum wage saw higher economic growth. "


Non-sequitur. There are a whole lot of other factors at work which skewed the results. As an example, nobody working at McDonalds in the oil and gas boom areas of North Dakota is making anywhere near minimum wage; they are all making many multiples of it because there is a labor shortage in the area. So if you raise the minimum wage in a boom area with a labor shortage and then crow about how the boom was caused by the minimum wage hike, that is manifestly false.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 12:20:18 PM

nstrdnvstr - "So tell us, where are you getting this wealth that will be "distributed"?

Where exactly is it coming from?"

The same diversion that's been dealt with many times before.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,182
Points:4,435,780
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 8:16:31 AM

Weaslespit, ""Wealth redistribution is what this is all about, no matter how it's phrased."

Except that wealth distribution and wealth redistribution are two entirely different subjects...

But hey, spin it however you like."

So tell us, where are you getting this wealth that will be "distributed"?

Where exactly is it coming from?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 1:37:41 AM

mudtoe - "Now of course government here can raise the minimum wage, but that just encourages the migration of jobs overseas or the replacement of jobs via automation to occur that much faster because the potential savings from doing so are that much higher."

Which, of course, ignores the previously referenced data that indicates that areas with a higher minimum wage saw higher economic growth.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 1:35:36 AM

mudtoe - "Really? I would consider a job where I felt I was being taken advantage of a dead end job. But heck, maybe that's just me."

So you regard every job you've ever offered anyone else as a dead end job?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 25, 2014 12:36:37 AM

SS: "I also have to wonder how, if everyone were to take your advice and transcend above low skill jobs, how would these tasks ever get done?"


Those jobs are suitable for young people just entering the workforce without any real world work experience, and not as a long term career choice. They outgrow the jobs and move on, to be replaced by other people just becoming old enough to work. Also realize that between automation and the transfer of jobs overseas, many of these jobs are on borrowed time anyway.

The prospects for the unskilled worker who can't do a job involving significant physical labor and/or danger are in fact getting bleaker all the time. It also doesn't help that millions of illegals are entering the country every year also competing for the dwindling number of these jobs, although they do also take jobs involving hard physical labor, probably in large measure because it's much harder for them to get freebies like foodstamps or welfare; so if they don't work they starve or have to go home. SS: "Is there any way to run a business which utilizes low skill workers and also respect them for their contribution? "


I assume respect in this context is a liberal codeword for higher pay. To answer your question with that assumption in mind, no. Pay is determined by supply and demand. As there is an enormous supply of unskilled workers, and more and more everyday throughout the world as capital is used to create infrastructure and technology that allows these new workers to participate in the world market, both as workers and consumers, the prospects of higher pay for unskilled work is pretty close to zero for the indefinite future in my estimation. Now of course government here can raise the minimum wage, but that just encourages the migration of jobs overseas or the replacement of jobs via automation to occur that much faster because the potential savings from doing so are that much higher.

A $100,000 burger flipping machine may not be cost effective when a human flipper costs $10 per hour, but may be cost effective if the human flipper suddenly costs $15 per hour. That sort of calculus happens across the economy every time the minimum wage is raised, or when any expense of doing business suddenly increases in price for that matter (labor is an expense no different that any other to a business). Also, when the human flipper suddenly costs $15 per hour, venture capital starts pouring into businesses that are seeking to invent a better flipper machine because the demand will be higher and they can sell it for a higher price than they could the week before when human burger flippers only cost $10 per hour.

While coercion and the use of force can temporarily override market forces, in the end capitalism always wins. As proof that what I say is true just consider how much government money and force has been used over the past 40 years to try to stop the flood of illegal drugs into this country and then evaluate its effectiveness by comparing the availability and price of illegal drugs today versus 40 years ago.

Capitalism always wins in the end.


mudtoe


[Edited by: mudtoe at 7/25/2014 12:38:21 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 11:55:40 PM

ss: "Mud, are there any problems in this nation which are not, in your view, caused by liberals?"


Hmmm... That requires some thought. I'll have to get back to you on that.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 7:46:11 PM

Mud, are there any problems in this nation which are not, in your view, caused by liberals?

I also have to wonder how, if everyone were to take your advice and transcend above low skill jobs, how would these tasks ever get done?

Is there any way to run a business which utilizes low skill workers and also respect them for their contribution?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 7:11:31 PM

"Except that wealth distribution and wealth redistribution are two entirely different subjects..."



I guess being thirsty and drinking water could be considered separate subjects too.....



mudtoe
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 6:44:24 PM

rjh: "Not at all the same thing."


Really? I would consider a job where I felt I was being taken advantage of a dead end job. But heck, maybe that's just me.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 6:05:37 PM

rjh: "You mean like not working for people whose only goal in life is to take advantage of them. "

mudtoe: "Yup. Don't stay in a dead end job."

Not at all the same thing.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,674
Points:504,365
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 5:07:12 PM

"Wealth redistribution is what this is all about, no matter how it's phrased."

Except that wealth distribution and wealth redistribution are two entirely different subjects...

But hey, spin it however you like.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 3:17:27 PM

rjh: "You mean like not working for people whose only goal in life is to take advantage of them. "


Yup. Don't stay in a dead end job.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 3:03:54 PM

mudtoe - "Guess those people who made poor life choices need to make some better ones going forward if they expect to ever improve their economic circumstances."

You mean like not working for people whose only goal in life is to take advantage of them.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 2:41:27 PM

Wealth redistribution is what this is all about, no matter how it's phrased. Wealth redistribution is a fundamental tenant of the left, because government can't have absolute power unless all wealth flows through it (so those in charge of government can siphon some of it off for themselves as it passes by as well as reward their friends and punish their enemies), and the only way to make sure that happens is to use the need to tally up and redistribute wealth as the justification for government to confiscate it in the first place.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,674
Points:504,365
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 2:23:11 PM

"Guess those people who made poor life choices need to make some better ones going forward if they expect to ever improve their economic circumstances. Of course the left would rather they not make good life choices because people who make good life choices don't make good victims, and tend not to vote for wealth redistribution."

Still stuck on that re-distribution strawman, eh? Nothing has changed in this thread...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 2:19:52 PM

Guess those people who made poor life choices need to make some better ones going forward if they expect to ever improve their economic circumstances. Of course the left would rather they not make good life choices because people who make good life choices don't make good victims, and tend not to vote for socialism and wealth redistribution.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 7/24/2014 2:23:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 1:57:32 PM

mudtoe - "Of course. The left has done it's job of sowing hate and envy in the populace concerning wealth, and the people answering that questions are assuming that they will be on the receiving end if such a distribution ever occurred."

And, once again, you're arguing against a redistribution of current wealth, rather than a fairer distribution of earned income, which is what this topic is actually about.

And, of course, the reason for this topic in the first place is that the current distribution of income is detrimental to a healthy economy.

As Steve said in the OP: "It is better for the economy for most people to be doing fairly well than it is for a few to be doing extremely well and most people just getting by."
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,193
Points:1,735,555
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jul 24, 2014 11:49:19 AM

SS: "A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[6]" "


Of course. The left has done it's job of sowing hate and envy in the populace concerning wealth, and the people answering that questions are assuming that they will be on the receiving end if such a distribution ever occurred.

I wonder how they would answer if the question were phrased in terms of the whole world, where even the poorest Americans would be considered as far above average in terms average wealth in the world, if they understood that answering the same way as they did above would mean that their own wealth would need to be redistributed in order to achieve a "far more egalitarian distribution of wealth" in the world.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,528
Points:368,840
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 10:25:17 PM

From the OP link:

"Wealth inequality in the United States (also known as the wealth gap[1]) refers to the unequal distribution of assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments.[2] Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media[3] reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%. The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour."[4] Although different from income inequality, the two are related. In Inequality for All—a 2013 documentary with Robert Reich in which he argued that income inequality is the defining issue for the United States—Reich states that 95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since 2009 when the recovery allegedly started.[5]

A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[6]"
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,226
Points:2,655,425
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jul 23, 2014 5:37:43 PM

Troller_Diesel - "This entire topic is just more evidence piled on top of endless evidence of why Progressives/Liberals shouldn't be placed in charge of anything more important than dog catcher."

Seems more like evidence that some are just too self-centered and greedy to be trusted by anyone.
Post a reply Back to Topics