Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:08 PM

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:20,375
Points:471,165
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
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 9:59:44 AM

Fly: "Someone who is actually rich, as in worth hundreds of millions of dollars, would look at the wife and I and say we are poor."

Since when does having a few million dollars NOT mean being actually rich?

I bet there's millions of people buying lotto tickets hoping to win a few million dollars in order to actually get rich.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2015 11:34:59 AM

At times catharsis dose take place.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,824
Points:611,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2015 10:03:25 AM

"Actually, that's a surprisingly good observation."

Surprising indeed! But I don't think he sees the validity in it since he was trying to make what he thought was an outrageous comparison.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 5:56:30 PM

"There is 1 economy for the top 0.1% and a separate one for the other 99.9%?"

Apparently so.

And there is also one level of government access for the top 0.1% and another for the 99.9%.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 3:22:22 PM

nstrdnvstr - "So we have a private economy and a separate public economy?

There is 1 economy for the top 0.1% and a separate one for the other 99.9%?"

Actually, that's a surprisingly good observation.

Of course, they're not completely separate economies; there is a lot of overlap, but the public economy is top heavy, and that's because much of the wealth just flows around at the top, the current not reaching down much at all, while the rest of the economy stagnates.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 4:07:03 PM

rjhenn, ""JFK told us that decades ago: 'A rising tide lifts all boats.'"

But the tide doesn't rise if most of the extra water is being siphoned off into private lakes."

So we have a private economy and a separate public economy?

There is 1 economy for the top 0.1% and a separate one for the other 99.9%?
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 3:16:25 PM

flyboyUT - "RJ - you made the statement - you answer the question."

Where did I say that anyone needed to make that determination?
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 3:15:35 PM

nstrdnvstr - "I see a lot of rich people spending their money. Rich people like to buy things too. They buy lots of things, boats, extra cars, take big vacations, etc.

All that money creates jobs too!"

Yes, it does. But which creates more jobs, one rich person spending $10,000 or 10,000 not rich people spending an extra $10?

"And when they invest it, it helps the company that it invested in create jobs as well."

If there's any demand for what that company is selling. But if only a few of their customers have the money to buy it, or more of it, then the investment probably won't create new jobs.

"Yes, and if businesses are allowed to grow, they create more jobs, which employ more people. Then the labor pool gets smaller, which increases wages."

But keeping wages low prevents most businesses from growing, by reducing the amount of consumer spending.

"THAT (grow the economy) is the right way to redistribute wealth!"

And that requires more consumer spending.

Which isn't going to happen if wages are kept low.

"JFK told us that decades ago: 'A rising tide lifts all boats.'"

But the tide doesn't rise if most of the extra water is being siphoned off into private lakes.

"Not sidetracking at all. My example shows that investing money creates jobs."

CAN create jobs. Not all investing creates jobs.

"Selling more hotel rooms also creates jobs, does it not?"

Yes, but are they going to sell more hotel rooms if only a few people can afford to stay there?

"Taking from anybody means they have less to spend and/or invest."

True, which is why I'm arguing that "the rich" should be taking less from the workers.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,815
Points:1,687,480
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 3:12:53 PM

RJ - you made the statement - you answer the question.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 3:04:36 PM

flyboyUT - "So who is to determine who has a lot more than they need or who says some need more than they have?"

Why does anyone have to make that determination?
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 2:07:35 PM

"As I have already shown to you, investing creates jobs as well."

But only if demand is there; which won't be if workers don't have much money to spend and create demand for products.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 10:49:01 AM

rjhenn, "Sure it does. Taking it from the middle 40% means less for them to spend, and many of them don't have 'enough' to spend now, because it's going to the top 0.1%. It's the extreme imbalance that's the problem. Shifting things around in the middle doesn't do anything to address the problem."

Taking from anybody means they have less to spend and/or invest.

As I have already shown to you, investing creates jobs as well.

nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 10:42:42 AM

rjhenn, ""I guess the millions of dollars that was invested in the hotel I work at, upgrading it doesn't create jobs and fuel growth?"

And, once again, you're trying to sidetrack. Would the hotel be spending that money if they didn't expect it to help them sell hotel rooms?"

Not sidetracking at all. My example shows that investing money creates jobs.
Selling more hotel rooms also creates jobs, does it not?
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 10:41:04 AM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "That applies to employment as well."

Precisely. Low wages limit demand, thus limit employment."

Yes, and if businesses are allowed to grow, they create more jobs, which employ more people. Then the labor pool gets smaller, which increases wages.

When there is an oversupply of jobs and undersupply of labor, wages go up.

We saw that not that long ago, unemployment was low and the labor participation rate was relatively high.

THAT (grow the economy) is the right way to redistribute wealth!

JFK told us that decades ago: "A rising tide lifts all boats."
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 10:36:03 AM

Weaslespit, ""So who's more likely to actually spend money, someone who has a lot more than they need, or someone who needs more than they have?"

Bingo."

I see a lot of rich people spending their money. Rich people like to buy things too. They buy lots of things, boats, extra cars, take big vacations, etc.

All that money creates jobs too!

And when they invest it, it helps the company that it invested in create jobs as well.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 7:25:19 AM

Anybody who has everything they need; all their basics are covered such as food, shelter, transportation, health care, retirement, a few toys, etc; they have all they really need to be comfortable and not worry. They are not poor.

Poor means that even the basics are not all covered. Poor means going without something that is really needed such as: going hungry; having to choose between heat and medicine; or having an ailment and knowing that there is no point in seeking treatment because payment will be required.

If a multi millionaire thinks everyone of any means who has less than him is 'poor' then that person is out of touch.

"Someone who is actually rich, as in worth hundreds of millions of dollars, would look at the wife and I and say we are poor."

Only if he was an idiot. And few idiots become that wealthy. ( not saying it doesn't happen)

Most multi millionaires are pretty smart. They are not idiots.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,815
Points:1,687,480
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 10:42:10 PM

"So who's more likely to actually spend money, someone who has a lot more than they need, or someone who needs more than they have?"

So who is to determine who has a lot more than they need or who says some need more than they have?

Someone who is actually rich, as in worth hundreds of millions of dollars, would look at the wife and I and say we are poor. We think we are rich beyond the wildest dreams I had when I was first starting out. The wife and I have no bills or loans outstanding. We want nothing and any time we find something we desire we just go pay cash for it. We dont need any more money but then we really dont want a whole lot of "stuff".
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 9:57:52 PM

If you think jobs are paying what they are worth then don't grumble about taxes. Because that kind of job market has government budgeting consequences.

It is inescapable that allowing such a low minimum wage causes many low skill folks to feel that work just isn't worth the effort.

Why would people take low pay miserable jobs when they can go on the dole and have more? As they take it easy...

Remember when they talk about unemployment rates they always say those who 'quit looking for work' are not counted. The less that work pays the more people who quit looking for it.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,824
Points:611,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 2:05:17 PM

"So who's more likely to actually spend money, someone who has a lot more than they need, or someone who needs more than they have?"

Bingo.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 1:50:44 PM

nstrdnvstr - "That applies to employment as well."

Precisely. Low wages limit demand, thus limit employment.

"So investing in business doesn't fuel growth?"

Not if there's no demand for what that business is selling.

"I guess the millions of dollars that was invested in the hotel I work at, upgrading it doesn't create jobs and fuel growth?"

And, once again, you're trying to sidetrack. Would the hotel be spending that money if they didn't expect it to help them sell hotel rooms?

"So doesn't all money used help create more jobs?"

So who's more likely to actually spend money, someone who has a lot more than they need, or someone who needs more than they have?

"You want to take from those that have more and give it to those that have less, right? But you only want it to happen with the top 1%."

No, I want those who profit hugely from the work of others to share more of that profit with the ones who do the work.

And that largely means the top 0.1% sharing with the rest of us workers.

"So put your money where your mouth is. The economy doesn't differentiate if the money comes from Warren Buffet or rjhenn."

Sure it does. Taking it from the middle 40% means less for them to spend, and many of them don't have 'enough' to spend now, because it's going to the top 0.1%. It's the extreme imbalance that's the problem. Shifting things around in the middle doesn't do anything to address the problem.

"I doubt that all the shareholders of Wal-mart stock inherited their shares."

Sam's heirs own about 50% of that stock.

"Rob Walton"

Based on that link, he's never been anything except an executive.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,824
Points:611,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 1:31:36 PM

"Just goes to show I am right, you just want to be generous with other people's money but not your own. You "generous" guys can't walk your talk."

Keep chasing that little tail, kiddo... It really is sad how many times this has been explained to you.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,624
Points:338,685
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 11:36:08 AM

"Now are you saying that Sam Walton's kids never worked to build it even bigger?"

Sam Walton's kids didn't build it.

nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 11:34:37 AM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "And how exactly did they become owners? Did they just find ownership or did they work to get where they are?"

Well, if you look at Wal-Mart, they inherited it from the one who worked to build it."

I doubt that all the shareholders of Wal-mart stock inherited their shares.

Now are you saying that Sam Walton's kids never worked to build it even bigger?

Rob Walton

nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 11:24:21 AM

rjhenn, ""So tell me, how exactly does the economy know where the money comes from? I mean, does a business receiving the money create more jobs and money with the money from the top 1% than with the money that you and I spend at that business?"

Funny, your assumption is that the money from the top 1% is different from the money the rest of us spend."

So doesn't all money used help create more jobs?

You want to take from those that have more and give it to those that have less, right? But you only want it to happen with the top 1%.

Just think how much more the economy would grow if we took money from the top 60%, (or more, maybe to the percentage that includes you and Weaslespit), that would help the economy grow even MORE!

So put your money where your mouth is. The economy doesn't differentiate if the money comes from Warren Buffet or rjhenn.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 11:19:33 AM

rjhenn, "Funny, your assumption is that the money from the top 1% is different from the money the rest of us spend. What I'm saying is that if more of that money goes to the workers, instead of the 0.1%, then it will be spent at businesses, instead of going into static 'investments' because there's not enough demand to fuel growth."

So investing in business doesn't fuel growth?

I guess the millions of dollars that was invested in the hotel I work at, upgrading it doesn't create jobs and fuel growth?

Tell that to the electricians, the painters, the plumbers, the construction workers and others that were/are working there.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2015 11:16:19 AM

rjhenn, "And there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is shortchanging the workers in order to make more than a 'decent' profit. That reduces economic activity, or at least slows down growth, by restricting demand.

Remember, it's supply AND demand. If there's not enough demand, there's no reason to expand."

That applies to employment as well.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2015 6:38:41 PM

nstrdnvstr - "And how exactly did they become owners? Did they just find ownership or did they work to get where they are?"

Well, if you look at Wal-Mart, they inherited it from the one who worked to build it.

"Who is risking the capital in the business, the owner or the employee?"

Who's doing the actual work that keeps the business going?

"The owner deserves the opportunity to make a decent profit from the business. If they make a decent profit, they may expand, thus creating more jobs."

And there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is shortchanging the workers in order to make more than a 'decent' profit. That reduces economic activity, or at least slows down growth, by restricting demand.

Remember, it's supply AND demand. If there's not enough demand, there's no reason to expand.

"So only extra money from "those skimming off the top" helps the economy? And who are those people, the top 1% maybe?"

You're still avoiding the issue. Paying the workers more, even if that means those on top get less for a bit, will stimulate economic growth by increasing consumer spending, thus demand for more products, thus profits for those on top. Shifting things around among those not on the top isn't going to do anything for demand, since any increase in one area will be balanced by a decrease in another area.

And it's mostly the top 0.1%. If you look at a breakdown that goes finer than the 10% or the 1%, you'll find that much of their improvements actually went to the 0.1%.

"So tell me, how exactly does the economy know where the money comes from? I mean, does a business receiving the money create more jobs and money with the money from the top 1% than with the money that you and I spend at that business?"

Funny, your assumption is that the money from the top 1% is different from the money the rest of us spend. What I'm saying is that if more of that money goes to the workers, instead of the 0.1%, then it will be spent at businesses, instead of going into static 'investments' because there's not enough demand to fuel growth.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2015 4:06:01 PM

Weaslespit, ""Then don't be shortsighted and greedy and start sending some of your wealth this way. I hear it will "improve the entire economy, increasing everyone's potential wealth. Including that of the 0.1%.""

And the dog keeps chasing it's tail..."

Well, if you consider yourself as the tail, that's up to you.

Just goes to show I am right, you just want to be generous with other people's money but not your own. You "generous" guys can't walk your talk.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2015 3:43:32 PM

rjhenn, ""Then don't be shortsighted and greedy and start sending some of your wealth this way."

I'm not one of those skimming too much off the top, so that wouldn't do the economy any good."

So only extra money from "those skimming off the top" helps the economy? And who are those people, the top 1% maybe?

So tell me, how exactly does the economy know where the money comes from? I mean, does a business receiving the money create more jobs and money with the money from the top 1% than with the money that you and I spend at that business? How is that possible? Is their money different colored than our money?
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2015 3:39:20 PM

rjhenn, ""MAYBE that is because the people at the top have more education, more responsibilities and more experience than the employees with less experience and responsibilities."

Or maybe it's just because the owners, who are the people at the top, own everything."

And how exactly did they become owners? Did they just find ownership or did they work to get where they are? Who is risking the capital in the business, the owner or the employee?

The owner deserves the opportunity to make a decent profit from the business. If they make a decent profit, they may expand, thus creating more jobs.

Wait, isn't creating more jobs good?
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2015 3:23:45 PM

nstrdnvstr - "Perhaps you should re-read my question."

Perhaps you should ask meaningful questions.

"Of course you won't answer the question I asked."

Was there a point to the question you asked, other than the answer I gave?

"MAYBE that is because the people at the top have more education, more responsibilities and more experience than the employees with less experience and responsibilities."

Or maybe it's just because the owners, who are the people at the top, own everything.

"Like it or not, it sticks because it is the truth. You want to share other people's money but not your own. You guys are just trying to be generous with other people's money but not your own. That is just a truth that you cannot get away from."

No, it's a distorted talking point that you have to have because your position can't stand without it.

"Then don't be shortsighted and greedy and start sending some of your wealth this way."

I'm not one of those skimming too much off the top, so that wouldn't do the economy any good.

Again, the problem is _excess_ income and wealth inequality, not _any_ income and wealth inequality.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,824
Points:611,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2015 12:39:41 AM

"Then don't be shortsighted and greedy and start sending some of your wealth this way. I hear it will "improve the entire economy, increasing everyone's potential wealth. Including that of the 0.1%.""

And the dog keeps chasing it's tail...
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 11:57:19 PM

rjhenn, ""Who determines that in each situation?"

Those who have the power. Which usually means the shortsighted and greedy."

Then don't be shortsighted and greedy and start sending some of your wealth this way. I hear it will "improve the entire economy, increasing everyone's potential wealth. Including that of the 0.1%."
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 11:54:59 PM

SemiSteve, "nstrdnvstr: "Is that class envy or what?"

--No, but that won't stop you from regurgitating that tired claim endlessly. We're baffled why you keep trying this. It never stuck before but maybe if you keep repeating the same action you'll get a different result. So don't stop now.

Like it or not, it sticks because it is the truth. You want to share other people's money but not your own. You guys are just trying to be generous with other people's money but not your own. That is just a truth that you cannot get away from.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 11:52:29 PM

rjhenn. "nstrdnvstr - "What is the average wage for a Walmart employee?"

According to Google: "The site Glassdoor.com, which is based on employee reviews of companies, pegs the average sales associate pay at $8.86 per hour, or a salary of $17,841.Oct 23, 2013""

Perhaps you should re-read my question.

Of course you won't answer the question I asked.

""Doesn't the Walmart employee benefit from the work they do?"

Not nearly as much as the people at the top do.'

MAYBE that is because the people at the top have more education, more responsibilities and more experience than the employees with less experience and responsibilities.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 3:41:24 PM

SemiSteve - "Over half of all stocks are owned by the super-rich. And they get exorbitant salaries and perks for attending board meetings on top of their stock holdings."

nstrdnvstr: "Is that class envy or what?"

--No, but that won't stop you from regurgitating that tired claim endlessly. We're baffled why you keep trying this. It never stuck before but maybe if you keep repeating the same action you'll get a different result. So don't stop now.

nstrdnvstr: "As SE points out, millions of regular folks (but not me, although I used to, except in my 401k where I have no choice) own mutual funds."

--And it only takes a dozen or two of the 0.1% to own more than all those millions of 'regular folks'.

nstrdnvstr: "In addition, unions and their union workers own a large portion of mutual funds. Are they "super rich"?"

--Sound like more 'regular folks' to me. See the previous answer, please.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 1/26/2015 3:42:14 PM EST]
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 3:16:01 PM

nstrdnvstr - "What is the average wage for a Walmart employee?"

According to Google: "The site Glassdoor.com, which is based on employee reviews of companies, pegs the average sales associate pay at $8.86 per hour, or a salary of $17,841.Oct 23, 2013"

"Doesn't the Walmart employee benefit from the work they do?"

Not nearly as much as the people at the top do.

"That's what I said, you want to be generous with other people's money but not your own."

No, the 0.1% is generous, to themselves, with the money that other people earn 'for them', leaving too little for those other people to support a robust economy.

"You somehow think that there is a set amount that should be earned for each job and someone steals it from others."

No, I just think that many employees should be paid more for the work they do.

Which would improve the entire economy, increasing everyone's potential wealth. Including that of the 0.1%.

But too many of them seem to be either shortsighted or more interested in maximizing the difference between them and everyone else.

"Who determines that in each situation?"

Those who have the power. Which usually means the shortsighted and greedy.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 5:59:10 AM

rjhenn, ""That dog gets free food and shelter, 100% covered health care, and lots of love from his caretaker. He has no worries, no bills to pay, everything taken care of by someone else."

So kind of like a WalMart employee. His employer (Bucky the cat) has him doing work that the employer benefits from, while leaving much of the care of said employee to the taxpayer (caretaker)."

What is the average wage for a Walmart employee?
Doesn't the Walmart employee benefit from the work they do?

"No, the talk I'm talking is about some people being 'generous', to themselves, with the money earned by other peoples' work."

That's what I said, you want to be generous with other people's money but not your own. You somehow think that there is a set amount that should be earned for each job and someone steals it from others. Who determines that in each situation?
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 12:52:41 AM

nstrdnvstr - "Is that because the talk you talk is about being generous with other people's money but not your own?"

No, the talk I'm talking is about some people being 'generous', to themselves, with the money earned by other peoples' work.

"I said they are paid well, not too much. What about all those benefits they get, that is part of pay, is it not? You have to take that in account as part of pay. You know, benefits like pensions, health insurance, etc."

Sounds, again, like you're saying they're paid too much. And, obviously, you've never been a teacher, or closely associated with a teacher.

"And then there is job security. That is worth something, isn't it? Once you acquire tenure, it is very difficult AND expensive to get rid of a bad teacher."

Depends on which state you're in. And, until you acquire tenure, it's quite easy to get rid of any teacher, with or without cause.

"Did you know that it takes an average of 830 days and costs $313,000 to get rid of a single bad teacher? This information comes from the New York Stats School Boards Association."

I don't expect NY state to be efficient in much of anything.

"That makes it VERY difficult to get rid of a bad teacher, doesn't it? It usually doesn't cost that mush to let go a bad employee in most other industries, does it?"

And you're generalizing from one state to all states.

"That dog gets free food and shelter, 100% covered health care, and lots of love from his caretaker. He has no worries, no bills to pay, everything taken care of by someone else."

So kind of like a WalMart employee. His employer (Bucky the cat) has him doing work that the employer benefits from, while leaving much of the care of said employee to the taxpayer (caretaker).
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 9:09:18 AM

rjhenn, re: The capitalist ideal???

That dog gets free food and shelter, 100% covered health care, and lots of love from his caretaker. He has no worries, no bills to pay, everything taken care of by someone else.

Lind of like what the liberals are asking of big government, isn't it? Well, except for the love part.
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 8:57:48 AM

SemiSteve - "Over half of all stocks are owned by the super-rich. And they get exorbitant salaries and perks for attending board meetings on top of their stock holdings."

Is that class envy or what?

As SE points out, millions of regular folks (but not me, although I used to, except in my 401k where I have no choice) own mutual funds.

In addition, unions and their union workers own a large portion of mutual funds. Are they "super rich"?
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,710
Points:4,762,600
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 8:52:25 AM

rjhenn, ""All I am asking is for you guys to start walking the talk, but you guys can't seem to do that."

The problem with that is that the "talk" you're talking about has got nothing to do with the "talk" the rest of us are talking about."

Is that because the talk you talk is about being generous with other people's money but not your own?

How very generous of you!

""I never said they should be paid less."

You keep claiming that they're paid too much for only working 10 months a year."

I said they are paid well, not too much. What about all those benefits they get, that is part of pay, is it not? You have to take that in account as part of pay. You know, benefits like pensions, health insurance, etc.

And then there is job security. That is worth something, isn't it? Once you acquire tenure, it is very difficult AND expensive to get rid of a bad teacher.

I know, Weaslespit has said that it is "easy" to get rid of a bad teacher if the administration follows the rules.

Did you know that it takes an average of 830 days and costs $313,000 to get rid of a single bad teacher? This information comes from the New York Stats School Boards Association.

That makes it VERY difficult to get rid of a bad teacher, doesn't it? It usually doesn't cost that mush to let go a bad employee in most other industries, does it?
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,885
Points:3,948,990
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 8:46:38 AM

"Heard it numerous times on talk radio."

O my. Have you not noticed how other posters get mocked for repeating stuff they heard on talk radio. {:>)
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,885
Points:3,948,990
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 8:43:39 AM

"who owns the shares of the mutual funds?"

Me, and from what I have gleaned from other topics herein, probably many other posters. I have not seen any indication that the "super rich" post here.

[Edited by: SE3.5 at 1/25/2015 8:46:59 AM EST]
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,815
Points:1,687,480
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 11:13:19 PM

SE - who owns the shares of the mutual funds?
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:42:16 PM

The capitalist ideal???
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,375
Points:471,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 1:37:21 PM

Your data does not break it down by wealth. Sorry I have no data. Heard it numerous times on talk radio. Don't know if it is true but doesn't seem like something that would get lied about.
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,885
Points:3,948,990
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:54:28 AM

Who owns US Stocks?

Households--35%
Mutual Funds--20%
Pension funds--9%
Government retirement plans--8%
International investors--13%
Hedge funds--3%
ETF's--4%
Other--8%
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,885
Points:3,948,990
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:36:51 AM

"Over half of all stocks are owned by the super-rich."

Link?
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:26:26 AM

"Except that some people are. It's not as common as it was, but it still happens that someone will have circumstances that prevent them from seeking another job, so their employer feels safe in paying them less than they're worth." ...........exactly



[Edited by: streetrider at 1/24/2015 10:27:09 AM EST]
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,630
Points:3,135,405
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 8:17:23 PM

SemiSteve - "Over half of all stocks are owned by the super-rich. And they get exorbitant salaries and perks for attending board meetings on top of their stock holdings. Our taxes subsidize all of that because we are paying the living expenses of their workers. Without those subsidies big corporations would be forced to pay their workers more; so the corporations and the super-rich are getting a free ride on the backs of the tax payers. "

Do you have anything to back up that statement? It was my understanding that over half of all stocks are owned by the pension funds of the average workers. Or did that statement come from the same place as the flying monkeys?
Post a reply Back to Topics