Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:56 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:20,085
Points:464,165
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
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,116
Points:603,385
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...
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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%."
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,085
Points:464,165
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]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
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.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
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).
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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"?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
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?
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,377
Points:3,901,940
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. {:>)
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,377
Points:3,901,940
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]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,225
Points:1,645,430
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 11:13:19 PM

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

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:42:16 PM

The capitalist ideal???
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,085
Points:464,165
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.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,377
Points:3,901,940
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%
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,377
Points:3,901,940
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:36:51 AM

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

Link?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,845
Points:155,395
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]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,354
Points:3,088,435
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?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 7:57:04 PM

PopcornPirate - "What I said was approve projects that they are stopping private industry from doing."

No, you said "infrastructure projects". Those are typically roads and bridges that government pays for, even if private industry does the actual work.

"NO...People are paid what they are worth."

Only if you assume that they're only worth what they're paid.

"You are not chained to the employer that will not pay you more."

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.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 7:56:00 PM

nstrdnvstr - "How did you leap to those conclusions?"

From reading your posts. 7;-]

"I never said they should be paid less."

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

"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.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,085
Points:464,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 6:46:14 PM

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.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 6:30:10 PM

SemiSteve, "We tax payers are subsidizing the super rich who own the big corporations in the form of government subsidies paid out to the workers of those corporations."

Wrong right from the start. Big corporations are owned by the shareholders. Shareholders are a diverse crowd. More than 50% of Americans own stocks either directly or indirectly through mutual funds. Are all these people "super rich"?

Nice try at playing the class envy card though.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 6:27:34 PM

flyboy, "If you enjoy the job and accept the low pay and are happy - fine its no one else's business.

However if you stay in the low paying job and proceed to whine and complain and demand that its only 'fair' that you get paid more for doing the same job then everyone who has to listen to your silly complaints does have a problem..."

Exactly right!
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,821
Points:2,342,750
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 1:41:17 PM

"Sorry you're wrong, minimum wage went up here in August and out menu prices went up in order to cover those costs."

That is similar to the Senator from Mississippi's point on Climate Change. You see the Senate voted 98-1 that Climate change was not a hoax. The "counter-argument" from Mississippi for example, is that the fact that if one experiences a blizzard personally, proves that Global Warming is a hoax. That kind of "argument" from anecdotal "evidence" has been shown to be a fallacy and is not accepted outside of Republican and Tea Party and Mississippi circles (ie in the Scientific Community).

(BTW the Mississippi Senator has shamed his State with his ignorance but in his defense if he said anything intelligent on Capitol Hill when he got back home he would probably be lynched!)
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,085
Points:464,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 11:01:16 AM

We tax payers are subsidizing the super rich who own the big corporations in the form of government subsidies paid out to the workers of those corporations.

Obviously these workers are not being paid what they are worth by their employers because we taxpayers are forced to pick up the slack.

If they were paid what they are worth we would not have to provide them taxpayer-funded government assistance.

The super rich need to pay their workers more so we middle class taxpayers don't have to pick up the slack.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,225
Points:1,645,430
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 10:26:42 AM

If you enjoy the job and accept the low pay and are happy - fine its no one else's business.

However if you stay in the low paying job and proceed to whine and complain and demand that its only 'fair' that you get paid more for doing the same job then everyone who has to listen to your silly complaints does have a problem. It becomes our business when your incessant unfounded complaints cause everyone else to have to pay more for what they buy or pay higher taxes because you desire to stay in a position that is s entry level/low wage position but think you should get higher wages than the work you do is worth.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 10:16:59 AM

PopcornPirate, " If you are at a min wage job for more then 1-1/2 to 2 years. Then face facts that you are stupid & deserve what you got."

OR, you don't need much money to live on and enjoy your job. That doesn't man you are stupid.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,760
Points:1,590,285
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 9:21:30 AM

"So you're saying that economic growth is dependent on more government spending?"
What I said was approve projects that they are stopping private industry from doing.

"No, most people are paid as little as their employer can get away with, while many of the wealthy skim more than they're worth, just because they can. That results in less economic growth and, ultimately, less wealth for the wealthy."

NO...People are paid what they are worth. If you want to better yourself & learn more skills. Then go find another job. You are not chained to the employer that will not pay you more. If you are at a min wage job for more then 1-1/2 to 2 years. Then face facts that you are stupid & deserve what you got.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 7:39:05 AM

rjhenn, ""So their work schedule is pretty much their choice. If they decide that they do not like the hours, they are free to change professions, aren't they?"

Sure. So you think that we shouldn't have teachers, because they only work part of the year?

Or is it that they should be paid even less than most are now?"

How did you leap to those conclusions?

I never said they should be paid less. I said they know what the hours are before they go into the profession and they still DECIDE to become a teacher, THUS they decided to accept what the hours are. If they then decide they don't like it, they still have the option to change professions, just like everybody else in this country. Nobody forces people to stay in their jobs here.

""Great!!! Start by making an example, start sending some of your wealth over this way!!!"

The problem, as mentioned many times, isn't income inequality, but excessive income inequality between the very top and the rest of us. Shifting "wealth" around among the rest of us doesn't address the problem."

All I am asking is for you guys to start walking the talk, but you guys can't seem to do that.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 7:32:40 AM

Passer, "Cirdan - "You do understand if employers pay their employees more, prices will rise, reducing everyone's standard of living?"

At this particular Economic time in our history, that is not true. We are more in a deflationary time than having inflation as the threat it has historically been. After years of trying the Federal Reserve hasn't been successful in its efforts and GOAL to have merely 2% inflation rate."

Sorry you're wrong, minimum wage went up here in August and out menu prices went up in order to cover those costs.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,821
Points:2,342,750
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 2:05:52 AM

"Cirdan - "You do understand if employers pay their employees more, prices will rise, reducing everyone's standard of living?"

At this particular Economic time in our history, that is not true. We are more in a deflationary time than having inflation as the threat it has historically been. After years of trying the Federal Reserve hasn't been successful in its efforts and GOAL to have merely 2% inflation rate.

Increasing the wage at the lowest end of the economy NOW, would NOT "reduce everyone's standard of living."! That is a wrong conclusion at this time and you have the brains if not the politics to realize that.

[Edited by: Passer at 1/23/2015 2:07:25 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,116
Points:603,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 1:01:15 PM

"So despite two years of protests to the contrary, what we are really debating in this topic is thinly disguised wealth redistribution."

Depends on who you are debating with, SE! ;)

I am not in favor of an increase in minimum wage, for example, to help with income inequality or wealth concentration...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,116
Points:603,385
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:59:44 PM

"rjhenn, it makes perfect sense if you pay attention."

It made zero sense, as do most of your posts...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:25:21 PM

PopcornPirate - "People are paid what their skills are worth."

No, most people are paid as little as their employer can get away with, while many of the wealthy skim more than they're worth, just because they can. That results in less economic growth and, ultimately, less wealth for the wealthy.

"The government needs to approve infrastructure projects. This will lead to construction jobs. which will lead to manufacturing jobs. which will lead to supplying material jobs. which will lead to support jobs for all phases of these other jobs. See the connectivity?"

So you're saying that economic growth is dependent on more government spending?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:23:58 PM

nstrdnvstr - "By going into the teaching field, you are making a choice to work the hours that most school schedules run, from around Labor Day until just after Memorial Day. THAT comes with the territory. They choose the profession knowing what the average pay is and what the hours are. There are no surprises there."

No, there aren't. You can work extended hours during those 10 months, probably working more actual hours than most workers do in a year. Unless your school system has a different schedule.

Of course, the traditional schedule is designed to let kids work on the farm instead of going to school during the summer, so doesn't really make much sense any more.

"So their work schedule is pretty much their choice. If they decide that they do not like the hours, they are free to change professions, aren't they?"

Sure. So you think that we shouldn't have teachers, because they only work part of the year?

Or is it that they should be paid even less than most are now?

"Great!!! Start by making an example, start sending some of your wealth over this way!!!"

The problem, as mentioned many times, isn't income inequality, but excessive income inequality between the very top and the rest of us. Shifting "wealth" around among the rest of us doesn't address the problem.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:21:38 PM

Cirdan - "You do understand if employers pay their employees more, prices will rise, reducing everyone's standard of living?"

Only if prices rose in direct proportion to the increases in wages.

Which wouldn't happen in most industries.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,760
Points:1,590,285
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 9:19:50 AM

"No, but getting employers to pay their workers more for the work they do would be a big help. "

People are paid what their skills are worth.
As to better jobs.
The economy has been volatile for years.
Most businesses are holding their cards to their chest & are not sure what other taxes or fees are coming down the pike.
The government needs to approve infrastructure projects. This will lead to construction jobs. which will lead to manufacturing jobs. which will lead to supplying material jobs. which will lead to support jobs for all phases of these other jobs. See the connectivity?

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 8:15:12 AM

SemiSteve, "I approve of the President's proposals to reduce wealth inequality. When wealth inequality is reduced our economy can grow faster and experience fewer and shorter downturns."

Great!!! Start by making an example, start sending some of your wealth over this way!!!

Oh, that's right, you want to share OTHER PEOPLE'S wealth but not your own!

How very generous of you!!!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 8:12:20 AM

rjhenn, it makes perfect sense if you pay attention.

By going into the teaching field, you are making a choice to work the hours that most school schedules run, from around Labor Day until just after Memorial Day. THAT comes with the territory. They choose the profession knowing what the average pay is and what the hours are. There are no surprises there.

So their work schedule is pretty much their choice. If they decide that they do not like the hours, they are free to change professions, aren't they?

The jobs you and I have are the ones we have picked and accepted. If we do not like what we are doing, we have the freedom to look for a better one.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 8:05:29 AM

SemiSteve, "The best way for government to help is to adopt policies which will foster the growth of worker-owned coops."

What do you suggest the government do and why can't coops be formed now?
Aren't coops similar to ESOPs?
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,663
Points:142,285
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:44:58 AM

You do understand if employers pay their employees more, prices will rise, reducing everyone's standard of living?

Wouldn't want you to be "shocked" like those geniuses in the Harvard faculty that were so surprised Obamacare would increase their insurance rates.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,085
Points:464,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 12:54:31 PM

"No, but getting employers to pay their workers more for the work they do would be a big help.

However, I still don't see any good way for government to do that."

The best way for government to help is to adopt policies which will foster the growth of worker-owned coops. These businesses can be even more competitive than greed-based top-heavy 1% controlled businesses which suffer from the disadvantage of the burden of paying a few people exorbitant salaries and thus unable to be investing enough in the workers who build the business.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 12:25:32 PM

PopcornPirate - "So stealing from those people that made something of themselves & were smart enough to amass millions of $....to give to people too lazy to get off the couch from watching Opara to go out & learn a skill & make something of themselves."

No, but getting employers to pay their workers more for the work they do would be a big help.

However, I still don't see any good way for government to do that.

And "smart enough to amass millions of $" often amounts to "smart enough to not get caught skimming more than they're worth".

Or just having the power to take without consequences.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,926,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 12:22:37 PM

nstrdnvstr - "Really???

So you didn't know that teachers had summer months off from school when you chose the profession?

Or you didn't choose to become a teacher, someone else forced you to make that decision?

Then once you found out that teaching isn't a 12 month a year job, you had no choice but to stay in the profession?"

Are you trying to not make any sense?

If so, you're being quite successful.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,845
Points:155,395
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 8:36:18 AM

if you want to reduce wealth inequality, you have to create or attract good paying Jobs.

Neither party has proposed anything of substance in this respect.

Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,377
Points:3,901,940
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 8:27:43 AM

"I approve of the President's proposals to reduce wealth inequality."

So despite two years of protests to the contrary, what we are really debating in this topic is thinly disguised wealth redistribution.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,760
Points:1,590,285
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 8:20:25 AM

"I approve of the President's proposals to reduce wealth inequality. When wealth inequality is reduced our economy can grow faster and experience fewer and shorter downturns. "

So stealing from those people that made something of themselves & were smart enough to amass millions of $....to give to people too lazy to get off the couch from watching Opara to go out & learn a skill & make something of themselves.

So Steve... you are Robin Hood? & the Conservatives are the Normans?
PLEASE?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,085
Points:464,165
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2015 11:56:01 PM

I approve of the President's proposals to reduce wealth inequality. When wealth inequality is reduced our economy can grow faster and experience fewer and shorter downturns.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,436
Points:4,715,290
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2015 10:50:03 PM

Weaslespit, "teacher tim>>>>> "I have the job that EVERYONE wants two months out of the year and very few want or can qualify for the other ten months."

And no, it is not "by choice"."

Really???

So you didn't know that teachers had summer months off from school when you chose the profession?

Or you didn't choose to become a teacher, someone else forced you to make that decision?

Then once you found out that teaching isn't a 12 month a year job, you had no choice but to stay in the profession?
Post a reply Back to Topics