Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:20 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:17,597
Points:343,800
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
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,147
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 2:15:13 PM

Mudtoe: <<<"I wonder why? Could there be an agenda at work?">>>

--That is always my litmus test for seeing motivation, find other scenarios that are not at hand, but share the same traits as the thought at hand. If any concern of the similar situation is completely ignored, such as in your example of professional athletes and entertainers, which has indeed been brought up several times in this thread, it clearly shows an agenda at work.

Look at Warren Buffet, presumably he would be the poster boy for this topic, as a premier head of multiple wealthy companies. Instead, it is Walmart.

Why?

It is the biggest company that is a target of progressive liberalism THAT ISN'T a friend of the left.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 1:59:21 PM

AC: "CEO of a multinational manufacturing or trading company? Different pay scale due to the difficulty of managing that enterprise. "


Also, the number of people capable of successfully managing such a large enterprise is very small; thus the pool of qualified job seekers is small, resulting in a buyer's market. It's no different that the reason a top NFL quarterback makes the big bucks, or a rock star with multiple platinum records commands such a high salary for performances. However, SS and the rest of the left never seem to have a problem with the disparity in salaries in the professional sports or entertainment industries, even though they are as glaring or more so than the corporate world. It's only salary disparity in the corporate world that they find objectionable. I wonder why? Could there be an agenda at work?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,032
Points:3,207,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 11:31:20 AM

SemiSteve complained (and it sure sounds like a complaint to me..): "Can we have another bale of straw here please? It looks like we are not done building straw men. In this case what was plainly said was the multiple of the average workers pay."--I've noticed, of late, that whenever you and a few others cannot defend an argument, you go back to this "That's a strawman!" Sorry? Exactly what is the strawman here? I'm telling you the fact. A strawman is a fictitious scenario. The fact that CEOs make more than that 20x, and even back in the 50s made more that 20x workers pay is fact. I gave you a concrete example - 3 GM Presidents.

The amount a CEO is paid should be proportional not to the amount the lowest worker is paid, but according to the headache of the job. Big company (like GM or GE) - big headaches. Smaller company (like, say, your local diner, or 1 single McDonalds or BK franchise) - smaller headaches. Managing a large company like Exxon-Mobil, for example, is a much harder job than managing a Starbucks outlet. And this is why a large CO CEO is paid more. It takes talent to manage and steer the direction of a multi-hundred billion dollar enterprise. I'm not sure I could do it. And these guys have no lives. Your fallacy in your argument is that a low paid worker at a big company will be making much, much more money than at a small or medium sized one. That's a misnomer. Labor rates are based on education, need for the job skill and availability of that labor. It's not based on what a CEO makes. And again, CEO of a bakery or even a chain of 6 bakeries, OK. CEO of a multinational manufacturing or trading company? Different pay scale due to the difficulty of managing that enterprise.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,357
Points:4,316,205
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 7:38:05 AM

flyboy, "While income and wealth are related they are not the same thing as many seem to think here. It is relatively simple to increase your wealth - just spend less than your income and invest the surplus."

That is it exactly!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 10:54:30 PM

"Funny how the left thinks people should be paid like owners of the business, but not be subject to the same risks as owners of the business. It's just more hypocrisy"

Funny how one liberal poster says something and you hold the entire left accountable for a straw man vaguely resembling it. In this case nobody said the workers should be paid at the same rate as the business owner but that's what you've decided to argue against. Sure is easy to argue when you think you can make up what you want to argue against and then, incredibly, you have the perfect comeback for it.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 4:08:26 PM

EZ: "If "wealth" should be more equitably distributed, you would think that the risks involved would also be more equitably distributed. "


And those who are getting something for nothing from government do no work and take no risks for it, but the left doesn't seem to have a problem with inequality on that end of the curve. Seems like the left's definition of inequality only pertains to money that they can't control or get their hands on.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 4/19/2014 4:08:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,884
Points:1,263,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 4:06:55 PM

Wages - salary is what you get paid for working. Income is money you get from work and investments. Spending is taking some of your income to purchase stuff.

Wealth is what you have at the end of the year when you have more income than spending and you take that left over income and invest it in things that will preserve its value and grow it in real terms - aka you can buy more of what yo want.

While income and wealth are related they are not the same thing as many seem to think here. It is relatively simple to increase your wealth - just spend less than your income and invest the surplus. Easy to say but hard to actually do sometimes. However if one develops the habit of investing regardless of fluctuations in income it does become easy and it does add up remarkably fast.

For example lets say your 25 years old and wont take money out of your investment until you 65. That leaves it 40 years to grow in value. Lets also say that your investments return a net of 8%. So lets save adn invest say $5,000 this age 25 year. At age 65 that $5,000 will have grown to be $108,622. Now repeat each year until your 65. You will be a multimillionair.

But if $5000 is too much try $2500 - thats only about $201 per month - a car payment.... Same 8% return net - $54,311. Either way if you have a systematic investment plan and stick to it you will be wealthy when you retire.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,357
Points:4,316,205
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 3:40:24 PM

Weaslespit, ""should they also be required to share in the defeat of the unsuccessful employers, and surrender the same percentage of losses as the owner that is losing everything?"

We do - we lose more than a mere percentage, we lose everything; our jobs."

But the employer loses their jobs AND their capital!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 2:48:13 PM

"--An employer losing their home, their life savings, their cars, their business, is equivalent to an employee losing their job?????"

And what happens to the assets of the employee who lost their job? Hopefully they can find gainful employment - is this always the case? The past 5 years would say otherwise...

And why are you focusing on small business owners who typically are not in the 1%? Trying to slant your argument for some reason?

People always have to move the goalposts to try to preserve a victory.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,147
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 1:53:12 PM

Mudtoe: <<<"Funny how the left thinks people should be paid like owners of the business, but not be subject to the same risks as owners of the business. It's just more hypocrisy.">>>

--I think that this is the key to separating the wheat from the chaff, and points out the fallacy in the new "wealth distribution" scheme, as it is simply new and improved re-distribution, re-packaged and being re-distributed to a thread near you. If "wealth" should be more equitably distributed, you would think that the risks involved would also be more equitably distributed.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,147
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 1:30:08 PM

Weasel: <<<"We do - we lose more than a mere percentage, we lose everything; our jobs.">>>

--An employer losing their home, their life savings, their cars, their business, is equivalent to an employee losing their job?????

I already knew the answer to my earlier question, liberals only want an employer to "share" the fruits of success, but don't want any part of sharing the agony of defeat. Nice try, no bozo button for you though.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 1:21:48 PM

EZ: "If an employee should be able to share the rewards of an employers hard work and investment, should they also be required to share in the defeat of the unsuccessful employers, and surrender the same percentage of losses as the owner that is losing everything?"


Funny how the left thinks people should be paid like owners of the business, but not be subject to the same risks as owners of the business. It's just more hypocrisy.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 4/19/2014 1:22:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 1:18:00 PM

"should they also be required to share in the defeat of the unsuccessful employers, and surrender the same percentage of losses as the owner that is losing everything?"

We do - we lose more than a mere percentage, we lose everything; our jobs.

Not a complex puzzle anymore, is it? ;)

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 4/19/2014 1:18:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
maryanneusa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:1,311
Points:256,175
Joined:Jun 2013
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 1:04:10 PM

ez, they will never understand that . . .
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,147
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 10:45:31 AM

If an employee should be able to share the rewards of an employers hard work and investment, should they also be required to share in the defeat of the unsuccessful employers, and surrender the same percentage of losses as the owner that is losing everything?

How does this scenario work my liberal friends?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 10:37:51 AM

"But if a lower income person saves their %50 while the higher income person spends all their discretionary income, the lower income person should have more wealth."

Please re-read what was posted, understand it, then comment;

"...it is MANDATORY that you live below your means to gain wealth, regardless of income levels.

That being said, if you are saving $50 compared to $500 based on discretionary income, it is 'much' easier to gain wealth when one has a higher income."

"No, it is you that is using biased terminology to hide your true wants, thus being the real smokescreen."

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand what my wants are...

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 4/19/2014 10:38:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 9:58:57 AM

AC-302: "YOU think they're only worth, basically 20x minimum wage."

Can we have another bale of straw here please? It looks like we are not done building straw men. In this case what was plainly said was the multiple of the average workers pay. Yet that seems to go in one ear and out the other and whoops a daisy presto change-o all of a sudden death becomes minimum worker pay. Trying to put words in others mouths is fooling yourself. Minimum wage and average worker pay are not the same thing. Why don't you argue apples to apples? What are you afraid of? That your argument will fall flat on its fruit salad?

That 400k figure suddenly becomes something like 1.5 million. That much per year should be considered rich in anybody's book.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 12:58:22 AM

rjh: "And ignore the chance to make even more money because of an obsession with not paying taxes. "


Think about it. Investing involves risk, the higher the risk the greater the return has to be in order to justify that risk. If you pay higher marginal taxes on those earnings then the reward has to be even greater still because you aren't getting to keep all of the reward, yet you do experience all of the risk. Doing something to avoid taxes, as long as it's legal, involves zero risk. Therefore if you had the opportunity to invest a sum of money that could earn you $1,000, or instead you could save $1,000 on your taxes (note I mean the taxes themselves, not lower your income by $1,000), which is better? The latter is better because it's a sure thing for zero risk.

I do my best to not earn more money than I need to live on for several years in a row, and then I do a big portfolio reorganization and take a bunch of capital gains in one year, almost all of which are long term. I almost never make an investment with the intention of only holding it less than a year, because then I bear the full risk while government has it's hand out for about 45% of the gain. If I do it long term, then they only get about 27% at most (in the years I reorganize), and less during the years that I only realize income I actually need to spend that year. Therefore my average tax rate over say five years is far less than what a normal person's would be with that same average income. As I've noted before, if you can control when your earn your income, there are opportunities to legally play the system to your advantage. The real suckers are the W-2 wage earners because they have few choices about anything tax wise.

And before you complain about the tax code, remember it was the democrats, who controlled the House for 90+% of the past half century, that created this tax code. They did it because they also earned most of their income from investments and they were taking care of themselves. I've merely learned how to play the game using their rules as well or better than they can. This is also another reason why the left will never succeed in the end because the people they elect to high office are wealthy, and often extremely wealthy, and will invariably tilt the playing field in their favor and will do nothing to cause their own wealth to be redistributed. All the rest of us wealthy have to do, even evil conservative ones like me, is to learn where and how they did it, and use the same tricks ourselves. Most people don't spend the time like I have to learn the tricks themselves, but they do have accountants and lawyers to do it for them.

mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 4/19/2014 1:00:23 AM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,357
Points:4,316,205
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 11:58:37 PM

rjhenn, "nstrdnvstr - "But if a lower income person saves their %50 while the higher income person spends all their discretionary income, the lower income person should have more wealth."

Are you having difficulty with the word "easier"? Having more income makes it easier to become wealthy. It doesn't guarantee it, it just makes it easier."

That is not necessarily true, some people that earn less money find it EASIER to save money than those who make much more!

It all depends on the person. I find it easier to save money than many people that earn more than me. Some that earn more than me find it easier to spend all their money and then some!

Oh, I understand your "smokescreen terminology" perfectly.

You want to redistribute income, not wealth. As I have said, some people do not earn a lot of money but have a higher net worth than those that make much more. The reason for that has more to do with discipline than anything else.

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 8:54:56 PM

nstrdnvstr - "But if a lower income person saves their %50 while the higher income person spends all their discretionary income, the lower income person should have more wealth."

Are you having difficulty with the word "easier"? Having more income makes it easier to become wealthy. It doesn't guarantee it, it just makes it easier.

For example, if you have twice the income, you only need to save 25%, instead of 50%, to get the same results.

"No, it is you that is using biased terminology to hide your true wants, thus being the real smokescreen."

Since you seem to have trouble understanding the simplest terminology, how would you know whether or not it's "biased"?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/18/2014 8:56:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 8:51:48 PM

mudtoe - "No they don't. You have said that the wealthy are stupid and that it's in their best interests to pay higher taxes and higher wages,"

Like they did during previous periods of economic growth.

"and accept a lower rate of return,"

Short-term, in order to see their investment grow even more.

"than it is for them to invest their money overseas where it can get a higher rate of return. That makes them losers in your world if they do what I believe they are going to do."

No, that makes all of us losers.

"I on the other hand believe that the people voting for the liberal agenda (i.e. higher taxes, more regulations, wage and capital controls, etc.) are going to be the ones left holding the bag at the end, and that the rich by and large are going to vote with their feet and head to greener pastures."

And ignore the chance to make even more money because of an obsession with not paying taxes. And, of course, those pastures will only be "greener" until people tire of being exploited and demand more of that "liberal agenda" that you despise.

"Also note that I'm not including those at the top of the left who are running things. They too will be winners because they are hoodwinking their followers while at the same time amassing fortunes and investing them in the same way as the rest of the wealthy."

True, in actuality they're not any better, or more perceptive, than any other group of wealthy skimmers.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,357
Points:4,316,205
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 7:23:04 PM

Weaslespit, ""You are wrong, it is easier to gain wealth if one lives below ones means."

LOL, it is MANDATORY that you live below your means to gain wealth, regardless of income levels.

That being said, if you are saving $50 compared to $500 based on discretionary income, it is 'much' easier to gain wealth when one has a higher income."

But if a lower income person saves their %50 while the higher income person spends all their discretionary income, the lower income person should have more wealth.

""But you just said that you want to redistribute income in order to achieve higher "wealth" for those with lower incomes!"

This is an oversimplification with to redefine the issue using biased terminology for negative political purposes. In other words - a smoke screen. "

No, it is you that is using biased terminology to hide your true wants, thus being the real smokescreen.

It is not "oversimplification", it is just clearing the smokescreen of this topic.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 4:15:40 PM

rjh: "Not really. Your theory and mine lead to roughly the same outcome."


No they don't. You have said that the wealthy are stupid and that it's in their best interests to pay higher taxes and higher wages, and accept a lower rate of return, than it is for them to invest their money overseas where it can get a higher rate of return. That makes them losers in your world if they do what I believe they are going to do. I on the other hand believe that the people voting for the liberal agenda (i.e. higher taxes, more regulations, wage and capital controls, etc.) are going to be the ones left holding the bag at the end, and that the rich by and large are going to vote with their feet and head to greener pastures. Also note that I'm not including those at the top of the left who are running things. They too will be winners because they are hoodwinking their followers while at the same time amassing fortunes and investing them in the same way as the rest of the wealthy.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 3:54:32 PM

rjh: "Except that, typically, most of the shareholders have little or no control, except to leave. Most don't really care how their money is being spent, as long as the value of their investment doesn't go down and they're being paid dividends. Plenty of room to skim there. "


Those are both still choices. They can leave if they don't like what the CEO is being paid; they can sell short if they think the Board and management are acting foolishly and profit if they are correct; and leaving their money on autopilot and paying no attention is also a choice because it's their money and they are also free to do that if they wish. Ownership of something only gives you freedom to do with it what you wish; it does not automatically grant you wisdom. Companies that are run too poorly find themselves out of business or sold to someone who will run it better. Capitalism has a great feedback mechanism to help ensure that resources are used in the most efficient manner. Too bad that doesn't apply to government....


mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 3:09:05 PM

mudtoe - "The shareholders elect the Board of Directors to oversee how their money is being used, and the Board hires the management team to run the company. If the shareholders don't like how their money is being used or how their company is being run, they have the power to fire the people who aren't doing what they want. Therefore, because the shareholders have control over their money and their company, your statement is meaningless."

Except that, typically, most of the shareholders have little or no control, except to leave.

Most don't really care how their money is being spent, as long as the value of their investment doesn't go down and they're being paid dividends. Plenty of room to skim there.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 3:04:53 PM

I75at7AM - "Of course, the author is playing with the reader by using the term "redistribute". The facts show that policies under Reagan led to a growing economy, which raised pay for the lower income segments at a much higher rate than has happened during 0bama's first term."

Of course, Reagan, while talking smaller government, increased both government spending and the national debt tremendously.

And, if you look at the income limits for each fifth of households, it's evident that, while the lower percentiles made some small gains during the Reagan administration, the top 5% made much bigger gains.

And that everyone did much better near the end of the Clinton administration, dropping down to losses for most during the Shrub administration.

Though, again, any gains were somewhat lopsided.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 2:40:10 PM

"You are wrong, it is easier to gain wealth if one lives below ones means."

LOL, it is MANDATORY that you live below your means to gain wealth, regardless of income levels.

That being said, if you are saving $50 compared to $500 based on discretionary income, it is 'much' easier to gain wealth when one has a higher income.

"But you just said that you want to redistribute income in order to achieve higher "wealth" for those with lower incomes!"

This is an oversimplification with to redefine the issue using biased terminology for negative political purposes. In other words - a smoke screen.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 2:18:03 PM

AC-302 - "Here, now, the DISTRIBUTION of wealth is the basis for any economy. That's fundamental."

And ours is very lopsided, thus slowing the economy.

"But when, for example, our buddy SemiSteve decries executive and CEO pay as being "too high", and he thinks that workers "deserve a share of the profit", that's wealth redistribution, for certain."

Except that what Steve's advocating by that isn't wealth redistribution, but more equitable income distribution, i.e., paying the workers more for what they produce.

Which would encourage businesses to grow by providing them with more customers.

"And as to entertainers or sports heroes, I would say that they are certainly NOT worth what they are paid. Is LeBron James really worth $100 million? I think not. All he does is play a game. So what?"

Well, people are willing to pay exorbitant (to me) prices to see him play that game. By your own rules, that makes him worth it.

And, really, all a CEO is doing is "playing a game". It's just that no one is willing to pay to watch him do it.

"Now, let's take a CEO like Jack Welch, formerly of GE, or James McNerney of Boeing. YOU think they're only worth, basically 20x minimum wage."

No. What has been said is some multiple of the average wage, not the minimum wage.

"Really? Hmm..McNerney was head of a company that had activities over $81 BILLION. He's got a lot of responsibility. Not everyone can run this kind of business."

Does he run it all by himself? Or does he delegate most of that?

"Not everyone can motivate folks in an organization such as this."

So hire the Dallas Cowboys' cheerleaders.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 2:17:53 PM

rjh: "And how often is it actually "their" money, as opposed to money that they're, in effect, managing for others?"


The shareholders elect the Board of Directors to oversee how their money is being used, and the Board hires the management team to run the company. If the shareholders don't like how their money is being used or how their company is being run, they have the power to fire the people who aren't doing what they want. Therefore, because the shareholders have control over their money and their company, your statement is meaningless.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,379
Points:2,766,170
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:44:08 PM

Here are some inconvenient facts (inconvenient for 0bama-ites and other assorted leftists):

Republicans Redistribute Wealth Better than Democrats

Of course, the author is playing with the reader by using the term "redistribute". The facts show that policies under Reagan led to a growing economy, which raised pay for the lower income segments at a much higher rate than has happened during 0bama's first term. And with the ACA taking effect, many lower-segment workers are now seeing their hours cut and limited which won't help their incomes at all.
So there is no need to "redistribute" money, just allow the economy to do what it does best, which is grow. Some of the new money will be earned by the lower income people. The term "distribute" is not correct either, as there is no need for some almighty entity to pass out the loot like cards at a bridge tournament. More correct would be "earn" and "grow".
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,032
Points:3,207,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:43:58 PM

RJ - Once again, you have a bad strawman. Here, now, the DISTRIBUTION of wealth is the basis for any economy. That's fundamental. But when, for example, our buddy SemiSteve decries executive and CEO pay as being "too high", and he thinks that workers "deserve a share of the profit", that's wealth redistribution, for certain. Say what you will, but you're wrong, my friend.

And as to entertainers or sports heroes, I would say that they are certainly NOT worth what they are paid. Is LeBron James really worth $100 million? I think not. All he does is play a game. So what? I can go down to my local park or local high school and watch a game if I wish. Now, let's take a CEO like Jack Welch, formerly of GE, or James McNerney of Boeing. YOU think they're only worth, basically 20x minimum wage. Really? Hmm..McNerney was head of a company that had activities over $81 BILLION. He's got a lot of responsibility. Not everyone can run this kind of business. Not everyone can motivate folks in an organization such as this. Let's say the minimum guy makes $20K. 20x that would be $400K. Peanuts. And in addition to pay, there's stock options. At one company I used to work for, the directors (people under VPs) and onward, all the way up through the board and the CEO, all were REQUIRED to hold a certain amount of stock in the company. I take it that the reason for this was to make these folks incur some financial pain if and when they do something to make the stock go down.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:30:43 PM

nstrdnvstr - "You are wrong, it is easier to gain wealth if one lives below ones means. It has to do with discipline and not trying to keep up with the Joneses!"

And having enough means that you can live beneath them. So he's right.

"Just because someone earns more money doesn't mean they have more wealth!"

But earning more does _make it easier_ to gain wealth.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:09:27 PM

AC-302 - "Much of what you have talked about here, especially earlier on IS wealth REDISTRIBUTION."

Not really. It's just that the only way anyone can argue with him is by relabelling it.

"And if a company is so inequitable with it's workers, how do they get workers to work there or to stay for long?"

Because that's more the norm than otherwise, and there aren't that many jobs to choose from?

And do they get them to stay for long? Many companies complain about high turnover.

"But in the healing sciences, people who aren't people people don't tend to stick around long. And their are some specialties (surgeons, in particular) who are known for being a bit short or "snippy" with patients."

My wife had a surgeon like that. No people skills at all, but one of the best in his field. Much preferable to the reverse.

The real question about CEO pay is: is anyone actually worth that much? One can make an argument for entertainers and pro athletes. As long as people are willing to pay heavily-inflated prices to see them, they're worth it. But are CEOs actually worth it? Or do they just have the power, and the connections, to get paid more than they're actually worth?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:08:38 PM

In order to cling to a myth it is necessary to fool oneself.

In this case we see it manifested in the absurdly laughable attempt to place words in the OP author's mouth, despite his repeated clarifications and unmistakably plain and easy-to-understand explanations about what was meant in the OP.

It is not that these individuals who are fooling themselves are incapable of grasping the concept. It is that they refuse to; because doing so would cause them to recognize the reality they must avoid in order to cling to their myths; myths which must be clung to in order to support their incorrect political view.

As if there were ever any doubt that the OP was referring to a -situation- rather than an -act-, (due to absolutely explicit context and links,) the author has simply stated what is meant.

Over and over.

The level of absurdity of those re-worders (which is not really a word, but should leave little doubt that - re-wording - is not the same as referring to the way something was originally -worded- thus demonstrating that adding the prefix 're-' to a term does indeed change it to mean that something which existed, such as a situation, was then modified or redone, as it were, which would be an -act- ) is thus heightened to a laughable state, provoking howls and outbursts of giggling at the sheer inanity of it.

-pardon me while I dry my eyes-

As we all know, foolish acts can sometimes be quite humorous!

It was silly in the first place to try to tell me what I meant. But after I explained in detail what was meant, for this to persist is like holding a giant flashing neon sign that says: "I don't get it, I refuse to get it, and you can't make me."

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

This has been quite entertaining.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:05:47 PM

mudtoe - "We shall see which is the truth and which is the strawman as the next decade or two unfolds."

Not really. Your theory and mine lead to roughly the same outcome.

"Who says so, you? Apparently it's not the people doing the paying; and since it's their money being used to do the paying, theirs is the only opinion that counts."

And how often is it actually "their" money, as opposed to money that they're, in effect, managing for others?

"Precisely. The left does excel at word-smithing and sophistry."

Funny how most of your arguments are actually "word-smithing and sophistry", building strawmen and knocking them down.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 11:12:17 AM

EZ: "Like this? --->"


Precisely. The left does excel at word-smithing and sophistry. They have to be good at those things because as soon as people find out what it is that they really stand for, they have to use those tools to obscure their intentions as much as possible.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:14,147
Points:2,041,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 10:55:24 AM

Mudtoe: <<<"More liberal word-smithing. The word "re-distribution" has bad connotations, so by taking out the the "re" they can talk about it as if the "distribution" they wish can be magically made to happen without the "re" part. Sophistry 101.">>>

Like this? ---> Steve: <<<"Using the term wealth distribution, as it was used in the OP, (and I as the author am the only one who is qualified to clarify this) is obviously referring to a situation; not an act. The term Wealth redistribution refers to a process. The two terms are not the same; so if you try to equate them you are only fooling yourself.">>>
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 10:46:37 AM

ss: "There simply are no people who are 200 times as valuable as the average worker."

Who says so, you? Apparently it's not the people doing the paying; and since it's their money being used to do the paying, theirs is the only opinion that counts.


ss: "Using the term wealth distribution, as it was used in the OP, (and I as the author am the only one who is qualified to clarify this) is obviously referring to a situation; not an act. The term Wealth redistribution refers to a process. The two terms are not the same; so if you try to equate them you are only fooling yourself. "


How do you achieve one without the other as in via the use of force? And forcing people to pay a certain wage is in fact the use of force.



mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 4/18/2014 10:48:08 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:11:49 AM

If somebody has twice the education and is twice as smart and qualified as the average worker then that person should make twice the pay. There simply are no people who are 200 times as valuable as the average worker.

There are some here who have attempted to equate the words distribution with redistribution. Let me make this clear once again for the purposes of this discussion. Using the term wealth distribution, as it was used in the OP, (and I as the author am the only one who is qualified to clarify this) is obviously referring to a situation; not an act. The term Wealth redistribution refers to a process. The two terms are not the same; so if you try to equate them you are only fooling yourself.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,357
Points:4,316,205
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 8:45:02 AM

Weaslespit, ""But you have already admitted that what you are really talking about is income redistribution and has nothing to do with wealth?"

Again, incorrect. Income has everything to do with wealth. It is much easier to gain wealth if one has a higher income - there is a very high correlation there. If the disparity in income inequality returns to 'normal' levels seen 50 years ago, you will see more people with more wealth, thus a healthier overall economy."

But you just said that you want to redistribute income in order to achieve higher "wealth" for those with lower incomes!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:39,357
Points:4,316,205
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 8:43:00 AM

Weaslespit, ""But you have already admitted that what you are really talking about is income redistribution and has nothing to do with wealth?"

Again, incorrect. Income has everything to do with wealth. It is much easier to gain wealth if one has a higher income - there is a very high correlation there. If the disparity in income inequality returns to 'normal' levels seen 50 years ago, you will see more people with more wealth, thus a healthier overall economy."

You are wrong, it is easier to gain wealth if one lives below ones means. It has to do with discipline and not trying to keep up with the Joneses!

Many people that make more money just spend it all, and then some (as is their right). That also creates jobs.

Just because someone earns more money doesn't mean they have more wealth!

Look at the average net worth in the US and compare it to the average income.

Look at your net worth and income. And I have no idea what yours are and don't really want to know. Compare your results to the "average".

My income to net worth ration is higher than what one would judge by my income, as I suspect yours may be.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 7:05:57 PM

AC: "Steve, I have no problem with the topic, except that you have to some degree mislabeled it. Much of what you have talked about here, especially earlier on IS wealth REDISTRIBUTION. "


More liberal word-smithing. The word "re-distribution" has bad connotations, so by taking out the the "re" they can talk about it as if the "distribution" they wish can be magically made to happen without the "re" part. Sophistry 101.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,032
Points:3,207,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 6:59:56 PM

SemiSteve complained (and this is a complaint from you, my friend): "-Stick to the topic and stop talking about me? Or do you have some problem discussing he merits of the topic without trying to make it personal about the other poster?"

--Steve, I have no problem with the topic, except that you have to some degree mislabeled it. Much of what you have talked about here, especially earlier on IS wealth REDISTRIBUTION. And I am not "making it personal" about you. All I am saying is that you consistently decry executive and CEO pay. That's fine, but it's a private matter between the exec who is employed and being paid, the board, and the shareholders. So if you complain about CEO pay, buy stock and vote your shares. Get up and speak at board meetings. And if a company is so inequitable with it's workers, how do they get workers to work there or to stay for long? Your premise is also a very poor strawman, that has had the stuffing kicked out of it already.

Now, as to your assertion of CEO pay being only like 20x the worker's salary in the 60's? Poppycock! Check out what James Roche, Ed Cole and Elliott "Pete" Estes were making in the 60s and 70s. I think they made even then much more than 20x what a "line worker" was making.

And as to your assertion that higher pay for jobs is "unfair", you've said it yourself. Let me remind you of some thing you said on these open boards (not in private discussions you and I have had). You once mentioned that you had a friend (or acquaintance) who is a doctor. You complained (decried, lamented, or whatever... however you want to characterize it is merely semantics) that your doctor friend makes too much money for what he does, and that you feel he shouldn't make so much money. I seem to recall you thinking that you were a smarter guy than he, and that may very well be true, too. You are an intelligent guy. I think sometimes you don't use common sense where the almighty $$ is concerned, but dreaming isn't against the law, last I checked..

But your point was not well taken, as you felt that doctors and med schools should be "owned" by the government, and that people who are (and I am paraphrasing) "feeling healers" should be doctors, not people who are chasing money. And I see your point, to a degree. But in the healing sciences, people who aren't people people don't tend to stick around long. And their are some specialties (surgeons, in particular) who are known for being a bit short or "snippy" with patients. Not that they aren't necessarily caring, but they don't have a lot of time, much like the stereotype of New Yorkers. Trust me on this, my family is involved heavily in the healing arts and sciences. And we talked about the investments in time and money, the insurance, the capital needed to start a practice, etc. etc. Docs make a lot, but they pay a lot out, too. And they deserve a very good salary for the service they provide, the hassle of the job, and the responsibilities they take on. Life and death decisions, often. The point is that YOU decried doctor pay, now you're decrying CEO pay. Where does it end? How much do you want to "knock them down a peg"? How far should they fall, in your opinion? How much do you think a CEO should make, in terms of real dollars, not in terms of multiples? What about MDs? And then what would you consider a "living" wage for workers. Pick one locality (your own if you like - Tampa St. Pete is a good area, and we can "scale" it up or down for other regions.) Discuss it.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 6:27:24 PM

rjh: "And you're still arguing with strawmen about welfare and liberal politicians, instead of the root causes of extremes of income and wealth inequality, which are the base causes of our weak economy. "


We shall see which is the truth and which is the strawman as the next decade or two unfolds.

mudtoe
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:52:28 PM

mudtoe - "We'll see who falls off the cliff in the next 10-20 years. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and expecting that it won't be the folks who protect their wealth from greedy liberal politicians, and it will be those who believe the lies of greedy liberal politicians and put their future in their hands expecting that they will be taken care of with money confiscated from others. Oh, and good luck living on that social security check you expect to be there for you :)"

And you're still arguing with strawmen about welfare and liberal politicians, instead of the root causes of extremes of income and wealth inequality, which are the base causes of our weak economy.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:12,381
Points:1,617,185
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:48:40 PM

rjh: "Which is like saying that people who don't believe they're about to step off a cliff are going to fall."


We'll see who falls off the cliff in the next 10-20 years. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and expecting that it won't be the folks like me who protect their wealth from greedy liberal politicians, and it will be those who believe the lies of greedy liberal politicians and put their future in their hands expecting that they will be taken care of with money confiscated from others. Oh, and good luck living on that social security check you expect to be there for you :)


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 4/17/2014 4:49:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:16:36 PM

EZExit - "--50 years ago, our national debt was 300 billion, we spend that now every 27 days without blinking."

Which, of course, completely ignores inflation. 50 years ago, our GDP was 600 billion. Now it exceeds that every 13 days.

"50 years ago the US dollar was the standard, and was quite valuable next to other currencies, it was the standard by which other currencies were measured. Now it is printed freely, and has lost much of its value compared to other currencies. This is exactly what has caused the loss of purchase power."

No, the loss of purchase power is called inflation, and it's a deliberate government policy, including most governments around the world.

"You're right about the poor economy, but you are wrong about the source of our fiscal weakness. Developing class envy as a reaction to this poor economy is like invoking man made global warming as a reaction to the government's desire to control energy usage."

Our fiscal weakness is a direct result of growing income and wealth inequality. Pool most of the wealth and income in one spot, and there's not enough circulating to grow the economy.

"Spending our way out of debt is a fool's endeavor."

Again, strawmen.

"Perhaps if you rephrased it that people have given away control of their government, I would be hard pressed to argue against that point."

Well, a big part of my position is that the current two parties are more interested in keeping us divided than they are in actually doing anything significant.

"SemiSteve is the ONLY liberal that has even attempted to answer the question, I started a thread some time ago on the very topic. Nobody is willing to quantify it, as it is a nebulous talking point, sort of like wealth redistribution, all talk, no ideas, just ragged attempts to redefine words and desperation to pigeonhole people by class."

Actually, I think I did try to quantify it, so your statement that "SemiSteve is the ONLY liberal that has even attempted to answer the question" is probably accurate. If you consider only discretionary income, then the proportion of tax being paid by each income percentile is fairly even, or was at the time your topic was active.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:07:11 PM

"--Spending our way out of debt is a fool's endeavor."

Indeed - you get out of debt by cutting spending and increasing revenue...

Unfortunately that is NOT how you get out of a recession.

"But yes, I categorically reject your argument that people have no control of their government."

It is hard to have any influence when you have no money to spread said influence...

"Nobody is willing to quantify it, as it is a nebulous talking point, sort of like wealth redistribution, all talk, no ideas, just ragged attempts to redefine words and desperation to pigeonhole people by class."

Especially since this topic isn't even about wealth redistribution... yet the Right wants to pigeonhole the 47% into a certain class and redefine wealth distribuiton.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 4/17/2014 4:10:05 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:06:52 PM

mudtoe - "Apparently the people with the money (i.e. capital) don't believe you, and what they believe and what they do with their money is what's important. Therefore everything I said will come true."

Which is like saying that people who don't believe they're about to step off a cliff are going to fall.

"You can't deny that, so all you are left with is calling them "short-sighted", which doesn't change the fact that liberal policies here are lowering their return on investment which will and is causing them to vote their money and increasingly themselves with their feet."

Again, it's not "liberal policies" that are lowering their return on investment. In the main, those liberal policies are the result of the greed of those who are now complaining about a lowered return on investment, which is due, mostly, to their failure to share the wealth enough to drive a healthy economy.

"Smart people don't sit there and let liberals pick their pockets."

If you were truly smart, there wouldn't be so many liberals trying to "pick your pockets".
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,159
Points:456,945
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:05:59 PM

"Developing class envy as a reaction to this poor economy is like invoking man made global warming as a reaction to the government's desire to control energy usage."

I don't understand the Right's accusations with regards to 'class warfare' and 'class envy' when I state that I believe it would be beneficial for all if the gap in income inequality returned to 'normal' levels seen during a healthy economy yet the Right finds it perfectly acceptable to lambast the poor (or the 47-47% depending on which GOP'er is being quoted) as if they are all worthless, lazy moochers.

Talk about class warfare!

"50 years ago, our national debt was 300 billion, we spend that now every 27 days without blinking."

And 50 years ago automobiles were less safe - none of which has any relevance to the topic.

"Now it is printed freely, and has lost much of its value compared to other currencies. This is exactly what has caused the loss of purchase power."

There are many, many variables that influence this - it is certainly not a one-size-fits-all answer.
Post a reply Back to Topics