Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:57 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:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2013 7:53:31 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wiki: Wealth inequality in the United States

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

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

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 8:05:06 PM

'54% of the US net worth is held by the richest 3% of Americans.'

-In These Times, Oct 2014.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2014 4:42:55 PM

"The profit motive works."

But for most workers in the USA there is no such thing.

Here is their motivation:

"Work your butt off or lose your job."

-The only people motivated by potential profits are the investors in the company and the rule-makers at the top which can award themselves more compensation if they push workers harder.

"Sacrifice for the good of others generally doesn't (see USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.)"

-And yet that is exactly what most workers are driven to do.

" The desire for profits, and the rewards that come from profits, will push management towards maximum efficiency."

But, as I say, will do nothing for workers, the bulk of the people who actually produce those profits.

"The rewards of efficiency don't always go to shareholders and managers. Sam Walton was the king of driving maximum efficiency at every level. His approach to logistics is emulated by almost everyone with a brain. The result was lower prices for consumers."

-And brutal working conditions for employees.

"Any real economist" [I presume you mean conservative-leaning one] will tell you that lower prices for everyday items = a higher standard of living."

-But not if the consumers don't make as much money because they are being denied full time working hours.

""These truths are ..."

-Nothing but opinion based on high-priced PR distributed by the power-junkies who have learned that part of their power stems from control of public opinion.

What do you think the purpose of a feel-good ad is? These spots always used to be a bit mind-boggling until I 'got' the big picture. You know the type.

'BigShot industries. You may not have heard of us but we help make products better for America. Our goodness is in your food, your roads, and even helps being you the energy you're so hooked on.'

Ever wonder why they would so much money on commercial advertising when they are not even trying to sell you a product?

The answer is thus: BigShot is probably embroiled in some controversy about the way it does business and needs to do some damage-control about their image to offset the number of irate constituents calling representatives to demand action.

Even though the profit motive is effective at producing good market competition it is also responsible for large players seeking zero-competition markets. IOW monopolies. Any time you control all or nearly all of the supply in a market you control the price and availability. Sometimes corporations succeed in capturing this coveted position. They are driven to seek this by guess what. The profit motive. Because the profit motive works in more ways than one. For instance, it is what drives drug dealers and smugglers to violence, torture and murder.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2014 2:17:28 PM

Cirdan - "You need to distinguish between reality and what you wish was true. That's the failing of most current liberal's ideas."

As well as most current conservatives' ideas.

"In the real world, profitability is what drives efficiency."

In the form of greed, it also drives corruption.

"The profit motive works. Sacrifice for the good of others generally doesn't (see USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.)"

Except that none of those are actually based on "Sacrifice for the good of others", but on political dogma and power-seeking.

"Most organizations without a profit motive (e.g., Government) are grossly inefficient and trail significantly in management accountability (see VA)."

See many private businesses where they're not regulated by government.

"'Empire building' managers will not survive long in a profit-driven business. (There are bureaucratic businesses that don't emphasize profits - see GM pre-bankruptcy.) The desire for profits, and the rewards that come from profits, will push management towards maximum efficiency."

If you define "efficiency" as getting the most out of customers while giving them the least.

"The rewards of efficiency don't always go to shareholders and managers. Sam Walton was the king of driving maximum efficiency at every level. His approach to logistics is emulated by almost everyone with a brain. The result was lower prices for consumers. Any real economist will tell you that lower prices for everyday items = a higher standard of living."

Except when those lower prices are accompanied by lower wages, lower and a movement of jobs overseas.

"These truths are routinely ignored by those lefties who absolutely hate all private businesses."

Stereotyping.

"Not recognizing that private enterprise is what makes the US Economy #1."

And government regulation is what keeps the US from being your typical banana republic.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,506
Points:138,025
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2014 12:41:37 AM

You need to distinguish between reality and what you wish was true. That's the failing of most current liberal's ideas.

In the real world, profitability is what drives efficiency. The profit motive works. Sacrifice for the good of others generally doesn't (see USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.) Most organizations without a profit motive (e.g., Government) are grossly inefficient and trail significantly in management accountability (see VA). "Empire building" managers will not survive long in a profit-driven business. (There are bureaucratic businesses that don't emphasize profits - see GM pre-bankruptcy.) The desire for profits, and the rewards that come from profits, will push management towards maximum efficiency.

The rewards of efficiency don't always go to shareholders and managers. Sam Walton was the king of driving maximum efficiency at every level. His approach to logistics is emulated by almost everyone with a brain. The result was lower prices for consumers. Any real economist will tell you that lower prices for everyday items = a higher standard of living.

These truths are routinely ignored by those lefties who absolutely hate all private businesses. Not recognizing that private enterprise is what makes the US Economy #1.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2014 12:01:05 PM

So true rjhenn, but you know the reality of it is no matter what regulations are contrived to force employers to treat workers well they will seek a way around them. Even if you tried to impose a maximum pay on executives based on a multiple of the average worker pay, observing that that ration has gone from 15-20 times in the 60's and 70's to 400 times in recent years.

I kind of like Richard Wolff's conclusion that the way to go is to make government programs to encourage establishing worker-owned businesses. These things are difficult to start up, but once they get going they can be very competitive in the free market.

Take the efficiency and competitiveness of a large corporation and remove the greedy upper echelon (the board, the empire-building department heads and middle managers) and you have a strong market force which is focused on delivering product, being competitive, and treating workers well.

Greed based businesses have a big disadvantage in that they are always trying to siphon off wealth for the few at the top. Remove that disadvantage and you could have the same organization except it is even more competitive than the greed-based version because it has lower operating expenses without the expense of the greed.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 7:06:33 PM

From Steve's link: "A rather obvious solution is available if we put aside the presumption that redistribution is the only way to counter deepening inequality. To avoid redistribution's insecurity, social divisiveness and wasted resources, we could instead distribute income much less unequally in the first place. Then redistribution would be unnecessary and society could avoid all its negative aspects."

Which is basically what one 'side' has been saying. What we have right now is the rich paying much higher taxes, essentially to keep part of their labor force alive and somewhat healthy, because they refuse to pay them enough for them to keep themselves alive and healthy. That is extremely inefficient, largely because of government bureaucracy.

We'd all be better off if employers simply paid their people an adequate wage, which would reduce the need for welfare, thus allow taxes to be lowered, and would increase consumer spending, thus stimulating the economy.

But greed tends to be shortsighted, so that's unlikely to happen. So continue to expect higher taxes on the rich.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 3:36:27 PM

Richard Wolff: "Thomas Piketty's recent Capital in the Twenty-first Century believes it [redistribution] should [be our focus]. He caps his analysis of how and why capitalism generates deepening economic inequality by advocating progressive income and wealth taxation. He wants to offset or reverse that inequality by redistributing income from the rich to the middle and the poor. Discussions of Piketty's work show considerable support for redistribution.

Yet history has shown both its friends and foes that redistribution has at least three negative aspects. First, redistribution mechanisms rarely last. Once established, progressive tax rates, social securities, safety nets, minimum wages, welfare states, and all the other mechanisms of redistribution can be and usually are undermined. ... Second, redistribution is socially divisive, often extremely... Third, redistribution is costly. Taxing, spending and regulating require large government bureaucracies funded by tax revenues.

Liberal Richard Wolff Explains Why Redistribution Is Not The Best Idea

Consider then the alternative organization of worker coops, or, more precisely, worker self-directed enterprises (WSDEs). In such enterprises, each worker has two job descriptions. First, he/she has assigned tasks in the enterprise's division of labor. Second, he/she participates in the democratic decisions by all workers about what, how and where to produce and how to distribute the enterprise's profits. In WSDEs, workers comprise their own boards of directors.

Their decisions would need to be reached together with those of the residential communities that comprise each enterprise's geographic hosts and customers."

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 9/3/2014 3:37:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 12:53:12 PM

The current wealth distribution in the USA is a mystical thing. Most people, Republicans included, have a certain concept of what the ideal wealth distribution should be for a healthy economy. And they also have another picture of what they think really exists, which is more lopsided than they think is ideal. What they don't realize is that the actual distribution is far more lopsided than they typically imagine.

What people think is the ideal distribution: The rich have the most because there should be an incentive for striving to do well. The middle have ample for a comfortable life plus some extras, and the poor have enough to get by on a minimal lifestyle with no help from government.

What people think we really have: The rich have too much, the middle are OK, but they really have to work at it to get much extra, and the poor don't really have enough to get by, so they get government assistance.

What we actually have in our current economy: The rich have more than all the rest put together. The middle have even less than people realize and are shrinking because so many are dropping out of the middle and becoming poor, and the poor have so little it hardly even shows up on a graph depicting the distributions. The 1% have 40% of all the wealth, the next richest 10% have most of what's left, and the middle and poor divide what remains.

Watch the video on the previous post. You'll be astonished.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 1:31:41 PM

Here is a great graphic to describe the wealth inequality in the USA:

Wealth Inequality - watch it if you dare yourself to see the real truth

Note that this short video is now 2 years old. Things have gotten worse since then. Buffett was right. The class war has already been won by his class.

What is going to happen when Amazon lays off all it's warehouse workers and replaces them with machines? And then other businesses follow suit? And most laborers and redundant job workers are also replaced by machines? And many semi-skilled workers, and even college-educated workers are also replaced?

All of that is coming, you know.

Artificial intelligence is making huge strides. Many jobs are going to go poof. People are going to be surprised. Think about that as you watch this graphic which describes how wealth was distributed 2 years ago and consider how many people will have gainful employment in 10 or 15 years. And how many will be on the dole. Then consider how many will be paying taxes to support the dole.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2014 3:33:33 PM

"There is a lot of good paying work available for qualified applicants with the right training."

Exactly.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2014 11:54:19 AM

Weaslespit:

"You don't have to go to college to have post-high school education. It doesn't take a college degree for access to jobs that pay more than McDonald's.

Automotive is hiring like crazy... "

There is a lot of good paying work available for qualified applicants with the right training.

Insurance Agent $26K
Executive Assistant $29K
Surveyor $31K
HVAC Tech $26K
Stenographer / Court Reporter $26K
Paralegal Assistant $29K
Medical Secretary $21K
Web Developer $43K
Online Advertising Manager $40K
Dental Hygienist $45K

Top Ten Jobs Not Requiring A Degree

I did not see anything about mechanic or truck driver on there as I expected.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 11:39:13 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Wealth is created by capitalism. It isn't perfect, but if works.

Socialism is a failure.

You can't have it both ways..."

A perfect example of black-and-white thinking.

"At least not in the real world."

The real world has, not only black and white, but multiple shades of gray, even a near-infinite range of colors.

Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,567
Points:13,485
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 8:24:06 PM

SemiSteve: "Ideas, the result of abstract thinking enhanced by education, are essential for creating jobs. Fewer ideas = fewer jobs. More ideas = more jobs."

And yet the Occutards demonize those that ARE successful, come up with good ideas, and put people to work.

And yet Liberals scream for more regulation, more taxes, and other business-destroying government restrictions.

Wealth is created by capitalism. It isn't perfect, but if works.

Socialism is a failure.

You can't have it both ways...

At least not in the real world.

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 2:23:03 PM

True, there's a big demand for technical skills, such as diesel and heavy equipment mechanics, around here.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 12:53:21 PM

"We currently have many college graduates in this country that cannot find a job that they were trained for.

That costly education isn't helping the economy right now, is it?"

You don't have to go to college to have post-high school education. It doesn't take a college degree for access to jobs that pay more than McDonald's.

Automotive is hiring like crazy...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 12:36:40 PM


SemiSteve, "More education is good for the economy."

nstrdnvstr: "We currently have many college graduates in this country that cannot find a job that they were trained for.

That costly education isn't helping the economy right now, is it? "

The situation which prompted Occupy Wallstreet was a temporary downturn which followed a bursting bubble caused by loans that were simply too cheap and too easy to get. Too many people took out loans they could not repay. Since the financial world is all interconnected large institutions went down like dominoes.

We have recovered from much of the damage (although much still remains).

The fact is there will always be people who get educations for which they are unable to find correlating work. That situation came to a peak following the 08 financial crisis, and has since eased.

Is that a reason that people should avoid getting an in-demand education? Of course not. Does that mean that education in general does not help our economy? Of course not.

Smart people are able to find their place in the economy and find something productive and lucrative they can do, whether or not it is what they were specifically trained for. I have a friend with an engineering degree who is teaching high school. Another has no degree but is President of a small company he founded. Many doctors are running a business, despite having their degree in a non-business field.

Dumb people sometimes think the way to get ahead is to rip off others They embark on a criminal career which is counter-productive to the economy. Imagine if they had gotten a better education. They may have realized that there are so many ways to make a good living legally it is stupid to try to do it illegally when that often entails as much effort as a legal endeavor.

I have to say this last part.

I find it incredulous that this even has to be argued. It should come as basic logic that the better educated the people are the better the economy will be.

This is so simple.

Ideas, the result of abstract thinking enhanced by education, are essential for creating jobs. Fewer ideas = fewer jobs. More ideas = more jobs.

Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook all began with ideas. And they have immensely added to our economy.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 7:21:02 PM

nstrdnvstr - "We currently have many college graduates in this country that cannot find a job that they were trained for."

We need more job for underwater basket weavers.

But only the ones with a degree in it.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,478
Points:4,522,105
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 5:53:01 PM

SemiSteve, "More education is good for the economy."

We currently have many college graduates in this country that cannot find a job that they were trained for.

That costly education isn't helping the economy right now, is it?
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,896
Points:817,225
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 3:31:36 PM

Again, choices about education, and life, have consequences.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 3:24:40 PM

"And thus it is easy to see why education is good for the economy."

It isn't bad for the economy, for sure... ;)
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 2:52:16 PM

I agree there has to be some replacement.

But there is also innovation and new things, which create new markets and jobs.

If no new products and services were created then the number of them would remain static. But that is not the case. Therefore, new products and services which never existed are being contrived.

By educated people.

And thus it is easy to see why education is good for the economy.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 2:43:01 PM

"More education is good for the economy."

The problem I see with focusing on this is that new ideas/services usually replace old ideas and services, thus a wash when it comes to generating new jobs, etc.

Education is good for other reasons discussed though.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 2:26:49 PM

Dumb people do not think of new products and services.

Educated people do.

This creates jobs.

Thus:

More education is good for the economy.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 1:52:06 PM

"Weasle, why do you dispute that better education would help the economy?"

Education (or lack thereof) is not the cause of income inequality, thus additional education doesn't help close that gap which has been a huge drain on the economy and a major cause for our boom and bust cycles.

"Perhaps not much difference overall but if you ask somebody working his tail off just to get by I think he'd say it would make a very big difference..."

And this is one area where more education can in fact make a difference... Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be long-term or to support a family.

"And what of the easing of the national debt because not as much will be paid out in the dole? That should help things."

Which again goes back to education, IMO.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 12:23:15 PM

nstrdnvstr - "That is very temporary. The rising prices that come after raising the minimum wage washed that raise away within a year(as it works its way thru the system)."

So what you're saying is that raising the minimum wage would have an immediate effect on consumer spending, but a delayed effect on prices. In the meantime, the increased consumer spending would spur demand, create jobs and grow the economy.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 8:10:35 AM

SemiSteve, "Perhaps not much difference overall but if you ask somebody working his tail off just to get by I think he'd say it would make a very big difference..."

nstr: "That is very temporary. The rising prices that come after raising the minimum wage washed that raise away within a year(as it works its way thru the system)."

Is this opinion of yours just as accurate as the one about how raising the minimum wage was going to increase the unemployment rate? We have to wonder when that will occur since min wage has gone up in many cities with no associated spikes in unemployment.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,478
Points:4,522,105
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 6:13:40 AM

SemiSteve, "--And just where would all these better jobs be? One would have to assume that if these oppressed workers could FIND a better job they would take it."

Oh, that's right, not many are around due to the Democrat economic policies that have been in effect for 5+ years.

If we had a president and Congress that actually "focused on the economy like a laser beam", we would be doing much better!

The "laser beam" Obama is using is apparently NOT growing jobs, but growing the jobless.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,478
Points:4,522,105
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 6:10:08 AM

rjhenn, "Your guy is in charge of the economy, so clearly, the larger gap is due to left wing policies."

The President is "in charge of the economy"? So Congress has nothing to do with it, and he can do whatever he wants, without their approval?"

Which party is in control of the Senate?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,478
Points:4,522,105
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 6:08:45 AM

SemiSteve, "Perhaps not much difference overall but if you ask somebody working his tail off just to get by I think he'd say it would make a very big difference..."

That is very temporary. The rising prices that come after raising the minimum wage washed that raise away within a year(as it works its way thru the system).
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 4:29:04 PM

Weaslespit: " increasing minimum wage will have little, if any, discernible effect in closing this [wealth inequity] gap. "

Perhaps not much difference overall but if you ask somebody working his tail off just to get by I think he'd say it would make a very big difference...

And what of the easing of the national debt because not as much will be paid out in the dole? That should help things.

Any time the US debt can be reduced it helps the economy.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 12:56:38 PM

flyboyUT - "So it says if people would get a better education and we reduce taxes things would get better. OK I agree with that - whats the problem your trying to stir up?"

rjhenn: "Notice it didn't say anything about reducing taxes. We tried that before and it had no apparent effect. What it talked about was not raising taxes: "against using the tax code to try to narrow the gap." "

Excellent point!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 5:17:02 PM

Weasle, why do you dispute that better education would help the economy?

Although it did not explain why this is true I tend to think that it is. More smart people would result in more ideas for products and services; which would lead to more businesses and more expansion of existing businesses. And this would naturally require more workers.

Of course I suppose it could also be argued that when big corporations hire smarter PR, marketing people, managers and analysts they would figure out how to eliminate more jobs and rip off more consumers for more sizable amounts, offshore more jobs and import more products; which would lead to more wealth being sequestered by the 1%, fewer jobs with less pay, increased wealth inequity and a detriment to the economy.

I imagine both effects take place, but am hoping that the former outweighs the latter.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 4:57:13 PM

"So it says if people would get a better education and we reduce taxes things would get better. OK I agree with that - whats the problem your trying to stir up?"

Education doesn't help this;

"Adjusted for inflation, the top 0.01 percent's average earnings have jumped by a factor of seven since 1913. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, average incomes after inflation have grown by a factor of just three since 1917 and have declined for the past 13 years."

Additionally, it doesn't say to reduce taxes - as rj indicated, it said not to raise them.

This problem is very difficult to solve, even the experts don't agree on which course to take however the problem is real and getting worse such that it might already be influencing economic recovery and making it more prone to boom-bust cycles.

This is the basic problem with regards to why wealth distribution is a good and necessary thing (contrary to wealth redistribution through minimum wage increases, higher taxes, etc).
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 4:45:39 PM

"Your guy is in charge of the economy, so clearly, the larger gap is due to left wing policies."

The President is "in charge of the economy"? So Congress has nothing to do with it, and he can do whatever he wants, without their approval?"

Given that the widening gap in income inequality increased exponentially starting in the 80's, the comment is baseless.

Neither side has done anything to help the situation - and IMO increasing minimum wage will have little, if any, discernible effect in closing this gap.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 4:41:11 PM

flyboyUT - "So it says if people would get a better education and we reduce taxes things would get better. OK I agree with that - whats the problem your trying to stir up?"

Notice it didn't say anything about reducing taxes. We tried that before and it had no apparent effect. What it talked about was not raising taxes: "against using the tax code to try to narrow the gap."
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 4:36:54 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Why should "the Right" respond to something that is clearly the fault of a left wing President?

Your guy is in charge of the economy, so clearly, the larger gap is due to left wing policies."

The President is "in charge of the economy"? So Congress has nothing to do with it, and he can do whatever he wants, without their approval?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,582
Points:1,461,570
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 3:42:13 PM

Weasle - so what kind of an answer were you looking for?

How about this - "Part of the problem is that educational achievement has stalled in recent decades. More schooling usually translates into higher wages. S&P estimates that the U.S. economy would grow annually by an additional half a percentage point —or $105 billion — over the next five years, if the average the American worker had completed just one more year of school.

By contrast, S&P concludes, heavy taxes that would be meant to reduce inequality could remove incentives for people to work and cause businesses to hire fewer employees because of the costs involved."

So it says if people would get a better education and we reduce taxes things would get better. OK I agree with that - whats the problem your trying to stir up?
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,567
Points:13,485
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 2:53:08 PM

Weaslespit: "Still no responses from the Right to the link provided. How very telling..."

Why should "the Right" respond to something that is clearly the fault of a left wing President?

Your guy is in charge of the economy, so clearly, the larger gap is due to left wing policies.

And, from your link: "Yet not all economists agree on how much, or even whether, the wealth gap slows growth."

So, what's to respond to?

Please, Weaslespit, I know it's hard, but please, try to keep up...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 2:30:07 PM

Still no responses from the Right to the link provided. How very telling...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 2:23:42 PM

nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,269
Points:4,453,130
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 6:09:59 AM
Ignore nstrdnvstr Report Abuse

SemiSteve, "Anybody who is unpaid on-call and not getting enough hours to get by, but still tied up with either work or phone-hatching for 40 hours a week has already devoted a full work week to an employer.

If the pay ain't cutting it then they are going on the dole."

nstrdnvstr: "If the pa ain't cutting it, they can get a new job!"

If they are working, they should be getting paid, If they are "phone hatching", they can take their phone with them as they look for jobs, can they not?"

--And just where would all these better jobs be? One would have to assume that if these oppressed workers could FIND a better job they would take it.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 8:32:32 AM

>>If they are working, they should be getting paid, If they are "phone hatching", they can take their phone with them as they look for jobs, can they not?>>

This is what most self-described on-call workers do.

Many work 2 or 3 jobs where they receive many of their hours via unscheduled short notice contact.

They bring their phones with them when working, playing, job hunting, or interviewing and may or may not respond.

It's not like the landline days when many would sit buy the phone, or call from landlines away from home to check if they're needed.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,576
Points:43,640
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 8:24:09 AM

If a worker is truly on-call (wiling/able and required to respond in X minutes/hours) then they should be compensated for their on-call status.

Many that receive many of their hours as unscheduled short-notice hours call themselves on-call workers, however they're not truly on-call workers.

These workers are not truly on-call workers as they're not willing/able to respond to many offers of hours/days/shifts and they're not required to answer phones, return messages, stay X minutes/hours/miles from work, show up when contacted.

Many of these self-described on-call workers are rewarded, however not in ways transparent to many.

The workers that list "potential wide availability", plus respond frequently to unscheduled short-notice calls receive many additional hours, they keep their jobs, they receive promotions, better shifts etc,
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,478
Points:4,522,105
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 6, 2014 6:09:59 AM

SemiSteve, "Anybody who is unpaid on-call and not getting enough hours to get by, but still tied up with either work or phone-hatching for 40 hours a week has already devoted a full work week to an employer.

If the pay ain't cutting it then they are going on the dole."

If the pa ain't cutting it, they can get a new job!

If they are working, they should be getting paid, If they are "phone hatching", they can take their phone with them as they look for jobs, can they not?

One can look for jobs at all times of the day and night now!
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,556
Points:524,985
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 10:52:09 PM

Note not a single response yet from the Right to the link that was posted...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 10:10:27 PM

Anybody who is unpaid on-call and not getting enough hours to get by, but still tied up with either work or phone-hatching for 40 hours a week has already devoted a full work week to an employer.

If the pay ain't cutting it then they are going on the dole.

Unless we regulate this abuse of workers time.

It's either regulate it or pay for what the profitable corporations do not.

I am a little tired of paying for the profits of billionaires who own corporations I don't even utilize.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 8/5/2014 10:11:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,478
Points:4,522,105
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 6:01:37 PM

SemiSteve, "nstr: "So employers have to keep employees on the clock when they are not needed?"

What employers need to do is either pay people for their on-call time or release them from any obligation to be ready for work so that they can be free to go find another job."

Well, let's see, there are 24 hours in a day, 168 hours in a week. These people have no other time to look for a job besides the time they are working or are on call???
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,794
Points:2,739,700
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 3:15:06 PM

Troller_Diesel - "I like this line from your article Weaselspit:"

Of course you do. It's the only line in the article that supports your preconceived notions, therefore the only line you pay any attention to.

Thus totally ignoring "For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, average incomes after inflation have grown by a factor of just three since 1917 and have declined for the past 13 years."

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 11:28:10 AM

nstr: "So employers have to keep employees on the clock when they are not needed?"

What employers need to do is either pay people for their on-call time or release them from any obligation to be ready for work so that they can be free to go find another job.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,051
Points:412,905
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 11:23:57 AM

Ya beat me to it, Weaslespit.

I was just about to post a link to that article when I opened the topic and saw you had already done it.

The thing that caught my eye was that this growing wealth inequality is preventing the recovery from being as robust as it would otherwise be.

The S&P said:

"The rising concentration of income among the top 1 percent of earners has contributed to S&P's cutting its growth estimates for the economy. In part because of the disparity, it estimates that the economy will grow at a 2.5 percent annual pace in the next decade, down from a forecast five years ago of a 2.8 percent rate."

"The report builds on data from the Congressional Budget Office, the International Monetary Fund and academic economists to explain how income disparities can hurt growth. Many consumers tend to become more dependent on debt to continue spending, thereby worsening the boom-bust cycle. Or they curb their spending, and growth improves only modestly, as it has during the current recovery."

"An American in the top 1 percent of earners had an average income of $1.3 million in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available. Average income jumps to $30.8 million for the top 0.01 percent.

Adjusted for inflation, the top 0.01 percent's average earnings have jumped by a factor of seven since 1913. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, average incomes after inflation have grown by a factor of just three since 1917 and have declined for the past 13 years."

They also said that raising taxes on the rich is not the way to go, and instead endorse better education:

" The S&P report advises against using the tax code to try to narrow the gap. Instead, it suggests that greater access to education would help ease wealth disparities.

Part of the problem is that educational achievement has stalled in recent decades. More schooling usually translates into higher wages. S&P estimates that the U.S. economy would grow annually by an additional half a percentage point —or $105 billion — over the next five years, if the average the American worker had completed just one more year of school.

By contrast, S&P concludes, heavy taxes that would be meant to reduce inequality could remove incentives for people to work and cause businesses to hire fewer employees because of the costs involved."

--Hmmmm. I guess that explains why no GB poster yet has been able to explain how extreme wealth concentration helps the economy - because it doesn't!

The converse is true.

Wider Wealth Distribution Is Good For The Economy.

And if anybody knows anything about the economy it would be the people at the S&P500.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,567
Points:13,485
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 5, 2014 10:48:12 AM

I like this line from your article Weaselspit:

"Harvard University economist Greg Mankiw wrote in a 2013 paper that "the evidence is that most of the very wealthy get that way by making substantial economic contributions, not by gaming the system."

Post a reply Back to Topics