Income Inequality?

[Darth Executor]

I'm sorry but when you say that "you can try to make excuses (minimum wage too low, etc)" when comparing 2014 with 1964, I have to think you're not being serious. The minimum wage in 1964 was $1.25. Adjust to 2014, that's $9.60 per hour. Current minimum wage is $7.25/hour. So right there, you're arguing that a direct comparison of the federal minimum wage should not be a factor in the discussion about whether the economy in 1964 was better for more people than the economy in 2014. If income has stagnated or declined for the majority of Americans in the past three or four decades, how can that not be a very relevant part of the discussion?

Calling those factors excuses is kinda ludicrous. It only makes sense if the person making the argument doesn't want to understand why the economy is worse for many people in 2014 than in 1964.

It's not hard to understand why the economy is worse, you and your fellow liberals destroyed many jobs by crashing their wages down to minimum wage (which used to be mostly jobs that kids took before starting a real career) with millions of Mexicans.

[seer]

It's not hard to understand why the economy is worse, you and your fellow liberals destroyed many jobs by crashing their wages down to minimum wage (which used to be mostly jobs that kids took before starting a real career) with millions of Mexicans.

This is absolutely true. I have had first hand experience. I have a number of friends in the building trades. Builders starting to hire illegals at less than half the wages the Americans were getting. A lot of guys lost their jobs. And it has become difficult for honest builders to compete.

[Jedidiah]

I'm sorry but when you say that "you can try to make excuses (minimum wage too low, etc)" when comparing 2014 with 1964, I have to think you're not being serious. The minimum wage in 1964 was $1.25. Adjust to 2014, that's $9.60 per hour. Current minimum wage is $7.25/hour. So right there, you're arguing that a direct comparison of the federal minimum wage should not be a factor in the discussion about whether the economy in 1964 was better for more people than the economy in 2014. If income has stagnated or declined for the majority of Americans in the past three or four decades, how can that not be a very relevant part of the discussion?

Calling those factors excuses is kinda ludicrous. It only makes sense if the person making the argument doesn't want to understand why the economy is worse for many people in 2014 than in 1964.

At least you are admitting that things are worse for "many people" today. I would say for most people. I disagree as to the causes. I call those factors excuses, in fact I should call them causes. If the government had kept out things would still be better.

There will always be problems with human societies. Government can mostly stay out of the way or it can make it worse.

[Sam]

At least you are admitting that things are worse for "many people" today. I would say for most people. I disagree as to the causes. I call those factors excuses, in fact I should call them causes. If the government had kept out things would still be better.

There will always be problems with human societies. Government can mostly stay out of the way or it can make it worse.

I don't think I've argued differently, given this frame of reference.

You can disagree with the causes, sure enough, but it's difficult for you to do that when we can more or less directly compare wages 50 years ago with wages today. Have they increased alongside inflation? Some have far outpaced inflation (primarily financial sector jobs). Some have barely kept up with inflation ("middle-class" jobs, for the most part). Others have not even kept up with inflation (lower-class and minimum wage jobs). I provided some hard data for the minimum wage showing that earning minimum wage today is actually earning $2.35/hr. less than earning minimum wage 50 years ago. Given a 40 hr./wk, 50-week year, that's $4700 per year just in lost wages at the bottom level. 3.6 million people earning minimum wage or less, that figures to over $169,200,000,000 ($169.2 billion) in wealth per year.

You can disagree that ~$170 billion in lost wealth at the bottom-end of the economy isn't a cause of why the economy is worse now for most people than it was 50 years ago but that's a hard sell.

[Truthseeker]

If people struggle to subsist and thrive on the current wage floor, lowering that wage floor will make that struggle more difficult.

On the other hand, if the wage floor is raised, many people may lose their jobs. Absent welfare of some kind, such as help from neighbors, life is likely to be much harder for those people.

This is almost axiomatic.

A big problem with your post is that you focus on only an aspect of the debate. That aspect is important, but so is the rest of the debate. You appear to have lost sight of the probability that people will suffer the shock and dismay of losing their jobs and then face the prospect of scraping for whatever sustenance they can get.

Eliminating wage floors therefore only makes sense if the society is willing to supplement below-living wages with corresponding welfare.

I disagree. The world is still better off without wage floors in the long run even if people are left to fend for themselves. Fortunately the world's people are to some degree willing to provide welfare. Did you get the news about Paul Allen's contribution to the fight against Ebola http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/23/news...ola/index.html ? Besides, there is not exactly a great clamor for our governments to cut welfare disbursements.

Since the topic of the ultra-wealthy and the topic of whether a living wage can be afforded by a society are co-mingled, it's fitting to discuss both, especially if the rich continue to get disproportionately richer, compared to history, and the poor continue to get disproportionately poorer.

There is a limit to being poor or needy--on the point of death. On the other hand, the world seems to be getting wealthier and wealthier as a whole. Hence we should expect the disparity between the richest person and the most needy person to widen with time.

Sigh! You have to learn to examine questions (like whether income inequality as seen in the USA is bad or something we should tolerate) from EVERY angle. For example, the USA poor are still better off than nearly every other nation's. The former have color TVs, cell phones, cars, living quarters that are OK, etc. If I had to choose between the liberals advocating welfare for the USA poor and for the Liberian poor, I'd pick the latter alternative. Hooray Paul Allen!

[Tassman]

1. 'Church-going' does not necessarily mean 'actively practicing what the Bible teaches', especially in countries with a background of cultural Christianity, eg. America.

Clearly there is disagreement about "what the bible teaches". This is a problem for those wanting to legislate Christian morality into civil law, because there is no means of resolution when competing Christian sects hold conflicting absolute beliefs. But unlike comparable countries, with their increasingly empty pews, most Americans still actively adhere to some form of Christianity and interestingly is among the most violent and inequitable country in the developed world.

2. Correlation does not equal causation.

So Christianity doesn't have any effective influence on the people that adhere to it. Question answered!

And just imagine how much more violent we would be if we were all amoral atheists!

Really! Then why are the statistically less religious nations of Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada and New Zealand so much less violent and more financially equatable than the more religious USA?

[Jedidiah]

I don't think I've argued differently, given this frame of reference.

You can disagree with the causes, sure enough, but it's difficult for you to do that when we can more or less directly compare wages 50 years ago with wages today. Have they increased alongside inflation? Some have far outpaced inflation (primarily financial sector jobs). Some have barely kept up with inflation ("middle-class" jobs, for the most part). Others have not even kept up with inflation (lower-class and minimum wage jobs). I provided some hard data for the minimum wage showing that earning minimum wage today is actually earning $2.35/hr. less than earning minimum wage 50 years ago. Given a 40 hr./wk, 50-week year, that's $4700 per year just in lost wages at the bottom level. 3.6 million people earning minimum wage or less, that figures to over $169,200,000,000 ($169.2 billion) in wealth per year.

You can disagree that ~$170 billion in lost wealth at the bottom-end of the economy isn't a cause of why the economy is worse now for most people than it was 50 years ago but that's a hard sell.

Actually I am inclined to believe that over regulation of business and excessive taxation - driving many businesses overseas - is a more likely cause of our downturn.

[Sam]

On the other hand, if the wage floor is raised, many people may lose their jobs. Absent welfare of some kind, such as help from neighbors, life is likely to be much harder for those people.


A big problem with your post is that you focus on only an aspect of the debate. That aspect is important, but so is the rest of the debate. You appear to have lost sight of the probability that people will suffer the shock and dismay of losing their jobs and then face the prospect of scraping for whatever sustenance they can get.


I disagree. The world is still better off without wage floors in the long run even if people are left to fend for themselves. Fortunately the world's people are to some degree willing to provide welfare. Did you get the news about Paul Allen's contribution to the fight against Ebola http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/23/news...ola/index.html ? Besides, there is not exactly a great clamor for our governments to cut welfare disbursements.


There is a limit to being poor or needy--on the point of death. On the other hand, the world seems to be getting wealthier and wealthier as a whole. Hence we should expect the disparity between the richest person and the most needy person to widen with time.

Sigh! You have to learn to examine questions (like whether income inequality as seen in the USA is bad or something we should tolerate) from EVERY angle. For example, the USA poor are still better off than nearly every other nation's. The former have color TVs, cell phones, cars, living quarters that are OK, etc. If I had to choose between the liberals advocating welfare for the USA poor and for the Liberian poor, I'd pick the latter alternative. Hooray Paul Allen!

The USA actually ranks pretty low (either last of almost-last) in terms of the poor's quality-of-life among developed nations.

As we went over in this thread before, the CBO has actually looked at how many jobs would likely be lost by a minimum wage hike, finding it to be somewhere between negligible and one million. The CBO and the majority of economists polled in the survey I posted earlier agree that the economic benefits of a minimum wage increase would more than offset the economic downside (i.e., jobs lost).

There's not a great clamor for our government to cut welfare? Have you been listening to . . . just about every Republican on the federal level for the past five years? The Ryan Budget, passed three times by the GOP-majority House, cuts welfare dramatically. Your statement beggars belief.

There is no necessary reason for income inequality to increase as general wealth increases. Indeed, the supply-side mantra is "A rising tide lifts all boats." Anyone who has watched the tide knows that some boats don't rise faster and higher than others — you are arguing here that income inequality isn't a problem unless the poor are literally at the point of death. That's not rational and it's certainly not the position of economists, who mostly do believe that increasing wealth inequality hurts the economy on the whole.

Your argument that the world would be better off without wage floors is, unfortunately, completely ideological. It has absolutely no empirical backing.

[JimL]

I hear the libs constantly whining about income inequality. The thing is, I'm not sure where we are to go with that. Of course there is income inequality - some people are not that bright, some don't value education, others are just plain lazy. And I don't see how you fix that.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: QuantaFille

No argument by weblink, please.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[MaxVel]

Clearly there is disagreement about "what the bible teaches". This is a problem for those wanting to legislate Christian morality into civil law, because there is no means of resolution when competing Christian sects hold conflicting absolute beliefs. But unlike comparable countries, with their increasingly empty pews, most Americans still actively adhere to some form of Christianity and interestingly is among the most violent and inequitable country in the developed world.

An ironic complaint coming from someone who has no objective basis for his moral code...

You're the one who was claiming that since America is a 'Christian country' but violent etc etc there must be a problem with Christianity - yet now you're saying that Christianity is too diverse to be clearly defined in terms of moral outcomes. Enjoy shooting yourself in the foot much?

Which is it: is Christian moral behaviour pretty much clear in the Bible - yet not practiced by most 'professed Christians'; or is Christian moral behaviour so open to a wide range of interpretations that we can't say who is or isn't truly following it?

So Christianity doesn't have any effective influence on the people that adhere to it. Question answered!

Jump the gun much? You have to show that (1) a significant majority of Americans are practicing biblical Christians, and that (2) their doing this has had no positive impact on what their society would be like if they were secularists instead.

[Sparko]

Augustine would disagree about legislating virtue, but that's not the point.



If a CEO seeks out or even just accepts a raise from $1 to $1.5 million in salary, how is that not at least as greedy? I only ask because you now seem ready to judge greed based on appearance.

I was merely showing you that avarice can come at both ends of the income spectrum. But "accepting" a raise is not the same as demanding it, especially when nothing has been done to earn the increase. I don't see any way someone can justify $15/hour to take orders or flip burgers at a mcdonalds as deserved.

[Sparko]

Let us recall your earlier post:


So you're the one deciding what is avarice, eh? If a minimum-wage worker wants to maximize his salary so that he can help his family or others, is that avarice? Do you have insight to a his thoughts or what he does with his money?

I was making an example. I don't know what is in someone's heart. But income paid for a job isn't based on what you need. But what the business can afford and what the business thinks the job is worth. If you NEED more, you need to get a better job. Or get a degree and get an even better job.

[lilpixieofterror]

Clearly there is disagreement about "what the bible teaches". This is a problem for those wanting to legislate Christian morality into civil law, because there is no means of resolution when competing Christian sects hold conflicting absolute beliefs. But unlike comparable countries, with their increasingly empty pews, most Americans still actively adhere to some form of Christianity and interestingly is among the most violent and inequitable country in the developed world.



So Christianity doesn't have any effective influence on the people that adhere to it. Question answered!



Really! Then why are the statistically less religious nations of Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada and New Zealand so much less violent and more financially equatable than the more religious USA?

Yep, Tazzy Wazzy just ignores his mistakes and just repeats himself because he can't refute what he was told. Funny how I refute all the above, but Tazzy just ignores it because he really hates Christians and plays loose with the facts. Don't worry Tazzy, you'll ignore me because I proved you wrong (the only thing you hate more than Christians, is people who prove you wrong), but your mistakes are here for all to see...

[lilpixieofterror]

The USA actually ranks pretty low (either last of almost-last) in terms of the poor's quality-of-life among developed nations.

What sort of measurement are you using for 'quality of life'? I'd like to know how you are measuring it because from what I could find, the US is currently number 2, in terms of total quality of life among the total population. I'm just curious where your measurement, among the poor, comes from since I can't really seem to find an article on that. By searching though Google.

[Spartacus]

I was merely showing you that avarice can come at both ends of the income spectrum.

Augustine already did that. Your demonstration was entirely superfluous at best.

But "accepting" a raise is not the same as demanding it, especially when nothing has been done to earn the increase. I don't see any way someone can justify $15/hour to take orders or flip burgers at a mcdonalds as deserved.

If you were working as a burger flipper at McDonalds and your boss offered you a raise to $15, would you consider it unjust to accept it?