Wealth Inequality in America

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

f'ing nailed it.

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

I'd say a little their fault, and a lot the government's fault

[JJ Husker]

 

I'd say a little their fault, and a lot the government's fault

 

Whoa whoa whoa. How is it "a lot" the governments fault that many people aren't qualified for higher level jobs while some are? How are these lesser qualified people not personally responsible for the level of education they attain and/or the lack of effort they may or may not put forth?

[sd'sker]

 

I'd say a little their fault, and a lot the government's fault

 

Whoa whoa whoa. How is it "a lot" the governments fault that many people aren't qualified for higher level jobs while some are? How are these lesser qualified people not personally responsible for the level of education they attain and/or the lack of effort they may or may not put forth?

you have got to be kidding. education is the most segregated institution in america. you think a student at ops gets the same education as a student at millard or papillion?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

I'd say a little their fault, and a lot the government's fault

 

Whoa whoa whoa. How is it "a lot" the governments fault that many people aren't qualified for higher level jobs while some are? How are these lesser qualified people not personally responsible for the level of education they attain and/or the lack of effort they may or may not put forth?

 

Education.

[JJ Husker]

So it is strictly the governments fault that some school districts don't succeed as well as others at educating the kids that show up?

 

I won't argue that some of these districts/schools perform worse than others but, last time I checked, the lower performing schools were getting and using the same level or more of funding and resources. I think the government bends over backwards to help make up for lower income areas. The fact that they aren't always successful isn't necessarily the governments fault. Remember, outcomes aren't guaranteed but opportunity should be. I think they're doing as well as can be expected in the opportunity area.

[Mavric]

In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

I'd like to see their math on this one. In 2012, there were 3.55 million employees who earned minimum wage or less, which is 4.7% of people who were paid an hourly rate in the US. Of those, roughly half were under the age of 25 and only 1.26 million (35.5% of minimum wage workers, 1.6% of all hourly wage earners) worked full time (35+ hours per week). To me, the percentage under 25 and the percentage working full time suggest a lot of this group would be students working while in school or possibly starting out after high school if they didn't go on to college. Also, as it includes those below minimum wage, it is obviously including restaurant servers (and the like) who are making tips as well that aren't included so they may or may not be affected by a change in minimum wage.

 

However, I'll throw all that out the window and say all 3.55 million go from $7.25 to $9 on full time employment (which almost assuredly over-estimates the impact but we'll start there). That's 3.55 million times $1.75 time 2,080 hours per year = $12.922 B. Significantly less than what they claim. I'm sure they're counting some residual in their numbers (as I said, I'd like to see their math) but creating 61% more economic impact than the wages paid seems high.

 

And that's before the other side of the coin which I almost guarantee they haven't included in their calculations kicks in. 84% of minimum wage workers are in service or sales. Meaning the people that are their customers are, by and large, other low- and middle-class people. Thus the great liberal fallacy of conjuring up numbers that occur in a vacuum. "Sure, we can just pay these people more and they'll spend it. Instant stimulus!" But where does that money come from? If you're going to pay those people another $13B per year, that means their employers are going to have to charge their customers another $13B per year to cover the added expenses (assuming they don't just cut back jobs but we'll ignore that for now). And that $13B per year is going to come out of the pockets of other low- and middle-class people which means that they will have to cut $13B per year out of their own spending and thus all you've done is move that spending from one group of people to another and the net is $0.

 

Obviously that's an over-simplification but that's what it basically boils down to.

[strigori]

I'm not going to defend CEO wages because I think they are outlandish. But, when someone claims upper management "doesn't really do crap", they tend to prove they really don't know what they are talking about.

 

His point is that even though the CEO wages are outlandish, they aren't the problem of lower employees not earning what they think they should. It is an easy scape goat for people who are jealous of their income.

 

If people want to earn more, raise prices on the food and give them a wage. That is how it works.

There are so many levels and layers of management in companies, positions that did not exist previously, that do little to nothing to benefit the operation its not even funny. If I remember right, you do not work for a massive national or international company, so your 'management' is probably doing stuff that needs to be done. That is not the case for larger operations.

 

Raising prices is not necessarily 'how it works' Throughout decades of American history, the wealth gap was not like it is now. Management in companies didnt make hundreds and thousands of times what the lower level workers made. Just the value of the min wage vs eras that has been listed prior in this thread shows this. But that was also a time when the theories of getting the best, brightest and hardest working into, and staying with a company still were followed. Most large operations view a sizable part of their workers and a liability, and easily replaceable cogs in the machine.

 

 

At one time, I worked for Archer Daniels Midland. I would say that's a pretty big international company.

 

So....you believe what these companies should do is lay off large numbers of people.

Chunks of management, yes absolutely. What they 'do' is of little to no use. Have good people, which you get by not paying crap. But the current corporate mentality is anyone not 'management' is worthless/stupid/incompetent/a thief we just have not caught in the act yet. Look at a flow chart in most, there are managers who oversee managers who over see managers, each making more money than the last rank, and often the only 'talent' they have is kissing ass and shifting blame. They come up with 'ideas' and 'programs' that offer no real benefit to a company besides the ego stroke.

[strigori]

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

Thats a load. 40 years ago we did not have the inequity we do now. So by your brainwashed way of thinking there are clearly more incapable people now compared to capable people. That is simply BS. Those who have the authority continually seek to consolidate the money, and artificially inflate the 'requirements' ("this job needs a degree now, it didn't before, and we don't care what the degree is in, Medieval Lit is just fine, but you need one to apply") simply to justify the endless increases in their own bank accounts. .Its corruption and greed at its finest.

[Junior]

So it is strictly the governments fault that some school districts don't succeed as well as others at educating the kids that show up?

 

I won't argue that some of these districts/schools perform worse than others but, last time I checked, the lower performing schools were getting and using the same level or more of funding and resources. I think the government bends over backwards to help make up for lower income areas. The fact that they aren't always successful isn't necessarily the governments fault. Remember, outcomes aren't guaranteed but opportunity should be. I think they're doing as well as can be expected in the opportunity area.

 

That just doesn't seem to be true at all.

 

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2163&context=faculty_scholarship

 

Schools are more segregated today than they have been for decades, and segregation is rapidly increasing. Most notably, wide disparities exist in funding for schools.

 

 

 

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rosman.356/funding_

 

 

Taking account of the needs of the students and the cost of educational resources in urban areas it is apparent that urban funding needs to be adjusted accordingly. However, this is not the case; rather states allocate what they consider to be “sufficient funds” to urban schools. The sufficient funds are determined by state officials but are shaped by what the richer districts determine to be enough (Delisio, 2005). If more money is allocated to the poorer districts then state officials will be the ones that will be affected by additional tax rates on their higher incomes and property values (Reyes et al, 2004). Therefore, the funds that are given are barely enough to provide a basic education to the students that attend these schools. This “guarantees that every child receives an education, but it is not an equal education.” (Krantzler et al, 1997)

 

https://www.russellsage.org/publications/whither-opportunity

 

As the incomes of affluent and poor families have diverged over the past three decades, so too has the educational performance of their children. But how exactly do the forces of rising inequality affect the educational attainment and life chances of low-income children? InWhither Opportunity? a distinguished team of economists, sociologists, and experts in social and education policy examines the corrosive effects of unequal family resources, disadvantaged neighborhoods, insecure labor markets, and worsening school conditions on K-12 education. This groundbreaking book illuminates the ways rising inequality is undermining one of the most important goals of public education—the ability of schools to provide children with an equal chance at academic and economic success.

 

 

 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED494580.pdf

 

 

As we mark the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, millions of low

income students and children of color are concentrated in separate and unequal

schools.Many are being taught by unqualified teachers, with insufficient

instructional materials and a limited supply of textbooks and inadequate technology, in

crumbling buildings - with vermin and broken bathrooms.These substandard teaching and

learning conditions are rarely found in schools where the majority of students come from

more affluent backgrounds and have a low risk of school failure.We have a two-tiered

education system.

[Junior]

And that's before the other side of the coin which I almost guarantee they haven't included in their calculations kicks in. 84% of minimum wage workers are in service or sales. Meaning the people that are their customers are, by and large, other low- and middle-class people. Thus the great liberal fallacy of conjuring up numbers that occur in a vacuum. "Sure, we can just pay these people more and they'll spend it. Instant stimulus!" But where does that money come from? If you're going to pay those people another $13B per year, that means their employers are going to have to charge their customers another $13B per year to cover the added expenses (assuming they don't just cut back jobs but we'll ignore that for now). And that $13B per year is going to come out of the pockets of other low- and middle-class people which means that they will have to cut $13B per year out of their own spending and thus all you've done is move that spending from one group of people to another and the net is $0.

 

Obviously that's an over-simplification but that's what it basically boils down to.

 

 

But... if more people are buying more products, then the company is selling more goods and therefore making more money. Meaning, they do not necessarily have to charge more to make up the pay difference. If the conservative theory is to let the "job creators" keep their money, because spending their money makes jobs for us little folk, then the same logic has to apply to giving more money to the lower class. In fact, the "job creators" would spend less of that kept wealth, because their necessities have already been met. Poor people still need to eat. Rich people don't necessarily need to eat more.

[Junior]

Those who have the authority continually seek to consolidate the money, and artificially inflate the 'requirements' ("this job needs a degree now, it didn't before, and we don't care what the degree is in, Medieval Lit is just fine, but you need one to apply") simply to justify the endless increases in their own bank accounts. .Its corruption and greed at its finest.

 

Human nature in one lyric:

 

Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and the king ain't satisfied until he rules everything.

Bruce Springsteen

[JJ Husker]

I am basing my opinion of education, and how "the government" is generally not failing lower income students, on my firsthand experiences in a fairly diverse district. Unfortunately none of your linked articles are likely to ever change my mind. Parenting and the home environment play such an overshadowing role in education that no reasonable amount of funding or government control is ever going to overcome it in other than very few cases.

 

My kids went to the highest performing elementary school in the district. Enough funding, good teachers, low numbers of minority students, and generally pretty comfortable incomes for a lot of the families. They got a great education, the same one all the other students received. Yet they were still at the top of their classes while generally those at the bottom were the kids with family problems, lower incomes, non-english speaking household, etc.

 

This phenomena became even more noticeable as they moved into middle school and high school. More noticeable because the schools got much more diverse. White kids were not the majority for my son beginning in the sixth grade and continuing until his senior year. He went to the same schools with the same amount of funding as these other kids (who you claim the system failed) yet he got an excellent education while many didn't. The opportunity to get that education was there for every single student. This discussion has so very little to do with funding and segregation it is laughable.

 

You know why desegregation appears to work? Because there are just enough good students, with good parenting and good home conditions, to drag the averages up. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, those kids who overcome their circumstance and those who don't live up to it but don't make the mistake of thinking this is any failure of our government or funding. Those lower performing elementarys that my kids didn't go to, had juat as good of teachers who actually worked harder and for the most part, those schools received a disproportionately higher amount of funding.

 

IMO it is as simple as, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can post all the stats you want and it won't mean diddly. Some kids will flourish and some will flounder and it's got so very little to do with funding or segregation or our government.

[Mavric]

And that's before the other side of the coin which I almost guarantee they haven't included in their calculations kicks in. 84% of minimum wage workers are in service or sales. Meaning the people that are their customers are, by and large, other low- and middle-class people. Thus the great liberal fallacy of conjuring up numbers that occur in a vacuum. "Sure, we can just pay these people more and they'll spend it. Instant stimulus!" But where does that money come from? If you're going to pay those people another $13B per year, that means their employers are going to have to charge their customers another $13B per year to cover the added expenses (assuming they don't just cut back jobs but we'll ignore that for now). And that $13B per year is going to come out of the pockets of other low- and middle-class people which means that they will have to cut $13B per year out of their own spending and thus all you've done is move that spending from one group of people to another and the net is $0.

 

Obviously that's an over-simplification but that's what it basically boils down to.

 

But... if more people are buying more products, then the company is selling more goods and therefore making more money. Meaning, they do not necessarily have to charge more to make up the pay difference. If the conservative theory is to let the "job creators" keep their money, because spending their money makes jobs for us little folk, then the same logic has to apply to giving more money to the lower class. In fact, the "job creators" would spend less of that kept wealth, because their necessities have already been met. Poor people still need to eat. Rich people don't necessarily need to eat more.

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simple math and simple logic.

 

More people buying products definitely does not mean more products are being sold. If I by 3 things and you buy none before a change then I buy 2 and you buy one, there are "more people buying more products" but the amount of products sold stays the same.

[Mavric]

http://sitemaker.umi...an.356/funding_

 

Taking account of the needs of the students and the cost of educational resources in urban areas it is apparent that urban funding needs to be adjusted accordingly. However, this is not the case; rather states allocate what they consider to be “sufficient funds” to urban schools. The sufficient funds are determined by state officials but are shaped by what the richer districts determine to be enough (Delisio, 2005). If more money is allocated to the poorer districts then state officials will be the ones that will be affected by additional tax rates on their higher incomes and property values (Reyes et al, 2004). Therefore, the funds that are given are barely enough to provide a basic education to the students that attend these schools. This “guarantees that every child receives an education, but it is not an equal education.” (Krantzler et al, 1997)

Do you look into this at all or just read the headlines? They cite Delisio, 2005 as though it is a study. But it is simply an interview with a lobbyist. The interview does not include the words "sufficient" or "funds".

[Junior]

Your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simple math and simple logic.

 

More people buying products definitely does not mean more products are being sold. If I by 3 things and you buy none before a change then I buy 2 and you buy one, there are "more people buying more products" but the amount of products sold stays the same.

 

So wait, is there a static amount of goods that can ever be sold? There's nothing logical about that.