Income Inequality

[TheSker]

16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, that's the entire point of what's wrong with this system. A few people who do little to no actual work somehow get much, much more of the profits than the people who actually work there. And the only option is to quit and hope the other corporations who are all part of that same system will treat you better.

What system DOESN'T mostly benefit a few?

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

What system DOESN'T mostly benefit a few?

That's a GREAT question. If we knew the answer, we'd probably be using it.

 

However, we know just from the history of the US economy that from WW2 to the 1970's, there was far, far less income inequality than today. That's at least a start. And we know from other nations what less has resulted in less income inequality in places like Sweden, Netherlands, etc. and I think even Britain and Germany are less than the US.

 

And I think an easy policy place to start is a minimum wage that prevents the worst of the inequality.

[Ric Flair]

17 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, that's the entire point of what's wrong with this system. A few people who do little to no actual work somehow get much, much more of the profits than the people who actually work there. And the only option is to quit and hope the other corporations who are all part of that same system will treat you better.

 

Feel free to define “actual work.” I can’t wait.

[Ric Flair]

14 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

My uncle recently went through an insanely traumatic experience with an incredibly rare disease (sadly I can't remember what the hell it was called) that left him physically and mentally handicapped. He's still got a family to provide for, and being a greeter at Wal-Mart is literally the only work he's been able to find through months of very hard work looking and after near bankruptcy from medical expenses. 

 

Does he have a college degree? What’s his background? I’d be happy to try to help find him something better.

[RedDenver]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

 

Feel free to define “actual work.” I can’t wait.

Labor that contributes to the profits of a company. Tell me all about how share holders are providing labor that generates profits for the corporation. I can't wait.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Labor that contributes to the profits of a company. Tell me all about how share holders are providing labor that generates profits for the corporation. I can't wait.

People who invest in a company are a very vital part of the company even existing. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

People who invest in a company are a very vital part of the company even existing. 

What? Companies can and do exist without share holders.

 

EDIT: Additionally, share holders are extracting profits from a company, not the other way around.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What? Companies can and do exist without share holders.

 

No....actually they don’t. 

 

Even private companies have shares that people own. 

 

But.....i believe you are mainly talking about public companies.....right?

 

you do realize why companies go public....right?

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Labor that contributes to the profits of a company. Tell me all about how share holders are providing labor that generates profits for the corporation. I can't wait.

 

Shareholders provide the capital that makes the company’s operations possible. That capital is the result of their own hard work at their own jobs. Without that capital, the workers wouldn’t have jobs, 

 

CEOs and other executives work their butts off. First to get through school, then to climb the corporate ladder, then to lead their companies. If the market dictates that their labor is worth 1000x or 10000x that of an entry level employee, then so be it. 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

No....actually they don’t. 

 

Even private companies have shares that people own. 

 

But.....i believe you are mainly talking about public companies.....right?

 

you do realize why companies go public....right?

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Shareholders provide the capital that makes the company’s operations possible. That capital is the result of their own hard work at their own jobs. Without that capital, the workers wouldn’t have jobs, 

 

You know that co-ops exist, right? Proving that if you eliminate the share holders (by making them one and the same with the workers), companies can and do keep functioning and making profits.

 

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

CEOs and other executives work their butts off. First to get through school, then to climb the corporate ladder, then to lead their companies. If the market dictates that their labor is worth 1000x or 10000x that of an entry level employee, then so be it. 

Do the workers not work their butts off? Tell me again about how profitable those companies would be with CEO's but not workers because there exist companies (again co-ops come first to mind) without CEO's.

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

You know that co-ops exist, right? Proving that if you eliminate the share holders (by making them one and the same with the workers), companies can and do keep functioning and making profits.

 

Do the workers not work their butts off? Tell me again about how profitable those companies would be with CEO's but not workers because there exist companies (again co-ops come first to mind) without CEO's.

Give me an example of a large company that is a Co-op. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Give me an example of a large company that is a Co-op. 

There's a bunch of different types of co-ops around the world. Here's list from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

 

The largest where the workers own the corporation (worker co-op) that I'm aware of is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. (75,000 workers, $12 billion in annual revenue and $24 billion in assets.) There aren't a lot of worker co-ops in the US, but you can find listings of American worker co-ops through the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives.

 

Ace Hardware is an American co-op you've probably heard of, but it's a slightly different version where each store owner is a share holder (as opposed to every worker).

 

 

[TheSker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

And I think an easy policy place to start is a minimum wage that prevents the worst of the inequality.

Here's a problem with your easy policy.....

 

How do you think businesses at all levels react to a minimum wage increase?

 

If your answer is with a price increase, I'd agree.

 

So instead of trying to mandate wages, which will not be effective in a market driven economy, how about putting the burden on the laborer to increase their marketability?

[RedDenver]

22 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Here's a problem with your easy policy.....

 

How do you think businesses at all levels react to a minimum wage increase?

 

If your answer is with a price increase, I'd agree.

 

So instead of trying to mandate wages, which will not be effective in a market driven economy, how about putting the burden on the laborer to increase their marketability?

The idea that minimum wage is not effective in a market driven economy isn't true. Prices may go up, but the question is really are the higher prices worth having living wages. A few examples:

The federal minimum wage has been around since 1938, and the US economy remained the strongest in the world from then until now, including the post-WW2 era of incredible middle-class growth, so it can't be that harmful to the economy.

Research shows $15 California minimum wage has big impact on pay, none on jobs.

Fast-food workers paid $20/hour in Denmark as compared to $8.60 in US (133% increase), but McDonald's Big Mac price only $5.60 vs $4.80 (only 17% increase). (Also note that Denmark has no minimum wage law but instead very strong unions that bargain for these wages, so minimum wage laws aren't the only way.)

 

[TheSker]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The idea that minimum wage is not effective in a market driven economy isn't true. Prices may go up, but the question is really are the higher prices worth having living wages. A few examples:

The federal minimum wage has been around since 1938, and the US economy remained the strongest in the world from then until now, including the post-WW2 era of incredible middle-class growth, so it can't be that harmful to the economy.

Research shows $15 California minimum wage has big impact on pay, none on jobs.

Fast-food workers paid $20/hour in Denmark as compared to $8.60 in US (133% increase), but McDonald's Big Mac price only $5.60 vs $4.80 (only 17% increase). (Also note that Denmark has no minimum wage law but instead very strong unions that bargain for these wages, so minimum wage laws aren't the only way.)

 

Your example from Denmark at 17% is on a $5 price point item.

 

Imagine if every item you purchased in a months time was raised 17%.

 

And I didn't say a minimum wage increase has a negative effect on the economy.  The US is full of consumers at every economic level.

 

If prices go up, you STILL won't have "livable" wages.

 

Productive, skilled workers can do more for themselves than a government mandate can do for them.