The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

#626
#626
luthervol said:
Bottom line for me is this:
Wealth distribution in the US is obscene and getting exponentially worse. (look at any data)
Click to expand...

Let's get down to brass tacks. Why exactly do you think that is occurring? I have heard numerous theories but I want to hear yours.

I look at the wealth of a nation as a pie. Some people want to change how the pie is split up, but I'd just rather make the pie bigger.

Wealth and income inequality, in and of itself, I don't consider to be a problem. People living in various states of poverty is a problem, and guess what, it isn't because some hedge fund manager made $100m last year.
 
Last edited:
#627
#627
05_never_again said:
Let's get down to brass tacks. Why exactly do you think that is occurring? I have heard numerous theories but I want to hear yours.

I look at the wealth of a nation as a pie. Some people want to change how the pie is split up, but I'd just rather make the pie bigger.

Wealth and income inequality, in and of itself, I don't consider to be a problem. People living in various states of poverty is a problem, and guess what, it isn't because some hedge fund manager made $100m last year.
Click to expand...

From what I've read on it, it is almost impossible to define what is wealthy because it is a constant state of flux. People are moving up and down the brackets throughout their lives. Progs believe in a static, zero sum economy. If you earn a dollar, someone else lost a dollar. The pie never grows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#628
#628
midnight orange said:
From what I've read on it, it is almost impossible to define what is wealthy because it is a constant state of flux. People are moving up and down the brackets throughout their lives. Progs believe in a static, zero sum economy. If you earn a dollar, someone else lost a dollar. The pie never grows.
Click to expand...

Bingo. That is what is all boils down to.
 
#630
#630
midnight orange said:
From what I've read on it, it is almost impossible to define what is wealthy because it is a constant state of flux. People are moving up and down the brackets throughout their lives. Progs believe in a static, zero sum economy. If you earn a dollar, someone else lost a dollar. The pie never grows.
Click to expand...

I've never met a person in my life who believes this.
 
#631
#631
05_never_again said:
Let's get down to brass tacks. Why exactly do you think that is occurring? I have heard numerous theories but I want to hear yours.

I look at the wealth of a nation as a pie. Some people want to change how the pie is split up, but I'd just rather make the pie bigger.

Wealth and income inequality, in and of itself, I don't consider to be a problem. People living in various states of poverty is a problem, and guess what, it isn't because some hedge fund manager made $100m last year.
Click to expand...

Inevitable extension of capitalism as we now know it today. The pie is getting bigger and is being continually split.
 
#633
#633
Orangedogsrule said:
But dude! Many CAN'T do the job. Say, IDD folk working in a greenhouse, taking 12 new plants out of 2" x12 starter platts and sticking them in 8" hanging pots to grow for sale. An able unchallenged worker can do many times more a day as the IDD folk. Yes, IDD can show up for a shift, but some for only 4 hrs. Some all day. But if the nursery had to pay minimum wage, there would be no workshop jobs at all for so many people nationwide. And those jobs may be the only jobs they will ever have. Ask someone who works in special ed to get them jobs how hard it is to get those on the lower end of the IDD spectrum any kind of job. Whether an IDD workshop/ rehabilitation center or as a "busboy" at a fast food joint, then to keep it for more than a few weeks. The cost of employing too many IDD folk is greater than what their value to their "employer".
Click to expand...

i said it in the post you quoted. IF they CAN DO the work, they deserve fair pay.

not saying they have to be hired, or you have to employ a certain number (even 1)

the way I see it is lets say a job usually pays 10 bucks an hour for a "normal" person. I have no problem with an IDD making 7.50 or whatever it is, if they can't perform at the standard that someone making 10. I don't see any way that they should be paid less than whatever minimum wage is, as long as we have it. Now if they can't do the job there is no reason to employee them. now if somehow that IDD person CAN perform at the level a "normal" person can at that task, they should definitely make 10 bucks an hour with the rest of the employees. They shouldn't be docked pay just cause they have outside challenges if they don't hurt the quality of work.
 
#634
#634
luthervol said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&t=310s

My daughter e-mailed this link to me about 15 minutes ago.
It's about wealth distribution in the US. (how ironic)
Couldn't be more proud.
Click to expand...

stop subsidizing failure.

b2427_chart1.jpg


not saying their is causation here but the link is interesting. your video notes in 1970 something the top 1% made 9% now they make 40%. the curve also seems to follow how much we are spending.

now I am sure you will say its because the rich have taken from the poor. But i says its the opposite. Wealth has no ceiling, that top 1% will keep getting richer, nothing you, I or the gov can do about it, except for straight socialism. however we have to stop digging the floor out from under the poor. allowing them to fail, subsidizing bad decisions.

and I know this will get tons of blow back but its amazing how much the curve has gotten worse as we have gotten more liberal as a nation. not saying the conservative ideal of today would be any better. but more working Americans is better than more people on welfare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#635
#635
LouderVol said:
stop subsidizing failure.

b2427_chart1.jpg


not saying their is causation here but the link is interesting. your video notes in 1970 something the top 1% made 9% now they make 40%. the curve also seems to follow how much we are spending.

now I am sure you will say its because the rich have taken from the poor. But i says its the opposite. Wealth has no ceiling, that top 1% will keep getting richer, nothing you, I or the gov can do about it, except for straight socialism. however we have to stop digging the floor out from under the poor. allowing them to fail, subsidizing bad decisions.

and I know this will get tons of blow back but its amazing how much the curve has gotten worse as we have gotten more liberal as a nation. not saying the conservative ideal of today would be any better. but more working Americans is better than more people on welfare.
Click to expand...

We are in complete agreement on your last statement. We both can also probably agree that neither trend can continue indefinitely. I would like to see them both reversed.
 
#636
#636
LouderVol said:
stop subsidizing failure.

b2427_chart1.jpg


not saying their is causation here but the link is interesting. your video notes in 1970 something the top 1% made 9% now they make 40%. the curve also seems to follow how much we are spending.

now I am sure you will say its because the rich have taken from the poor. But i says its the opposite. Wealth has no ceiling, that top 1% will keep getting richer, nothing you, I or the gov can do about it, except for straight socialism. however we have to stop digging the floor out from under the poor. allowing them to fail, subsidizing bad decisions.

and I know this will get tons of blow back but its amazing how much the curve has gotten worse as we have gotten more liberal as a nation. not saying the conservative ideal of today would be any better. but more working Americans is better than more people on welfare.
Click to expand...

War on Poverty/War on Drugs..both huge fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#638
#638
luthervol said:
Inevitable extension of capitalism as we now know it today. The pie is getting bigger and is being continually split.
Click to expand...

You just gave away your position right there. You aren't primarily concerned with how big the pie gets (i.e., how much wealth is created); you're primarily concerned with how it is split.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#640
#640
05_never_again said:
You just gave away your position right there. You aren't primarily concerned with how big the pie gets (i.e., how much wealth is created); you're primarily concerned with how it is split.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever tried to hide my position. I clearly stated that I view everything through the filter of "ultimate impact on wealth distribution." I think the top 1% has to much and the lower 60% has to little. The disparity is only growing and an unchecked continuation of that trend will lead us to a place I don't want to be.
 
#641
#641
luthervol said:
I don't think I ever tried to hide my position. I clearly stated that I view everything through the filter of "ultimate impact on wealth distribution." I think the top 1% has to much and the lower 60% has to little. The disparity is only growing and an unchecked continuation of that trend will lead us to a place I don't want to be.
Click to expand...

Why do you care what the disparity is as long as wealth overall is increasing? I want to see poor people get out of poverty. If that also means that the 1% get richer and the disparity remains the same, who cares?

If you could create a world where every poor person started to earn enough money to live a middle class lifestyle, but the income of the 1% also increased by the same percentage, you would still have a problem with the inequality?

That's my problem with this position. It is not so much a lamentation that the poor are too poor; it's that the rich are too rich.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#642
#642
luthervol said:
It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.
Click to expand...

luthervol said:
I don't think I ever tried to hide my position. I clearly stated that I view everything through the filter of "ultimate impact on wealth distribution." I think the top 1% has to much and the lower 60% has to little. The disparity is only growing and an unchecked continuation of that trend will lead us to a place I don't want to be.
Click to expand...

05_never_again said:
Why do you care what the disparity is as long as wealth overall is increasing? I want to see poor people get out of poverty. If that also means that the 1% get richer and the disparity remains the same, who cares?

If you could create a world where every poor person started to earn enough money to live a middle class lifestyle, but the income of the 1% also increased by the same percentage, you would still have a problem with the inequality?

That's my problem with this position. It is not so much a lamentation that the poor are too poor; it's that the rich are too rich.
Click to expand...

Envy: a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#643
#643
luthervol said:
It obviously gets complicated and the answers to all of your questions would be sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends, etc.... There are reasons why we have things like the anti-trust act from 130 years ago and a progressive income tax.

Bottom line for me is this:
Wealth distribution in the US is obscene and getting exponentially worse. (look at any data) It cannot continue on the current trend. I look at everything through the filter of "what is the end effect on wealth distribution." I know it's an unpopular view on this board, but it's what makes sense to me and what seems best for the future.
Click to expand...

You sound like a commie to me
 
#644
#644
luthervol said:
I don't think I ever tried to hide my position. I clearly stated that I view everything through the filter of "ultimate impact on wealth distribution." I think the top 1% has to much and the lower 60% has to little. The disparity is only growing and an unchecked continuation of that trend will lead us to a place I don't want to be.
Click to expand...

To your credit you have not.... but.... not everyone that's successful was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Perhaps some of the lower 60% should take some initiative.
 
#645
#645
Carl Pickens said:
To your credit you have not.... but.... not everyone that's successful was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Perhaps some of the lower 60% should take some initiative.
Click to expand...

No ****, you know how hard it is to concentrate on VN when you have a bunch of women in your office gossiping?
 
#646
#646
05_never_again said:
Why do you care what the disparity is as long as wealth overall is increasing? I want to see poor people get out of poverty. If that also means that the 1% get richer and the disparity remains the same, who cares?

If you could create a world where every poor person started to earn enough money to live a middle class lifestyle, but the income of the 1% also increased by the same percentage, you would still have a problem with the inequality?

That's my problem with this position. It is not so much a lamentation that the poor are too poor; it's that the rich are too rich.
Click to expand...

It's a philosophical position.

1. Wealth is power, power is wealth. Replace wealth distribution with power distribution.

2. Wealth, poverty, social standing, are all largely states of mind. It's a comparative position. Wealth in one society may classify as poverty in another. Would you rather be the wealthy man or the one in poverty? The one in poverty may have more "things" but which do you think has the higher satisfaction with life?
 
#647
#647
luthervol said:
It's a philosophical position.

1. Wealth is power, power is wealth. Replace wealth distribution with power distribution.

2. Wealth, poverty, social standing, are all largely states of mind. It's a comparative position. Wealth in one society may classify as poverty in another. Would you rather be the wealthy man or the one in poverty? The one in poverty may have more "things" but which do you think has the higher satisfaction with life?
Click to expand...

If you took all the money in the world and divided it up equally, within 2 years 90% the rich people you took the money from will be rich again and 90% of the poor will be poor again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#649
#649
hog88 said:
If you took all the money in the world and divided it up equally, within 2 years 90% the rich people you took the money from will be rich again and 90% of the poor will be poor again.
Click to expand...

There's some truth to the statement. Some people are stupid, some people are overly obsessed with the accumulation of wealth and power; neither extreme is good, healthy, or beneficial to society.

The saying, "whoever wants the job is unfit to have it" applies. I would expand it to "whoever wants that much power and wealth is unfit to have it."

Just my philosophy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top