One could argue that the system doesn't allow for enforcement, accountability or oversight and thus must be reformed to meet such standards.
Robert Reich: "Paid what you're worth is a dangerous myth"
- Thread starter Street Knowledge
- Start date
One could argue that the system doesn't allow for enforcement, accountability or oversight and thus must be reformed to meet such standards.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
The problem doesn't lie directly in the banks themselves, but the ineffective regulation of them due to their lobbying power within our country. People are pointing to banks as the source of wealth inequality when banks also operate in areas where wealth is more evenly distributed. Our current financial system is nothing more than a tool that needs to be utilized properly. Getting rid of it entirely is reactionary and counter-productive.
I agree.
I've always said that the root cause of A LOT of these problems we talk about is the influence on money on politics. Things like banks and corporations have entirely too much influence on politicians, which leads stuff like excessive deregulation.
Wage inequality, corporate welfare, corruption in the banking system, tax loopholes, failure to address envirnomental issues (like global warming), etc. The root cause of these problems is money in politics, or rather the fact that entities with money (even if they only comprise a tiny percentage of the populace) have way more power and influence over the government than everyone else.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
Side note: if anyone wants to read a comprehensive analysis of the 2008 financial crisis, dodd-frank and critiques of new legislation, i highly recommend this book...
It gets a bit technical, but you'll come away with a real understanding of what happened instead of listening to idiots who have no grasp on the subject.
It gets a bit technical, but you'll come away with a real understanding of what happened instead of listening to idiots who have no grasp on the subject.
storyteller
Veteran
After reading the CBO report/projections on raising the minimum wage, I think a raise to 9.00 followed by rigorous research into its impact would be the best bet. The 10+ dollar raise had potentially painful consequences, but the 9 dollar raise had minimal negative impacts and potential to positively affect something like 7 million people (versus I believe it's 100,000 jobs lost...greater good argument for me). The thing about the CBO report was that because raising the minimum wage has a lot of variables, they really had a broad number for the potential impacts of each respective raise.
I don't like the fact that people can work a full time job and still qualify for government aid. I don't like that the people at the top can horde profits while attacking any attempt to help those below them by playing the job creator card. What few bits of research into actual minimum wage increases I've seen have looked positive, as opposed to the typical economic theories that suggest it'd be a bad thing...but there's not much actual research I've seen (real evidence not guessing). I'm not an expert on this ish, but I can see something's wrong and I think the idea of no minimum wage and I don't buy the "no minimum wage" argument. If getting your real value means not putting food on the table for your family because you're looking for fair pay, you're going to fold...or someone else will take the job for less anyway.
Either way though, our politicians are bought...our system is flawed...there's no clear fix for it. A small increase and actual research with real numbers would help give a clear direction. So I'm all for the safe play that the CBO researched.
I don't like the fact that people can work a full time job and still qualify for government aid. I don't like that the people at the top can horde profits while attacking any attempt to help those below them by playing the job creator card. What few bits of research into actual minimum wage increases I've seen have looked positive, as opposed to the typical economic theories that suggest it'd be a bad thing...but there's not much actual research I've seen (real evidence not guessing). I'm not an expert on this ish, but I can see something's wrong and I think the idea of no minimum wage and I don't buy the "no minimum wage" argument. If getting your real value means not putting food on the table for your family because you're looking for fair pay, you're going to fold...or someone else will take the job for less anyway.
Either way though, our politicians are bought...our system is flawed...there's no clear fix for it. A small increase and actual research with real numbers would help give a clear direction. So I'm all for the safe play that the CBO researched.
The corporate world as you know it will cease to exist once technology advances to the point where it repairs itself and don't need human labor. When that day comes, I hope your IT skills be worthless.
What's objective are the trends in our wage distributions, which have stagnated for the middle and lower classes for decades, while productivity and wealth for the highest of tax brackets have exploded. This has been principally maintained by the right's "subjective" mediations in shaming the middle class into not feeling entitled to higher earnings, using race, religion, and sexual orientated issues as distractions that have enabled them to commit wholesale attacks on any mechanisms that act w/ benefit to labor.
This country is now so brain damaged after decades of brainwashing, that anything --- unions, incremental hikes in tax rates, convos on inequality and compensation, etc are met with immediate cries of socialism, marxism, communism, dwarfism...without fail. Its just amazing to look back at how healthy our economy was when we had as scandinavian of an approach to economics as anywhere in the world. But once the CRA was passed, and whites bitterly began to interpret the govt. as helping "da blacks" it was open season the middle class.
Wages are not distributed, they are earned, and paid directly for services rendered. Once you accept this you will realize just how silly the idea of "redistribution" is.
Moreover, better social safety nets, and bargaining powers should be established, as is the case in other economically stable countries, and the min wage abolished.
Wages are not distributed, they are earned, and paid directly for services rendered. Once you accept this you will realize just how silly the idea of "redistribution" is.
Moreover, better social safety nets, and bargaining powers should be established, as is the case in other economically stable countries, and the min wage abolished.
Who exactly decided who "earns" what, and what have conservatives done to empower the the leveraged ability that the working class has in this country? This has been the plan of the reagan revolution from day one, enforced in a multiplicity of different way, and now that our wealth inequality looks like a goddamn third world country you guys wanna give us a kanyeshrug.
Last edited:
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
The problem with this argument against redistribution is that the structure of the economy doesn't allow for a more equitable wealth distribution to happen organically. That problem is much more difficult to solve than simply attempting to balance that inequality through policy. Your solutions do nothing to address either of those issues. It seems like you're the one trying to maintain the status quo in this situation and, given that, I ask you, what is the point of having the strongest economy in the world if we are unable and unwilling to distribute the benefits of it to the general populace?
Wages are not distributed, they are earned, and paid directly for services rendered. Once you accept this you will realize just how silly the idea of "redistribution" is.
Moreover, better social safety nets, and bargaining powers should be established, as is the case in other economically stable countries, and the min wage abolished.
Supply and demand decides, and if we should be working on anything, its fixing the distortions and factors interfering with fair competition.
Wealth isnt distributed to begin with.
But sense we keep coming back to this, there must be something here either i'm missing or you are missing.
So, explain where this wealth is, where it comes from, and who first distributed it and how? How much of it is there? etc.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Huh?
Suicide King
#OldBlack
CBO produced another report that showed between 1979 and 2007 the top 10% was increasing people's pay by very little.
Between 1979 - 2007,
bottom 99% average increase in salary was from $38k to $43k. (10% increase)
Top 1% average increase in salary was from $300k to $900k. (300% increase)
So, 1) they kept most of the money for themselves, 2) they had money to invest so they also gained the most capital income from investments. That's why "The 1%" gained $6.1 trillion..."The 4%" gained $5.1 trillion..."The 80%" lost wealth in 2013 alone. Also the amount of the Gross Domestic Product the 1% own is amazing.
Not sure why people keep making it about taking money from one group and giving it to another. We are just asking that group to pay people.
I don't see that happening because the average Americans think Billion dollar companies can not figure out how to pay people like they did prior to 1979.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
You are taking the word distribution too literally. When I think of the word, I see something like this:
When you think of the word, you think of someone arbitrarily handing out money to everyone in the country. You're missing the fact that, when talking about large sums of people, we need to look at this situation from a mathematical perspective on a societal level and stop harping on how this single man should be paid x amount of dollars based on how productive he is in doing a certain task. You're getting bogged down in the details here when what I'm saying is much more simple. The questions you posed...I mean I don't think I even have to answer those
Last edited:
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
I see your point, but there is a legitimate argument to be made about there simply not being another well-paying jobs out there due to things like the decline of manufacturing in the US and others. We shouldn't assume that the structure of the economy is exactly the same as it was in the 1960sCBO produced another report that showed between 1979 and 2007 the top 10% was increasing people's pay by very little.
Between 1979 - 2007,
bottom 99% average increase in salary was from $38k to $43k. (10% increase)
Top 1% average increase in salary was from $300k to $900k. (300% increase)
So, 1) they kept most of the money for themselves, 2) they had money to invest so they also gained the most capital income from investments. That's why "The 1%" gained $6.1 trillion..."The 4%" gained $5.1 trillion..."The 80%" lost wealth in 2013 alone. Also the amount of the Gross Domestic Product the 1% own is amazing.
Not sure why people keep making it about taking money from one group and giving it to another. We are just asking that group to pay people.
I don't see that happening because the average Americans think Billion dollar companies can not figure out how to pay people like they did prior to 1979.