The value of-- Redistribution of Wealth ?
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0I believe that the most important lessons of life were taught to me from being primarily raised in poverty .. I do NOT nor will I ever believe that any good will come of redistribution of wealth in America ., There are a thousand lessons , especially those of honorable , higher human values , that cannot be learned from the redistribution of wealth process .. I don't know where this came from but one of the most memorable sayings that have " struck a chord in me " is one I heard recently .
"If you give someone everything they ask for , They will never be happy with anything they get ".
What do you think ?I think that while a small redistribution is fine for those that actually need it the greatest effect is to teach people to be dependent on government rather than depending on themselves.
As far as never being happy with what they have, we have only to look to children that are given anything they want without effort on their part. They are never happy with what they have while those that have worked for their toys are.In a world where you have an exponential growth in population with a limited amount of space then government is a necessary thing to tie everyone together in some form. You can think of more government as garnering a dependency or you can think about it as a way to get people out of poverty so they can fulfill something rather than work a pointless job all their life. In my experience, the people I know who have to get government assistance still have issues with paying all their bills and would rather be independent. The corrupt nature of man will only change when the majority are able to think, act, and help one another in a non-biased way unfettered from greed. Obviously I am an optimist, but the humanitarian outlook we all agree on today was once thought up by people who considered themselves optimists back in the day!
-Fred"n my experience, the people I know who have to get government assistance still have issues with paying all their bills..."
That's the point - supporting those that won't make the large effort to do so themselves does not promote self-sufficience, no matter how much they claim they would prefer it. It just creates dependency.
True help is not done by simply handing out buckets of money. It is done by (often forcibly) requiring people to take care of their own needs. Education and training is help, handouts are not except for very temporary needs from disaster, illness or like circumstances.One girl I know hardly supports two kids on 2 jobs that pay above minimum wage, plus government assistance. If working 60+ hours a week isn't trying to be self-sufficient then I don't know what is.
So you'd agree with Obama's plan to spend on higher education? (not to derail the original convo, just wanted to know your opinion on that matter.)And one I know is raising 2 kids on $10 per hour because he is under educated and won't try for more because he likes his weed too much. You can't get a decent job while smoking as all good employers require drug screens so why get more education for a job he can't land? Between his pathetic job and charity he has more free "income" than I ever did - why try for more?
Specific examples mean next to nothing, but I WILL say that the welfare system is broken. Take your friend off her second job, maintaining a minimal lifestyle, and giver her some training in a better one...but we won't do that. Instead we will continue to feed her money, forcing dependency on a welfare system that is in shambles.
No I don't support free higher education. It is already subsidized heavily from the tax base and students can, if they wish, go through college without massive loans between grants and work coupled with a simple lifestyle. The problem is mostly that they don't wish to - college has become a play time for far too many and far too few college age kids will consider even part time work while going to school. It cuts into their entertainment time too much, I guess.
There is also the concept today that college is necessary for a decent salary. Somehow blue collar work has become distasteful - hard physical work is supposed to be a thing of the past even though we depend on these people for everything we have - and these workers are looked down upon as somehow sub class. There is money there, with only job specific education instead of college, though, and we are going to need more such workers in the future.
Yes, you could think of the government as trying to help people get out of poverty, but it's little known that it doesn't actually succeed. Since the welfare state was implemented, we have not seen a proportionate decrease in poverty.
This is a pretty good podcast episode on this issue, and what we could conceivably replace it with by looking at what we did before the welfare state:
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-53-befor … are-state/Oh, I think it's succeeded quite admirably in what has to be the unspoken purpose (our politicians are not as stupid as they seem). To increase dependency on the largess of those same politicians.
Greetings Fred,
I can see the humanitarian perspective you appear to be coming from, but....
I know it may be picky, but your use of "tie everyone together" raised my hackles. I was with your first sentence until then. If you had said guided the rules of coexistence, (or something to that effect), I could have agreed with you. But "tied" - no thank you. I want choices and guidelines, not strictures and edicts.
The "corrupt nature" of man, and "greed," (in my opinion), has been what has made ours the most prolific economic model the world has seen. Helping one another should be a choice - not an obligation. I will willingly help someone down through no fault of their own, but will also willingly ignore the pleas of a bum.
Your "humanitarian" outlook ignores the realities of human nature.
GAIt doesn't ignore them. Human nature has changed incredibly since the days of castles and kings, since the days of colonies and wars. Humans tend toward peaceful coexistence more than they tend to corruption and chaos. What made all this possible is the simple act of people working together, not the other way around. When you choose corruption and greed you choose to exploit people. I'm really surprised about your outlook with the advancement of humanitarian goals that has led to proper health standards, better socialization, and a better understanding of ourselves. Human nature can change, and it has. Greed and corruption, in a hundred years, might not even exist. And government does tie people together. They get involved and vote. They make decisions that don't just affect me and you, but everyone else. Government is a way to tie people together whether you like the word choice or not...
-FredI think I was less than clear before because my intended meaning was not as it appears you perceived it.
I do not think human nature has changed incredibly. I think it has just grown more progressively civilized layers - like an onion.
In the caveman's time one would club another over the head for food because food was scarce and a survival need. Today food is plentiful, (but still a survival need), so there isn't much clubbing going on. Looks like human nature has advanced. But, put two fathers with starving families in a room with the last 2 cans of food known to be available for weeks and I bet you will see a form of "civilized" clubbing return.
I would venture that you can pick any aspect of human nature that you think has improved incredibly, put it in a life or death scenario, and watch the layers of civilized progression peel away and be replaced by caveman behavior. Of course exceptions can probably be found, but overall I think our new civilized human nature is just a few layers progression over the core caveman human nature within all of us
As for greed, In the proper context, as in everyone discussing the same thing, (greed is generally defined like porn - hard to pick a definition that everyone agrees with, but individually, everyone knows it when they see it - the problem is "it" is different for each of us), I think Gekko got it right. Greed as in wanting more is a good thing it is a motivator. An electrician's apprentice fulfills his apprenticeship because he wants to earn what a licensed electrician earns. He wants more. That is greed. But when most people think of greed all they think of are the worst examples of greed - as in excessive greed - wanting too much. Like all things in life, proper proportions can be good while excessive proportions of that same good thing can be very very bad. Like that apprentice falsifying his qualifications, getting his license through false pretenses, and charging electrician's rates for substandard apprentice work - that is excessive greed.
As for your government explanation, it might be mostly the word choice where we appear to differ, but I think it is more than that.
GAWere are on the same page on this one. I don't think human nature has changed much. With technology, those negative aspects can be employed faster and with more efficiency. Much akin to military campaigns, strategies changing as our ability to kill faster and more efficiently evolves.
Because of all this, the concepts found in the Horatio Alger primers simply cannot be applied in the same way anymore. Too often the greed is not merely the ambition to do better, but to take from others who have justly earned. Doing it faster, in more stealth with far greater ramifications to those unsuspecting than ever before. That is what we are speaking of here."Too often the greed is not merely the ambition to do better, but to take from others who have justly earned. Doing it faster, in more stealth with far greater ramifications to those unsuspecting than ever before."
Looks like we are on the same page here too.
GA
Human nature and human instinct are completely different topics. They can come together and branch apart, but they are two different beasts entirely. What I refer to are the actual changes in human thought that coalesces into our human motivation, not human instinct. Human instinct has not changed in the entirety of our existence, but how we approach that survival has evolved greatly. Remember, human nature is perceptual; it has to do with our ideals. We differ here, basing our perceptions off of two very rooted philosophical teachings which makes neither I nor you wrong. Maybe it makes neither of us right as well.
I do agree with you on your ideals on greed, but even that can be swayed for altruistic goals. I see it in all the human interest stories I write for my colleges newspaper.
And stating there is more to it does not bring much to the conversation! Please, continue! I would like to see your opinion on how government tying everyone together leads to edicts and structures? (I also don't see how structure in society is a bad thing? I can understand edicts, however, a government is meant to bring structure)
-FredWe may be descending into a semantics debate. I think your response is almost entirely correct, ( a few minor differences - like what if one can of food was healthy dog food and the other was canned steak - the survival instinct would be satisfied by either, but I bet there would still be a loss of a few layers of civilized behavior). So you are right, let's move on.
As for your government question, once more I agree, with the note that I am agreeing with the purposed essence and not the reality of what is.
For example; A government structure of zoning laws defining commercial vs. residential rules would serve to form a structure for the coexistence of both types of property use in a community. But then further government zoning mandates regulating bathroom size, front entrance configurations, etc. have moved beyond providing structure and moved into the realm of control. That's were the real "tying" comes to mind for me.
Any society larger than two people will need some form of government. It is when that government begins to serve the needs of a part of that society, (instead of the whole), that it goes off the rails and becomes corrupt. Whether it is efforts in the name of affirmative action, welfare or influence peddling, it is still corruption.
GA
Greetings guy, not picking on your response, just looking for a starting point and yours provided it.
It seems like this conversation needs a little clarification of what "redistribution" is intended to mean. From the OP I understood him to be referring to the concept of a fair share for all. Yet, you use the same "redistribution" term to describe what in effect is government assistance programs to help the needy. Not real redistribution in my mind - even if it is technically correct.
So... further on in the thread Don and Fred's comments seem to be talking about a different "redistribution" than you are talking about.
But... I think governmental wealth redistribution in any form is wrong. And I also think it is only the "kumbahya" crowd that can find any justification for it. Obviously, by inference, it should be obvious that I am not usually invited to the Saturday night campfires.
GAI would agree with you...except that I read "redistribution" as a requirement that everyone get that mythical "fair share" whether they have earned it or not. "Earned" meaning they have produced at least as much as they get.
And if "redistribution" means cutting earnings for some because some others deserve more than they get, then I have to ask who is doing the defining of "deserve". A govt. committee or the free market place? Your "kumbahya crowd"? The person(s) unable or unwilling to be productive?
While I think that the upper echelons in many companies are grossly overpaid, along with athletes and other entertainers, the fact remains that that is what the market seems to be saying their value is. A CEO or quarterback earning millions per year must be able to produce more than that for the company or he wouldn't have the job. Being unable to actually see or figure the actual worth to an employer I have to assume that is true.
I hate to break the news to you ,but redistribution of wealth has not only been part of the American experience since at least Teddy Roosevelt's presidency if not before ,but it has been what made America the wealthiest ,Most successful economic and political system the world has ever known.
Your response seems to be straddling the fence - the OP seems to point to redistribution as a negative, your reference to Teddy seems to be pointing to a political move, (agreeing with the OP). - and then you say it is what made America great. I think I see what you intended with you last sentence, and I agree, but I am not sure what side is up. are to clarify?
GAThere is however a big difference between basic social security, medi-aid - welfare for the poor , and other basic security programs and the mass re-distribution and re- designing efforts of today ! Todays attempts at raising of minimum wage , mass pre-accepting of disability programs and free student loan fiasco , and re- designing efforts of " profit sharing ".are far more menacing to the older concepts of earning one's way in the world !
I should have been clearer in my question I think ?Appropriate quotes:
Good intentions pave the way to hell.
No pain no gain.
We often learn from the school of hard knocks.
Individual motivation and effort is more invigorating to an economy than individual inactivity and nonchalance. A sense of urgency is a great motivator. Take that away and what do you have?
No motivation.
Inactivity.
Assistance must be continual because it is addicting.
Assistance is crippling because it creates a state of dependance, rather than independence.
A state of independence is empowering because effort creates power.
A lack of effort creates weakness.
Consequences create wisdom.
A lack of consequences produces a cavalier attitude along with arrogance.
A little help to those truly in need? Yes… keeping in mind that
the government's main job is to protect us from harm from without and not cause harm from within.
Read up on the creation of the Federal Reserve. It is the single most redistribution of wealth scheme ever concocted by rich bankers to eliminate competition and defray liabilities. They refuse to make an accounting for nor allow the Federal Government a hand in running it (the ties to German and English control over our banking system will astound you). Why worry about the poor getting a piece of the pie when these fat cats have already fooled you into thinking there is a work ethic when they ruin your life.
Rhamson the last sentence of your post was priceless, and in my opinion the 'bottom line"
Greetings Credence2,
Your "bottom line" agreement seems to ignore the reality that there are a limited number of pie pieces. One hundred people competing for ten pieces of pie... do you make each slice ten times smaller, or have ninety losers? Or eighty losers, or ten losers. How small can you make each piece before they become inconsequential?
Or do you introduce a "deserving" test. If you work forty hours you deserve a piece, but twenty hours, sorry, you don't make the cut?
GASo, I have awakened a 'sleeping giant'...
So how big is 'the wedge' of pie that the 'fat cats' take? Maybe we ought to ask the question why do the fat cats take half of the pie and the rest of the crumbs fought over by the rest of us? Is their share of the wealth justified? we are not talking about slices, but crumbs...
Who limits the pie pieces and determines what is available for distribution?
The questions you pose are valid, but I don't trust the unfettered 'so called' free market to make all of the determinations.If not the free market, who should make the determinations? A govt committee looking to chain more people to welfare? Those unwilling or incapable of bettering themselves? The top echelon that will always go for the dollar regardless of consequences?
Who?Wilderness, it should be a combination of both. The only acceptable compromise between a socialist command economy and laissez faire capitalism(which I do not trust).
I consider the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands a danger in of itself. They use their wealth to rig the system to their advantage, not just buy Rolls Royces. The foundation of the American economy is the middle class and if that is endanged, there won't remain much for anybody.I agree, but that middle class must not be educated but willing to work. They must be willing to sustain their needs and accept that it takes work to gain their wants.
Unfortunately our middle class is becoming sheep dependent on government for both needs and wants. Until that stops all that is left is the wealthy to make the calls and we have crossed the line between help and simple supporting the people so badly that it is going to be tough to convince people that they have to earn their way now.I disagree. The middle class is hardly dependent on the government. They do not qualify for the tax breaks the rich get nor do they make little enough to qualify for government assistance. They are the group that the government cares very little for and the group most affected by the gap in wealth.
-FredNo, not dependent at all.
They just get food stamps, housing allowance, free health insurance, free school lunches both in school and summer and a $5,000 tax "return" of money they didn't pay in the first place.
Not dependent at all!The wages required for food stamps is no where near middle class wages? What housing allowance? What free health insurance? Free school lunch is based off of your parents income and when I went to school that had to be a combined income of less than 36,000 a year. And what 5k tax return? What credit? If they are a family they will receive a return like that based on dependents, but the single person with a middle class wage will not make that kind of tax return. I'm just curious as I am that single, middle class person wondering how I could be getting all these benefits?
I have been in the middle class for more than a few years and I never got the stuff you speak of here!!. You are talking about the poor, impoverished people, what does that have to do with the great middle?
We obviously have a very different idea of what "middle class" and "poor" means.
I grew up "middle class" (my definition) and have been there all my life. We had a home - about 1,000 sq feet for 5 people - a car and a telephone. We grew our own vegetables and hunted for meat. Clothes came from yard sales and the Salvation Army store.
Now, "middle class" means a 2,500 sq ft. home for the same family, 2 (or 3) cars, multiple big screen TV's, satellite programming, a telephone for everyone over 10 years old and fashion name clothes. Anything less is considered "poor", when I've always thought it meant ragged holey clothes, 3 people per bedroom and a single clunker car or none at all. No TV, no cell phone and never, ever eating fast food.
What is considered "poor" now would have the lap of luxury when I grew up, and no one I knew ever had much of what is now "required" to live.It appears that the definition of middle class as defined by many reputable and respected sources is between $25-$100K depending upon where you live and how many dependents are involved. Yes, sure when compared with how things were, the definition of middle class as defined today appears muddled. I can't use the yardstick of what was lower middle class growing up 50 years ago to measure that value today.
You might be implying that what is considered 'poor' today was business as usual for most of us during an earlier time, but I was able to get my McD hamburger, fries and a drink for $0.50. So, it is like comparing apples to hand grenades?
I prefer to use a standard that is universally accepted over personal observations.If you got it for 50 cents, you are much older than I am (and I doubt that). More to the point, how many hours of work did it take to buy that hamburger? I'll lay odds that it was no more than it is today - most prices, in terms of hours worked, have actually gone down.
A reasonable car, for instance, might have cost $3,500 (Chevy chevette) in the seventies when income was average at $5 per hour. Or 700 hours of work. Now a vastly improved version costs $14,000 (ford focus) with an equivalent wage of $22 per hour ($44,000 per year). Or 640 hours of work.
Housing prices are an exception...but we've doubled the size of the house and filled it with expensive options at the same time. Building the same house we bought in 1970 is actually considerably cheaper in terms of hours worked to purchase it.
Wilderness, the year 1965, if we are contemporaries, I am sure that you remember. A McD hamburger was priced at 19 cents based on a little internet research. I am certain that I could get the fries and drink included for under 50 cents. Has it been all bad? No, certainly not.
What happened to explain why it takes both parents working in the average household as compared to one. As a contemporary you have seen this phenomena occur over the last half century. Have wages kept up with inflation over the last 50 years? Have the average consumer up ed his or her consumption levels, with greater expectations for material satisfaction?
Yeah, them were the days, but the difference between life in America now and then can be explained only a fraction based on the cost of living, how many other aspects of life have changed? The minimum wage was $1.25?
and from what economists are saying relatively speaking, the people holding those jobs then have more buying power than minimum wage workers have now.I could be wrong, but I was a fast order cook (Dairy Queen) in about 1967 and hamburgers were much more than that. More like a dollar for burger, fries and drink, but I might not remember right, either.
But if I'm right, minimum wage would buy a little more that the meal then, and nearly two of them today. Yet we cry that it is far too low now compared to then??? It isn't.
Dual earner couples, for the most part, today work to buy toys and luxuries. Not the necessities of life. They want the big home, two cars and RV in the driveway. They want the big screen TV, satellite programming, phones for kids and designer clothes. We require central air conditioning and gas furnaces instead of a wood stove as well as all kinds of gizmos in our cars. Such things are now considered necessary, and require two earners, so two earners must also be necessary. They aren't. And yes, I know some couples both work just to maintain, but it isn't nearly as common as we are led to believe - it certainly isn't the "average".
Wilderness, I don't see the middle class as having any less desire to work today then in the past. But if the game is rigged, you make it impossible for them to succeed. That dependence on Government stuff is just Prince Romney spouting off. If anything people are working harder to keep up. Do you remember the days when the bread winner and one income was adequate for the average family?
Yes, I remember. Dad worked while Mom raised a family and half the food we ate. She canned and preserved the deer and elk as well as her own vegetables and industriously shopped yard sales for clothing. We went through 5 homes; all bought with cash as shacks and remodeled by Dad for a profit except the last one. It was called "middle class" and was the norm then.
People working harder to keep up? I don't think so. Vacations of 3,4,5 weeks were unheard of, as were 10 or more holidays per year. The thirty days of pay for no work each year we now require just wasn't there for anyone. FMLA didn't exist and neither did sick leave. Automation has gotten rid of most hard physical labor, but didn't exist then. People working in heated, air conditioned office buildings wasn't the norm - most people worked in stinking hot/cold factories or out in the weather. Even Dad's truck (he was a truck driver after ruining his knees laying flooring) had no AC, no power steering and no power brakes; it was miserable much of the time and was hard work to simply keep on the road. He must have had 20 cancers taken off his left from hanging his elbow out the window in summer to get fresh air into the truck.
Don't confuse the temporary condition (caused by the recession) of people taking jobs "beneath their station" and actually having to work as the normal state of affairs today. Compared to my youth nearly everyone simply floats through the work day with no "hard work" at all.
And no, dependence isn't just a fairy tale. We are most definitely creating a whole class of people forever dependent on charity for both necessities and luxuries.
"Is their share of the wealth justified? "
So are we back to the "fair share" debate... again? Or just nipping at the edges of the "you don't need that much" rational?
I agree there are "fat cats" in our economic system, and I also agree with most of their negatives that earn them that moniker - but that isn't what the wealth redistribution argument is about. At least as I see it.
As for the size of the pie, and the number and size of the pieces, (don't extrapolate this into a defense of the "fat cats"), isn't the division of the pie, (like the division of the rewards of any endeavor), typically determined by contributor's efforts? If the baker wants two pieces, or even one slightly larger piece, don't his effort of providing the pie justify that over the person that rang-up his ingredients at the grocery store?
GA
Quite right, the Fed is the great elephant in the room on the inequality issue. Perhaps before any re-distribution of wealth is made in the other direction we can tackle the root cause of the issue by reducing the power of the Fed and other central banks around the world.
'How central banks cause income inequality'
http://mises.org/library/how-central-ba … inequalityOK, so you don't like the Fed, but do you have a comment relative to the Op's point?
ps. I almost share your disdain for the Fed. Yet in the complexities of post-19th century monetary needs, the Fed does serve a valuable stabilizing function. Can you imagine the potential corruptive influences that would occur if there were no central bank?
GAMore corruptive than the fed? That would be difficult.
I don't know anything that is more pertinent to the OP than the Fed! It is the economic barometer of this country and is the "legal" transfer of wealth to the rich. It has done more to undermine competition between "lesser" banks and themselves than any other legislation out there. The value of the wealth is determined by the Fed and the redistribution is determined by the rules of the Fed. I think that is very clear.
The complexities of the early 1900's banking woes were what made the Fed so important. The bankers wanted to sell high risk loans with the US Government backing up the guarantee when they failed. In effect the Fed was able to rake in the profits and pass the liabilities back to us. What is more of a redistribution than that? To dissolve the Fed at this point with a debt standard rather than a gold standard would crash the worlds economy. It may happen anyway with China and their corrupt economics anyway.
So what do we do? Move right along to the inevitable or try to fix the unfixable?
Have you read "The Creature From Jekyll Island - A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin? Or read "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins. They are very complimentary texts on the topic. It may answer your question better than I can.Thanks for your suggested reads. I will be on the look out for those titles. I am not a Fed fan, but as you pointed out - it is a necessary component in a fiat currency economy.
GA'What Has Government Done To Our Money?'
'The Mystery of Banking'
And 'The Case Against The Fed'
All by Murray Rothbard, all essential. PDFs available for free at Mises.orgNo mystery
Money comes from banks 95% ofit. Then the Government takes loans out never planning on paying it back. The people by taxes pay the the interest. The people of the entire world are 51 trillion dollars in debt. Ever wonder who our slave masters are?The ones running the ponzi sceme , bankers. Ever see a poor one?
They always comeout smelling like a rose.
Thank You rhamson,
I understand what the OP wanted to discuss but what is happening to the average American is disgusting.
Maybe we should also discuss Corporate welfare?
I think that wealth inequality is a problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#t=121
because it harms society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
Wealth redistribution is not about giving someone everything they ask for, and it doesn't mean encouraging people not to be hard working. It's about people getting a fair share for the work they do, and avoiding the harm to society that wealth inequality causes.Of course you do. Every body claps for the choir.
GAThe choir? Who are they? You seem to have some idea that I am following some crowd? Have you read my hubs and the research I have conducted on all my topics? I stand by my opinion because I educated myself enough to have that opinion. No one sways me like you seem to think.
You mean you didn't +1 or express agreement because the poster appeared to agree with your thoughts, or that you agreed with theirs? See it the same as you do. Dance to the same music, hear the same song? That's your choir. It had nothing to do with you following any crowd or being influenced by anyone.
I am sorry you perceived that to be a slander of your thinking or intellect. Even though I disagree with your perspective I had no intention of demeaning you or it.I just think you are wrong.
GAIf you express yourself as being sarcastic, you will be taken sarcastically.
-FredOh well, I guess we will leave it there.
GA
Geesh! Come on Cred, Well said my butt. ( yes, originally it was "well said my ass"). Are you just back from the campfire, or are you in a different reality from the rest of us?
Wealth inequality is an indicator of a serious problem we need to deal with, but it is not the problem - it is only the barometer of the storm brewing.
Don W.'s position seems to place initiative and ambition in the basement - below the floor of "fair" humanitarian subsistence,
Guess I must be part of the dinosaur class that still values ambition and hard work - even if that means that someone has to be left in the dust. We can't all be winners.
I worked hard for my "white picket fence," why should the guy that left at five on the dot get the same reward? Or why should the dutch digger that never made the effort to improve his shoveling technique get the same pay reward as his buddy that studied to improve his abilities? "Fair" - didn't your mamma ever tell you about fair?
GAYou mean wages that companies still can maintain who makes what? If the min wage was 10 then the good employees would still make above that. You seem to think that with a wage increase only the people who have lower wages will benefit. Not the truth.
You're right - everyone wants a chunk of the pie. Which brings on inflation and everyone then demands a bigger chunk, and so on and so on.
Inflation will be slight with a slight increase in wages. I don't agree with a minimum wage increase, however. It just continues a cycle of broken economics. I would rather see a better tax system.
Yes, that is what I mean, a company buying a product, (labor), gets to set the price it is willing to pay, (wages).
Fred, the minimum wage topic is a good one, and I have participated in many discussions about it. I won't hijack this thread with a lengthy answer on it, just a brief comment asking why bread isn't still 10 cents a loaf? Do you think the cost of boosting the minimum wage won't be reflected in increased product costs?
GAGA, over how many eons do I have the listen to the conservatives tell me the sky is falling every time a raise in the minimum wage is proposed? Surprising enough, I can still afford my Big Mac served by people whose receipt of a few extra nickels and dimes in their wages won't undermine the economy.
Yes, you and I have spoken at length on the topic.Hold on there Sparky, my response(s) were and are not that a minimum wage hike will bring the sky, (or economy), crashing down. At least not a moderate increase.
I do believe a 50% increase, (like DC and some others have tried), would drop a few rather large chunks.
I think your "Big Mac" statement bolsters my point. How much was your Big Mac ten years ago when min. wage was $4.25? (hint: $1.89 - $2.19) and how much is a Big Mac now with min. wage at $7.25? (hint:$3.39 - $3.99) So a 70% wage increase is accompanied by a 77% Big Mac price increase.
Of course the numbers are only approx. examples, and the wage vs. Big Mac correlation is a very simplistic analogy, but I think it makes the point - one does not happen without the other. If not, then bread would still be 10 cents a loaf and the Big Mac would still be $1.89
GA
"Wealth redistribution is not about giving someone everything they ask for, and it doesn't mean encouraging people not to be hard working. It's about people getting a fair share for the work they do, and avoiding the harm to society that wealth inequality causes".
Wow, GA, I saw that as an innocuous statement that is generally true and has universal relevance in our times. It was true in times past as well.
So you don't think that there is not a danger in having more and more wealth concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. What does that wealth bring with it, some of the things you mentioned earlier, like greed.To that I will add inordinate political influence, economic exploitation, with changes leading to a 'lord and serf' scenario .And when they have bought everybody in Washington, they won't need to be concerned about anyone challenging them. I don't want anyone to have that kind of power. Those that wield it have got the better part of their torsos over the fence now. The disaster with the finance industry and the power their lobbyists control have never really be corrected or adjusted for, in my opinion."Wealth redistribution is not about giving someone everything they ask for, and it..."
Maybe not, but it sure seems to be about giving them something that someone else earned.
On the other hand I completely agree with your last paragraph, and with the concept that the current wealth inequality gap is a huge and dangerous problem. But I do not agree that any type of enforced wealth redistribution is the answer.
Even after you do it, the money will percolate right back to the top earners and achievers. Intelligent effort will always win out over good intentions and idealistic desires.
GA
Good point, and one I can agree with.
Now, what is a "fair share" for work performed? Some arbitrary figure set by a government committee without a notion of the actual value of the work? "Value" being set, of course, by the free enterprise system we use?This is not about an arbitrary "fair" figure. It's about the size of the gap between the different percentiles.
Really?
"It's about people getting a fair share for the work they do..." (bolding added).
I repeat; who decides what that "fair share" is? You? I assume that "fair share" includes access to unlimited health care regardless of the value of the work as you are on record as saying that that is a "right" of everyone. Which in turn means that "fair share" does not include any consideration at all of the value of the work and can thus hardly be considered "fair" at all.Look at that image again. Who decided what the ideal distribution looks like? Do you think 'ideal' means people consider it to be an unfair share, or do you think it means people consider that distribution to be fair (ideal you might say)?
You're not going to answer, are you? Just continue to demand that everyone get their "fair share" without even attempting to define what you mean by that.
Don, you highlight a serious problem, but I think different inferences can be drawn.
Is the problem that the rich are earning too much, or that the "rest of us" are earning too little?
Is it that when a certain "plateau" is reached earning increases are by magnitudes not correlated to effort?
If I win the lotto and suddenly have a few million of interest-only income, (that I have to do nothing to receive), am I exceeding my "fair share?"
If I work hard for ten or fifteen years to reach upper management levels with salary compensations that allow me to dip my toes into the investment markets - is it more than "my fair share" if I hit a home run on a choice that pays 100 to 1 instead of plugging away with a mutual fund paying 8%?
GAI don't think your examples are germane to the topic. Surely someone who earns his way to the top and invests wisely is not the target of a redistribution of wealth situation. What is more important is how large corporations through legislation continue to exploit overseas labor markets to eliminate competition in the US markets. The savings they retain are put in their pockets which in turn destroy the workers ability to earn their way out of it. You may say that those who's jobs were affected should retrain themselves and re-enter the job market with different skills to compete is a good plan. But with education available less due to costs and then job availability this is a crap shoot as well. Are we all to become healthcare workers to fulfill the current trend?
The simple truth is that we are finding a new normal that comes with wealth redistribution and capitalism. Germany had problems with it that led to a couple of wars and Japan with it industrialization experienced the woes as well. Read Mein Kampf again and see if the class distinctions were not as real then as they are today"I don't think your examples are germane to the topic. Surely someone who earns his way to the top and invests wisely is not the target of a redistribution of wealth situation.
Wouldn't those type of folks usually be referred to as upper income, or even the rich?
Who else do you think the wealth will be redistributed from?
GA
I base fair off of how much a company makes. If they make enough to give each of their employees a 33,000 a year salary then the company should do so off of an obligation to their employees. They are making that company the money. Without them they would have 0 profit. 1 employee walking away will always bee whatever, but if all employees walked away, then what? You make zilch. There's obviously a need for labor and if that labor makes you ridiculous money then you should pay handsomely for that labor.
It's weird how people think that these CEOs and execs and company shareholders just randomly started making all this money. Like there was no work force behind their profits. It's obvious companies don't think a fair share matters, so someone has to do it for them.And if that company is large enough to have 5 million investors? Investors that will then gain nothing from their share of the company if it is all given to the employees?
People seem to think that because a company is large and/or has a large profit it means that only the employees need to have a share of it. It isn't true. And saying that companies without employees earn nothing is no more meaningful than saying that employees without an employer earn nothing. No profits means no employer, just as no wages means no employees. Everybody deserves and should get a share of the pot; a share commensurate with the value of their contribution. If that means that an employee works but contributes very little to the bottom line receives a very small wage then that's the way it is.You Apperentlydidn't read the article I listed that accounts and shows and cites the math involved in the process. I should've expected a half attempt at a conversation.
http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-m … -50-raise/ in case you missed it. He accounts for shareholders, stock, everything, in a peer reviewed scenario. They have more than enough after everything to give significant raises.
Unfortunately he left out great sums in costs for WalMart that have to be paid.
Utility costs for their thousands of stores. Electricity, water, gas, etc.
Maintenance costs beyond labor. Materials, parts, etc.
New construction. WalMart depends on new stores for their stock price.
Taxes. Whether high or low, income or real estate, they were included as "profit" but not deducted from what could be paid to employees.
The bottom line is then that this enormous raise for employees is to come from a combination of operating costs (without which there will be no stores) and investor returns. As the author ignores operating costs beyond labor, he means to reduce investor returns in the theory that although they wish 20% they will accept far less and cites a google instance of a company that announced a measley 10% increase rather than the 50% he advocates as reasonable because the smaller wage increase was accepted by investors.
Doesn't seem quite reasonable to me. While I DO think wages could be raised between a combination of lower executive wages and lower investor returns, the number isn't anywhere the 50% being claimed.I agree, he does not take into account operating costs, so I did some research. I could not find a specific number for all stores but I looked through about 10-15 quarterly reports from different stores around the U.S. They showed around 80-120k for operating costs per store. Some higher depending on if it was a superstore, so lets say average is 100k operating cost. Again if you find an exact number then let me know so we can redo the math.
So, 100k*4,177 (amount of stores walmart owns) = 417,700,000.
That's quarterly cost, so 417.7m *4 = 1,670,800,000 a year.
In the article I cited he states, after bond/shareholders and suppliers deducted, they net 100billion a year.
Now, they also average 11 billion a year in new investments and 2.3 billion a year in advertising so add all that up to make: 14.97 billion in operating and investment costs.
So we can take that chunk out of the 112billion which leaves 85.03 billion.
Obviously they wouldn't pay everyone the same amount, but lets say they do. If it was an even split for employees it would be: 60,307 a year.
I wouldn't expect cashiers to make that, never. But it is pretty obvious, with their specific profit line, that they could do some big raises. Again, if you can find an exact figure on operating costs then we can redo the math. I don't really agree on a set amount to pay your employees, but I feel a certain percentage of your bottom line profit needs to go to them, and that amount should give them a fair wage for helping the company turn their profit.
Sorry for my abrasivenessabove.I'm a little tired lol.
Think about it this way:
If a big company gave their employees 50% of the wealth that their company makes. And say it makes 1,000,000,000 after you calculate the expenses for equipment and benefits to employees and all that bs. Then that means the employees are entitled to 500,000,000 correct? Well say you employ 10,000 people ( a low number, but whatever.) That means each person is entitled to 50,000 a year. So now you divide the rest between your big players on a 25-15-10 % split. The 25% goes to the highest of the high, the 15 goes to the mid range players, and then the next level gets 10. Here we are talking about maybe 10-100 people running the company. In any case,
http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-m … -50-raise/
Here's a good read that has a more in depth explanation of what I was talking about. If a company makes the money and the workers attribute a large amount of effort in the making of said profit then the employees should profit in some way as well.Very few companies earn a profit as high as their payroll. They already give far more than 50% of profits + wages out as wages.
Where's the proof of that? From those numbers in that article don't seem to say so. And it doesn't matter how much a company makes.
That's because the numbers are bogus - the author neglected to include operating costs beyond labor as well as expansion. Perhaps the term should be "overhead" but in any case it is a very substantial number for a company as large as WalMart.
And your link is an example of what I said - WalMarts "profit" (even inflated as they are) was 28B while their payroll was estimated to be on the order of 44B (a 50% raise would be the 66B the author thinks it should be).28 Billion a quarter. 112 Billion a year. I could not find that number in google, but I found a number stating the average full time employee makes 27,000 a year. If all 1.4 million employees were full time, which is not the case, it would make: 37.8 Billion a year on payroll. So subtract that number from 85billion from my post above. Where does the other 47.2 billion go? And that's on a fabricated number based on full time employees where they actually have 525,000 part time employees who make a lot less.
Too many posts - I can't find your 85B figure. What does it represent? As far as I can see it should be 66.6B (from your link) and that includes all overhead costs, further reducing the figure and by a large amount.
Your link also indicates that WalMart made profits of 17B last year and then produces the 112B figure. That's quite a difference - which figure is accurate?
(fourth quarter net income was 4.4B, not 28. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgra … gs-around/ As it is net, not gross, it could be used to pay higher wages after paying investors their share. It is far, far from the numbers you are using - why?)The author refers to profit in his article on a quarterly basis in 2013. Quote, "That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year"
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit
My other post:
I agree, he does not take into account operating costs, so I did some research. I could not find a specific number for all stores but I looked through about 10-15 quarterly reports from different stores around the U.S. They showed around 80-120k for operating costs per store. Some higher depending on if it was a superstore, so lets say average is 100k operating cost. Again if you find an exact number then let me know so we can redo the math.
So, 100k*4,177 (amount of stores walmart owns) = 417,700,000.
That's quarterly cost, so 417.7m *4 = 1,670,800,000 a year.
In the article I cited he states, after bond/shareholders and suppliers deducted, they net 100billion a year.
Now, they also average 11 billion a year in new investments and 2.3 billion a year in advertising so add all that up to make: 14.97 billion in operating and investment costs.
So we can take that chunk out of the 112billion which leaves 85.03 billion.
Obviously they wouldn't pay everyone the same amount, but lets say they do. If it was an even split for employees it would be: 60,307 a year.
I wouldn't expect cashiers to make that, never. But it is pretty obvious, with their specific profit line, that they could do some big raises. Again, if you can find an exact figure on operating costs then we can redo the math. I don't really agree on a set amount to pay your employees, but I feel a certain percentage of your bottom line profit needs to go to them, and that amount should give them a fair wage for helping the company turn their profit.
Like I said, if you can find a solid average on operation costs we could get a more exact number. I just noticed that trend in the quarterly reports I peeked at.But the very basis of your calculations - 112B - is incorrect. Most of that money is already spent on overhead and operating costs; to assume that it is available for wage increases can only destroy the company. There is only 17B per year in profits to distribute and while some of that goes to investors the rest goes into growth. WalMart is not simply hiding the cash in the bedding section of the stores - it is spent to maintain and grow the company while paying investors.
A simple example is the WalMart fleet of trucks - nowhere have you accounted for the purchase, maintenance and operation of 6,500 trucks travelling over 700 million miles each year in the US. You touched on advertising but not on internet usage outside of labor and thousands upon thousands of computers are not cheap. You haven't looked at taxes at all, nor maintenance/operation of non-store operations such as HQ. You don't mention the costs of operating over 9 million square feet of disaster distribution warehouses or the normal warehouses (one for about every 100 stores). There are a thousand things that are going to just destroy that $112B figure you're using to increase wages.
If you want to look at actual figures, go to the link I posted (Forbes) and find their actual net profit - profit that could be distributed as wages instead of using for investors, capital expansion, cash flow, etc. Then plug your costs into it and see what happens.
I ran into this very question some months ago and did the research myself. WalMart cannot afford a 50% pay increase and the articles (such as you linked to) that claim they can are using faulty bookkeeping to show that they can. In this case they are leaving out every cost but labor and product purchases and saying that what is left could be paid to employees. It simply isn't so.
http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/ … /logistics for just a quick idea on their intra company shipping costs.I do understand where you are coming from. And I concede! Those were the numbers I was looking for, thank you. I did not have time to read your link initially, this forum has gotten very bloated ! Net income already takes into account all those measures, even payroll, however.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp
So if the company is ahead 16 billion in straight profit, some amount of that should go to workers in raises. Investors estimate to be around 12 billion in payoffs so 4 billion can be allocated to new raises. Lets say they use 2 billion for new raises which is 1428 dollars more a year per person. You are right, that is no where near 50%. Even with the full 4 billion that's only 2800 per person which is 10-15% of most wages/salaries.
I am going to withdraw from the discussion! Thank you for humoring me!
Come on buddy... you know better than to ask for a ""fair share" determination! It's all relevant to each particular discussion. If I live in a Malibu beach house my "fair share" needs are obviously going to be different from the laid-off factory worker trying to cover a mortgage in Detroit.
GAI disagree. While the value of your work may be higher in Malibu (and it probably is) than in Detroit, that's what counts. Not what your needs are.
While you have decided that you "need" a beach house in Malibu it has no effect on the value of your work. That figure is produced by the marketplace, not what you think you need to live on.Yep, that's what I said too. I guess my disdain wasn't properly dressed.
GAWell, when you don't dress your disdain you can expect to be dissed.
Don, I did look at your links. And yes, I am a big TED fan, but... your, (and TED's) perspective is one for the weekend campfires.
Wealth inequality is a BIG problem for us. And it is a BIG indicator of a problem we need to seriously address, but it is also NOT an issue of "FAIRNESS." Our system, ( as it should), rewards innovation and effort.
If I can take a home-baked cookie and find investors to turn it into a $100 million dollar company, why is there a feeling that I am obligated to give the bakers of my cookie more than their value as bakers? What if those same bakers baked a cookie for a failing company, should they be paid less for their same effort?
I have seen multiple comments from you that seem to indicate a reasonableness of factual determination, but whenever I see the "fair' rationalization my "kumbhya" alarms starts clanging. Can you articulate your " determination of fairness?"
Do your parameters exclude excellence in favor of mediocrity? Is "I tired" enough justification for you?
I know it is simplistic, but if a job is worth $8 p/hr. to a company barely staying in business, do you think the same job is worth $10 p/hr to a successful company?
GA" What if those same bakers baked a cookie for a failing company, should they be paid less for their same effort? " Not the point. A company should base its payroll off of its bottom line. If a company doesn't make the money to give the employees above minimum wage then there shouldn't be that expectation. I did a lot of research and math in my posts above if you'd like to check out the numbers for walmart. I don't know what kind of system could be put into place so companies treat their employees fairly, but it might have to be based off of percentages, not a flat rate. So even if the percentage to employees is 60% of profit then it will be very flexible for companies who don't make big profits.
?? You're losing me at least. If the point isn't to reduce wages as profits fall, just as it is to raise wages when profits are good, then what is the point?
While I DO think wages should rise with rising profits (given the same number of employees), the reverse is also true. My company made an across the board pay cut during the recession, when profits fell to near zero and it seemed more than reasonable. And when the recession slowly died off and profits rose a wage increase was expected and given.
But those figures should not apply only to the lower end wage earners; it should apply to everyone. Management and stockholders as well; everyone should participate in increased profits.That's the point in using a percentage and not a flat rate. If you say pay employees 14 dollars then that might be 80% of a businesses profit where a percentage takes into account larger/lower profit. I completely agree with your point that higher profit means more wages all around while lower profit will bring in pay cuts.
Unfortunately that brings in the concept of "commission" work. When your income varies with profits it would be much the same as working on a commission basis rather than salary, and relatively few people are happy with that. In very broad terms, with both employer and employee eating some changes, it can work but not on a month to month or even year to year basis.
I agree. There will be some bumps and grooves to work out a well rounded system, but it can be feasible. It's all conjecture, anywho. If the people want it enough, there will be a vote.
Which I would very highly disagree with - government has no place in setting contract prices, which is what the employer/employee relationship is.
That's the beauty of America! We can agree and disagree and agree again, but it doesn't matter because the decisions will always be made by people who have absolutely no affiliation with the specific problem!
LOL You're right there!
Still, it's good to discuss. It gets both ideas and facts out in the open, to the people that supposedly elect those that WILL make the decisions. If, anyway, those people examine the "facts" for viability - too much of the internet is just lies and spin to convince us of something that isn't so.
Greetings Fred,
Yes I did see your "numbers" exchanges with Wilderness, but our perspectives are widely separated opposites.
You say, " A company should base its payroll off of its bottom line. " I say a company should base its payroll on the value of the work performed. As in the "bakers" example.
It appears that by your logic the baker of the successful cookies should be paid more because the cookie company was successful, and I would then ask Why? The baker's work has provided the same value, (the expertise to bake cookies), so why would one cookie-making labor unit be worth more than its next equivalent?
A working, (and in use), model of your concept already exists - it's called commission-based earnings. My problem with your perspective is that I see wage-based and commission-based earnings as two different structures.
GA
The way I see it is that all that would be true if America did not allow so many people in our country, and there were jobs for everyone...
Let's say that a single mother just won't work, does that mean her children should starve, live on the streets, and have no clothes? I believe it's more than laziness that qualifies someone to receive benefits. In other words, it's just not that easy. The government makes anyone receiving benefits to first seek employment, if their poverty is due to the lack of a job.
It seems no matter which way public assistance is set up, there has always been a tendency for the general public to view those that apply for assistance in a negative way
Today in America, Welfare is providing benefits to those Americans who are impoverished, and in order to partake in these programs you must meet the resource and income limitations.
This is done by using several different governmental programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, HUD homes programs and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which is usually temporary.
Each of these have strict guidelines, and once someone is approved, they are made to prove their need over, and over again to continue with the program..
When you hear politicians and the public speaking of welfare it is normally referring to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families aka TANF. This used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children aka AFDC.
To receive benefits, except in special cases, you must have children, be elderly, or disabled.
Money has been our source to obtain the things we want for about 3000 years. Before that it's thought that bartering was the only way to pay for anything..services for merchandize, and conversely…for those who had nothing to give, or trade, either did without, or was helped by those who had plenty…
So I guess redistribution of wealth has always been around
It's just my opinion, but I'm all for helping the less fortunate. I always think "what if it was me, or a loved one"Hey, you might be interested in the book Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations, Hertzman and Keating, editors, for a population health perspective. In other words, the issue of distributive justice has less to do with you or me, and more to do with us. "Us" as a society is not something you can ignore when considering social/economic policy, do so at your peril, as human history has shown time and again. Cheers
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
I sooner think that what so many more want Now, is a piece of someone else's pie ! And that is my original point with re=distribution of wealth , Not the normal minimal government involvement in minimum wage , social programs , social security etc. but , Those that want more of a socialized re-distributed fairness . Free college , mass programs of social entitlements . Even a nationalized profit sharing ? There is a huge gap between the original intentions of , social security , minimum wages , working permits for the young etc. , AND what's being suggested by those for change !. Wal-mart shouldn't have to defend itself for profit making . Whatever happened to making , earning, learning .........your own way ?
I will always disagree with sentiments against free education. If my taxes went to nothing but getting every single person a bachelors degree, I would gladly pay, with a smile on my face.
And no ones disagrees with making, earning, learning your own way. The system makes it difficult for a lot of people to do so which frustrates many.Why does a ditch digger need a bachelors? A framer building your home? The technician fixing your furnace? The mechanic repairing your car?
While we now rather look down on blue collar workers, they are still the basis for our way of life and they don't need college.
But if they neither want nor need college, will you still hand them the cost of that education in the name of fairness? Or do they just get to pay for someone else instead of getting a free education?I was an electrician and the job required enough education to warrant a bachelors degree. If academic colleges get a boon like that it is only fair for trade schools to gain the same. However, regardless of your job, I really believe a general AA is a necessary step. You need to take government courses, philosophy courses, history and literature. Those are all things an adult will benefit from within this country. It will breed smarter voters overall, and better critical thinkers. And why doesn't a ditch digger need a bachelors? Is he digging ditches because he wants to? Or because he has to? And it is on them to take advantage of the opportunity. Also, a lot of general AAs can be geared towards trade work.
I was too. It required 4 years of night school twice a week while working full time during the day. That's not equivalent to a bachelors, and (in my area) electrician requirements are stiffer than nearly all other trades.
But Fred, regardless of how easy it is to say we all need a bachelors (and I agree it would benefit everyone), an awful lot of people just can't do it. They will never get the higher dollar white collar jobs because they simply cannot absorb the education necessary no matter how badly they need or want it. Those are the people that you suggest pay for the free education for others and that just doesn't seem reasonable.
No, if you want higher education and the jobs that come with it, earn it. I did, my son and his wife did, all my siblings did and there is no real reason that kids starting college today can't.I don't really care about jobs (well I do, but I don't associate education with jobs). I care about an educated public. When I sit down and talk to someone about political issues and they don't know half of what goes on within our government structure, it really becomes clear to me why we have the problems we do. We need to foster a voter base who is educated to our system above a high school level. And remember, it is equal opportunity. It's not like you don't have the opportunity to go forward and get the schooling. And a general AA is relatively easy to attain with minimal effort. And we would mainly be paying for younger generations. Those electricians will have children and that schooling will benefit their children, and their children's children, and so on.
And the credits I acquired from the trade knocked off half of my workload when I was majoring in computer science for programming. (I later switched to journalism cause that shits boringggg) If I had went into the electrical engineering major I would have had one or two semesters of classes to gain my bachelors.Again, I agree and sympathize with an educated citizenry. I just don't think it is reasonable to expect all (or even a large percentage) of the country to put off starting their life for another 4 years of education.
I went the other way with my schooling; college first followed many years later by trade school. And while college certainly helped in knowing how to study and learn classes were definitely not transferrable. Which is neither here nor there as we agree that an educated populace would be nice - we just disagree that it is feasible or possible. I've worked with far too many high school grads to think that a high percentage of them could ever make it through even one year of college.
On the other hand, much of what you are wanting could be put into high school, particularly if we stop cutting the hours necessary to attend that school. Not sure the students are mature enough to treat high school as a job, but that continues into college as well.We wouldn't really know until we see it in action. And remember, it's only 2 years free.
We are definitely two men from different generations! My trade school qualifications transferred over for college credit. I feel that anyone can do college. I've seen enough struggling people make it through schooling from all backgrounds. (Navy A School for ET/Union Trade School/College)
And we base our system around the idea of those who try make it. We don't push people to succeed as a social culture. If you want to succeed you have to do it by your own sweat and tears. It differs from Europe and China in a lot of ways where social pressure forces very strict studying habits."If you want to succeed you have to do it by your own sweat and tears."
Then you support paying for your own college!
But I very much doubt you will find much agreement than any high school grad can also complete a bachelors degree. Union trade school is not college and does not compare in difficulty but even so around half of my trade school class never managed to obtain their journeyman license.Gee,that's funny.
A large number of construction Managers with degrees I've dealt with are total morons. They absolutely rely on us "Less educated" lifer tradesmen to bail them out of their stupid decisions.The current status of high rise and heavy construction is nothing short of retarded. With terms like "Condensed schedule" and "Value engineered" you must be kidding? I'll cut short the 80,000.worth of tuition. Condensed schedule = Work like an asshole because some corporate moron promised it. Value engineered = Built Cheap
I have to do more paperwork that has to be so detailed a total retard could understand it.
Some of these degrees do nothing to produce wealth ,merely another parasitic layer to increase the cost of a project.I have been in more than a few situations where using common sense was the answer to a particular situation. To create wealth you need to produce something of value,a tangible product,not push paper. That's why the US is in the horrible shape it is in now. People will always need Electricity, running water and sewer,a roof over their head ,transportation and food
The latest corporate propaganda that the US needs more workers with a degree is a load of crap.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-2 … ican-dreamI found that "value engineering" meant more that the electrician on the job would engineer the project instead of the electrical engineer hired to do so. Which was one reason I retired early - tired of doing the engineers job as well as my own but not getting paid for it.
The ego of the newby electrical engineers always pissed me off.
I got a real wake up call halfway through my career when I was called on the carpet for following prints for a school; prints identical to the ones used for 3 prior schools and that had known errors. Errors known to the engineer, anyway, but was too lazy to correct so just printed out a new set and handed them to me. And it wasn't a nube, either - it was his last job before retirement.
That kind of crap is inexcusable but is saves the engineering company a few dollars so they simply pass the costs (and errors) down to the electrician in the field and expect them to solve a problem the engineer created. On that electricians budget and time.
On the plus side I DID get a very nice recommendation from the engineer to put in my folder..
Lets say there should be no single mothers that just won't work.
Lets say they should have stepped away from the testosterone in the first place.
Maybe there should be a manual for that.Perhaps some of their husbands died, or left them and the children. There are legitimate reasons for needing assistance. And even if there never was a father, I don't feel the children should suffer. Just my opinion
Have I offended you? I'm new here so maybe I'm out of place. Let me knowI don't know of anyone over age 60 who has not notice the cost of general living has gone up 10 times and wages lowered. It impossible for Governments to change this and the super elite that own them and us will not let their sickness of wealth be shared.
Two outcome must happen.
1. Imprison many of the
greedy super elite
2.Wait for the collasps of the American dollar back by oil.
Suffer for 10 ten years then be the boss of the Government or they will be the boss of you and more damages will follow.I have to disagree there. Comparing wages and costs from nearly 50 years ago, when I stepped out on my own, prices have come down while quality increased and wages remain fairly static.
Home prices, for example, have increased considerably but are also double the size. Car prices are similar to what they were but quality and features have increased tremendously. All while minimum wage remained constant and, although I didn't receive higher wages back then, I assume the "living wage" has also.My parents bought a good house for $11,000, 1500 sq feet.
Try buying a mid/small house for under $ 200,000 in the city today. Most likely it would not be as built as well as my parents and I lived in.Mine did the same: $12,000 for nearly 4,000 sq feet (unfinished basement and 30 years old) on an acre in a town of 10,000.
But the house, by todays standards, has substandard wiring and plumbing. No AC. A coal boiler (converted to gas now) for heat. No garage. Wood frame windows that leak air. Little to no insulation. Not wired for telephone or TV. Stairwells that are steep and narrow. Tiny bathrooms with no shower. Sewer lines with insufficient fall and that keep plugging up. (knob and tube with a 60 amp main breaker). The framing is very well done, but the rest is rather sad by todays standards - to bring it up to par would cost more than to build fresh.
And $200,000 in the city - don't forget that a good deal of that is the land cost that has skyrocketed with the population. Find a town the size that your parents bought in (and not a bedroom community of a large city) and you will find cheaper housing.
Let's say Kathryn that everyone makes mistakes, and who are we to judge another?
There's no person who's without mistakes
The funny thing about wealth redistribution as it is termed has the underlying understanding that the wealthy accumulated their wealth as those that have worked their way up from the bottom. I don't think anybody has an issue with an individual who has worked hard to achieve what they have accomplished nor should we expect any special consideration when trying to equalize their wealth with the average American Worker.
I think the muddying of the issue comes when you mix in people who have acquired wealth through unfair measures and tactics. This could be through knowing someone influential to their cause or buying or leveraging influence to move ahead in line. Then you come to those (individuals & corporations) who out rightly buy influence or change the rules (laws) to go to the front of the line in acquiring their wealth. People like ex-presidential candidate Mitt Romney who through Bain Capital liquidated companies and eliminated thousands of jobs in the process of becoming a multi millionaire. This created a lot of hard feelings and while legal this was morally reprehensible. He made his money on the backs of others and is lauded for it. He even outlined the differences with his 47% analogy for his campaign strategies.
You can argue that it is not that widespread and that there are always those who skirt the laws and do nefarious acts to get ahead. Well, we are talking about the 1% of the countries population that have this kind of wealth and power. Soros and the Koch brothers are all but assuring their next candidate gets ahead and in the process getting a open ear of the President to grant their wishes.
Wealth distribution sounds horrible but so is strangling the middle class with the burdens vacated through legislation favoring the wealthy. Maybe if we put back in place some of the safeguards to our economy and trade agreements that helped everyone prosper in the past might be a step in the right direction. But wait, we no longer have a strong voice in our government to represent us.In Obama's latest speech he advocates taxing wealth (not income - wealth) because has "a better use for it than the wealthy does".
Here, you advocate equalizing the wealth between the 1% and the average; that can only mean taking what they own and giving it away.
You continue by saying "Then you come to those (individuals & corporations) who out rightly buy influence or change the rules (laws) to go to the front of the line in acquiring their wealth.". Very plainly once again advocating exactly what you so abhor; changing the rules to take from one to give to someone else.
"I don't think anybody has an issue with an individual who has worked hard to achieve what they have accomplished" but we should have issues with those that have been given their wealth by taking from another.
It's quite plain, at the end of the road, isn't it? The liberal mind demands that no one have any more than anyone else regardless of their contribution. And will try to spin their actions as great and wonderful; the exact actions they so complain about in the wealthy.Your conservative bias just precludes you from understanding the concept I offered. I did in no way advocate taking anything from the wealthy. What I advocate is setting the field level. Through legislation the rich have been able to either change or have changed rules that allow them to not participate in the system the rest of us have to adhere too. Tax breaks, loopholes and other tricks have allowed many of the Uber rich to avoid paying what is supposed to help the economy and increase wealth for all in society. You happen to think by hook or crook is any man's game when it comes to participating in supporting this society. Your conservative bias also wishes to find a boogeyman whether it is Obama or the poor. What a shame as you totally don't get it.
Ah. Then you disagree with Obama that wealth should be taxed. And you agree with a flat tax - $1,000 per person, or whatever the govt. needs, instead of taxing the wealthy more than anyone else? A level playing field, I believe you said? One that is "fair" to all, where all pay equally? And you would not change the laws (rules) that the game is played by just because some are good at it while some are not?
Don't blame the rich for those tax breaks and loopholes - the large majority were created by politicians trying to use the tax code for social engineering. To get angry (and call names) at those that go along with the engineering project (whether to rebuild inner cities, hire a specific class of people or promote oil drilling) doesn't seem reasonable.
(Before you get too incensed with me, take a look at my carousel and a hub on tax breaks for buying electric cars. And I've sent letters to every politician that might listen about the unfair tax break only for the rich).I think it should be reviewed back to a time when the tax code did work for the whole country. During the Eisenhower years there was much new wealth found by building highways and bridges that sparked many jobs and built a strong middle class not to mention the Montgomery GI Bill. Look at how well we have stripped that institution in order for us to pay companies like Halliburton and Blackwater. A flat tax is an idea that has been floated around for quite awhile. Warren Buffet said that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did with all the tax loopholes that he could avail for himself. Maybe a mixture of the two? Being good at the game is a whole other issue. Does being good at the game include buying a favorable vote? Does being good mean getting trade agreements with no government oversight or enforcement? (Check out the TPP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
This is so bad for the US but wonderful for Corporations as they get to unilaterally enforce whatever they want including agriculture, intellectual property, and services with no repercussions from government. It has been negotiated in virtual secrecy much like the Federal Reserve and ACA you rail against.
....Don't blame the rich for those tax breaks and loopholes - the large majority were created by politicians trying to use the tax code for social engineering.....
This is really rich and typically conservative. You flip flop back and forth between politicians being true to having their own big government aspirations and leave the rich out of it as Citizens United and the Koch and Soros mega rich dictate and dominate policy. I don't know what you are thinking when you believe anything gets done in Washington without substantial money influences. Politicians do not bite the hand that feeds them and consequently the one doing the feeding can train the donkey or elephant to do whatever tricks they so choose.
Social engineering is left to those who can feast on the crumbs of which the Uber rich and elitist politicians string us along.
I only get incensed when you think the politicians and corporations are harmless in the policy making and cash outs they extract from their mob of thieves on the hill.
Rhamson's point of view reflects mine for the most part. Quite frankly, I could not have said it better. My concern about a 'rigged system' has to play into this discussion as much as your fears of income redistribution.
But he has now changed his point of view, insisting that it all be equal for everyone. That he won't take from one to give to another, that we all pay and receive the same. He wants a "level field" now, instead of one grossly tilted against the rich, where we take hub sums from them just because they have it.
Seriously, I don't know where these ideas come from. Well I do actually, from the British colonial period during the industrial revolution when the titled wealthy few needed to protect their status. The 'empire' required a political ideology to justify dominating and impoverishing people within their own nation, and every other nation it could subdue. Social Darwinism provided a great paradigm to entrench social status privilege and stratification, utilitarianism provided another. Empires fall, but those vacant, catchy idioms remain. They are really appalling. Nothing personal, but we live in a social world, we are dependent on our brothers and sisters. When the social structures of a nation, virtually force vast numbers of its own citizens to remain uneducated, unhealthy, unfed, unemployed, unprotected and ...in some cases armed!! well what can you possibly imagine is going to happen in and to that nation? It will fall from within, the centre cannot hold so you have civil war. We can see that in some of the middle eastern countries, some Asian countries and in the Americas. What if a family lived according to those notions, scrambling over each other for the best at the expense of others members in the family, ..it breeds isolation, conflict, alienation and harm done. People don't survive that, children don't survive that. A good read is Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations, it is a look at research comparing the relationship of just two things, a nation's per capita income, and a nations health outcomes. When the nation's income gradient is not too steep, population health outcomes are better, A healthier people is a more productive people and a wealthier people and a more safe and stable nation. That's how it works. The book is important and a real eye opener. You can find a summary online.
While I wrote the article below 4 years ago, I need to make it clear, that I my case anyway, I am not attacking 'wealth' per se. I am sure that Marie Antoinette accused her subjects of whining in the manner of class envy in response to an explanation as to the difference between her and their economic outcome. While we have no kings and queens, there are entities within our society with as much power and advantage equal or greater and just as unjustifiable as she had. the danger lies in the fact that this inequity problem is a little more encompassing than just who is the smartest or the hardest working. That is the point of my argument. So we do what the gun lobby does all the time, accept the massacres in our schools and public places as just by product of second amendment rights? Do not discuss and do not touch!
Conservatives are frequently accusing Progressives of picking on the wealthy merely because of the fact that they have become materially more successful than those in the working and middle classes. Nothing could be further from the truth. I celebrate the success of the wealthy well to do and certainly want to imitate them. The fact that they drive a Jaguar while I drive a Chevy is of no concern to me. After all, they are both modes of transportation and my Chevy can get me to and from my destination just as effectively.
I am concerned about the influence of money and power as a method of making it less likely that any of us mere commoners can successfully follow in their paths. I speak about Thurston Howell and the corporations coming to my congressional representatives, plying them with bags of money supposedly to help promote their candidacy or hand over large sums to their opponents to insure the incumbent’s defeat. We are not children; we all know that these sums are not merely given to the incumbent or their opponent, without expecting something done on behalf of the donor in return. These obligations may involve the successful congressperson taking positions on issues of the day contrary to the best interests of the majority of his/her constituents to satisfy the obligation to the donor. Whether it is one political party or the other, we know that, in spite of Rush Limbaugh’s statement that the Congress is made up of big boys and girls who are beyond letting large sums of money influence their judgment, we just have to watch the daily broadcasts to see that such is not the case. There is no reason why someone with vast sums of money should have a voice and influence in the corridors of legislative power any greater than you or I, regardless of the fact that he or she owns a Jaguar.
Yes, I am aware of the Conservative argument that references the power of the Unions, George Soros and such. But, can we all agree that for both sides the tempting influence of money in our political campaigns need to be further curbed? I still see a great deal more resistance to this idea from the Conservative side of the ideological divide than from the Progressives. Conservatives say that this represents free speech, but money to candidates is not speech but more corruption. I also find it very disturbing that the Conservatives in Congress voted not too long ago to resist the idea of the disclosure of the identity of donors to political campaigns. It seems sinister and dishonest on its face, so what gives? Who is trying to hide something and why?
We all know of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and to try to deny it is sheer lunacy. Yes, Thurston Howell, you can have that fabulous residence and expensive wardrobe, but tenets that form the basis of our democracy are not for sale, ever.
(Thurston Howell is a fictional character not meant to be representative of the many affluent people who make positive contributions to our society every day)
Related Discussions
- 76
Could former president Obama be hypocritical about wealth?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
Is former president Obama a hypocrite when it comes to wealth? He and his wife Michelle have earned their many millions fairly using the capitalistic system. I do wonder why does he no longer speak the same way about the wealthy? There was a time when former president Obama had...
- 7
What are the implications of redistributing wealth?
by Daniel J. Neumann 13 years ago
What are the implications of redistributing wealth?Would it end greed or cause everyone to sit on their hands? Assume the government redistributes the wealth on the very top to the very bottom, but allows disparity in the middle-class. I must clarify that I don't mean paying doctors the same as...
- 19
Does History Have a Message About Extreme Wealth Inequality
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Thanks to TessSchlesinger for a couple of links that provoked the thought of this topic.The first was a 2014 article about one billionaire's view of the danger of extreme wealth inequality."I see pitchforks.At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any...
- 9
Do you think, the political system is the force behind expanding wealth inequali
by icv 8 years ago
Do you think, the political system is the force behind expanding wealth inequality?Thomas Picketty's book says, the existence of inequality is widening day by day. What you think on that?
- 91
Obama quotes Jesus
by Onusonus 12 years ago
Do you think that charity means government mandated redistribution of wealth at gun point? Or is charity a willful act of kindness?http://www.mrconservative.com/2012/02/1 … -to-obama/
- 5
Do you think the wealth inequality in America is too harmful?
by William 10 years ago
Do you think the wealth inequality in America is too harmful?There is an increasing divide between the 1% and the 99%. Is this how it's supposed to be or will there be serious problems down the road?