Income Inequality

[Roadhouse158]

I was reading this New York Times magazine that someone brought to work the other day. One article was discussing income inequality in America. The article discussed how republicans cut taxes, and that the democrats increase taxes on the upper class. What does taxing have to do with income inequality? If your poor, neither one of these truly help you. Increasing taxes on the rich just gives the government more money to spend on entitlement programs, which isn't increasing the income of the poor. Instead of having a minimum wage, there should be a system where worker pay is tied to CEO pay, or the highest paid individual for the company. If your companies CEO makes $20 million a year, there is no way that anyone working for that company should make less than $15-$20 dollars an hour. If you own your own company and only make about $80k a year, then you can pay your employees $7 dollars an hour. Don't get me wrong. I am against government involvement in things, but there is a huge inequality. Not just due to lazy people. Some people work their butt off, but because they aren't smart enough to move up the chain, they are left to struggle their whole life. Taxing more or less doesn't help these people. Find another way. I honestly don't think I could ethically take $20 million a year knowing that people for my company was making $8 an hour and not being able to provide for their children as they should.

[glockmail]

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a while back and he said that it really pissed him off making so little when he worked for a pro baseball team, when everyone around him was making so much more. It was a job that a lot of people would take for less than they paid him so there was no incentive to pay more. So he swore that when he became a boss he would pay his employees well, not simply what he can get away with paying them, and he does.

But that's his decision not the guv'mint's.

[Hobbit]

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a while back and he said that it really pissed him off making so little when he worked for a pro baseball team, when everyone around him was making so much more. It was a job that a lot of people would take for less than they paid him so there was no incentive to pay more. So he swore that when he became a boss he would pay his employees well, not simply what he can get away with paying them, and he does.

But that's his decision not the guv'mint's.

Exactly. For a market that is truly free and fair, the government should completely detach itself from setting prices for anything. In (poor) theory, this lack of regulation means people get shafted by 'corporations.' In practice, he who pays more gets better work and everybody's paid what they're worth.

As a side note, I am of the opinion that the labor of a human being below the neck is worth about $1/hour.

[glockmail]

...

As a side note, I am of the opinion that the labor of a human being below the neck is worth about $1/hour.

I find that most laborers value brain work about the same. :poke:

[typomaniac]

Exactly. For a market that is truly free and fair, the government should completely detach itself from setting prices for anything. In (poor) theory, this lack of regulation means people get shafted by 'corporations.' In practice, he who pays more gets better work and everybody's paid what they're worth.

As a side note, I am of the opinion that the labor of a human being below the neck is worth about $1/hour.

You've got the theory and practice parts bass-ackwards. People were most certainly shafted by corporations during the Industrial Revolution. At least until they got disgusted enough to form labor unions.

[Gunny]

You've got the theory and practice parts bass-ackwards. People were most certainly shafted by corporations during the Industrial Revolution. At least until they got disgusted enough to form labor unions.

Yeah, and what did those labor unions do? Took a good thing and forgot what they were all about and became all about themselves .. the union. Labor unions are probably second only to the US gov't in bureaucracy.

The only people they have to blame for people hating them are themselves.

[Hobbit]

You've got the theory and practice parts bass-ackwards. People were most certainly shafted by corporations during the Industrial Revolution. At least until they got disgusted enough to form labor unions.

And unions *gasp* aren't government organizations. They're a free market reaction to monopsonies.

[typomaniac]

And unions *gasp* aren't government organizations. They're a free market reaction to monopsonies.

At which point the government decided it was easier to regulate corporations than to mediate strikes. If the free market worked as perfectly as you seem to think it does, the libertarians could run things. :laugh2:

The only people that corporations have to blame for people hating them are themselves.

[manu1959]

At which point the government decided it was easier to regulate corporations than to mediate strikes. If the free market worked as perfectly as you seem to think it does, the libertarians could run things. :laugh2:

The only people that corporations have to blame for people hating them are themselves.

The only people that unions have to blame for people hating them are themselves.....

[typomaniac]

The only people that unions have to blame for people hating them are themselves.....

Also true, unfortunately. It's the people who think that corporations are the heroes that I have a problem with.

[manu1959]

Also true, unfortunately. It's the people who think that corporations are the heroes that I have a problem with.

i am a partner in a corporation that employs over 200 families.....they would disagree with you

[typomaniac]

i am a partner in a corporation that employs over 200 families.....they would disagree with you

As long as management doesn't decide to go on a cost-cutting layoff binge.

[manu1959]

As long as management doesn't decide to go on a cost-cutting layoff binge.

we would management do that.....

the more people that work here and the more money they make the more money management makes....

[typomaniac]

we would management do that.....

the more people that work here and the more money they make the more money management makes....

Interesting business model. Okay, cool: hire me at a $500,000 yearly salary so that you can make more money.
:dance:

[Hobbit]

I always find it a little weird how many people despise the entities that provide employment, the basic necessities of life, luxury items, and the money to pay for necessities and luxury, but love to death the entity that rips 1/3 of everything they own from them before they even see it, then waste that money on frivolous things.

[typomaniac]

I always find it a little weird how many people despise the entities that provide employment, the basic necessities of life, luxury items, and the money to pay for necessities and luxury, but love to death the entity that rips 1/3 of everything they own from them before they even see it, then waste that money on frivolous things.

The entity doesn't waste that money. The crooks and idiots that people elect to oversee the entity do.

[Roadhouse158]

I am neither pro, nor anti business. A business is nothing more than a producer of goods or services. I am, however, pro people. All people need money equally. The CEO of Pepsi doesn't need money more than the janitor. This country wasn't fought for, so that eventually a select few made the mass majority of money, the majority made just enough, and yet another select few not enough to live. That sounds like a communist country; not a democracy that fights communism and cruelty and fights to end poverty around the world. I take a biblical view of life. A man that refuses to work, shall not eat. Not all poor people are lazy. The majority aren't lucky enough to be critcal thinkers. They are programmed different. Intelligence used to mean something. It was used to help people. Now people use it against others that don't deserve it. People that take the stance that some should recieve tens of millions of dollars, while others at the same company, that do what they are supposed to, are expected to raise a family off $10 an hour are no better than leaders of terrorist organizations. It's the same concept. Poor Steve that drives the forklift at the local warehouse. I bet he thought he was only an infadel to islamic facist. Not to his own boss.

[Dilloduck]

The entity doesn't waste that money. The crooks and idiots that people elect to oversee the entity do.

When people are forced to make a choice between a crook and an idiot, one of em is bound to get elected.

[glockmail]

The entity doesn't waste that money. The crooks and idiots that people elect to oversee the entity do. Apparently you've never workd for a government agency. Their role is to spend the money that has been allotted, and ask for more in the next budget. The second priority is never make a mistake that can be pinned on you. Any actual "work" that gets done is purely a tertiary concern, if at all.

[Hobbit]

The entity doesn't waste that money. The crooks and idiots that people elect to oversee the entity do.

A government is a group of people that is, itself, ungoverned. The crooks and liars are the government. The government is the crooks and liars. That's like saying "Oceans don't float boats; the water does that."

[MtnBiker]

All people need money equally. The CEO of Pepsi doesn't need money more than the janitor. This country wasn't fought for, so that eventually a select few made the mass majority of money, the majority made just enough, and yet another select few not enough to live. That sounds like a communist country; not a democracy that fights communism and cruelty and fights to end poverty around the world. I take a biblical view of life. A man that refuses to work, shall not eat. Not all poor people are lazy. The majority aren't lucky enough to be critcal thinkers. They are programmed different. Intelligence used to mean something. It was used to help people. Now people use it against others that don't deserve it. People that take the stance that some should recieve tens of millions of dollars, while others at the same company, that do what they are supposed to, are expected to raise a family off $10 an hour are no better than leaders of terrorist organizations. It's the same concept. Poor Steve that drives the forklift at the local warehouse. I bet he thought he was only an infadel to islamic facist. Not to his own boss.

Income is not based on need. Labor is a commodity. The job that pays $10 an hour is based on the skill level required to perform that job and how many people poses that skill and are willing to do it for that amount of pay. A CEO requires a much higher level of skill that many fewer people poses. To compare capitalism mechanics in regards to pay levels with terrorism is absurd!

[MtnBiker]

An article from 2003, from Walter E. Williams


Here's part of a letter from a reader: "A hard-working, conscientious person can earn $10,000 a year in a fast-food restaurant. At the same time, movie stars and athletes, who make very little contribution to society, can earn in excess of $10,000,000 a year. A baseball player earns more with every swing of the bat than many people do in a year." The reader's inference is that there's something unfair about income differences of such magnitude. It also reflects ignorance about the sources of income in a free society; that's music to the ears of political demagogues with an insatiable taste for command and control.

I think some of the ignorance and much of the demagoguery stems from the usage of the phrase "income distribution". It might make some people think income is distributed; in other words there's a dealer of dollars. The reason that some people have few dollars while others have millions upon millions is that the dollar dealer is unjust. An alternative vision might be that there's a pile of money intended for all of us. The reason why some are rich and some are poor is that the greedy rich got to the pile first and took their unfair share. Clearly, in either case, justice would require a re-dealing, or redistribution, of the dollars where the government takes ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners.

Most people, except a few congressmen, would view those explanations of the sources of income as nonsense. In a free society, for the most part, income is earned. It's earned by serving and pleasing one's fellow man. Why is it that Michael Jordan earns $33 million a year and I don't even earn one-half of one percent of that? I can play basketball but my problem is with my fellow man who'd plunk down $200 to see Jordan play and wouldn't pay a dollar to see me play. I'm also willing to sell my name as endorsements for sneakers and sport clothing but no one has approached me.

The bottom line explanation of Michael Jordan's income relative to mine lies in his capacity to please his fellow man. The person who takes exception to Jordan's salary or sees him, as my letter writer does, as making "little contribution to society", is really disagreeing with decisions made by millions upon millions of independent decision-makers who decided to fork over their money to see Jordan play. The suggestion that Congress ought to take part of Jordan's earnings and give them to someone else is the same as arrogantly saying, "I know better who ought to receive those dollars."

Another part of the explanation for Jordan's high salary is simply a matter of supply and demand. If there were tens and tens of millions of people with Jordan's talents, you can rest assured he wouldn't be earning $33 million a year. And similarly you can bet that if people really valued hamburgers and there were only a few people with those skills, they'd be earning much more than they currently earn.

We might think of dollars as being "certificates of performance". The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That's the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him. Contrast that moral standard to Congress's standing offer, "Vote for me and I'll take what your fellow man produces and give it to you."

Walter E. Williams
c17-03
April 21, 2003

Link (http://gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/income.html)

[Dilloduck]

An article from 2003, from Walter E. Williams


Link (http://gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/income.html)

good article----Let's face it --It's all about competition for the dollars of consumers and THEY decide the priorities of how they spend them. If they would rather spend $100 dollars to watch Michael Jordan than something else ,then that's how it goes. When the government steps in and gives someone an unfair advantage in the competition people get pissed.

I'm not sure Americans are really pleased with competing for dollars OR intervention by the who is elected.

[glockmail]

An article from 2003, from Walter E. Williams


Link (http://gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/03/income.html) He's always been my favorite Rush stand-in. In fact I probably like listening to him more than Rush.

You go Walter! You madman you!! :clap:

[typomaniac]

A government is a group of people that is, itself, ungoverned.
Only if you're talking about the Bush White House. :laugh2:

The crooks and liars are the government. The government is the crooks and liars. That's like saying "Oceans don't float boats; the water does that."
"Guns don't kill; people do." According to this logical fallacy of yours, people are deadly weapons.

[typomaniac]

good article----Let's face it --It's all about competition for the dollars of consumers and THEY decide the priorities of how they spend them. If they would rather spend $100 dollars to watch Michael Jordan than something else ,then that's how it goes. When the government steps in and gives someone an unfair advantage in the competition people get pissed.People didn't get all that pissed at the breakup of Ma Bell.


I'm not sure Americans are really pleased with competing for dollars OR intervention by the who is elected.
As someone on a similar site says, it's like a choice between being raped or being beaten to a pulp.

[Hobbit]

"Guns don't kill; people do." According to this logical fallacy of yours, people are deadly weapons.

The deadliest there is.

[darin]

especially if they are named Chuck Norris.

[Hobbit]

People didn't get all that pissed at the breakup of Ma Bell.

You mean the government enforced monopoly that was only made possible by government regulations that forbid anyone else from entering the market?


As someone on a similar site says, it's like a choice between being raped or being beaten to a pulp.

No, it's more like having the choice between ordering your own food at a restaurant and being mugged on the way in by the restaurant, given the food they feel like giving you, and losing the rest of your money to pay for the 'less fortunate' and 'administrative costs.'

[Said1]

I am neither pro, nor anti business. A business is nothing more than a producer of goods or services. I am, however, pro people. All people need money equally. The CEO of Pepsi doesn't need money more than the janitor. This country wasn't fought for, so that eventually a select few made the mass majority of money, the majority made just enough, and yet another select few not enough to live. That sounds like a communist country; not a democracy that fights communism and cruelty and fights to end poverty around the world. I take a biblical view of life. A man that refuses to work, shall not eat. Not all poor people are lazy. The majority aren't lucky enough to be critcal thinkers. They are programmed different. Intelligence used to mean something. It was used to help people. Now people use it against others that don't deserve it. People that take the stance that some should recieve tens of millions of dollars, while others at the same company, that do what they are supposed to, are expected to raise a family off $10 an hour are no better than leaders of terrorist organizations. It's the same concept. Poor Steve that drives the forklift at the local warehouse. I bet he thought he was only an infadel to islamic facist. Not to his own boss.


Poor Steve should up-grade his skills. Too bad he's too stubborn to learn something new.

CEOs make decisions that impact entire companies that produce jobs for the poor Steve's of the world. The janitor mops the floor. Steve moves pallets of pop around a big room with a fun little forklift. Come on. Use your head.

[typomaniac]

You mean the government enforced monopoly that was only made possible by government regulations that forbid anyone else from entering the market?"Boo! Everything that big, bad government does is evil." Let's strike down the antitrust legislation and kill off competition and innovation overnight!</sarcasm>

No, it's more like having the choice between ordering your own food at a restaurant and being mugged on the way in by the restaurant, given the food they feel like giving you, and losing the rest of your money to pay for the 'less fortunate' and 'administrative costs.'
Still not much of a choice if the restaurant won't serve anything but liver to 99% of its patrons.

[Hobbit]

"Boo! Everything that big, bad government does is evil." Let's strike down the antitrust legislation and kill off competition and innovation overnight!</sarcasm>

I don't recall ever advocating that. In fact, anti-trust laws are one of the few constructive things the government can do for the economy. I was simply pointing out that your Ma Bell analogy was invalid because it was not a naturally occurring monopoly, but rather one created and enforced by the very people you would entrust the economy to.


Still not much of a choice if the restaurant won't serve anything but liver to 99% of its patrons.

You just stopped making any sense.

[typomaniac]

I don't recall ever advocating that. In fact, anti-trust laws are one of the few constructive things the government can do for the economy. I was simply pointing out that your Ma Bell analogy was invalid because it was not a naturally occurring monopoly, but rather one created and enforced by the very people you would entrust the economy to.Fair enough.
You just stopped making any sense.Okay, I'll try to clear it up for you. Imagine that you don't like liver. Then the restaurant doesn't do you any good in the first place. :puke3:

[Hobbit]

Okay, I'll try to clear it up for you. Imagine that you don't like liver. Then the restaurant doesn't do you any good in the first place. :puke3:

And how is the economy like a restaurant that only offers liver? Last I checked, I can buy nearly anything I can imagine...in 12 different colors...all without leaving my house, and that this was caused by free market competition between companies.

[mrg666]

in the uk we have said for years that the half % knocked off tax is nothing to the average familly.
however to the big boys its a lot that goes round and round look at all the
tax issues that purely benefit the money lets say
unfortunately here we see it ( or saw it ) for what it is the libs (lib dems ) stuck in the middle) without a prayer till all despair labour one side ( new conservatism ) and the consertatives ( who are we again we know we are upper class but what direction )

[typomaniac]

And how is the economy like a restaurant that only offers liver? Last I checked, I can buy nearly anything I can imagine...in 12 different colors...all without leaving my house, and that this was caused by free market competition between companies.

You missed the most important part of the analogy: the restaurant serves "only liver to 99% of its customers." Only the top 1% can afford tasty food.

[Hobbit]

You missed the most important part of the analogy: the restaurant serves "only liver to 99% of its customers." Only the top 1% can afford tasty food.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face when an overwhelming majority of poor people in America have color, cable TV, a computer, internet access, and at least one car, while many own their own homes. That's like claiming liver is the only thing restaurant serves to most people just because you, personally, can't afford the fillet mignon.

[LuvRPgrl]

Exactly. For a market that is truly free and fair, the government should completely detach itself from setting prices for anything. In (poor) theory, this lack of regulation means people get shafted by 'corporations.' In practice, he who pays more gets better work and everybody's paid what they're worth.

As a side note, I am of the opinion that the labor of a human being below the neck is worth about $1/hour.

Yea? You go try building a house, particularly, roofing.

[LuvRPgrl]

And unions *gasp* aren't government organizations. They're a free market reaction to monopsonies.

Unions arent free market either. Ever try being a "scab" when a strike is going on?

[Hobbit]

Yea? You go try building a house, particularly, roofing.

That requires skill, logic, problem-solving, etc. In other words, it involves quite a bit of neck-up work. Just because it's manual labor doesn't mean it requires no thought.


Unions arent free market either. Ever try being a "scab" when a strike is going on?

Technically, they're a cartel, an organization designed to encourage collusion by suppliers (in this case, suppliers of labor), and cartels are often a product of free markets. The fact that they're distasteful doesn't make them any less a free market.

As a side note, cartels, like monopolies, should be one of the few aspects of the free market safeguarded against by the government.

[Roadhouse158]

Poor Steve should up-grade his skills. Too bad he's too stubborn to learn something new.

CEOs make decisions that impact entire companies that produce jobs for the poor Steve's of the world. The janitor mops the floor. Steve moves pallets of pop around a big room with a fun little forklift. Come on. Use your head.


Poor Steve should up-grade his skills. Too bad he's too stubborn to learn something new.

CEOs make decisions that impact entire companies that produce jobs for the poor Steve's of the world. The janitor mops the floor. Steve moves pallets of pop around a big room with a fun little forklift. Come on. Use your head.

Your right...The surge in Iraq worked because President Bush has the vision to see it needed to be done. The soldiers that carried out the actual mission are stubborn. Who cares they are doing all the labor. I mean...I am sure they couldn't have thought that more troops would benefit the cause....The ones that you call "too stubborn to learn something new" are the ones that first think, and discuss with management, ideas to improve things. America is suffereing from delusions of granduer. The CEO's decision is worthless without people planning, controlling, reinventing new ways to accomplish task the best way possible. CEO's are important. They aren't all that matters however.

[typomaniac]

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face when an overwhelming majority of poor people in America have color, cable TV, a computer, internet access, and at least one car, while many own their own homes. That's like claiming liver is the only thing restaurant serves to most people just because you, personally, can't afford the fillet mignon.

Have you met any such people, or is this just something else you grabbed off Rush's website?

[5stringJeff]

Have you met any such people, or is this just something else you grabbed off Rush's website?

In 2004, 58% of households had PCs, and 57% had internet connectivity. Source (http://www.metafactsusa.com/pages/info/tup_dates/tupan04_d07.htm)

In 2006, 85% of all households had cable access. Source (http://www.metafactsusa.com/pages/info/tup_dates/tupan04_d07.htm)

According to the Census Bureau (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm), here's how the poor (defined as the lowest quintile, NOT as those living below the poverty level) are making out:

# Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
# Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
# Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

[typomaniac]

All this proves is that the Census Bureau is even more f'ed up than most people realize. :dunno:

[Hobbit]

All this proves is that the Census Bureau is even more f'ed up than most people realize. :dunno:

Ok, let me get this straight. Every reputable source that gathers such statistics says America's poor aren't really all that poor...but they're all either wrong or corrupt because....you say so? We've provided proof of our claims. The burden's now on you to prove us wrong.

[Said1]

Your right...The surge in Iraq worked because President Bush has the vision to see it needed to be done. The soldiers that carried out the actual mission are stubborn. Who cares they are doing all the labor. I mean...I am sure they couldn't have thought that more troops would benefit the cause....The ones that you call "too stubborn to learn something new" are the ones that first think, and discuss with management, ideas to improve things. America is suffereing from delusions of granduer. The CEO's decision is worthless without people planning, controlling, reinventing new ways to accomplish task the best way possible. CEO's are important. They aren't all that matters however.


I didn't say Steve and the janitor were stupid. And besides, how much imput do you honestly think Steve and the janitor actually have with respect to the future of the company where they are employed? How did Iraq sudden become relevant to this discussion - did I miss their mention prior?

Who do you think is more likely to up-grade there skills in order to advance their careers: Stubborn Steve and the janitor, the soldiers, management or the CEO?

I'm sure you know this as well, but I'll mention it anyway; more often than not, the CEO was also management before they were a CEO. I know this isn't always the case, some go from high school to being CEO, but it's rare. You have to know people. Moreover, the CEO has more ridding on his decisions. Management can come up with all kinds of strategies and plans, but ultimately, the CEO is *gasp* responsible for the decisions he makes, regardless of who came up with the 'idea'. I know, I know "they pass the buck'. That can work for a while, but eventually, someone has to take the fall. What happens if Steve decides to re-arrange the warehouse and put things in akward places? What if the janitor decides he wants to use a different type of garbage bag, one of lesser quality, resulting in a smelly mess? Uh-oh. Better call management.

[5stringJeff]

All this proves is that the Census Bureau is even more f'ed up than most people realize. :dunno:

How open-minded of you. :rolleyes:

[glockmail]

All this proves is that the Census Bureau is even more f'ed up than most people realize. :dunno::pee:

[MtnBiker]

All this proves is that the Census Bureau is even more f'ed up than most people realize. :dunno:

lame

[typomaniac]

All three of you know that I'm right. :coffee:

[5stringJeff]

All three of you know that I'm right. :coffee:

If by "right," you mean "obstinate and thick-headed," then yes, we do know that. :)

[glockmail]

If by "right," you mean "obstinate and thick-headed," then yes, we do know that. :) I would say "ignorant and closed-minded". :pee:

[typomaniac]

If by "right," you mean "obstinate and thick-headed," then yes, we do know that. :)

That's a pretty good description of the right. :laugh:

[Hobbit]

That's a pretty good description of the right. :laugh:

So it comes down to "I know you are, but what am I?" You sadden me with your lack of thought.

[typomaniac]

So it comes down to "I know you are, but what am I?" You sadden me with your lack of thought.

I would have been perfectly willing to explain why the Census Bureau's standard of poverty is so ridiculous, but you all have made it obvious that you have no desire to think. So what would be the point?

Talk about saddening...

[MtnBiker]

Funny how liberals embrace government programs and bureaucracies untill they don't fit their standards.

The census bureau compiles infromation and reports it, lobby your congress represenative and have the poverty level change if you like.

[typomaniac]

Funny how liberals embrace government programs and bureaucracies untill they don't fit their standards.If government programs don't fit the people's standards, they no longer serve their original purpose.

Rightwads don't seem to want any programs at all, so it follows that their standards don't matter.

[Hobbit]

If government programs don't fit the people's standards, they no longer serve their original purpose.

Rightwads don't seem to want any programs at all, so it follows that their standards don't matter.

BINGO!!!!!!

Give the man a cookie.

[glockmail]

BINGO!!!!!!

Give the man a cookie. I think you mean the boy. :pee:

[LuvRPgrl]

That requires skill, logic, problem-solving, etc. In other words, it involves quite a bit of neck-up work. Just because it's manual labor doesn't mean it requires no thought..

So, you are admitting that many illegals are actually smart? And helping our economy? :)

I dont mean this in a derogatory way, but apparently you arent too well versed in construction. There are many aspects, and posistions of installing a roof, of which MANY require no thought whatsoever. For example, some guys simply carry the materials around. Just loading them onto a roof is quite a job in itself, which requires no thought whatsoever.





Technically, they're a cartel, an organization designed to encourage collusion by suppliers (in this case, suppliers of labor), and cartels are often a product of free markets. The fact that they're distasteful doesn't make them any less a free market.

As a side note, cartels, like monopolies, should be one of the few aspects of the free market safeguarded against by the government.

I agree, although, technically, they should both be allowed in a "FREE market".

However, thats how reality and theory often clash. Another example would be a state of anarchy. You can have a pure anarchy. Its impossible for it to exist as long as one person wants to have some sort of system of rules and laws.

[Hobbit]

So, you are admitting that many illegals are actually smart? And helping our economy? :)

I dont mean this in a derogatory way, but apparently you arent too well versed in construction. There are many aspects, and posistions of installing a roof, of which MANY require no thought whatsoever. For example, some guys simply carry the materials around. Just loading them onto a roof is quite a job in itself, which requires no thought whatsoever.

There's more thought in 'brainless' activity than you think. That stuff can't be done by robots or even beasts of burden because they aren't capable of dynamic problem solving.

If it could be done, then it would.

And yes, illegals are smart (I mean, they're at least smart enough to leave Mexico) and contribute to the economy, but they're also disrespectful and drain more on society than they contribute.

[manu1959]

If government programs don't fit the people's standards, they no longer serve their original purpose.

Rightwads don't seem to want any programs at all, so it follows that their standards don't matter.

social security no longer serves the purpose it was originally set up for.....

[typomaniac]

social security no longer serves the purpose it was originally set up for.....

And that fact has what to do with income inequality? :confused:

[MtnBiker]

Income inequality, who should decide how much a person earns?

[typomaniac]

Income inequality, who should decide how much a person earns?
The minimum amount a person can earn must be enough to cover the basic necessities, if only because you get them for free in prison.

[LuvRPgrl]

There's more thought in 'brainless' activity than you think. That stuff can't be done by robots or even beasts of burden because they aren't capable of dynamic problem solving.

If it could be done, then it would.

And yes, illegals are smart (I mean, they're at least smart enough to leave Mexico) and contribute to the economy, but they're also disrespectful and drain more on society than they contribute.

Sorry, but that dont fly. Of course some brain activity is required, even just to breathe, but you know full well that we are talking about brain activity of normal or above intelligence. The fact you have to resort to being so technical shows you dont have much of an arguement.

And, often jobs arent done by robots because it isnt cost effective, not because they cant do it.

[LuvRPgrl]

The minimum amount a person can earn must be enough to cover the basic necessities, if only because you get them for free in prison.

Our current minimum wage certainly covers that, and some.

[Hobbit]

Sorry, but that dont fly. Of course some brain activity is required, even just to breathe, but you know full well that we are talking about brain activity of normal or above intelligence. The fact you have to resort to being so technical shows you dont have much of an arguement.

And, often jobs arent done by robots because it isnt cost effective, not because they cant do it.

Now you're just dodging. When I said "a human being from the neck down," I don't recall adding to the end of that "unless he's below average intelligence, in which case, the whole person." Cognitive thought is required for just about every job you can do, and it's that thought, not the ability to move, that people get paid for.

[JohnDoe]

Our current minimum wage certainly covers that, and some.bologna! the minimum wage does not even come close to paying for necessities in this country...not even CLOSE.

jd

[MtnBiker]

Income is not based on needs.

Minimum wage is entry level pay, exactly how many people are trying to support a household on minimum wage?

[typomaniac]

Income is not based on needs.

Minimum wage is entry level pay, exactly how many people are trying to support a household on minimum wage?

Even supporting a household of one isn't exactly cheap.

(Is it you or your parents who takes care of financing all that fun bicycling? If it's the former, you hardly need someone like me to be telling you this.)

[Hobbit]

Even supporting a household of one isn't exactly cheap.

(Is it you or your parents who takes care of financing all that fun bicycling? If it's the former, you hardly need someone like me to be telling you this.)

When the average poor person has cable and internet access, they can piss off for all I care. If they want more, let them, I don't know, EARN IT for a change.

[Immanuel]

When the average poor person has cable and internet access, they can piss off for all I care. If they want more, let them, I don't know, EARN IT for a change.

And don't forget Cellular Phones... one for each member of the household. I don't have one because I can't justify the cost yet I see a lot of people who are obviously on food stamps yapping away on cell phones. I work in a neighborhood that is lets just say, lower class and stand in line at the grocery store next door. People who use the new food stamps cards have cell phones! How the heck do they pull that one off?

Immie

[5stringJeff]

The minimum amount a person can earn must be enough to cover the basic necessities, if only because you get them for free in prison.

Federal minimum wage: $5.85 (http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm)

$5.85/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $11,700

Poverty level for one person: $10,210 (http://www.atdn.org/access/poverty.html)

Difference: $1,490

So just working a minimum wage job for 50 weeks a year will keep one above the poverty line, with room to spare. And frankly, while it's not the federal government's job to guarantee any level of income, I think we are already doing more than enough to guarantee that people can work and make a minimal amount of money.

[typomaniac]

Federal minimum wage: $5.85 (http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm)

$5.85/hour * 40 hours/week * 50 weeks/year = $11,700

Poverty level for one person: $10,210 (http://www.atdn.org/access/poverty.html)

Difference: $1,490

So just working a minimum wage job for 50 weeks a year will keep one above the poverty line, with room to spare. And frankly, while it's not the federal government's job to guarantee any level of income, I think we are already doing more than enough to guarantee that people can work and make a minimal amount of money.
Whether you call it "poverty" is nothing more than semantics. The only question that has any meaning is whether you can support yourself on $11,700 yearly.

[typomaniac]

And don't forget Cellular Phones... one for each member of the household. I don't have one because I can't justify the cost yet I see a lot of people who are obviously on food stamps yapping away on cell phones. I work in a neighborhood that is lets just say, lower class and stand in line at the grocery store next door. People who use the new food stamps cards have cell phones! How the heck do they pull that one off?

Immie
Well, if you don't want to ask them, perhaps the checkout clerk should. :rolleyes:

[5stringJeff]

Whether you call it "poverty" is nothing more than semantics. The only question that has any meaning is whether you can support yourself on $11,700 yearly.

And the federal government has determined that you can, indeed, support yourself on $11,700 a year.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, let me get this straight. Every reputable source that gathers such statistics says America's poor aren't really all that poor...but they're all either wrong or corrupt because....you say so? We've provided proof of our claims. The burden's now on you to prove us wrong.

Actually, the burden of proof on him is to prove he isnt delusional. Thats how the Libecrats are. They believe what they believe and nothing can change that. (this, the "progressive party)

[LuvRPgrl]

How open-minded of you. :rolleyes:

This is just proof he is wrong and has no answer. Its an old saying in law school, cant attack the facts, attack the messenger. Typo is a first grade loser. He is the typical libecrat, delusional. They claim to be everything they arent. Compassionate, open minded, etc. etc.

[LuvRPgrl]

I would have been perfectly willing to explain why the Census Bureau's standard of poverty is so ridiculous, but you all have made it obvious that you have no desire to think. So what would be the point?

Talk about saddening...

In other words, "I had the opportunity to say why my statement was explainable, but I didnt take it, instead I waited for all you to correctly tell me my statement had no good explanation, and since you pointed it out, now Im gonna take my teddy bear and hide in the closet, TAKE THAT !!!!"

[LuvRPgrl]

Now you're just dodging. When I said "a human being from the neck down," I don't recall adding to the end of that "unless he's below average intelligence, in which case, the whole person." Cognitive thought is required for just about every job you can do, and it's that thought, not the ability to move, that people get paid for.

can you tell me what job doesnt require the ability to "move", if not, then ALL jobs require the thought you are requiring, in which case your main point is useless.

We all know that the general acceptence of "thinking job" requires much more than just lugging roofing tiles and nailing them in place, if you dont agree, you are really out on a limb and out of the mainstream. I think everyone would agree with this paragraph.

[LuvRPgrl]

bologna! the minimum wage does not even come close to paying for necessities in this country...not even CLOSE.

jd

Sure it does. It just doesnt pay for what you consider necessities, but really arent.

I have spent a lot of time in the philippines and its amazing how little one can survive on without money help from others.

and as for Social Security creating income inequality, it DOES help. Many, many very well to do people now get social security payments plus all the benefits like free/low cost meds, while the burden goes to many lower middle class taxpayers.

We all know that it takes a lot of money to win office these days. When money gets in the hands of the govt, its in control by rich people. They only dole out enough to the poor to keep them happy and think the politicians (dems) are taking care of them. They rest they keep for themselves.

[retiredman]

Sure it does. It just doesnt pay for what you consider necessities, but really arent.

I have spent a lot of time in the philippines and its amazing how little one can survive on without money help from others.

and as for Social Security creating income inequality, it DOES help. Many, many very well to do people now get social security payments plus all the benefits like free/low cost meds, while the burden goes to many lower middle class taxpayers.

suggesting that the fact that filipinos live cheaply, therefore Americans can as well is somewhat disingenuous. The cost of living in the philippines is a fraction of what it is here. If, for example, you and your spouse both make minimum wage, and contract any sort of illness, you will be unable to pay for your care.

[Roadhouse158]

You know, it is said that tax cuts work because it gives people more money to spend. This in turn helps the economy. Well...If people made more money, the same thing would happen. I keep reading about people on food stamps that have cell phones. That's not income inequality. That is the government's loose standards as to who can receive assistance. IMO, if your on assistance you shouldn't be allowed a cell phone, unless it is your only phone, you shouldn't have cable, and you shouldn't be driving a new car. I look at the company one works for. One poster asked who should decide what CEO's get paid. My answer is the owners...I own stock in companies, and it's not my decision, it's the board of directors that decides. Usually they hire someone that knows someone on the board. It's not about talent, or education. Although yes, most are former management. I would definitely not agree with paying a CEO 20 million while others at the company make $8 an hour. That is a huge difference. I think too huge for people to grasp. I don't care if the decisions fall on him/her. They have a lot of input, including the board of directors, that feed them information. If your making 20 million a yea,r who cares if you work only one year. I am not going to feel sorry for these people, and care how much stress their under. They get fired after one year and never have to work another day in their life. Others at the same company work their whole lives and barely get by. It's just ridiculous to me. Just so you know...NO the government shouldn't decide...It is going to go that way....Wait and see. The boards that are willing to pay all this money to a select few is just inviting government intervention.

[Roadhouse158]

suggesting that the fact that filipinos live cheaply, therefore Americans can as well is somewhat disingenuous. The cost of living in the philippines is a fraction of what it is here. If, for example, you and your spouse both make minimum wage, and contract any sort of illness, you will be unable to pay for your care.

MFM will tell you himself that I don't give him credit for much, but here he has a good point. People that make little money can't afford health care. I don't mean a trip to the doctors office. I mean a serious event. The government is going to intervene at some point. Businesses can decide to pay more to everyone, or they can keep giving huge salaries to a select few at the expense of the American people. It's going to happen. It doesn't have to, but the free market, which can fix this, is opening the door.

[typomaniac]

And the federal government has determined that you can, indeed, support yourself on $11,700 a year.

Really? Who said it and where? :link:

[PostmodernProphet]

....what IS the federal poverty level......is it the point at which you cannot support yourself?.......the point at which life begins to suck?......obviously, you can be below the US federal poverty level and still be within the list of the top 15% richest people in the world, because being poor in the US is still better than being poor almost anywhere else and better than being rich in a lot of places......

so basically, it means not being in as good a situation as most everyone around you.....how much worse off do you have to be before you qualify for "poverty level".......you don't need to be homeless to qualify....you don't need to be starving to qualify......you don't even need to be unable to support yourself to qualify.....you just need to earn less than a certain dollar amount......

[5stringJeff]

Really? Who said it and where? :link:

That's what the poverty level is, Einstein. Look back at my post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=165044&postcount=74) in which I did the 3rd grade math for you.

[MtnBiker]

By which means should a persons income be determined? Not just minimum wage but through the entire spectrum of income.

[Dilloduck]

By which means should a persons income be determined? Not just minimum wage but through the entire spectrum of income.

I guess --enough to buy whatever you want--- would be asking too much ,huh ? :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

can you tell me what job doesnt require the ability to "move", if not, then ALL jobs require the thought you are requiring, in which case your main point is useless.

We all know that the general acceptence of "thinking job" requires much more than just lugging roofing tiles and nailing them in place, if you dont agree, you are really out on a limb and out of the mainstream. I think everyone would agree with this paragraph.

I think you missed what I was saying. I was saying that these jobs require you to do more than just move (which is pretty much just neck down work. Think really quick on what the human being does from the neck up, even in 'brainless' jobs. A human is capable of listening to and understanding complex instructions in a thorough, specific, and rich language capable of capturing the minutia of those instructions. A human is capable of dynamic problem solving, that is, solving a problem without having ever been told how. We're also self-maintaining.

[typomaniac]

That's what the poverty level is, Einstein. Look back at my post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=165044&postcount=74) in which I did the 3rd grade math for you.

Wrong, 5thstringer. Your post did the math for the federal minimum wage. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the result is enough on which to support yourself.

You know, for a guy who loves to brag about how intelligent he is, you overlook some really basic stuff. :poke:

[Kathianne]

Wrong, 5thstringer. Your post did the math for the "lowest quintile" of incomes. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the result is enough on which to support yourself.

You know, for a guy who loves to brag about how intelligent he is, you overlook some really basic stuff. :poke:

I could 'live' on $12k per year. Not the way I want, which is why I work and got an education, but I could exist: with a roof over my head, heat, food, and transportation.

[typomaniac]

This is just proof he is wrong and has no answer. Its an old saying in law school, cant attack the facts, attack the messenger. Typo is a first grade loser. He is the typical libecrat, delusional. They claim to be everything they arent. Compassionate, open minded, etc. etc.

I hate to tell you this, hon, but patting Frodo and Jeffy on the back does not make you any less wrong. :(

Next time, try a real argument. I know, they can be difficult to get your head around if you've been the product of American education. But trust me, once you learn how to make them, they can be lots of fun.

[typomaniac]

I could 'live' on $12k per year. Not the way I want, which is why I work and got an education, but I could exist: with a roof over my head, heat, food, and transportation.

I'd love to see how you manage to break that down.

[Kathianne]

I'd love to see how you manage to break that down.

I can get a studio apartment in the city for under $450 a month. In the suburbs about $100 less, but I'd more than eat that up in transportation costs. Food for me could come in at about $200 per month. A studio apartment would cost less than $35 per month to heat. Public trans with passes would be about $45 per month. $660 per month, $340 for incidentals.

Would I be in a neighborhood I'd choose to live in? No. Would I eat what I do now? No. Would I have to watch every penny? Yes. But, would I have a roof, food, heat, with enough to buy hat, gloves, jacket for cold? Yes. I could also get to work, as long as serviced by transit.

As I said, I wouldn't want to live like that, I would be beside myself with kids in that sort of situation, but it can be done. Not to mention, that if I had a HS diploma or GED I would qualify for free tuition on need alone at state colleges.

[5stringJeff]

Wrong, 5thstringer. Your post did the math for the federal minimum wage. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the result is enough on which to support yourself.

You know, for a guy who loves to brag about how intelligent he is, you overlook some really basic stuff. :poke:

No, my post related the federal poverty guidelines to the minimum wage, and showed that working one job at minimum wage is enough to keep one above the federal poverty level. So if you don't think someone can live on $10,210, which is the federal poverty guideline for one person, then go complain to HHS, not me.

[MtnBiker]

Wrong, 5thstringer. Your post did the math for the federal minimum wage. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the result is enough on which to support yourself.

You know, for a guy who loves to brag about how intelligent he is, you overlook some really basic stuff. :poke:

Jeff's post was very clear and not wrong. He did do the math that showed a minimum wage earner working 40 a week for 50 weeks a year will earn more than the poverty level income. He also posted the link to poverty level.

How many times do I need to say this, income is not based on need.

[Kathianne]

Jeff's post was very clear and not wrong. He did do the math that showed a minimum wage earner working 40 a week for 50 weeks a year will earn more than the poverty level income. He also posted the link to poverty level.

How many times do I need to say this, income is not based on need.

I based my 'scenario' on $12k for one person. But I realised, I could probably afford health care if I stuck tight to the budget. If I figure the studio at 400 sq ft, which is generous, I could lower my heating costs by wearing warmer clothes.

[MtnBiker]

There have been many posts focused on the minimum wage earner. Why? The minimum wage or lower earner represents a whopping 2.5% of hourly paid workers. Most of which are young. Also the foodservice industry that pays less the minimum wage but has additional tip moneys earned should be taking into account.

Link (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm)

[MtnBiker]

I based my 'scenario' on $12k for one person. But I realised, I could probably afford health care if I stuck tight to the budget. If I figure the studio at 400 sq ft, which is generous, I could lower my heating costs by wearing warmer clothes.

That would be a personal budget based on a income of minimum wage. The wage itself is not based on a person's needs.

[typomaniac]

Jeff's post was very clear and not wrong. He did do the math that showed a minimum wage earner working 40 a week for 50 weeks a year will earn more than the poverty level income. He also posted the link to poverty level.

How many times do I need to say this, income is not based on need.

That was never my point at the beginning, and it's highly disingenuous of you now to pretend that it was.

My point was that what any full-time worker earns SHOULD be enough to support a household of one. Whether that happens by government involvement or how the government defines poverty is a completely separate discussion.

[Kathianne]

That would be a personal budget based on a income of minimum wage. The wage itself is not based on a person's needs.

I understand, but it's possible, especially in lower cost of living areas than Chicago.

[MtnBiker]

That was never my point at the beginning, and it's highly disingenuous of you now to pretend that it was.

My point was that what any full-time worker earns SHOULD be enough to support a household of one. Whether that happens by government involvement or how the government defines poverty is a completely separate discussion.

Well I asked a simple question and response was;


The minimum amount a person can earn must be enough to cover the basic necessities, if only because you get them for free in prison.

necessities = needs

So, let me ask again. By which method should a person's income be determined? And lets try to leave the minimum wage out, it is a very small percentage of worker that is earning it, (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm)also we have beat that horse to death.

[Dilloduck]

Well I asked a simple question and response was;



necessities = needs

So, let me ask again. By which method should a person's income be determined? And lets try to leave the minimum wage out, it is a very small percentage of worker that is earning it, (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm)also we have beat that horse to death.

As an employer I would base employee salary on my employees skills (including the market availablilty of those skills), dependability and loyalty taking into consideration how much profit I want and my overhead.

[JohnDoe]

No, my post related the federal poverty guidelines to the minimum wage, and showed that working one job at minimum wage is enough to keep one above the federal poverty level. So if you don't think someone can live on $10,210, which is the federal poverty guideline for one person, then go complain to HHS, not me.Jeff, the federal poverty GUIDELINE, is the figure used to qualify for over 80 different federal assistance programs, and all of these programs are not set at the guideline level to qualify but at levels well above the guideline level, like 150% of the guideline level for foodstamps or 180% of the guideline level for schip or 200% of the pverty guideline to qualify for foodstamps, or fuel energy assistance, or an educational assistance, or housing assistance etc.....I don't believe the this federal guideline level is a figure that one can use as saying that a person can suvive on that level....and the intention of that guideline level is for qualifications of assistance by the federal government to survive.
*
And each state may use these guidelines at a different level to assist their citizens, which makes complete sense, because a person at the guidline level in alabama is obviously completely different than a citizen of massachusetts only making the fed guideline level.

jd

[LuvRPgrl]

suggesting that the fact that filipinos live cheaply, therefore Americans can as well is somewhat disingenuous. The cost of living in the philippines is a fraction of what it is here. If, for example, you and your spouse both make minimum wage, and contract any sort of illness, you will be unable to pay for your care.

Baloney. Besides, I wouldnt get married if I only made minimum wage. Its called BEING RESPONSABLE for your own actions. Not pawning it off on a CEO.

One of the things the filipinos do is rely on family, something sorely missing in America. But if push came to shove, we would if we had to. Look at the great depression, we managed.

[LuvRPgrl]

baloney. The corporate world out there is dog eat dog. If a CEO doesnt produce, then he gets axed. If companies overpaid underachieving CEO's they wouldnt stay in business long. The fact they make money seems they are doing something right.

IF you dont like a company that doesnt let you choose the CEO, then dont buy their stock.


You know, it is said that tax cuts work because it gives people more money to spend. This in turn helps the economy. Well...If people made more money, the same thing would happen. I keep reading about people on food stamps that have cell phones. That's not income inequality. That is the government's loose standards as to who can receive assistance. IMO, if your on assistance you shouldn't be allowed a cell phone, unless it is your only phone, you shouldn't have cable, and you shouldn't be driving a new car. I look at the company one works for. One poster asked who should decide what CEO's get paid. My answer is the owners...I own stock in companies, and it's not my decision, it's the board of directors that decides. Usually they hire someone that knows someone on the board. It's not about talent, or education. Although yes, most are former management. I would definitely not agree with paying a CEO 20 million while others at the company make $8 an hour. That is a huge difference. I think too huge for people to grasp. I don't care if the decisions fall on him/her. They have a lot of input, including the board of directors, that feed them information. If your making 20 million a yea,r who cares if you work only one year. I am not going to feel sorry for these people, and care how much stress their under. They get fired after one year and never have to work another day in their life. Others at the same company work their whole lives and barely get by. It's just ridiculous to me. Just so you know...NO the government shouldn't decide...It is going to go that way....Wait and see. The boards that are willing to pay all this money to a select few is just inviting government intervention.

[LuvRPgrl]

I hate to tell you this, hon, but patting Frodo and Jeffy on the back does not make you any less wrong. :(

Next time, try a real argument. I know, they can be difficult to get your head around if you've been the product of American education. But trust me, once you learn how to make them, they can be lots of fun.

This is ripe !! :)
All you can do is talk about frodo and jeffy, then accuse my response of having no worthwhile content. Usual libecratic double speak hypocracy, self delusional elitism.

Let me explain it to you, A....B....C....
the guy attacked the dept that supplied the info. They are the "messenger", I pointed out how if you cant attack the info, then you attack the messenger.
Get it dumbo?

Sheesh, (Ron walks off muttering something about his dog being smarter than a typo...)

[LuvRPgrl]

I based my 'scenario' on $12k for one person. But I realised, I could probably afford health care if I stuck tight to the budget. If I figure the studio at 400 sq ft, which is generous, I could lower my heating costs by wearing warmer clothes.

and its not inconceivable that you could share the studio,

[glockmail]

....
My point was that what any full-time worker earns SHOULD be enough to support a household of one. Whether that happens by government involvement or how the government defines poverty is a completely separate discussion.


One can live off min wage, just not in the manner that he/she might want. That should be an incentive to get a better education. It was for me.

[Roadhouse158]

baloney. The corporate world out there is dog eat dog. If a CEO doesnt produce, then he gets axed. If companies overpaid underachieving CEO's they wouldnt stay in business long. The fact they make money seems they are doing something right.

IF you dont like a company that doesnt let you choose the CEO, then dont buy their stock.

My point exactly....This dog eat dog world is getting rid of the middle class. This is what is going to bring about GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION; which no one should want. Like I said before...Who cares if a CEO gets axed. They are paid in the millions. They also aren't the first to go. Usually it's middle management that goes first. That just doesn't make the news. Some CEO's make MORE in one month, than employees at the same company make in their lifetime. Go ahead and keep giving excuses. We will become a socialized country because of it. In a response to MTNBiker...Who knows how we decide what people get paid....The system today, where the CEO is paid enormous sums is just ridiculous to me. If some can't see that the middle class is disappearing, then their just not paying attention. CEO pay has skyrocketed, while middle income pay hasn't. What else has skyrocketed?....oh yeah....Prices of necessities...I'm not talking about inflation...inflation takes into account a lot of things. Milk, food, and gas prices have skyrocketed; However, PC and Flat screen TV prices have dropped...Those are our real necessities.

[typomaniac]

One can live off min wage, just not in the manner that he/she might want. That should be an incentive to get a better education. It was for me.

Depends on where you are and how reliable your employer is.

[typomaniac]

Well I asked a simple question and response was;



necessities = needs

So, let me ask again. By which method should a person's income be determined? And lets try to leave the minimum wage out, it is a very small percentage of worker that is earning it, (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm)also we have beat that horse to death.
I'm not sure that there is any single, perfect method. (Although if you want to suggest one, I'm all ears.) I was arguing only that being able to afford and purchase the necessities should be a benchmark.

[typomaniac]

This is ripe !! :)
All you can do is talk about frodo and jeffy, then accuse my response of having no worthwhile content. Usual libecratic double speak hypocracy, self delusional elitism.

...Get it dumbo?

Sheesh, (Ron walks off muttering something about his dog being smarter than a typo...)
Thanks for proving my accusation. :lol:

[manu1959]

I'm not sure that there is any single, perfect method. (Although if you want to suggest one, I'm all ears.) I was arguing only that being able to afford and purchase the necessities should be a benchmark.

necessites you said are the same as those in prison.....so

a room with a roommate, a bed, access to a bathroom and a kitchen, one change of clothes, food, toiletries and medical care.....

i say 8 dollars an hour for one person

[typomaniac]

necessites you said are the same as those in prison.....so

a room with a roommate, a bed, access to a bathroom and a kitchen, one change of clothes, food, toiletries and medical care.....

i say 8 dollars an hour for one person

8 bucks an hour won't pay for much medical care... :poke:

[manu1959]

8 bucks an hour won't pay for much medical care... :poke:

there are free clinics, an emergency room can't refuse service and don't take a job where the employer doesn't provide it....

[Roadhouse158]

there are free clinics, an emergency room can't refuse service and don't take a job where the employer doesn't provide it....

Since Healthcare is my field let me respond. There is no such thing as a Free Clinic. An emergency room can't refuse service which is absolutely correct. This causes a problem that ER's are overun with non emergent cases. This causes flooded ER's, which tire out the ER staff, which leads to mistakes that can be made from exhaustion. Also, ER visits aren't free either...To refuse a job that doesn't offer healthcare is ridiculous. People still need to work to pay for other necessities. Free healthcare is non existent. Your paying for it....Believe me...The simple answer is increase wages...I don't know why that is so hard for some to grasp. Come up with hundreds of different ideas, and overlook one that will work. I know not everywhere can increase wages, but a lot of companies can. Spread the money around, and everyone would be better off.

[LuvRPgrl]

My point exactly....This dog eat dog world is getting rid of the middle class. This is what is going to bring about GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION; which no one should want. Like I said before...Who cares if a CEO gets axed. They are paid in the millions. They also aren't the first to go. Usually it's middle management that goes first. That just doesn't make the news. Some CEO's make MORE in one month, than employees at the same company make in their lifetime. Go ahead and keep giving excuses. We will become a socialized country because of it. In a response to MTNBiker...Who knows how we decide what people get paid....The system today, where the CEO is paid enormous sums is just ridiculous to me. If some can't see that the middle class is disappearing, then their just not paying attention. CEO pay has skyrocketed, while middle income pay hasn't. What else has skyrocketed?....oh yeah....Prices of necessities...I'm not talking about inflation...inflation takes into account a lot of things. Milk, food, and gas prices have skyrocketed; However, PC and Flat screen TV prices have dropped...Those are our real necessities.

You are venting without a lot of data to support you

Fact is, the middle class is bigger and stronger than ever.
The reason for more govt intervention is because of bleeding heart libecrats, not because of restrictions on business

In fact, the business world has been doing fantastic. Coming out with new technology, faster, cheaper easier ways to produce, means people who own things like cell phones, tv's, cars, houses, is unprecedented.

You cant possibly tell me we arent doing pretty good when I walk up to a guy who is obviously living in his Toyota corolla, and ask him if he wants to work on my house, he says, sure, but hold on I have to do something first. He whips out his cell phone......

[LuvRPgrl]

there are free clinics, an emergency room can't refuse service and don't take a job where the employer doesn't provide it....

In LA, if you are pregnant and arent employed, the Harbor General Hospital will deliver your baby for free.

Most minimum wage workers dont stay in that bracket.


MOst min wage earners are very young, and dont need medical care

The cries of the left are hollow, just meant to arouse emotions of sympathy for the poor, cough, cough, and anger towards the rich.

Americans are quite healthy for the most part. And as for being able to afford food, have you seen all the fat people walking around? Its unbelievable. After spending so much time in the Philippines, then coming back, it was amazing how many fat people there are. AND, it applies to filipinos over here too, the ones here are over represented by fat people compared to their home islands.

[Roadhouse158]

You are venting without a lot of data to support you

Fact is, the middle class is bigger and stronger than ever.
The reason for more govt intervention is because of bleeding heart libecrats, not because of restrictions on business

In fact, the business world has been doing fantastic. Coming out with new technology, faster, cheaper easier ways to produce, means people who own things like cell phones, tv's, cars, houses, is unprecedented.

You cant possibly tell me we arent doing pretty good when I walk up to a guy who is obviously living in his Toyota corolla, and ask him if he wants to work on my house, he says, sure, but hold on I have to do something first. He whips out his cell phone......

First, I am not venting. One has to be angry to vent. I am not angry. I am discussing issues with posters. Secondly, you point that I am not using facts. Neither are you. I will give you some facts from a textbook. I use a text book so we won't get replies about something being a rightwing source, or a leftwing source. That is the general reply someone uses if they don't agree with the "facts". I am using information from chapter 32 in the McConnel/Brue Economics 17th edition.
The top 1/10 of the population receives 30% of income. Only four other countries have that much disparity. Guatemala, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico. Not a group I want to be in company with, when dealing with fairness in wages. Another fact is 50.1 percent of income goes to 20 percent of households. So 50% of income goes to 20% of the people.
That is Income Inequality. I am not discussing how people spend their money; I am not discussing poverty; I'm not even discussing politics. I am discussing inequality. This country ranks with the four above as countries with the highest inequalities in the world. BTW...The textbook uses information from census.gov. A quote from the book....."The data in the table suggest CONSIDERABLE inequality of household income in the United States." There's your facts.
Now...Don't think about suggesting that I am a liberal. If you read other threads, you will see I am far from it. Also, Michael Savage talks about inequality being very real. I would hardly call him liberal either. What I am not is blind. My wife and I are lucky enough to have a very comfortable living. We both work in health care, so our incomes are desirable. I am not saying this out of anger or jealousy. I am just very concerned how our country is headed. As much as I hate John Edwards, who supposedly represented my state in the US Senate, we are on our way to two Americas.

[LuvRPgrl]

First, I am not venting. One has to be angry to vent. I am not angry. I am discussing issues with posters. Secondly, you point that I am not using facts. Neither are you. I will give you some facts from a textbook. I use a text book so we won't get replies about something being a rightwing source, or a leftwing source. That is the general reply someone uses if they don't agree with the "facts". I am using information from chapter 32 in the McConnel/Brue Economics 17th edition.
The top 1/10 of the population receives 30% of income. Only four other countries have that much disparity. Guatemala, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico. Not a group I want to be in company with, when dealing with fairness in wages. Another fact is 50.1 percent of income goes to 20 percent of households. So 50% of income goes to 20% of the people.
That is Income Inequality. I am not discussing how people spend their money; I am not discussing poverty; I'm not even discussing politics. I am discussing inequality. This country ranks with the four above as countries with the highest inequalities in the world. BTW...The textbook uses information from census.gov. A quote from the book....."The data in the table suggest CONSIDERABLE inequality of household income in the United States." There's your facts.
Now...Don't think about suggesting that I am a liberal. If you read other threads, you will see I am far from it. Also, Michael Savage talks about inequality being very real. I would hardly call him liberal either. What I am not is blind. My wife and I are lucky enough to have a very comfortable living. We both work in health care, so our incomes are desirable. I am not saying this out of anger or jealousy. I am just very concerned how our country is headed. As much as I hate John Edwards, who supposedly represented my state in the US Senate, we are on our way to two Americas.

Apparently you didnt read my post. I dont need statistical facts to support my conclusion. Mine is drawn from the rights granted under the Constitution, and if I am correct, then the matter as to whether or not we should cut taxes becomes moot.

Its kinda like selling a car, person a wants to sell, person b doesnt. They argue whether or not they will make money on the sale. Then suddenly person c steps in and shows that the ownership is in his name, the arguement between a and b bevcomes moot.

[Hobbit]

Why don't you socialist jackasses get off your income inequality high-horse and go look up some income MOBILITY stats? I think that you'll find that a very tiny fraction of those in the top or bottom quintiles is still there after 5 years.

[Roadhouse158]

Apparently we are not understanding each other. Your talking about the constitution, and I haven't one time mentioned it. I think we are arguing over two subjects that aren't comparative to each other. My discussion on CEO pay being extremely high has nothing to do with the constitution. My point is we have become a nation that pays enormous sums of money to a select few. I don't have any idea why this started. A CEO isn't going to be any better at strategic thinking making $10 million a year than he would if he made $3 million a year. This isn't a Republican vs Democratic argument. This inequality has been growing wider and wider for some 30 years. The only way this involves the government is through taxing. Taxing, however, has nothing to do with income. Income plays a role in taxing. The government can't fix this problem. Only the free market itself can. The only way that will happen is if enough people complain. I don't mean keep the CEO pay high, and then raise lower level pay. My suggestion is to cut CEO pay, and increase the lowest wages so profit isn't affected. And Hobbit....Stop throwing around names like socialist. Your ignorant. Socialist want the government to intervene. If you want to keep defending this practice, in can come back to bite you in the butt. Lose your job, even with an MBA, or another advanced degree and you'll be stuck working harder, making less money; And maybe without insurance. Stop being so ethnocentric. You need to look at the big picture...Not just the one that your trying to accomplish.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why don't you socialist jackasses get off your income inequality high-horse and go look up some income MOBILITY stats? I think that you'll find that a very tiny fraction of those in the top or bottom quintiles is still there after 5 years.

Not to mention, if they are so concerned about the poor, why dont they donate more money to the IRS?

[Immanuel]

Not to mention, if they are so concerned about the poor, why dont they donate more money to the IRS?

What the heck are you talking about? They donate plenty of money to the poor. In fact, they donate every bit of our tax dollars they can steal to the poor that they can get away with. This relieves their conscience. You see by promoting exorbitant taxes on "the rich" (defined in each of their minds as anyone having more money than they) they feel that they have done their duty to the poor and thus no longer need to give.

It is some kind of psychobabble they live by and believe me it works.

Immie

[Roadhouse158]

Not to mention, if they are so concerned about the poor, why dont they donate more money to the IRS?

It's a sad country when people want the government to take care of everything.
Talk about socialist.

[LuvRPgrl]

What the heck are you talking about? They donate plenty of money to the poor. In fact, they donate every bit of our tax dollars they can steal to the poor that they can get away with. This relieves their conscience. You see by promoting exorbitant taxes on "the rich" (defined in each of their minds as anyone having more money than they) they feel that they have done their duty to the poor and thus no longer need to give.

It is some kind of psychobabble they live by and believe me it works.

Immie

Actually, even if someone makes more money than them, they will think the other person should be taxed more. After all, they are doing such great/humanitarian work for the poor, that they should be exempted as "rich"

Al Gore flies a private jet to all his speeches on global warming.

obama, Hillary and Edwards all went to Washing to support enviormental bills, and legislation to force citizens to cut back on their "extras" in life, they then went and caught private planes to return to Iowa. See, they are all exempt.