Income Inequality

[wasted]

It's not a US thing though, it's global. The fact that US companies can farm work out to developing countries lowers how valuable US workers are. If the plutocrats in the US don't do that then they fail to be competitive. If China's BYD costs $20,000 and the equivalent US car costs $35,000 your average American probably save the $15,000 when push comes to shove. So it's not just one country like the US changing things.

And why change it. Maybe taxes or some way to relieve people earning 23 mil a year of that burden to help out completely shafted people at the bottom who can't even get a job putting together iPods for a $3 an hour.

Edited July 13, 2014 by wasted

[downzy]

Besides we are supposed to be discussing income inequality. And per downzy's rules...we must stick to the specific topic with no deviation whatsover. For example, when discussing failed monetary policies it is unacceptable to actually discuss the underlying worldviews and ideologies that informed and guided those policies. So I'm sure discussing the nature of man will be in violation of those rules.

It's not my thread, I'm not a moderator, talk about whatever you want.

What I won't engage in is broad and vague discussions over "world views" that does nothing but seek to generalize and mischaracterize. You refer to me as a "collectivists," but also in this thread you've referred to as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as "collectivists" as we all share the same perspective on the role of government within society. It's an absurd endeavour that often gets employed rather than discussing the actual matters at hand.

In this thread, as I understand it, the point of the discussion is the growth in income inequality. If you don't have a problem with increases in inequality, that's fine. But for many, it's a growing concern, as Magisme has noted that you'll often see a violent backlash to gross inequality.

As I've illustrated in many of my posts, America's monetary policy has little to do with the increase in inequality. Foghat, you have provided no data, no evidence, and no particular argument that holds up to scrutiny that the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and its control over the nation's monetary policy is the cause for the rise in income inequality over the past 35 years. None. Instead, you resort to labels, generalizations, and bogus quotes from racists old kooks. Moreover, such an assertion fails comparative analysis, as many other nations with even higher indebtedness - that also have a similar centralized banking system - have far less inequality than found in the U.S.

So basically what you refuse to engage in is any discussion that might challenge the underlying presuppositions of your theories. What are you afraid of? So I can engage you about your "facts" but I can in no way challenge the grid through which you interpret those facts. How convenient for you. Unfortunately for you, economic policies and “facts” do not exist in a vacuum. Facts, evidence, statistics, etc. must be interpreted. And we all interpret them through the lens of a particular worldview. Again, since we are examining one particular aspect of a larger economic system (i.e. income inequality within the US economy over the past several decades) it is certainly not unreasonable to examine the ideology that has shaped the US economy and driven the agenda of many policymakers. So, yes, your worldview is fair game and I enjoy pointing out how morally/intellectually bankrupt it is. If you can’t even defend the fundamental and most basic presuppositions of your theories…well, you know what they say about a house built on sand…and all your pretty graphs and charts don’t mean a thing when the broader context and underlying worldview that shapes your analysis cannot stand up to scrutiny and logic. You may win a few skirmishes here and there by out-googling me with a chart or an excerpt from Wikipedia, but of what significance is that if you are losing the ideological war? I’ve noticed that you conveniently shy away from answering the tough questions about the ethics of your theories. And you get really defensive about the term “collectivist”. As I’ve explained in other posts, don’t get hung up on the label. It’s not my fault if some of those who share similar economic theories with you haven’t been nice guys like I’m sure you are. History is really, really not on your side…but you were the one who brought history into the discussion.

So, yeah…your worldview is absolutely fair game…and in a discussion about income inequality, it is both fair and reasonable to ask these types of questions and challenge the assumptions upon which the debate is framed…and it sparked an interesting discussion with Magisme.

1) Is income inequality an unnatural or "bad" thing that needs to be "fixed"? If so, by what standard are you judging it to be “bad”? [if it is purely based on self-interest/preservation (per my discussion with Magisme), then how is it that libertarians are the ones that get branded as cold-hearted and selfish?]

2) How much inequality is acceptable?....and where do you draw that totally arbitrary line that determines what is a "fair" amount of income inequality? On what basis or by what standard are you determining “fairness”?

3) On what basis does another person “deserve” (or however you want to phrase it) to have part of the money that I have earned?

4) Is it moral to take $ by force/violence (even at gunpoint or through threats of imprisonment, etc.) from Mr. Smith and give it to Mr. Jones?

Then once you get past these basic questions (if you can), then it may be appropriate to drill down and start looking at data, charts, facts, etc. I love how you say “as I’ve illustrated in many of my posts…”…LOL…as if that is the end of the matter…downzy has spoken. Maybe you want to tone that down to “as I have attempted to illustrate”??

But since you seem to have a fetish for graphs and crunching data, rather than discussing ideology and worldviews…here you go…

The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart

“So, what happened to end America’s era of middle class prosperity? The fiat dollar happened.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/

So…as I’ve now illustrated…and that is the end of the matter.

I'm getting little tired of your bullshit. "Don't get hung up on the label," when you use the same label to describe my "worldview" as people like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Advocating that there exists a role for government to play in certain policy spheres does not associate oneself with some of humanity's worst dictators. Again, so cut the fucking shit. If you want to engage in an actual conversation where you're not likening someone to Hitler because they advocate for progressivity within a given tax code (or even that income tax should exist), then I'm done.

As for Woodhill's argument, he's not proving causality, but simply attempting to associate the rise of income inequality with the abandonment of the gold standard. Look at his graph - when does the top ten percent start pulling away from the bottom 90 percent? In 1968 when the U.S. Government started expanding the money supply? No. In 1971 - when Nixon abandoned the Gold Standard? No. Looks to me like it happened in the early 1980s, with the rise of neoconservatism that rolled back financial regulations, reduced taxes on the top 10 percent, and slashed social spending for lower-income earners. Woodhill seems to place his entire argument on the notion that borrowing costs more when a currency is unstable by virtue of expanding the money supply. But if that were true, why are current treasury yields the lowest they've been since the early 1940s? Why is that despite living in a financial structure based on fiat money we see some of the lowest capital costs in decades?

Moreover, the ties to the U.S. dollar to gold by 1971 was tenuous at best. Prior to 1971, the American dollar had increasingly lost its connection to the gold standard since 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act loosened the ties that bound the dollar to gold. FDR further disassociated the dollar to gold in 1933 and 1944. By 1971, the connection between the dollar and gold was really in name only.

Also to consider is the fact that the United States has witnessed similar levels of inequality even while its dollar was mostly aligned with gold. If abandonment of the gold standard is the singular cause of inequality from 1980 onward like Woodhill is suggesting, then why was it so high during the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s? I mean, if the monetary system of the U.S. in the first third of the century was fundamentally different than the one utilized in the last third, then why are the two similar in inequality levels? The one thing I can tell you that was similar was free-market fervour that favoured less government regulation and oversight.

See, if you want to discuss subjects that relate to the matter at hand, I'm game. But let's stop the bullshit about worldview and labels. If your worldview is so fundamentally right and mine so fundamentally wrong, you should be able to prove your point without the ad hominens and associations with dictators.

And yet the greatest income inequality in America is in the electoral precinct where Obama won his largest majority: Washington, D.C. What is he doing there to "really make a difference"? If it's the defining issue of our time, why doesn't that deluded nitwit start in his own house and in his own backyard?

Are you intentionally obfuscating the point, playing Devil's Advocate, or do you genuinely believe in what you're saying?

If you've read most of his posts in this, and any other political, thread - you'd have to go with option number three. I've repeatedly tried to engage him in actual conversation, but he seems more at home with associating my views with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

Edited July 13, 2014 by downzy

[Roush]

Foghat, I could charge an electric car on the magnitude of your cognitive dissonance.

Dismissing income inequality is akin to declaring:

​- Ronnie James Dio was actually an elven warrior here to spread the message of power metal. "Rock god" was merely a guise.

​- The sky is purple. (The sky being 'blue' is a liberal talking point, and a Zionist conspiracy.)

- The theory of gravity was discovered by super-literate voles who predated man as the dominant species.

- The Indian Ocean is made of Axl Rose's tears when Slash left.

- WWE COO Triple H endorses my posts.

[downzy]

I've been hesitant to bring up Thomas Piketty, the French economist who recently released the English translation of his book Capital in the Twenty First Century, but he argues that inequality has been the product of a simple ratio - r versus g - the rate of return on capital versus the rate of economic growth. When the rate of return on capital increases faster than the rate of economic growth, greater inequality is the natural result when left unchecked. The last part is important and brings in the discussion of politics, because how a country chooses to check against rising returns versus economic growth can greatly affect a nation's inequality levels. This is why inequality is generally much lower in Europe than in the U.S., as policy choices in Europe have led to greater checks on capital derived from investment returns.

As Krugman notes in his review of Piketty's book:

"Just about all economic models tell us that if g falls—which it has since 1970, a decline that is likely to continue due to slower growth in the working-age population and slower technological progress—r will fall too. But Piketty asserts that r will fall less than g. This doesn’t have to be true. However, if it’s sufficiently easy to replace workers with machines—if, to use the technical jargon, the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor is greater than one—slow growth, and the resulting rise in the ratio of capital to income, will indeed widen the gap between r and g. And Piketty argues that this is what the historical record shows will happen.

If he’s right, one immediate consequence will be a redistribution of income away from labor and toward holders of capital."

Also interesting is the role inherited wealth as a percentage of total wealth and inequality:

"the living standard of the top one percent of heirs fell below that of the top one percent of earners between 1910 and 1950, but began rising again after 1970. It’s not all the way back to Rasti-gnac levels, but once again it’s generally more valuable to have the right parents (or to marry into having the right in-laws) than to have the right job.

With respect to wages and why the top 0.1 percent have seen there incomes explode:

Who determines what a corporate CEO is worth? Well, there’s normally a compensation committee, appointed by the CEO himself. In effect, Piketty argues, high-level executives set their own pay, constrained by social norms rather than any sort of market discipline. And he attributes skyrocketing pay at the top to an erosion of these norms. In effect, he attributes soaring wage incomes at the top to social and political rather than strictly economic forces.

Now, to be fair, he then advances a possible economic analysis of changing norms, arguing that falling tax rates for the rich have in effect emboldened the earnings elite. When a top manager could expect to keep only a small fraction of the income he might get by flouting social norms and extracting a very large salary, he might have decided that the opprobrium wasn’t worth it. Cut his marginal tax rate drastically, and he may behave differently. And as more and more of the supersalaried flout the norms, the norms themselves will change.

The key point is that when we make the crucial comparison between the rate of return on wealth and the rate of economic growth, what matters is the after-tax return on wealth. So progressive taxation—in particular taxation of wealth and inheritance—can be a powerful force limiting inequality. Indeed, Piketty concludes his masterwork with a plea for just such a form of taxation. Unfortunately, the history covered in his own book does not encourage optimism.

It’s true that during much of the twentieth century strongly progressive taxation did indeed help reduce the concentration of income and wealth, and you might imagine that high taxation at the top is the natural political outcome when democracy confronts high inequality. Piketty, however, rejects this conclusion; the triumph of progressive taxation during the twentieth century, he contends, was “an ephemeral product of chaos.” Absent the wars and upheavals of Europe’s modern Thirty Years’ War, he suggests, nothing of the kind would have happened.

As evidence, he offers the example of France’s Third Republic. The Republic’s official ideology was highly egalitarian. Yet wealth and income were nearly as concentrated, economic privilege almost as dominated by inheritance, as they were in the aristocratic constitutional monarchy across the English Channel. And public policy did almost nothing to oppose the economic domination by rentiers: estate taxes, in particular, were almost laughably low.

Why didn’t the universally enfranchised citizens of France vote in politicians who would take on the rentier class? Well, then as now great wealth purchased great influence—not just over policies, but over public discourse. Upton Sinclair famously declared that “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Piketty, looking at his own nation’s history, arrives at a similar observation: “The experience of France in the Belle Époque proves, if proof were needed, that no hypocrisy is too great when economic and financial elites are obliged to defend their interest.”

Anyway, I haven't had time to actually read Piketty's book (as I'm still struggling to finish Doris Kearns Goodwin's "The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism" - it's bloody long), but seems like some of his ideas are worth bringing up here. Anyone actually get a chance to read it?

Edited July 13, 2014 by downzy

[Roush]

I bought his book. Still reading it. It's thick as hell.

[downzy]

I bought his book. Still reading it. It's thick as hell.

Yeah, it's on my to read list, but might be awhile. After almost a 1000 pages on the 1900s political arena, I'm in need of something a little less dense for my next book.

I'd appreciate hearing your take once you're done.

[Dazey]

For everybody going on about how they want no government intervention. I assume that you're also happy to go without police, fire service, public roads, garbage collections etc etc?

[Johnny Drama]

Needs more facepalm.

For everybody going on about how they want no government intervention. I assume that you're also happy to go without police, fire service, public roads, garbage collections etc etc?

As long as you got guns to fight the fascist bastards it is.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Johnny Drama

[netcat]

For everybody going on about how they want no government intervention. I assume that you're also happy to go without police, fire service, public roads, garbage collections etc etc?

yes they would be happy to go back to hunter-gatherer life. and those who support government intervention are Stalinists and Maoists. i think it was already discussed earlier in this thread

[magisme]

Those of you who believe inequality must be addressed at the policy level, what exactly would you have enacted?

[Graeme]

Those of you who believe inequality must be addressed at the policy level, what exactly would you have enacted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_capitalism <---- This, or localised variations thereof.

[Johnny Drama]

A minimum wage that isn't a joke and universal health care would be a start.

[downzy]

Incidentally, a recent report by the Brookings Institute has suggested that the ACA (Obamacare) will help mitigate increasing inequality by raising the incomes of the poorest Americans.

In terms of lowering inequality (and just to be clear, I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating to eliminate inequality; you need a certain level of inequality within a social system to induce/motivate people to work harder), I think the Buffet Rule is a good place to start. Part of the problem with current income level rates is that the super rich can easily avoid through tax loopholes. Having an absolute minimum tax rate for those making over $1 million is a no brainer. The carried-interest tax loophole needs to be eliminated completely.

If we're to accept Piketty's thesis that inequality results when return on capital rises faster than economic growth, then capital-gains taxes should fall inline with similar rates of taxation as earned income. It might even make sense that it is taxed higher. I suppose there's a valid argument that this might suppress investment, but perhaps this could be offset by lowering corporate tax rates so that money is channeled into capital equipment investments rather than equity investments.

I know unions aren't in vogue anymore, and I think in some ways they've done as much harm as they've done good in the last 40 years, but I believe there's a case to be made for greater union involvement in the service industries. Particularly Walmart. Either that or increase the minimum wage so that many of its employees do not depend on food stamps to live. If Walmart truly is the largest employer in the U.S., then I believe it's imperative to give the country's largest workforce the legal protections to make a fair wage. Nobody should work 40 hours a week and still be broke and food is a luxury.

One of the more interesting concepts that's starting to gain steam is the notion of a guaranteed minimum income. I'm not quite sure where I personally fall on this issue, nor am I sure whether it would affect income inequality or would it simply help reduce poverty rates. But it's a concept that has advocates on both the left and the right side of the partisan lines. On the left, the argument is fairly obvious, as it would guarantee that no one lives in utter poverty. It would mitigate against the reality of an increasingly robotic/computer driven economies, where most jobs and employment opportunities will be farmed out to machine rather than have human beings do it. It's not reasonable to expect an entire population to get their MBA in computer engineering to ensure employment going forward. It would be great if everyone would, but again, it's putting ideology before reality to assume that everyone is able to adapt to a higher level of education in order to obtain one of the few remaining viable jobs. On the right/conservative ledger, a guaranteed minimum income could help greatly reduce the size of government as there would be less need for social services. Currently the poor have to interact with many different government agencies to get financial and social assistance. But with a guaranteed minimum income, the less fortunate would be given a monthly stipend whereby their involvement with government would be minimal, and hence making a strong case for shrinking the government.

Again, I'm not sure how I personally feel about a guaranteed minimum income. I think there has to be a lot more studying of the issue, and it would be interesting to see if one country were to experiment with the concept and see the results. I think Switzerland was planning on doing something along these lines. But something needs to happen going forward, as more and more careers and forms of employment become computerized and performed by machines.

Edited July 13, 2014 by downzy

[foghat43]

@ downzy

“I've repeatedly tried to engage him in actual conversation…”

Ha…nice try…your idea of repeatedly trying to engage me in conversation is to repeatedly ignore direct questions that I’ve asked, refuse to engage in any conversation about the underlying premises of your theories, list books that you’ve read (or intend to read), and to narrowly limit the scope of the discussion so that you conveniently never have to get out of your comfort zone and actually discuss anything other than meaningless charts/graphs. Look…I get that you like to crunch data and look at pretty graphs, but that is only one minor aspect among many when it comes to engaging in actual conversation. You can and should approach an issue or conduct a debate from multiple perspectives…philosophical, historical, ethical, pragmatical, anecdotal/experiential, logical, etc. And you are just very deluded if you think a person’s worldview (or political/economic perspective if you will…since you seem to be hung up on my use of the word “worldview”) doesn’t influence how people interpret facts and data. It is always relevant to the conversation to point out people’s presuppositions, biases and agendas and challenge them on that. So you see…there is much more to carrying on an intelligent conversation than just rambling on for several paragraphs about statistics. Yes, there is place for that and it can add value…but it is not the be-all and end-all that you make it out to be. Both sides can and do produce statistics, graphs, evidence and data to support their arguments. Again, it just shows your utter ignorance of Austrian economics when you claim that they have nothing to back up their theories and you simply dismiss them as anti-Semitic, conspiracy theorist, crazy old kooks (nothing ad hominem about that!). If you don’t want to talk about ideas, ethics, philosophy, logic…no problem…but frankly you bore the fuck out of me with your graphs and numbers. In fact, if I were you I wouldn’t even waste your time and energy if that is the only way you wish to engage me. When I see paragraph after paragraph of you rambling on about this statistic or that graph, I just skip it…don’t even read it. Sorry, but I prefer to discuss ideas rather than hear a lecture on statistics. I guess you and I are just wired differently when it comes to our interests and how we approach/discuss issues.

As for the term “collectivism”. To me, typical collectivist ideas include the following examples:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

If these ideas are not a fair characterization of your beliefs then feel free to refute them point by point. If they are a fair description then get over it and quit harping on my choice of words…you’re not the vocabulary police. If you don’t like being referred to as a collectivist, well then…don’t be one. I don’t recall ever saying that you were a Nazi or that the US economic system is the same as the ones under Stalin, Mao, etc. But I guess your idea of engaging in meaningful conversation also includes putting words in my mouth. And we can look at those systems to see how the ideas of collectivism played out in history. I think you like to refer to it as “comparative analysis”. Does that necessarily mean that we are headed for the same fate…no…but it doesn’t hurt to learn from the past and acknowledge that ideas do have dangerous consequences.

It’s fine with me if we no longer engage each other in conversations on this forum. Forgive me for wanting to bring some balance to the conversation and present an opposing viewpoint, and also to present it from a different perspective than just statistical analysis.

Cheers!

Piketty debunked...

Thomas Piketty on Inequality and Capital

One can see why the White House likes Piketty. He supports their narrative that government is the cure for inequality when in reality government has been the principal cause of growing inequality.

http://mises.org/daily/6736/Thomas-Piketty-on-Inequality-and-Capital


Thomas Piketty’s Improbable Data

Perhaps the most astonishing claim in Piketty’s book is that government bureaucracies need to be reformed so that they can make most efficient use of all the new income and wealth taxes that are recommended. The assumption is that almost complete government control of the economy would be best, but that the machinery needs some fine tuning.

http://mises.org/daily/6741/Thomas-Pikettys-Improbable-Data

Foghat, I could charge an electric car on the magnitude of your cognitive dissonance.

Dismissing income inequality is akin to declaring:

​- Ronnie James Dio was actually an elven warrior here to spread the message of power metal. "Rock god" was merely a guise.

​- The sky is purple. (The sky being 'blue' is a liberal talking point, and a Zionist conspiracy.)

- The theory of gravity was discovered by super-literate voles who predated man as the dominant species.

- The Indian Ocean is made of Axl Rose's tears when Slash left.

- WWE COO Triple H endorses my posts.

@ Roush -

I didn’t dismiss the existence of income inequality…I simply challenged people to explain why they think it is an issue, on what basis or by what standard are they saying it is “unfair“ or “bad“, how much is acceptable and what measurement or scale are they using to determine that, the ethics of compulsory wealth redistribution, etc. So far no one other than Magisme has cared to address any of these questions.

If you had read all of my posts you would have seen that I clearly stated I am for promoting the prosperity of all. So I’m not dismissing income inequality per se, I’m simply disagreeing with the majority of the folks on this forum who believe more government is the answer rather than the problem. It’s very telling that almost without exception as soon as anyone challenges the defenders of state intervention on this forum, it is automatically assumed that this person is selfish, uncaring, dismissing the issue, a conspiracy theorist, etc. Their minds are so conditioned to believe that more government intervention/coercion/political action is the only way to address issues that they cannot even fathom that other possibilities might exist.

Let’s just say that I agree with Lewis…"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." Don’t you?

Edited July 13, 2014 by foghat43

[GivenToFly]

At its most basic the idea is that income has diminishing marginal returns. An extra dollar income makes a huge difference when you make £3/hour but is pretty much meaningless when you make $500/hour. So a direct transfer from someone to someone poorer should on average increase total utility in society. Of course, it's obviously more complicated than that but basically this is why it's bad.

[magisme]

Don't leave the thread, foghat.

[Ace Nova]

Those of you who believe inequality must be addressed at the policy level, what exactly would you have enacted?

Strengthen and empower the middle class. This country thrives when the middle class thrives.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

how do you propose to do that?

For starters, fix the tax structure. Many people in the middle class pay a higher effective tax rate than the richest people in this country do. It's an abomination.

[Roush]

@ Roush -

I didn’t dismiss the existence of income inequality…I simply challenged people to explain why they think it is an issue, on what basis or by what standard are they saying it is “unfair“ or “bad“

Look, I get the whole semantic argument you're setting up here. I just find it silly, and pedantic on your part.

If you had read all of my posts you would have seen that I clearly stated I am for promoting the prosperity of all.

Don't count on it.

I’m simply disagreeing with the majority of the folks on this forum who believe more government is the answer rather than the problem.

Government isn't a static idea. It's a group of people that's constantly changing. I doubt anyone here believes more government is the answer. Rather, better government is.

It’s very telling that almost without exception as soon as anyone challenges the defenders of state intervention on this forum, it is automatically assumed that this person is selfish, uncaring, dismissing the issue, a conspiracy theorist, etc.

Oh boo-hoo. Tell that to the families who have lost their jobs, can't put food on the table, and lost their homes. This isn't an academic puzzle. This is reality. We're not debating the meaning of "life", we're debating a serious crisis of democracy.

Their minds are so conditioned to believe that more government intervention/coercion/political action is the only way to address issues that they cannot even fathom that other possibilities might exist.

Who's this imaginary "they"? Stop putting yourself above others, because they don't sit around, and jerk off to the same philosophical tangents you do. For some, there is no time to break out the lotion, because they have to go to their third job in the morning so their kids don't starve to death.

Let’s just say that I agree with Lewis…"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

I think diceman was wrongly convicted of heresy, and that you need to reheat your bottle of KY Jelly . We eagerly await Round Two where you debate whether the word "genocide" is applicable in North Korea to the tune of Bach with 2-ply tissues in-hand.

[wasted]

I think wages for the workers could be higher given the high profits and salaries the top guys pay themselves.

6,000people, bosses, high level tech workers in the US share 500 mil Apple profits. Whereas the people who make them in the US/Philipines/china get what amounts to nothing.

The people that make 23 mil a year don't deserve that kind of cut. A lot of that money should be filtered into worker conditions or so they have a normal life. Not committing suicide in Foxxcon factory because of the Xmas rush for iPads means they have work double shifts for weeks.

They are just setting up the system so they can make the most money with least effort. Makes sense for them. But is good for the world to have masses for people living in pain so a few can live like Roman kings in Marble palaces flying around the world in luxury going to business meetings. Get a job or Skype!

So that's all you can do, the gov intervenes to change the situation. Taxes, salary caps, trials, executions... Or just wait 20 years for a zombie uprising.

Edited July 14, 2014 by wasted

[downzy]

One of the more interesting concepts that's starting to gain steam is the notion of a guaranteed minimum income. I'm not quite sure where I personally fall on this issue, nor am I sure whether it would affect income inequality or would it simply help reduce poverty rates. But it's a concept that has advocates on both the left and the right side of the partisan lines. On the left, the argument is fairly obvious, as it would guarantee that no one lives in utter poverty. It would mitigate against the reality of an increasingly robotic/computer driven economies, where most jobs and employment opportunities will be farmed out to machine rather than have human beings do it. It's not reasonable to expect an entire population to get their MBA in computer engineering to ensure employment going forward. It would be great if everyone would, but again, it's putting ideology before reality to assume that everyone is able to adapt to a higher level of education in order to obtain one of the few remaining viable jobs. On the right/conservative ledger, a guaranteed minimum income could help greatly reduce the size of government as there would be less need for social services. Currently the poor have to interact with many different government agencies to get financial and social assistance. But with a guaranteed minimum income, the less fortunate would be given a monthly stipend whereby their involvement with government would be minimal, and hence making a strong case for shrinking the government.

A simpler solution would be to allow people at the lower end of the economic spectrum to live OUTSIDE of the tax system. Tax should only apply to corporations not to flesh and blood people. Guarenteed minimum income has been suggested in my country of 50k nzd per year but you would still have to pay into the system then get a refund at a later date which seems to defeat the purpose. The biggest obstacile seems to be that the state does not like anyone to live outside of its control.

That's one idea, but how does it help those without any form of income or those who do make a steady pay check but it doesn't cover basic necessities? The fact that many who are employed in the retail sector depend on government assistance to pay for food tells us something.

Again, not sure if a guaranteed minimum wage is warranted at this point in time, but going forward, it might be the only way to keep millions out of poverty. And this concept may not do anything to improve wealth inequality, as the disparity hasn't been a result of drastic increases in the nation's poor (or a drop in how much the poor are making), but more that the very rich are pulling away from everyone else.

[wasted]

If you have people artificially paying themselves more than the rest, then you have to artificially stop that happening.

Or make all the products and services they are selling free!

That's the new rule. They pay for us to make things which we consume for free and they can keep the money. I think I'm on to something here.

[magisme]

[downzy]

Came across this chart. Thought it was applicable to the discussion:

[magisme]

That red line could start around the early 70's if you look at the chart, around the time the US abandoned the gold standard.

You could. Also, it doesn't really go full retard until 2001. Then there's a correction in 2008. Then the correction is reversed and it goes fuller retard. Hmm. What could that be?