Income Inequality

Really good op-ed about the working-class:

Liberal Blind Spots Are Hiding the Truth About ‘Trump Country’

The trouble begins with language: Elite pundits regularly misuse “working class” as shorthand for right-wing white guys wearing tool belts. My father, a white man and lifelong construction worker who labors alongside immigrants and people of color on job sites across the Midwest and South working for a Kansas-based general contractor owned by a woman, would never make such an error.

Most struggling whites I know live lives of quiet desperation mad at their white bosses, not resentment of their co-workers or neighbors of color. My dad’s previous three bosses were all white men he loathed for abuses of privilege and people.
Click to expand...
Yes, my father is angry at someone. But it is not his co-worker Gem, a Filipino immigrant with whom he has split a room to pocket some of the per diem from their employer, or Francisco, a Hispanic crew member with whom he recently built a Wendy’s north of Memphis. His anger, rather, is directed at bosses who exploit labor and governments that punish the working poor — two sides of a capitalist democracy that bleeds people like him dry.

“Corporations,” Dad said. “That’s it. That’s the point of the sword that’s killing us.”
Click to expand...

 
Here is what I know about income inequality:

1. Jeff Bezos has a personal fortune of over 140 billion dollars while some people who work for Amazon are on food stamps.

2. The CEO of Wal-Mart makes about 1,300x what the average Wal-Mart employee makes.

People like Bezos and other CEO types make money, their money makes money, and it is at this point a snowball effect.

So while income inequality may be difficult to quantify, everyone knows how bad it is and it is continually getting worse.

And isn't it "funny" how the people who downplay how bad it is are usually the ones at the top who benefit the most from said inequality?  "Funny" how that works.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The numbers here are just plain sad. I made 30k or less  in the early 90s when everything was much cheaper, and it still wasn't good

https://www.business2community.com/us-news/half-of-americans-make-less-than-30000-per-year-01369249

These are some of the scarier numbers from the report:

  • 38% made less than $20,000 last year
  • 51% made less than $30,000 last year
  • 62% made less than $40,000 last year
  • 71% made less than $50,000 last year

Read more at https://www.business2community.com/us-news/half-of-americans-make-less-than-30000-per-year-01369249

18 an hour times 40 hrs a week.is 37,440 yr which puts you a little above the norm, but with the cost of living these days its still basically existance wages. Again in the 90s 9- 11 dollars and hr was regarded as competitive wages. It really wasn't then and it certainly isn't now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/24/half-the-jobs-in-america-pay-under-18-an-hour-can-trump-hel

another interesting  read

https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/

I tried to find accurate recent stats on individual incomes , and it wasn't an easy task. Lots more info on household income, which i think can be a misleading stat. As the OP stated  "income equality" isn't a cut and dry determination that we can really make, with all the variables involved. My opinion, based on life experience and some of this data is that there are a very large percentage of working people making barely livable wages, and a very small percentage making  thousands of times more. Something is wrong with that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Big Red 40, lots of great information in your post, very well done sir!

:thumbs

I sincerely think there needs to be a national law addressing this.  It can be done very simply: Pass a law that states a CEO can only make 10-15x more than what the lowest paid person in the company makes.

Note this type of law wouldn't prohibit paying a CEO 26 million (or more) a year.  It would just mean that the lowest paid employee would earn 1/10th of 26 million if it is set at 10x the lowest salary.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
@Big Red 40, lots of great information in your post, very well done sir!

:thumbs

I sincerely think there needs to be a national law addressing this.  It can be done very simply: Pass a law that states a CEO can only make 10-15x more than what the lowest paid person in the company makes.

Note this type of law wouldn't prohibit paying a CEO 26 million (or more) a year.  It would just mean that the lowest paid employee would earn 1/10th of 26 million if it is set at 10x the lowest salary.
Click to expand...
I can't stand how much firemen make...with that said they should try and take every freaking penny that they can and they should even push for more.  If there was a law saying that they should only get paid 20 dollars an hour (they should) I don't think that would be fair...you should be able to get paid as much as someone is willing to pay you.

I don't think I could hop on the "here is how much you are allowed to make" train.  I know that we like to play the "X amount of dollars is more than enough" game but still.

 
teachercd said:
I can't stand how much firemen make...with that said they should try and take every freaking penny that they can and they should even push for more.  If there was a law saying that they should only get paid 20 dollars an hour (they should) I don't think that would be fair...you should be able to get paid as much as someone is willing to pay you.

I don't think I could hop on the "here is how much you are allowed to make" train.  I know that we like to play the "X amount of dollars is more than enough" game but still.
Click to expand...


To the bolded part: That's literally not what I said.

Under my proposal, companies are still free to pay their CEO and executives whatever they want.  They just need to be prepared to pay the lowest paid person in the organization that 1/10th, 1/15th--whatever it is set at.

And on a personal note/opinion: There is NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY who is worth being paid more than 1 million dollars a year.  

Obviously under the current system I am way off because there are people who make that in a day or less and much more than that in a year.

But we have to start changing the way we do things.  The current system is unsustainable and only getting worse.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
To the bolded part: That's literally not what I said.

Under my proposal, companies are still free to pay their CEO and executives whatever they want.  They just need to be prepared to pay the lowest paid person in the organization that 1/10th, 1/15th--whatever it is set at.

And on a personal note/opinion: There is NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY who is worth being paid more than 1 million dollars a year.  

Obviously under the current system I am way off because there are people who make that in a day or less and much more than that in a year.

But we have to start changing the way we do things.  The current system is unsustainable and only getting worse.
Click to expand...
i like that proposal. The people at the top can still make as much as they want , it just makes them take much better care of the people who helped them get there.

 
Big Red 40 said:
i like that proposal. The people at the top can still make as much as they want , it just makes them take much better care of the people who helped them get there.
Click to expand...


Then Republicans always chime in with something along the lines of: But that job isn't worth X amount.  So that begs the question: who decides what a job is worth?  Well, rich people decide what a particular job is worth.  Of course they'll always over-estimate their own worth and grossly under-estimate the worth of others.

A popular Republican argument is: Well, jobs and what they are paid depend on your skills and talents.  But are they?  Rachel Maddow makes 7 million a year.  Sean Hannity makes 36 million a year.  Leaving aside political differences, both people do nothing more than sit behind a desk, look into a camera, and read a teleprompter, and give their opinions.  Neither of them have any special skills, talents, or abilities.  You could literally put anyone in their place and they could do that job.  So according to Conservatives, jobs like Maddow and Hannity's should be minimum wage because anyone could do it and it takes only the ability to read.

So then Republicans like to move the goalposts and say it's because that's what advertisers are willing to pay and it's about ratings and Maddow and Hannity are paid well because of their ratings.  Okay, but without producers, directors, camera operators, and countless people behind the scenes, they don't have a show.  And if they don't have a show, there are no ratings to be had.

So then the goalposts get moved again: Yeah, well you gotta have a marketable skill.  But do you?  How many jobs out there require actual, specialized, marketable skills?  Not many.  Unless a person is a complete idiot, they can learn whatever they need to on the job.

So who decides what "marketable skills" are?  Again, it is rich people who decide these things.

So once again, the goalposts need to moved: Well your pay is linked to the value you provide to the company.  But is it?  Who provides more value to a company?  The person at the bottom who does all the hard work and heavy lifting to make the day to day operations of a company possible; or the CEO and executives who sit in their office all day and don't lift a finger to help? 

I work in a warehouse and I have yet to see my CEO receiving parts, stocking shelves, pulling parts, taking orders from customers, getting customers their orders--CEOs and executives don't do any of that.  It is the people at the bottom who make it possible for businesses to make money.  Those at the top do literally almost nothing but are paid like they do everything.  Those at the bottom do everything, and are paid almost nothing.  

 
Making Chimichangas said:
To the bolded part: That's literally not what I said.

Under my proposal, companies are still free to pay their CEO and executives whatever they want.  They just need to be prepared to pay the lowest paid person in the organization that 1/10th, 1/15th--whatever it is set at.

And on a personal note/opinion: There is NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY who is worth being paid more than 1 million dollars a year.  

Obviously under the current system I am way off because there are people who make that in a day or less and much more than that in a year.

But we have to start changing the way we do things.  The current system is unsustainable and only getting worse.
Click to expand...


While its easy to think of a CEO as a Mr. Peanut type, they aren't the only reason that wealth is sent to the top, its tax policy and tax loopholes.  This is what happens when you cap taxes and then give tons of tax breaks to the super wealthy.  Stuff still has to get funded, and that burden falls onto everyone below. 

So just like the Cash advance places in poor neighborhoods that will keep poor people that use them poor, voting for policymakers that promise tax cuts means we cut services for poor or those in actual need and shift the burden from the people that can afford to finance them onto ourselves.

It's similar to the national debt argument, so few people are able to see big picture or understand how national debt actually works that it allows politicians to use it as an issue by making it seem like it's as simple as balancing your checkbook and not tapping into overdraft protection.  Things don't function like that at as a country that makes it's own currency and sets it's own monetary policy, but because so few people can understand that to the US government (who prints it's own money) money is more of a tool than an account that needs to be balanced its easy to drum up support by railing against debt.  Taxes are much the same.  Everyone hates seeing money "lost" to taxes on their pay-stubs so its easy to drum up people to support tax cuts, when even with a cut they wont see the lion's share of the benefits, the ultra-wealthy who fund the politicians will, but they'll certainly see the reduction in services if they end up needing them.

This is a problem that America as a whole is simply too stupid to fix because it's too easy to manipulate people based on their gut reaction (taxes bad, debt bad) and get them to vote against their own best interests.  It can't be fixed with laws regulating a CEO pay-scale related to their employees.  That's not how compound returns works, a policy like that ends up exactly the same.  Sure earning millions of dollars or hundreds of millions looks bad when people under them are struggling to make ends meet and haven't seen real pay go up since the late 70s, but the amount of money just increases the jumping off point of the astronomical gains of compounding returns assuming the lower down employees even make enough to save.  Compounding investment returns or interest is an exponential function.

I'm not saying that CEO's don't deserve a pay cut, or the rest of us wage increase.  The reality is though that isn't going to do much of anything when the deck is stacked against people in the middle class and poor through tax policy (because we pay a bigger percentage of our income/wealth to taxes).  We're more productive as a nation than we've ever been and less and less of us see the benefits of that productivity, that means its tougher and tougher to move up.  Restructuring pay doesn't change that, because wealth is gained exponentially and taxes on those gains are done at a flat rate.  Similarly income is taxed up to a certain maximum percentage.  So as you have more, you pay less as a percentage of that total to taxes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys are aware that a CEO's salary typically isn't that much actual cash, right? It's usually they're total compensation in the form of stock options that make up those ungodly numbers. So, they're net worth is pretty high, but their actual earnings aren't so astronomical. It's also a minor incentive to steer the company in the right direction, all though the golden parachute clauses kind of defeat that purpose.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
I work in a warehouse and I have yet to see my CEO receiving parts, stocking shelves, pulling parts, taking orders from customers, getting customers their orders--CEOs and executives don't do any of that.  It is the people at the bottom who make it possible for businesses to make money.  Those at the top do literally almost nothing but are paid like they do everything.  Those at the bottom do everything, and are paid almost nothing.  
Click to expand...


Actually its sales that make it possible for businesses to make money.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top