Income Inequality

Ric Flair said:
if the greeter is unhappy with making $10 an hour, he doesn’t have to work there.
Click to expand...


My uncle recently went through an insanely traumatic experience with an incredibly rare disease (sadly I can't remember what the hell it was called) that left him physically and mentally handicapped. He's still got a family to provide for, and being a greeter at Wal-Mart is literally the only work he's been able to find through months of very hard work looking and after near bankruptcy from medical expenses. 

 
RedDenver said:
Yes, that's the entire point of what's wrong with this system. A few people who do little to no actual work somehow get much, much more of the profits than the people who actually work there. And the only option is to quit and hope the other corporations who are all part of that same system will treat you better.
Click to expand...
What system DOESN'T mostly benefit a few?

 
TheSker said:
What system DOESN'T mostly benefit a few?
Click to expand...
That's a GREAT question. If we knew the answer, we'd probably be using it.

However, we know just from the history of the US economy that from WW2 to the 1970's, there was far, far less income inequality than today. That's at least a start. And we know from other nations what less has resulted in less income inequality in places like Sweden, Netherlands, etc. and I think even Britain and Germany are less than the US.

And I think an easy policy place to start is a minimum wage that prevents the worst of the inequality.

 
RedDenver said:
Yes, that's the entire point of what's wrong with this system. A few people who do little to no actual work somehow get much, much more of the profits than the people who actually work there. And the only option is to quit and hope the other corporations who are all part of that same system will treat you better.
Click to expand...


Feel free to define “actual work.” I can’t wait.

 
Landlord said:
My uncle recently went through an insanely traumatic experience with an incredibly rare disease (sadly I can't remember what the hell it was called) that left him physically and mentally handicapped. He's still got a family to provide for, and being a greeter at Wal-Mart is literally the only work he's been able to find through months of very hard work looking and after near bankruptcy from medical expenses. 
Click to expand...


Does he have a college degree? What’s his background? I’d be happy to try to help find him something better.

 
RedDenver said:
What? Companies can and do exist without share holders.
Click to expand...


No....actually they don’t. 

Even private companies have shares that people own. 

But.....i believe you are mainly talking about public companies.....right?

you do realize why companies go public....right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
Labor that contributes to the profits of a company. Tell me all about how share holders are providing labor that generates profits for the corporation. I can't wait.
Click to expand...


Shareholders provide the capital that makes the company’s operations possible. That capital is the result of their own hard work at their own jobs. Without that capital, the workers wouldn’t have jobs, 

CEOs and other executives work their butts off. First to get through school, then to climb the corporate ladder, then to lead their companies. If the market dictates that their labor is worth 1000x or 10000x that of an entry level employee, then so be it. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
No....actually they don’t. 

Even private companies have shares that people own. 

But.....i believe you are mainly talking about public companies.....right?

you do realize why companies go public....right?
Click to expand...
Ric Flair said:
Shareholders provide the capital that makes the company’s operations possible. That capital is the result of their own hard work at their own jobs. Without that capital, the workers wouldn’t have jobs, 
Click to expand...


You know that co-ops exist, right? Proving that if you eliminate the share holders (by making them one and the same with the workers), companies can and do keep functioning and making profits.

Ric Flair said:
CEOs and other executives work their butts off. First to get through school, then to climb the corporate ladder, then to lead their companies. If the market dictates that their labor is worth 1000x or 10000x that of an entry level employee, then so be it. 
Click to expand...
Do the workers not work their butts off? Tell me again about how profitable those companies would be with CEO's but not workers because there exist companies (again co-ops come first to mind) without CEO's.

 
RedDenver said:
You know that co-ops exist, right? Proving that if you eliminate the share holders (by making them one and the same with the workers), companies can and do keep functioning and making profits.

Do the workers not work their butts off? Tell me again about how profitable those companies would be with CEO's but not workers because there exist companies (again co-ops come first to mind) without CEO's.
Click to expand...
Give me an example of a large company that is a Co-op. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Give me an example of a large company that is a Co-op. 
Click to expand...
There's a bunch of different types of co-ops around the world. Here's list from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

The largest where the workers own the corporation (worker co-op) that I'm aware of is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. (75,000 workers, $12 billion in annual revenue and $24 billion in assets.) There aren't a lot of worker co-ops in the US, but you can find listings of American worker co-ops through the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives.

Ace Hardware is an American co-op you've probably heard of, but it's a slightly different version where each store owner is a share holder (as opposed to every worker).

 
RedDenver said:
And I think an easy policy place to start is a minimum wage that prevents the worst of the inequality.
Click to expand...
Here's a problem with your easy policy.....

How do you think businesses at all levels react to a minimum wage increase?

If your answer is with a price increase, I'd agree.

So instead of trying to mandate wages, which will not be effective in a market driven economy, how about putting the burden on the laborer to increase their marketability?

 
TheSker said:
Here's a problem with your easy policy.....

How do you think businesses at all levels react to a minimum wage increase?

If your answer is with a price increase, I'd agree.

So instead of trying to mandate wages, which will not be effective in a market driven economy, how about putting the burden on the laborer to increase their marketability?
Click to expand...
The idea that minimum wage is not effective in a market driven economy isn't true. Prices may go up, but the question is really are the higher prices worth having living wages. A few examples:

The federal minimum wage has been around since 1938, and the US economy remained the strongest in the world from then until now, including the post-WW2 era of incredible middle-class growth, so it can't be that harmful to the economy.

Research shows $15 California minimum wage has big impact on pay, none on jobs.

Fast-food workers paid $20/hour in Denmark as compared to $8.60 in US (133% increase), but McDonald's Big Mac price only $5.60 vs $4.80 (only 17% increase). (Also note that Denmark has no minimum wage law but instead very strong unions that bargain for these wages, so minimum wage laws aren't the only way.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top