US income inequality at record high

[BawanaRik]

It also should be noted that a business that is capital-intensive will often absorb wage increases much easier than a firm that is much more labor-intensive. With that said, I have no idea if McDonald's is more capital-intensive or more labor-intensive.

That would make labor 2/3 the cost of a burger.

I'll have to admit that I don't eat at MickeyD's for the same 5.40 I can make a meal and eat leftover for at least a day.

And it's better food with less environmental impact.

If you really think MickeyD's is an issue don't got there.

 

[nortonrider]

I think that McDonalds was used more of as an example than an issue.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

That would make labor 2/3 the cost of a burger.

I'll have to admit that I don't eat at MickeyD's for the same 5.40 I can make a meal and eat leftover for at least a day.

And it's better food with less environmental impact.

If you really think MickeyD's is an issue don't got there.

Huh? Like I said, I don't know whether McDonald's is labor-intensive or capital-intensive, so I don't know how you derived that number from my post. I was just talking about an economic principle and the subject was McDonald's.

I rarely go to McDonald's. Even in the world of fast food, their stuff is on the bottom of the chain (IMHO ).

Edit: Thanks for clarifying, Norton.

 

[aborgman]

A couple of my recent thoughts:
.Do you guys REALLY think that the rich and powerful are going to let you tax them more? That they are willingly going to relinquish any of their wealth and by default, their power?

Probably not.

...and we know what happens when social inequality has gotten really bad in the past.

Last time it was like this in the USA - it was followed by the Great Depression.

Worst case scenario? Czarist Russia. When the imbalance gets too large the people cease being interested in the rich and powerful relinquishing their power - they just take it by force.

. Isn't there are a school of thought that says you give your employees just enough to keep them able to come back to work?
If you paid your employees enough to actually increase their "status", you've given them the ability to leave your employ. To crawl out from under your thumb.
Keep 'em broke and hungry - that way they HAVE to come to work tomorrow.
16 Tons -Tennessee Ernie Ford
"St. Peter do you call me because I can't go,
I owe my soul to the company store".

I'd counter that with Henry Ford (as much of a D-Bag as he was).

.It's been proven time and again.... Socialism doesn't work.

Mixed economies (capitalist + socialist) work great.

The USA has been one for our entire existence.

Every single Western Democracy in existence is a mixed economy.

Of the Top 25 economies by per person earnings - 20 are mixed economies, the other 5 are oil states in the Middle East. Not ONE is a pure Capitalist economic state.

 

[BawanaRik]

But...but...but...but...markets aren't tautological constructs in which value, except for some essential commodities, is socially created and is defined by aggregate demand. No, not at all. They're based upon intrinsic merit and hard work. Yes siree-bob. That's what my local politician told me when he was trying to win my blue-collar vote. It just blows my mind that a mainstream politician can be a Marxist. He must be a Marxist, because he's selling me on the labor theory of value. Why else would he be telling me that hard work is the road to financial prosperity? That other guy told me that my market worth was based upon the scarcity of my skills with relation to the demand of those skills; it had nothing to do with my actual labor power or any intrinsic merit I have. That's why Victor Wooten is the richest performer in the world and that Miley Cyrus chick is working at 7-11 during the week.

...oh wait.

While I have to admit to not being a fan of either you have to admit that little miley is a hard worker. And promotes herself well.

And I doubt Victor is starving. He too, is a hard working iindividual. I don't see him caring how much miley makes.

Which I bet is more that her achey Breaky father ever did.

 

[BawanaRik]

Probably not.

...and we know what happens when social inequality has gotten really bad in the past.

Last time it was like this in the USA - it was followed by the Great Depression.

Worst case scenario? Czarist Russia. When the imbalance gets too large the people cease being interested in the rich and powerful relinquishing their power - they just take it by force.



I'd counter that with Henry Ford (as much of a D-Bag as he was).





Mixed economies (capitalist + socialist) work great.

The USA has been one for our entire existence.

Every single Western Democracy in existence is a mixed economy.

Of the Top 25 economies by per person earnings - 20 are mixed economies, the other 5 are oil states in the Middle East. Not ONE is a pure Capitalist economic state.

Henry Ford was actually sued for paying his employees too much.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

The USA has been one for our entire existence.

Although the modern welfare state was born in 1935. Actually, the first serious social welfare program in the U.S. was the Civil War pension plan.

 

[Unrepresented]

Very true. But then I always wonder about Lisa Marie Presley. Her singing career sunk like a stone. *lol*

But you'd have never even heard of her if she hadn't been given unfair advantage as a child of a celebrity.

She's still very financially comfortable, I am sure.

 

[two fingers]

Data just doesn't agree.



...and

France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, Denmark... all easier to get ahead (relative to your parents) than the USA.

OK, I will go into more detail. When I said "get ahead" I meant get rich based on your own hard work and/or great idea. I did not literally mean "do slightly better than your parents".

Plus, just because the data doesn't bare out that the upward mobility happened, that says NOTHING about the existence of the OPPORTUNITY for one to better his life. Just because most people DON'T that doesn't mean that they CAN'T.

I would argue that the VAST majority of people who don't move upward in this country simply don't TRY. I would also argue that if you reduced the data in the chart down to those who actually did something PROACTIVE and STROVE to get a better life, that the US WOULD rise to the top in that category. Now, please disprove that if you can.

Am I calling the vast majority of my fellow countrymen fat, dumb and/or lazy? I absolutely am. To argue that people today have it much tougher than our parents and grandparents with regards to the amount of effort it takes to move upward (ESPECIALLY for minorities) is an utterly ridiculous notion on its face.

The DIFFERENCE is that they were actually willing to DO whatever it took to move upward. My father went to work at Sears and then took our only car to night school (that was paid for by the GI bill from his service in Vietnam). My mother, brother, sister,a cousin that grew up with us, and I walked everywhere we went until I was 7 or 8 years old. Dad also did odd jobs on weekend to make extra money. How many people who put forth that same amount of effort (and prioritized their spending) today could NOT improve their lives? (I would argue virtually none.) But they aren't..... they won't....... so they don't. Can't has nothing to do with it.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

While I have to admit to not being a fan of either you have to admit that little miley is a hard worker. And promotes herself well.

I don't deny that. But there are regional musicians and touring musicians I know who probably work just as hard and promote just as much (although they obviously aren't going to have the access to promotion channels that Miley does). They don't reap the same rewards that Miley does, not because they fail to work as hard, but because the market doesn't value them as much. That was my point.

I don't see him caring how much miley makes.

I agree. Vic never came off as that kind of guy. But that really wasn't my point.

Which I bet is more that her achey Breaky father ever did.

LOL

Billy Ray has gotten somewhat of a second career from being her father. I'm just glad he has a much better haircut nowadays.

 

[Lee Moses]

For those who have such a huge problem with this earnings discrepancy, please answer me this one question: If the rich start making less, will that improve my income?

 

[BawanaRik]

What immigrants are you talking about? There's going to be a world of difference between a Mexican coming with the clothes on their back and an Indian who already has a bachelor's degree and goes to medical school here.

Again, reductionism for complex issues rarely ever works.

A world of difference? I think they're both coming for a similar reason. To provide a better life for their families and themselves.

I see more similarity than difference.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Plus, just because the data doesn't bare out that the upward mobility happened, that says NOTHING about the existence of the OPPORTUNITY for one to better his life.

So you're saying people are where they are because that's where they deserve to be? If they aren't taking advantage of certain opportunities then they deserve what they get? What if people are using these opportunities but still can't move because they're the wrong opportunities? Would this not hint at the notion that the system isn't working as it's intended to if we were to lead to believe everyone who works hard has a chance to live their own American Dream? Or, perhaps for those more cynical, it is working just as it's supposed to and trickle down really meant trickle up?

 

[LiquidMidnight]

=
I would argue that the VAST majority of people who don't move upward in this country simply don't TRY. I would also argue that if you reduced the data in the chart down to those who actually did something PROACTIVE and STROVE to get a better life, that the US WOULD rise to the top in that category. Now, please disprove that if you can.

So let me get this straight. You just made a number of claims without any actual empirical support and then asked for those claims to be disproven? Sorry, but that's not how it works. Before a counter-argument can be made, the burden of proof is on you to support your position. For the record, there are a number of good social policy books that have been written that dive deeper into the whole "bootstraps" philosophy of prosperity and uncover how that's a simple, reductionist answer. I'd suggest The Politics of Social Policy in the United States by Weir, Orloff, and Skocpol as a good starter.

With all due respect, because you seem like a bright cat, I'd suggest if you haven't taken any electives yet, registering for some social science courses. I'd suggest a stats course in either your psych, soc, or business department and then a theory course in your soc department.

 

[BawanaRik]

For those who have such a huge problem with this earnings discrepancy, please answer me this one question: If the rich start making less, will that improve my income?

Ironically it's my opinion that just the opposite will happen.

The fact is the rich pay huge amounts of taxes here in the US.
If they make more money they'll pay less taxes. They will also shop less and give less to charities.

What might make your life better if people closer to your feeding niche were to make less. IE if the Section 8 precipitant were to get maybe $200 a month rather that $1500 a month it would drive rents down to the point where they would be much more affordable.

If you get a chance look at a silver Dollar. This what we once used as currency. It's my feeling that today's dollar is worth about 5 or 10 cents. It's my opinion that the reason this happened is due to debt.

I think debt is bad. Just me

 

[LiquidMidnight]

A world of difference? I think they're both coming for a similar reason. To provide a better life for their families and themselves.

I see more similarity than difference.

Yes, and one has much more social capital than the other. That was my point.

 

[fisticuffs]

For those who have such a huge problem with this earnings discrepancy, please answer me this one question: If the rich start making less, will that improve my income?

No. Your income will increase when they start taking less of it not making less money.

Look at it like this. if you were a commissioned employee and in 1970 your employer paid you 30% of the profit you generated. In 1975 they lowered it to 25, in 1980 20 in 85 15 in 90 10 in 2000 5 and in 2010 the rate was 2%. that's whats happened to the American worker. They do the same, in many cases much more, work and get much less back.

 

[BawanaRik]

No. Your income will increase when they start taking less of it not making less money.

Look at it like this. if you were a commissioned employee and in 1970 your employer paid you 30% of the profit you generated. In 1975 they lowered it to 25, in 1980 20 in 85 15 in 90 10 in 2000 5 and in 2010 the rate was 2%. that's whats happened to the American worker. They do the same, in many cases much more, work and get much less back.

You mean the government taking less? I find that my employers GIVES me money, not take it.

This could be part of your issue. If you're paying your employer to work I suggest with all possible respects that you re-negotiate your deal

And commissioned employee is generally a polite way of saying Salesman. They really don't generate any value and talk people into buying things they don't need and acquiring the debt that goes with that. If it was up to me I would not reward this behavior at all.

But it's not.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[LiquidMidnight]

The fact is the rich pay huge amounts of taxes here in the US.
If they make more money they'll pay less taxes. They will also shop less and give less to charities.

While I know that it has quite a few legitimate criticisms in the scholarly community, the Laffer Curve is a model that shows that there is actually an equilibrium point in which a certain rate of taxation is desirable and an increase or decrease in taxation would result in decreased tax revenues. I don't know if that's what you were getting at, because I was a little confused by how you worded your post.

Also remember that donating to charity is a tax write-off, and many people donate for that reason. Therefore, taxes may serve a functional purposes to increase charitable donations.

 

[fisticuffs]

You mean the government taking less? I find that my employers GIVES me money, not take it.

This could be part of your issue. If you're paying your employer to work I suggest with all possible respects that you re-negotiate your deal

Way to miss the point.

Fine. They have been giving you less and less for 30 years. And by "you" I mean the aggregate of the entire workforce. Employers make money on your labor and give you a portion of it back in wages. They give less back than they did 30 years ago.