Protected classes are particular specifically defined classifications of people. Being a male is not a protected class in my state or on the federal level. Neither is being white.I’m pretty sure sex and race are protected classes in most states. Do you live in a state where they aren’t?
Capital still earns about 1/3 of the National Income, which it has since 1929 almost without interruption. Wealth has exploded because inflation has exploded, to the extent it’s measured in assets. When its measured in cash, it does not keep up with inflation and hasn’t for a long time.Easy: over those decades where wages stagnated executive salaries increased by orders of magnitude and the share of wealth controlled by the freeloading capital class soared. Where do you think that money came from?
What kinda privileged speak is that?Protected classes are particular specifically defined classifications of people. Being a male is not a protected class in my state or on the federal level. Neither is being white.
I support a move to socialism for the good of people and planet.Regarding your reply to me, what system would you change the current one to, or if you keep the current system, what changes would you make?
If hard work, sacrifice, and risk was rewarded the 1% would be full of loggers, utility workers, fire fighters, mental healthcare workers, and those employed in any number of other dangerous and vital occupations.For all intents and purposes, most of the 1% created the trees the that money grows on via hard work, sacrifice and risk. (I’ll concede that there are quite a few that didn’t earn it.) To be more specific, the last time I checked doctors made up the largest portion of the top 1%. Your comment seems to imply that money wasn’t earned, deserved or justified. Thoughts?
Economic mobility has been slowing for decades. In effect your family won the lottery and you’re chastising others for not just winning the lottery too.May not know a billion, but I went from being born with my family on government assistance to watching my dad become a multi millionaire by working his rear end off and building a successful business.
Conversely, I watched my cousin, born to a wealthy family, have everything handed to her and last I heard she was living under a bridge in the city.
Most people are poor because they make choices that keep them poor.
Emphasis on the word most, not all.
I don’t know what state you live in but sex and race are both protected classes under federal law.Protected classes are particular specifically defined classifications of people. Being a male is not a protected class in my state or on the federal level. Neither is being white.
You have still not demonstrated that income of the wealthy is taken from income of the poor and middle classes.
I see your point. Those classifications are “protected”, but only some of them are “suspect” classes warranting strict scrutiny by the courts, and white males are not among them.I don’t know what state you live in but sex and race are both protected classes under federal law.
Actions have consequences.I see your point. Those classifications are “protected”, but only some of them are “suspect” classes warranting strict scrutiny by the courts, and white males are not among them.
So you believe companies take all that extra wealth produced by employees and throw it into the fireplace and then use a magical different pot of money to give out bonuses and massive compensation packages and make stock buybacks?But you still have not demonstrated that low wages at one level are caused by higher wages at a different level. Even your article does not purport to do that. It merely observes that wages have not followed productivity.
Those high earners make more in a single year than the vast majority of people will make in their lifetimes. I’m really not that moved by their plight.Also, high earners in business are a lot like high earners in sports or entertainment. Their high earning years are usually not very long, and they can easily waste it and end up without much in the way of wealth.
Most national wealth isn’t sitting in a vault somewhere.
Oh, poor babies! Just makes me want to cry!Also, high earners in business are a lot like high earners in sports or entertainment. Their high earning years are usually not very long, and they can easily waste it and end up without much in the way of wealth.
Grocery bagging is not the only type of work an untrained 16yr-old can do.You still are not paying a 16 yr old kid to bag your groceries at 10 bucks an hour. Or a former inmate for that matter. You are paying the one mechanic and software engineer to come round once a week.
What’s immoral? The ratio itself? What’s the ratio of your annual income to the income of someone who makes, say the equivalent of $1.00/day?Another significant portion of the 1% are executives and there is no world where someone could argue that executive compensation is moral. When the ratio of CEO-to-median worker pay goes from 20:1 in the '60s to over 300:1 today while worker wages barely grow you’re outside the realm of morality.
Actually no.Basic income is a lie in order to accept the globalism and the migration of the factories in foreign countries. There is no warranty how much stuff is covered by the free money.
Not the point.Grocery bagging is not the only type of work an untrained 16yr-old can do.
What you just described is welfare which is both already in place and already as you pointed out doesn’t work.Suppose the government decides to implement a basic income of 1000 dollars per month.
Now, for all employees to have the same living standards, all companies can slash all salaries by 1000 dollars per month. Huge savings for companies. Also, a removal of barriers to employ people so more people are getting into jobs.
At the same time, illegals and migrant workers, who don’t have access to the basic income are immediately at a disadvantage as either they must make do with 1000 dollars less than their counterparts, or the employer must pay them more, which will remove the whole attraction of employing them, mean fewer of them get jobs and hence fewer come in to look for jobs.
For the example above of the guy who makes 1100 dollars, that would be 1000 out of basic income and the employer must only stump up 100 dollars to make 1100. Can you imagine an illegal doing his job for 100 without the extra 1000? No.
Well, that’s both the plus and con. If we get UBI chances are we won’t need most assistance programs. Sadly and as much as I hate to admit it this gives the government a huge amount of control. Harder to slash multiple programs or buffer the now one mighty one in exchange for votes.At the same time, people without work are also getting basic income. So we can slash benefits by that amount, probably abolish them altogether. Think of all the bureaucracy we kill.
One of the biggest problems for the crash of 2008 is people panicked and stopped spending money. this hurts the economy more than anything. It’s like the water cycle, as long as money is moving everything is okay. People spending money keeps the flow, the harsh truth of the crash scare is it fed into a destructive loop. The more the system coughed and sputtered, people panicked.Now I don’t think we should start with 1000 dollars initially, but say with 100 or 200, so we can phase this idea in and see how the economy reacts, and back-pedal should it indeed not work, or gradually increase the amount if there is no negative fallout and society signals that it is ready for it.
Can you substantiate that? It doesn’t’ seem to work well at all from everything I’ve studied about it; but once in place, removing it makes things worse.Yeah, it works pretty well.
It’s a very relevant point. Your post if I understood it correctly implied that certain segments of the population (ie: 16 yr olds or other unskilled labourers) will require an UBI to adapt as they are thrown out of work to be replaced by other more skilled labourers. I’m saying there are still plenty of other jobs for unskilled individuals. The physically strenuous ones also generally pay a couple bucks or more higher, and have better hours to start. It’s no big loss to anyone if grocery-baggers are phased out.Not the point.
Wage slashing can still occur at wages substantially above min wage. This will also incentivize employees not to bother improving their skills and market value (as the compensation gap between skilled and unskilled will lessen as the skilled become prone to wage slashing). Of course, this wage slashing may be somewhat hidden, most likely in the way of foregone raises.Furthermore, the whole point of the minimum wage is to prevent employers from slashing wages just because assistance programs are out there.
That would be one of my major concerns. Say UBI is instituted at 15,000 a yr. A middle-class person making say 50,000 (UBI inclusive) now relies on the government for almost a third of his gross pay. That’s a major lever that a malicious government can use down the road…Sadly and as much as I hate to admit it this gives the government a huge amount of control.
Not everyone has that option. Stop assuming that jobs are always around or good to take.It’s a very relevant point. Your post if I understood it correctly implied that certain segments of the population (ie: 16 yr olds or other unskilled laborers) will require an UBI to adapt as they are thrown out of work to be replaced by other more skilled laborers.
That’s entirely hyperbole.Wage slashing can still occur at wages substantially above min wage. This will also incentivize employees not to bother improving their skills and market value (as the compensation gap between skilled and unskilled will lessen as the skilled become prone to wage slashing). Of course, this wage slashing may be somewhat hidden, most likely in the way of foregone raises.
Glad we agree on something.That would be one of my major concerns.
You post all the time but you rarely contribute. That too is something we live with.Wall Street panics all the time, i.e. tanker fire.