Mutually Beneficial Relationships

Using the MIT "Living Wage" calculator (that I believe underestimates costs) we migh assume that a single person requires about $22,000/yr in income to meet their basic financial needs. If we take money from them in the form of taxation they're still going to need $22,000 for the year to survive so we have to return that taxation in the form of welfare assistance. That makes no sense at all as it simply creates bigger and more expensive government in the long run. Is that what you want?

The task for government you outline would greatly expand government over what we have today including the costs of government. BTW it's interesting that you mention elimination of drugs because prescription drugs are one of the primary problems with drug abuse in America today. Do you suggest elimination of prescription drugs?

No, those working for a wage that is enough to provide for their basic financial necessities would not require government (or private) assistance. It doesn't matter whether this wage is voluntary or involuntary if it provides enough income (and benefits) to meet the person's basic necessities then they don't require government (or private) assistance.

 

Or they can contract that responsibility to an employer in the employment contract.

The problem is that roughly 40% of employers don't have an adequate business plan that will provide for the employees' fundamental financial needs. You're willing to excuse this failure of the owners/management whereas I'm not.

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Each of us must figure out a way to earn a living. That is our responsibility and nobody else's.

If they think that becoming an employee is the best way for them to make a living, then they may choose that path. Their income then will reflect that choice. If they are unsatisfied with their income resulting from that choice, then it is their responsibility to make another choice to bring their income up to their desired level.

Nobody is responsible for my level of income but me. Nobody is responsible for my level of expenses but me.

It's not my job to excuse or condone how other people operate their businesses. I'm not the boss of them. If I am unhappy with my income, then it is incumbent upon me alone to figure out a way to make more or spend less.

 

If the employee's relationship with his employer is not profitable for him, then the employee will always end the relationship. No one ever does anything that does not result in personal profit, without exception.

 

Where does it say that one's only duty is to provide ANYTHING at the best possible price? That assumes that a producer will voluntarily give up a large portion of his potential profit.

 

Rougly 40% of Americans have no choice but to accept employment that doesn't provide enough income to survive on unassisted and that percentage is increasing over time based upon right-wing economic philosophies.

The individual does not determine compensation for their labor and is incapable of doing so. The individual is forced to accept the compensation offered by the employers and 40% of Americans are forced to accept compensation that is less than what it costs them to survive without external assistance.

In point of fact the individual has necessary (mandatory) expenditures and descretionary expenditures and while the individual does have responsibilities related to their descretionary expenditures they have no control over their necessary (mandatory) expenditures. Only if the individual has excess income above what is necessary do they have any control over any of their expenditures.

As a society we're responsible for how our economy operates. We have an obligation to ensure our laws promote the economy for all of the people and not for just a few. Poverty is rising in America and every study reflects this. While productivity increases those responsible for the increased productivity are not being compensated equally for it and it is one of the root causes of the ever increasing poverty.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/real-root-america-wage-problem-103000382.html

The problem really is one of asymmetric bargaining power because the worker, standing alone, is pitted against the MARKET that drives compensation lower and lower. It is a David v Goliath struggle and, in spite of religious myth, David always loses that battle. The consistant "anti-union" legislation promoted by the Republican Party since the 1970's has eliminated the balancing force in the US economy and while productivity increases the compensation has been stagnant even for the most skilled professions and has literally declined for the majority of Americans.

We need that balance between labor and the owners of enterprise but it doesn't exist today because of Republican economic philosophies that are expressly designed to benefit the wealthy owners of enterprise while eliminating the bargaining power of the workers that cannot stand alone against the MARKET.

The productivity already exists that will support significantly higher wages at the low end of the economic scale. That is where many get it wrong. They argue that productivity needs to increase but the productivity has already increased. We, for example, consume far more manufactured products today than we did in 1970 while the per capita percentage of those worldwide producing those goods has declined by about 40%. The productivity is there but the compensation is not. We can also note that all "service" related jobs are dependent upon the production (manufacture) of goods because only the creation of wealth from natural resources (i.e. products) is the real measure of wealth. Without the creation of products then no services are necessary.

My arguments here are for mutually beneficial relationships and there are numerous ways to achieve this. Unfortunately we have political agendas that are opposed to this mutually beneficial relationship. Let me ask a simple question.

Are you opposed to both the employer and the employee both having more income than their necessary (not descretionary) expenditures?

 

The employee has no choice in the matter. Compensation today is almost exclusively determined by market forces where roughly 40% of all jobs don't provide enough compensation for the person to survive unassisted on. They can leave their current job but their only choice is to accept another job that also fails to provide adequate compensation.

Even the belief they can "improve" their economic situation is refuted by the fact that about 50% of four-year college graduates are employed in jobs that don't require a college degree (as I recall but I could look it up again). We're also seeing a decline in the number of "middle income" jobs with more people living in or near poverty. This creates the situation where more and more people are seeking these "middle income" jobs which results in the compensation for these jobs declining even further.

There is a simple fact. Our economy is broken and it's because of intentional policy decisions by government overwhelmingly based upon Republican economic agendas. Not only is it broken but it's getting worse today because people are less able to increase their income regardless of what they do.

Once agian I'll present an anecdotal case that I'm highly familiar with. The number of mechanical engineers, a highly skilled and typically upper middle income job, required to design an airplane has declined by 90% since 1970! The only thing that keeps so many aerospace mechanical engineers employed is that the complexity of an airplane has greatly increased since 1970 while much of the work associated with the design of the airplane is now computerized and performed by simple drafters that don't require a mechanical engineering degree. Even the mechanics that build the airplanes and rivet them together have been systematically replaced with "Drivematic" riveting machines wherever possible. Even riveted assemblies have been replaced by high-speed machined parts reducing the dependency on physical labor and the "machinist" has been replaced by an "operator" that merely pushes the start button on the CNC milling machine. All of these were middle to upper middle income jobs that have been lost and the people with these skills often have to work in much lower paying jobs today. These jobs were never replaced with other middle to upper middle income jobs and have simply disappeared.

The economy is in crisis today and that is what so many people fail to understand. Poverty is spreading while middle income America is disappearing.

https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/obituary-american-middle-class-155040791.html

The problem, even being recognized by some Republicans today, is income inequality. Since 2009 the top 1% have received over 95% of all income growth in America and the top 1% don't spend that additional income on goods or services. They invest it and that means no manufacturing or service related jobs are created. Only consumption (spending) drives economic growth and investing does not create economic growth.

 

I don't get a credit when I pay taxes so neither should your $22K/year people. Whatever amount of money a person has is what they must work with which includes paying taxes. There is zero reason why your $22K/year person cannot pay $100/year to fund others who need assistance. According to you the $22K person won't need any assistance so no problem forking over $100 each year.

Regarding government size, I'm for minimizing government and maximizing the private sector. However, instead of giving away your $500 billion each year in cash, spend this same amount on those items I mentioned. And I also prefer capable people getting assistance to perform some type of volunteer service in order to provide some productivity to the nation.

You can't eliminate prescription drugs until you force a paradigm shift with doctors/hospitals, which might include eliminating profits from drugs, and change the mindset of Americans who can't fathom other alternatives to their drug-laced lives.

I stand 100% behind my original statement: "People who perform at the minimum levels of society will always need assistance". Minimum means the lowest value. No matter if minimum wage is $50/hour, when ALL OTHER wages adjust, the $50/hour will still be a minimum wage with the identical problems you feel exist today. The root problem with people performing at minimum levels is the world has and is passing them by. If a person can design a life around minimum wage or lower wages and they are pleased then great. However, if they want more…they MUST take personal steps to earn more and this DOES NOT include becoming a dependent of the government...

 

Actually it's MIT that states that a single person with $22,000/yr in income will not require assistance while I believe that MIT under-estimates the actual cost of living. For example when I used the MIT "Living Wage" calculator for my county/state it established that the single person only required $110/mo for health care but an individual health insurance policy costs four-times that amount according to the Kaiser Foundation and doesn't include co-pays and deductables. A single tooth extraction and replacement dental appliance (partial denture) costs over $1,200 alone. A broken bone can cost thousands of dollars in medical expenses.

Yes, we can assume that someone not earning enough to pay all of their necessary (mandatory) expenditures could pay a tax but then we also have to refund that expenditure to them in some manner so that they can meet their necessary (mandatory) expenditures. It makes no logical sense to me to take money from a person and then refund it in the form of "welfare" so that they can meet their basic expenditures.

A "tax credit" is a form of welfare assistance but we all have "tax deductions" which are also a form of government financial assistance because it lowers our tax obligation. I've personally proposed a federal income tax without any personal tax credits or deductions and instead replaced them with a "tax exemption" based upon the median income of households. I'm not alone in proposing this type of change because Sen Rand Paul also made a similiar proposal. The difference between Rand Paul's proposal and mine is that I treat all income, regardless of source and/or the entity (private person or enterprise) receiving the income identically. To me a dollar is a dollar is a dollar but others such as Rand Paul don't believe that a dollar is a dollar.

To my knowledge most government welfare assistance is not in the form of cash. For example SNAP benefits are not provided as "cash" but instead use an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card that can only be used for food purchases. Housing assistance is often paid to landlords that offer lower cost housing for low income households. Utility companies can also receive government subsidies so that they can provide services to low income households at a significant discount. Those receiving the "welfare assistance" aren't seeing any "cash" from the assistance but private enterprises (e.g. the market, the landlord, and the ultility company) are paid in "cash" for providing the welfare assistance while the person receiving the welfare assistance doesn't receive any "cash" from the government.

The majority of those collecting government assistance are working Americans already contributing to the US economy. They simply don't have time to provide community service as well as working for a living. I can understand the desire for us to expect people to contribute to society but we need to recognize that most welfare recepients are already contributing to society by going to work. The problem isn't their lack of contribution to society but instead that they don't receive enough in compensation so that they can survive without assistance from society.

How strange. You oppose government interventionism related to a minimum wage but advocate government interventionism in the medical profession with price controls for prescription drugs and mandates by government for doctors/hospitals providing treatment. Are you opposed to "free enterprise" in the medical professions?

Based upon our current laws that create crony capitalism roughly 40% of American households are living in or near poverty levels and that is not going to change for the better (and all indications are it's getting worse). Yes, one person can manage to move from the bottom 40% into the upper 60% but that results in someone in the upper 60% being forced down into the lower 40%. What part of that isn't understood?

Some tend to disparage the low income earner as if their contribution isn't vital to enterprise in America. We can take the common janitor that cleans the bathrooms at a Walmart. Would you be more or less likely to use Walmart if no one cleaned the bathrooms? How much would it cost for the plumber to run the water pipes for a home if they had to dig the trench as opposed to the lower paid ditch digger? In a very real sense the contributions of the lower paid workers are just as valuable as the contributions of the higher paid worker that relies on them. The janitor at Walmart is, in many respects, more important than the store manager because if the janitor doesn't do their job the customers won't patronize the Walmart.

In an earlier post it was mentioned that an increase in compensation requires an increase in productivity but we've had a consistant increase in productivity since 1970 without a equal increase in compensation. In point of fact the "real wages" of middle class Americans is declining at an unprecedented rate even as we watch the GDP increase.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nobel...s-to-solving-income-inequality-153834471.html

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...amily-incomes-drop-in-march.htm#ixzz3YJYriSKM

http://thegazette.com/subject/opini...ell-economy-and-governments-response-20140611

http://news.yahoo.com/charts-rich-won-great-recession-130300311.html

Yes, we can state that an increase in the minimum wage will have a ripple effect on other wages but we need to also understand that the problem of under-compensation is not limited to just the lowest paid workers in America. The middle class is disappearing as our economy is becoming a barbell economy of the wealthy and the poor. Left unchecked we will soon be living in a nation where there is a very small "super-wealthy" economic class while the vast majority are left to live in poverty. We cannot continue down the same path that lead us to this condition and yet many advocate for it.

What we can do is look at the past and see what was successful in creating the middle class in America and what has lead to it's demise. The growth of the middle class was concurrent with the power of unions in the United States that were able to counteract the negative downward pressure of the Market on compensation during the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. It wasn't until the 1980's under Reagan's "supply side economics" and union-busting that we began to see the negative effects to the economy that have become more evident today because of the 2008 Recession. Union membership today is at the lowest level in 79 years and today we're seeing negative income growth for the average American household. The correlation is obvious but many seem to ignore the causal relationship.

It took decades for right-wing economic policies to ultimately lead to a decline in the middle class and it will take decades to reverse the trend. If we do nothing then the decline into a privileged wealthy class with all others mired in poverty is inevitable. The writing is already on the wall.

If we begin to reverse the anti-union and pro-wealthy policies advocated since Reagan by the right the decline will continue for at least as long as it took to create the decline (i.e. at least 30 more years). Can we really afford to let the poverty in America continue to expand for the next 30 years without taking some action in excess of slowly allowing a change in policy to take effect?

We've reached the point in our economic history where our children cannot expect to be better off than us. Is that what we want or should we do something dramatic to change that?

 

Every worker pays federal taxes. If nothing else they're responsible for payment of 15.3% of their gross income being paid to the federal government in the form or FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes that is imposed on their labor. Every person pays local and state taxes as well even when they pay those taxes indirectly such as the case with rent where the renter pays the property taxes for the landlord with their monthly rental payment.

Studies on total taxation of the person have already established that the lower a person's income the higher their tax burden relative to gross income. Here in WA the low income earner has 14-times the tax burden relative to gross income when compared to the highest income earners in the state. One of the greatest misconceptions of "right-wing economics" is the false belief that low income earners aren't paying enough in taxation when, in fact, they have a much higher tax burden relative to income than anyone else when all forms of taxation are accounted for.

 

I believe that food and energy are also tangible items. I would also question what you mean by the government spending money on "affordable housing" because the government doesn't need housing. People need housing so what's the government going to do? Should it purchase a home and then sell it at a loss to a poor person? Should it provide them low rent on the home (an intangible benefit that we've already seen fail with the "projects" in cities throughout the nation). Or should the private sector furnish the low cost housing with the financial assistance of the government?

If the government provides transportation such as bus service then how does a person secure that transportation if it's not based upon a "cash" benefit (e.g. low fares or free transportation)? If you provide a commodity or service at below cost then it's a "cash benefit" to the person receiving the commodity or benefit. We have local rail service in the Seattle area and every rider of that rail service is subsidized by over $50 for their ride. You might not refer to that as a "cash benefit" but I do. It costs me taxes to provide that person with a ride on the local train. It would actually be less expensive to buy them a car and pay for the operation costs. I remember years ago when I lived in Los Angeles and they proposed light rail service. Based upon the projected number of riders it would have cost less to purchase a new Rolls Royce for each of them.

 

Because the income statistics show that the number of people living in poverty is not just a constant but in fact is increasing. Yes, some people die, some people retire, some change careers (often for lower paying jobs) but there are more people entering the job market than leaving and in many cases jobs just cease to exist displacing millions over time. Since 1970 roughly 40% of all jobs per capita in manufacturing have simply disappeared off the face of the Earth. They didn't just disappear from the US but they disappeared from every nation.

Between 2000 and 2009 the US lost 6 million manufacturing jobs and those jobs, per capita, are not going to return. Manufacturing generally pays a middle-income wage/benefit compensation package and, as we know, those jobs are predominately being replaced by lower paying service sector jobs. Yes, one person might still be able to get ahead financially in a manufacturing profession but many more are being laid off and having to accept employment in much lower paying service sector jobs. So a few may advance but the average manufacturing worker is lucky just to keep their job. For every person that advances in manufacturing there's more that are forced from their job and have to accept employment for less money. The overall statistics reflect that fact. Based upon the overall statistics we can also generally assume that those that do secure work in manufacturing today are earnlng 5% less than they would have just a few years ago.

 

I'm going to end by addressing these three issues because they're inter-related and I'll start with the second issue first.

Enterprise itself mandates government interventionism but not all of that interventionism is good for the American people.

Perhaps the best example of a necessary government mandate is the government mandate that prohibits a company from barring the fire exit doors. Lacking that government mandate there were employers that barred the fire exits and workers died because of it.

On the flip side we have "right to work" laws that fundamentally prohibit a voluntary agreement between a union and an employer establishing a "closed shop" for the enterprise. These laws violate the fundamental laws of contract because they eliminate the bargaining power of a union to establish a voluntary agreement with an employer.

The government is intervening all of the time in the private sector and, unfortunately, much of the "right-wing economic" interventionism is harmful to the average America because it's based upon favoritism for the owners of enterprise.

The first and third issue presented above are ties together. To learn from the past so that we can apply that knowledge in addressing current and future problems is different than trying to live in the past. The "conservative economic" agenda is to live in the past while learning from the past and applying the lessons learned to the present is a "progressive economic" agenda. One of the darlings of right-wing economics is Friedrich Hayek and his economic theories were formulated in the early part of the 20th Century. His most notable work was "The Use of Knowledge in Society" that was published at the end of WW II (194 and fundamentally related to the depression era of the 1930's. Talk about an out-dated economic philosophy we couldn't find a better example than Hayek and yet it's at the core of the right-wing economic agenda.

While you may not care about the next generation every generation is saddled with the prior generation's economy. It takes an entire generation to change an economy so our children will be forced to live with the economy we bequeath to them.

Let us simply take the example of the national debt to demonstrate the problem. In the last 15 years we've accumulated over $12 trillion in additional debt and we're still not collecting enough in tax revenues to fund the authorized expenditures of Congress. If we were to pay off that $12 trillion in borrowing in the same 15 yeart is took to create it then starting today we'd need to basically double the income tax and that's not going to happen. Any pragmatic proposal would probably require at least 35 years of higher taxes to repay the borrowing and it would probably take 50 years or more to accomplish. In the meantime our children are going to be paying the interest on that debt and they'll be the ones responsible for paying the much higher tax rates necessary to pay off the borrowing we've done. We've inherently condemned the next generation to higher taxation which means they will have less disposable income to live on.

You say that your kids don't matter and that is certainly the position of many but the problem is that we've condemned them to an economy that won't support them. They will earn less and pay more in taxes because of the economy we're leaving them. Yes, they will have the opportunity to change that for their children but they won't be able to change it for themselves. We build better ships today than we did when the Titanic was built but we can't "unsink" the Titanic.

We've built the "Titanic" economy and unless the course is changed it will hit the iceberg and it will sink and our children are aboard that ship.

 

Federal income taxes fund the nation while FICA withholding are direct contributions of the wage earner to fund THEIR Social Security and Medicare. Paying FICA does nothing to fund the nation.

Local and state taxes are paid to fund local and state and county governments. Federal income taxes fund the federal government. If people demand more and more government then people need to fund the government they demand…no matter one's income bracket!

I'm not going to play your game using percentages to somehow believe median wage and lower workers are funding this nation…this would be 100% inaccurate and political BS. This nation is 85% funded by median wage and higher people, specifically the top 10% paying the bulk of federal income taxes...

 

The government is not buying food and energy…people buy food and energy using money provided by the government.

For those who cannot afford market value property and apartments, the government, in partnership with the private sector, can build/acquire high density housing units, 200 to 400 square feet, and manage them as non-profits. Build/acquire these in every town that merits this form of housing.

Your 'projects' fail not because of the people but because of the profit motive and city governments not maintaining ALL AREAS of their cities to the same standards. These housing units must be managed as non-profits.

I prefer subsidizing bus service over giving people cash.

The bottom line is I don't want government meddling in the private sector! If the government wants housing, or food, or energy, or transportation, or health care, etc. then let the government fund this from the general fund…which means ALL taxpayers need to pitch in to fund the government which they demand...

 

I don't care how many people live in so-called poverty?! ALL capable people can improve their situations IF THEY WISH. All it requires is personal action from them…better decisions, change, long-term planning, etc.

When people know up front that for example there are fewer manufacturing jobs then why will people continue to seek manufacturing jobs? If a person wants more then they must make different decisions. Going down the same old failure path and whining about it is stupid and pathetic. The job market and industry is constantly evolving, constantly changing, and people must deal with this.

Any idiot can search sites like this one; http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm and if they truly cared about their career, they can seek any number of opportunities moving forward. Those who demand instant gratification are losers! All of this takes planning, action and time…there are no shortcuts!

You make it sound like tens of millions of people should just kill themselves because either the system won't allow it or the people are too lazy or whatever…to do better. Every single day people at all levels of employment are doing just fine, and those who want more will take steps to achieve more. If my dad was alive, and I whined to him with your talking points, first he would beat me, then he would disown me. He would be embarrassed that I was so pathetic. And no matter his harshness…I would agree with him...

 

In point of fact Social Security/Medicare is a government welfare program where those paying taxes today are funding the benefits for others. It is not a retirement investment program. A person paying FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes is not funding their own retirement/medical benefits but instead paying a tax to fund someone else's welfare. There are actually millions of workers in America (undocumented aliens) paying into the Social Security Trust Fund that are ineligible to collect any benefits from it. There is no contract between the government and the taxpayer that provides any benefits based upon the payment of FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes and the Congress could terminate all Social Security payments tomorrow (it's unlikely but within the power of Congress).

It's members of Congress, all with incomes over double the median household income, that determine the size of the US government. The people have virtually no say in this as the people have no power to legislate at the federal level. We can also note that "the elephant in the living room" when we look at federal spending is the Defense Department budget and not discretionary welfare programs funded by income taxes. The only federal program that has actually paid for itself over time is Social Security/Medicare that is funded almost exclusively by workers most of which earn well below the median income. Social Security/Medicare, funded by working Americans including those earning only the minimum wage, has actually collected trillions of dollars more in tax revenues than it's spent in benefits.

While a bit dated (from 2009 when the tax rates were lower) the attachment shows that middle income households actually fund the federal government. In 2009 those in the 15% income tax bracket paid more in federal income taxes than the top two tax brackets and capital gains combined. The belief that the wealthy are funding the federal government is a misconception based upon actual revenue statistics. The final nail in the coffin is reflected by the wealthiest of American where the top 400, all with incomes in excess of $250 million/yr, average a federal tax rate of only 17% which is less than household with a $100,000/yr income. In 2011, when I had a very good income and earned over $100,000 for the year, I paid a whopping 28% in federal taxes while 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney only paid about 14% on over $22 million in personal income. Romney had over 200-times the income and paid about 1/2 the taxes on income that I personally paid. Don't you find something disturbingly wrong with that picture?

The real problem related to government revenues is that jobs in the middle income range are disappearing and we're losing the primary source of government revenue with that loss of jobs.

 

This reflects a fundamental failure to address the problem of poverty because regardless of what a single individual might do it doesn't reduce poverty in the United States so the necessity to mitigate the poverty remains. The problem is the expanding poverty throughout the nation regardless of what individuals can do for themselves.

 

Actually the worker had the opiton of working for the company or being unemployed and they couldn't afford to be unemployed. Yes, some workers did leave when they found a better job but they were quickly replaced by someone that couldn't find a better job so the problem continued.

The employee does not have the option of not working so they're forced to take the jobs that are available and are subjected to the dictates of the employer. They have no real choice.

You pit David against Golaith as the employee is incapable of negotiating with the "Market" that the employer bases their compensation package on. When all employers use the "Market" to determine compensation then the workers is forced to accept the "Market" rate for compensation and is individually incapable of negotiating another compensation package. The job applicant does not have the luxury of not accepting the employment under the conditions dictated by Market forces.

You, of course, misrepresent the power of the unions. They don't demand anything nor are they in a position to do so. In the absence of a contract the union workers can go on strike and that is the voluntary termination of employment. The enterprise can replace those workers at anytime if it chooses to do so and it's the enterprise that shuts down the business if they choose to not continue operations while the workers are no longer employed by the enterprise. The problem for the owner/management of the enterprise is that replacing the experienced union workers that have voluntarily terminated employment by going on strike is that securing and training new workers is very expensive. The enterprise is not forced to accept any union "demands" in reaching a contract resolution so that the experienced union workers will resume employment with the enterprise. The enterprise always retains the option of simply replacing the workers. Only if the business plan (created by the owners/management) supports the provisions of the contract with the union will any enterprise agree to those provisions. In short the enterprise will only agree to the contract if it results in a profit for the enterprise as established by the owner/management controlled business plan. The owners/managment will not logically agree to any compensation package that doesn't result in a profit to the enterprise.

On the flip side, an individual employee does not have the power to negotiate compensation based upon their individual contributions to the enterprise because they can simply be replaced by another individual that's willing to accept less while making the same contribution. One person cannot pit their experience on the job to secure increased compensation because if they walk of the job they are easily replaced. Only if all of the workers, with their combined job experience, walk of the job (voluntarily quit) does it create pressure on the enterprise to address compensation.

Only organized labor has the power to counteract the downward pressure of the Market on compensation. One person does not have this power and in the battle between David (the individual) and Goliath (the Market) the individual always loses. Unions provide balance to the ecomony by effectively counteracting the downward forces of the Market on compensation.

There has obviously been a lot of legislative action by both major political parties but generally speaking the Democratic legislation is focused on the workers and the nation whereas the Republican agenda focuses on the wealthy owners of enterprise. Worker safety, regulation of enterprise, and protection of the environment benefits the vast majority of Americans (Democratic agenda) whereas the Capital gains tax and repealing of business and environmental regulations benefits the owners of enterprise (Republican agenda).

We know that strong unions were directly responsible for increasing compensation in America and that with the loss of power of the unions we're seeing declining compensation. That is a lesson we can take from the past and apply to the future.

Here's the problem. The Democrats have proposed additional taxation to generate the revenue to fund the authorized expenditures of government while Republicans have opposed additional taxation to fund the authorized expenditures of government. So who's really to blame for the deficits? Those that seek the revenue to fund the expenditures or those that oppose increasing the revenue to fund the expenditures.

 

I don't care how you wish to politically label SS and Medicare...fact remains that individuals are required to fund their personal accounts and none of this FICA money is earmarked for general fund spending. It's fairly easy for most workers to qualify since the earning requirements are quite low. Just because people pay into FICA does not mean they can receive benefits. "According to the Social Security Administration, the intent of social security was for individuals to invest in their own retirement through mandatory “tax contributions. Based on this definition, payroll taxes are not general revenues for the government. They are a system in which “the workers themselves contributed to their own future retirement benefit.”

150 million voters in the USA decide the path we are on...they select the representatives who make the laws and they decide to keep current members of Congress in office or not...therefore the American citizens run this country even when they're too stupid to know it.

Like I said, I'm not going to play the political percentage game regarding who pays the bulk of personal income taxes.

Interesting that you believe "The real problem related to government revenues is that jobs in the middle income range are disappearing" yet you want to force a $20/hour minimum wage, plus all the other wage adjustments/inflation that will occur from this action, all of which reduces our competitive position in the global marketplace. The higher our cost of doing business the more jobs that will disappear...

 

If workers are too lazy or stupid or unmotivated to do better then our problem is not poverty or living wages but the workers themselves. People who have mental or physical limitations are not in this discussion. The remaining workers who you whine about DO NOT have mental and/or physical limitations in the workplace, therefore, they make 100% of the decisions how to manage their lives. Every single person in this group has potential which is only limited by the individual effort invested. Those who make excuses and whine will never advance and will actually be left in the dust of others more motivated. This is fundamental.

IMO you have expanding 'poverty' primarily due to the lack of motivation to do better...

 

While the FICA/Payroll/self-employement taxes are dedicated to specific programs (Social Security/Medicare) the individual does not have a vested interest in those programs. The individual has no vested interest in the dollars they contribute as a tax (that's used to provide welfare benefits to others). As noted Congress can modify and even terminate Social Security/Medicare at anytime with a simple vote. There is no contract and the person isn't entitled to anything under these programs because Congress has sole authority to modify or terminate them at any time. There is no "investment" but only a tax and spend welfare program with a dedicated revenue source (and the only federal program that has never generated a deficit because it's funded by the workers and not the wealthy).