Thread: An Idiots Guide to Inequality Part 1

<Rule 2/3> liberal unions drove up wages, drove jobs to China, thus destroyed unions and increased inequality as ex union members no longer had jobs at rip off liberal union wages.

 

In fact, conservatives have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times and Democrats have killed every effort.

 

US corporate taxes are the highest in the world causing American companies and jobs to flee to lower tax countries. Ireland for example dropped its tax to 11% and most of the world's major corporations moved there in whole or in part. Sorry to rock your world.

 

That's right. Unions drove up wages, empowered the middle class, which grew and powered the American economy to be best in the world for decades as the middle classes shared in the country's prosperity and had the income to drive a robust economy.

Jobs moved to China because they can pay workers dirt. Fine. But they can't outsource jobs at the Marts and resturants and other service jobs.

But because unions have been gutted, those folks get paid dirt, while the owners reap the profits. Hence, income inequality skyrockets.

Do you understand now?

- - - Updated - - -

RW propaganda. US corporate taxes effective rates are among the lowest int he industrialized world.

 

Congratulations....you've committed the Fallacy of Equivocation by equivocating Wealth with Income.

Learn the difference between Wealth and Income and get back to us.

 

Typical two-liner sarcasm and provocation in this forum.

Moving right along ...

 

Do you even comprehend the irony in the above quote of Mark Twain.

See passages from his biography here regarding the above remark.

What is wrong with you ... ?

 

So, you don't understand the difference between Wealth and Income.

 

Helpless and hopeless.

Moving right along ...

 

Quite right, and the above expresses the prime reason why these jobs need the protection of a National Minimum Wage*. And why, given those who work in such jobs and for Donald Dork, will NOT GET that minimum wage nationally.

I keep saying, it should be impossible to graduate from high-school in America without having successfully passed a Civics Course.

This election showed why ...

*A functional National Minimum Wage should be one fixed annually according to the analysis employed by the Census Bureau across the nation to determine the Poverty Threshold. Today that threshold is $24K for a family of four, or, $11.54 an hour. In that regard, only D.C (not even a state) has attained that minimum wage. (See the state-by-state MW-listing here.) Moreover, IRS taxation of families should start only above the minimum wage.

 

The poverty level for a single person is $11,770 or about $5.65 an hour.
Based on that information, one might think any intelligent person(s) would remain single AND not produce any offspring until which time they had acquired employment producing an income adequate to provide the needs of any responsibilities of their own creation.
The current Federal minimum wage of $7.25 exceeds the poverty level for a single person by $1.60 an hour or about $3300 per year, which would allow a somewhat intelligent person to begin to acquire some wealth and for a couple to both work and acquire a combined income of more than $30,000 per year which exceeds the poverty level of a couple by more than $14,000 per year.

 

It's not my fault you don't understand the difference. You can always google instead of remaining ignorant.

The federal poverty level is the weighted average of the poverty levels of each of the 48 contiguous States (Alaska and Hawaii are omitted as out-liers).

The true poverty level in some States is less than $6,000 annually, but more than $26,000 in other States. All the the more reason for the federal government to get out of the Income Redistribution business.

 

I agree, and the poverty level can vary quite a lot within each State depending on where you live. I'm surprised there hasn't been a move to redesign our flag to be a single large white star on a field containing a single red and a single blue stripe.

I'm anxiously waiting to see if your question "income/wealth" is answered, and in what context if it is.

 

Of course not, but it IS your fault for making an unsubstantiated accusation. This is a "debate-forum" meaning you don't tell people they are "wrong", you show them "how they are wrong".

Which stimulates the debate or "exchange of points-of-view".

Get it? It's damn simple to understand, but pretty damn difficult to undertake because the exchange should be factually based ...

 

Nice try, but I'll stick with the Census Bureau's notion of "poverty" and how it is measured.

You want to change that definition? Write a "paper" (cogent argumentation based upon statistical proof) showing how the CB is dead-wrong and how you are dead-right.

Lotsa luck with that one ...

PS: You are deeply in denial ...

 

Give it time. There'll certainly be plenty of attempts in the Future.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~sociolog/ugrad/courses/fall1997/western_finalex_answers.html

Doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

I am prepared to believe the Census Bureau knows how to measure Poverty, and those living below the Poverty Threshold.

In 1990 it was like this (from the Census Bureau):


It hasn't varied very much in a great long time (since 1965) that we have been incarcerating families below the threshold at around 15% (at present 13.9%).

Btw, today that makes for 43.1 million American men, women and children who are not going to have a Very Merry Christmas ...

 

Moreover, I am very disposed to believe this extract from the above:

Which is why it was Consummate Stoopidity that we shot Hillary (and Bernie's) idea to make postsecondary education free, gratis and for nothing to all families earning below $100K a year, that is $50K each, which is about the average American salary today.

Had we begun to do that as of next year, that poverty-rate could have come down substantially in just one generation. As it is, the Dept. of Education statistics show that less than one high-school graduate out of two pursues a postsecondary educational degree ...

 

Democrats have all these colleges in the bag, ask them why they are so damn expensive.

 

Any more stoopid one-liners without the slightest bit of substantiation?

This forum is full of them.

Moving right along ...

 

Well. Here's my thought on it. There isn't any such thing as pure equality. The fact of the matter is that some Individuals are more inclined to succes than others. Some Individuals are naturally gifted and some Individuals are naturally challenged. Of course, that's naturally speaking.

In terms of equality in opportunity, I agree that all Individuals should have equal opportunity. The problem we have in the country, though, is that the financial elitists are driving things by pure nepotism. At least when you get into the major players. Unfortunately, capitalism incorrectly gets the blame when what we have going on is more like mercantilism/corporatism.

But the idea of universal equality by way of engineeed means, I disagree with. And there is a deep discussion to be had about why if it could be kept civil and respectful.

 

If I understand correctly, the OP does not agree that standards for success should be lowered in order to accommodate the least skilled people for the purpose of facilitating artificial parity. Am I correct about that or am I mistaken?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-students-education/?utm_term=.4572e7776546

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/14/l...ty-5-to-1-academics-explain-why-this-matters/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...conservatives-hiring-20160520-snap-story.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ssors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/higher-education-liberal-research-indoctrination

Short, real quick search tells you this.

 

Thanx, a lot better!

Now, how about actually "arguing" your premise ... ?