If All The Wealth In The U.S. Were Divided Up Equally ...

Legally, their wealth is their property; your opinion of how they obtained it is irrelevant.
Why do you believe poor people are entitled to property held by these billionaires?

 

How does your version of morality diminish their right to retain their property?

 

One of the worst aspects for me and 44 million Americans with Mental Disability is when people assume we are lazy.

 

Everyone's property is taxed in every Nation.

 

Just because something is allowed by law it does not mean it's necessarily right. Heck, slavery used to be legal.

Good to hear that you dismiss other people's thought as "irrelevant opinion".

 

Thank you for -again- not answering the question.
When you believe you can meaningfully do so, please do let me know.

 

Your version of morality does not diminish the legitimacy of their claim to their property.
Why do you believe poor people are entitled to property held by these billionaires?

 

I never said that. I am just wanting to raise people's awareness that most of the billionaires did not earn the wealth they possess. If enough people think like me, we can change the laws so that wealth will be able to be shared more equitably.

I never said that. I did say that billionaires should not be entitled to ALL of the wealth that's currently under their names. Some of it, yes, but not all.

 

You believe it is immoral that billionaires acquire wealth through the labor of their employees.
You stated this belief when asked why you believe poor people are entitled to property held by these billionaires.
If your version of morality does not create some entitlement of the poor to the wealth of billionaires, what does?

 

I never said the poor are entitled to the billionaires' wealth.

I did say that billionaires should not be entitled to ALL of the wealth that's currently under their names. Some of it, yes, but not all. They should be made to share some of their wealth with their employees.

 

I see -- your response was not at all intended to address my question.
Thank you.

 

You don't get to dictate to me what I can or cannot talk about. People can join a thread/discussion for any sort of reasons. I saw in your post that you seemed to imply that billionaires are entitled to their wealth, I disagreed, so I chimed in. Nothing wrong with this.

 

Nope. But once I determine it is irrelevant to the question I asked or the statement I made, I can dismiss it as off-topic.

 

It was relevant. You were implying that billionaires are entitled to their wealth. But you know what, you have the right to dismiss it if you want. You have the right to whatever opinion and thought that you want.

 

It did not meaningfully address the question at all.

 

It doesn't happen, so you don't have to wonder.

 

I do not know about physical disability. But most of the 59,000 people who died from overdose in 2016 were not given help they needed.

I have Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression, but my parents help me.

 

Like all studies the MIT study used to establish the Cost of Living by county throughout the United States is subject to dispute based upon another study that provides contradictory results. When you locate that study the study that contradicts MIT's then you're welcome to post it for review. Until then the results of MIT study stands unchallenged,

No one is disputing that the cost of living is relative to the location where the labor is provided. MIT acknowledged that which is why it's provided for by county/state in the MIT Living Wage Calculator. There are inherent costs associated to where the labor is provided that effect the cost of the product and limited savings on labor. For example the typical cost of labor for manufacturing is 25% of gross revenue and the greater the distance from point of sale the greater the shipping costs that offset any savings. There are additional overhead expenses that are offset any savings in the labor involved with production. Finally there are costs other manufacturing and marketing costs imposed based upon logistical considerations that offset any possible savings on labor. Finally there are to two big considerations that are often ignored.

The enterprise can retain US sourcing by automating the process to eliminate the cost of labor.

Automation is responsible for the per capita reduction of labor for manufacturing by roughly 40% worldwide. Since 1980 US manufacturing output has tripled while the number of workers in manufacturing has declined from about 18 million to less than 13 million workers. Three-times the production did not result in three-times the manpower to produce the products. If the increase in productivity was based upon the labor of the workers we'd have 54 million manufacturing jobs in the United States based upon the tripling of US production. Instead we only have13 million jobs and the automation effectively replaced the labor of 41 million manufacturing workers since 1980. US manufacturing jobs have not been "sent overseas" or even to Mexico. They've been eliminated by automation.

The vast majority of labor for the United States cannot be provided for from other locations around the world. .

The Service Sector employs 80% of all Americans. Most of these jobs are lower paying jobs and they cannot be performed by foreign workers. There are high paying services that can be provided internationally but not the low paying jobs in the service sector. Historically manufacturing has not been the source of jobs and wealth generation for the United States. When the nation was founded agriculture was the primary source of jobs and wealth generation in America. Automation in agriculture replaced the jobs. Rising up to replace agriculture was the service sector and today the service sector is overwhelming source for jobs and wealth generation in the United States.

What we have are "right-wing" idiots like Donald Trump that don't understand the US economy. Trump was over in Europe complaining about the trade imbalance and it is true that overall there is a trade imbalance BUT the US has a trade surplus with the European Union when we address "services" that the Europeans purchase from the United States. There's an old saying that people should do what they do best and the US is best at providing valuable services to foreign nations. Instead of having an ignorant president that laments the manufacturing trade imbalance between the United States and the European Union we need a president that pushes increases in the services we can provide to foreign countries where we have a trade surplus.

The US economy is based upon the SERVICE SECTOR and not manufacturing. Fixing the US economy requires addressing the Service Sector because addressing manufacturing doesn't fix anything when 80% of the workforce in employed by the Service Sector.

The economic power of the United States is based upon providing services, not manufactured goods, to other nations.

 

Actually it has been happening because a lack of health insurance results in people dying from illness that is curable if diagnosed early by annual physical exams that becomes incurable if it's not identified early.

Based upon a 2009 study the lack of health insurance for 30 million Americans resulted in 45,000 of them dying annually because they wouldn't seek primary care (annual physicals) when they had to pay for all of it out of pocket. Without insurance they wouldn't get the physical exam that provided early detection and instead waited until the symptoms became serious and by then the disease had become incurable.

Only 45,000 per year but that's 450,000, almost 1/2 million people, dying over ten years.

 

Anyone-----------------tell us why people think they are entitled to other peoples money. Be brief.

 

Market based compensation is not based upon the value of the worker (it's based upon the ability of the enterprise to staff the position based upon the available qualified work force).

The worker (that only performs the tasks assigned) does not establish the value of their labor to the enterprise. The management (that assigns the tasks) determines the value of the worker to the enterprise.

All workers are more valuable if the management is competent by eliminating non-value added tasks and assigning tasks that generate value for the enterprise. Low compensation for employment is always the result of poor management.

 

What potential flaws do you see in a study such as the one that you referenced?

 

And if the cost of that labor is more than the value of it the business will fail just as if the cost of the goods is more than price they can charge for them as you pointed out.

 

Nothing here changes your laughable reliance on the fallacy I cited.

You deliberately miss the point I made; you did so because you cannot meaningfully address it.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.