Try to understand that wealthy people do not have to hire Americans. Your proposals would make hiring Americans even less attractive than it already is. So they won't do it. You are ignoring the problem of cheap, foreign labor, which undermines every single proposal you have. You do all that, and the businesses will just go elsewhere, as they have done for decades. Your proposals will increase the wealth gap if you ignore the real problem.
You seem to have skimmed over the second sentence of my post. My criticism of your thought process is in response to your use of the term "redistributed" which seems to imply an action verb, where in fact, the passive form only is appropriate. The wealth gap widens because employers are able to pay foreigners $100 a year for a job that would pay $30,000 a year to an American citizen in the U.S. It isn't being actively distributed to anyone. Businesses are simply finding the best deal for themselves and spending their money how they want to. Now you propose changing the law so that the 30,000 a year job instead requires payment of 50,000 a year because wages are tied to inflation (lets just say, hypothetically). Why do you suppose the employer would want to hire an American at an even HIGHER rate when he STILL has the option of spending 100 a year in another country? Your proposals are not addressing the problem and that is because they are based on your party's platform which has been designed specifically so that you and your opponents never elect anyone who would cut off the bankers' opiate of foreign labor. They are making a fortune off of it. Will you continue to allow it?
There are lots of reasons in my opinion why the income gap started skyrocketing in 1981. The fact that businesses could pay foreign workers $100 a year is one. The fact that they can pay American workers a less is another. There have always been cheaper foreign workers. That fact didn't suddenly change in 1981. Something else happened that year. Because you cannot hire a person in India to man a cash register at the Walmart in Des Moines. Thank you for sharing your baseless, yet unsupported, opinion. I disagree. Am I going to continue to not "cut off the bankers' opiate of foreign labor?" What "opiate of foreign labor" are the bankers using?
Less than what? They can't pay American workers less than the minimum wage. Often a lot more due to union demands. These things run businesses out of the U.S. They are not your slaves and you can not force them to hire Americans. Throughout history, all nations have employed protectionist policies to prevent outsourcing. Only ours since the 90s has produced two competing mainstream philosophies that both claim noble ideologies that know better. Makes the rich richer and more astute and makes the rest of us Walmart cashiers. Are you writing a mystery novel or participating in a discussion? Just make your damn point. This mealy mouthed BS is exactly why modern partisan politics steers you towards ignorance. Self checkout. The less skill that is required for a job, the more likely the employer will be able to eliminate it entirely. Your plan will not work because businesses do not have to hire Americans. Or humans at all in many cases. What do you not understand? You're welcome. I await your rebuttal. Sorry, maybe my words were not clear. Foreign labor is the opiate in my metaphor. Both platforms of the two parties are designes not to oppose it even though it is the most destructive thing to the American middle class. And it is no secret who pumps campaign money into those two parties to perpetuate the status quo.
Less than their proportional share of GDP, in the aggregate. Why can't Walmart cashiers get paid more? I apologize. I assumed you were at least somewhat knowledgeable. 1981 is when Reagan was elected and began implementing the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. They still need folks to run the self checkouts, sweep the floors, greet the customers, help them out, etc. Your can't outsource those jobs. Oh, sorry. My proposals are addressing the problem which is the redistribution of income from the middle class to the richest which was the "trickle down" concept sold by conservatives and 1% apologists. The Reagan "trickle down" revolution was specifically designed to make the richest "job creators" richer because then the money would trickle down to the middle classes and everyone would be better. It worked fabulously well making the richest richer, as you can see by the charts: But it didn't trickle down. Middle class incomes stagnated; their share of the nation's income fell and fell. The money instead trickled into the offshore accounts and stock portfolios of the richest, who saw nice tax cuts with the investment taxes cut to just 15% while working peoples' tax rates were more than twice has high. What I don't see is how it is the "opiate" of the bankers. I'm not aware that bankers are particularly big on outsourcing, but maybe they are. I don't agree that foreign labor is the most destructive thing or big driver in the inequality gap that started skyrocketing in the early 1980s. There was foreign labor before 1981 and the middle classes shared in the prosperity. It didn't suddenly come into being in 1981.
According to what standard of measurement? Because adding to their wages only devalues the money. Remember from earlier that money has no intrinsic value. Labor does. The intrinsic value of the labor is unchanged by an arbitrary wage increase. Hence, the market will quickly correct this inequality which manifests itself from the business perspective as a rightward shift in the demand curve, and from our perspective as inflation since prices of goods will rise to the new equilibrium created when demand changes. You literally can not pay them more even if you try. Economics does not allow it. Study economics. It is quite a fascinating science. Perhaps you can be more specific. Most conservatives today are proponents of classical economics, which calls for lassaiz faire policies such as deregulation and tax cuts across the board. Some of Reagan's implimented policies were whittled down by compromise to resemble more classical policies, but I see no one today proposing what Reagan supply side economics was supposed to be, a government fiscal policy which actively provides incentives to businesses to invest in American workers. Reagan was rather naive and ended up being just as much of a puppet for the banking establishment as any politician since, but the ideals of Reaganomics seem downright populist to me. What are your specific problems with it? And do you acknowledge any difference in the proposals that Reagan campaigned on when the "trickle down" phrase was coined and the policies actually implimented during his administration? And you literally can not increase the value of that labor, as discussed above. I don't think our economy will be very strong if the only possible jobs are those which can't be outsourced, which is mathematically always going to be fewer than what we would have under protectionist policies. I would argue that our standard of living has increased despite the wealth gap and that Reagan's supply side policies at least in part contributed to the sustained massive growth of the 90s that doesn't seem to make any difference in the wealth gap on these charts I am seeing. Wealth gap is almost irrelevant and only becomes an issue for the middle class because the massive wealth awards the top the ability to manipulate politics and outsource their businesses to get cheaper labor at ever advancing rates. If there was going to be another decade of sustained massive gdp growth, we would not notice it because those jobs would go to foreigners. That is the problem. Not the wealth gap that did not slow its growth to acknowledge the prosperity of the 90s. In many cases, bankers literally own the corporations who have the means to outsource. In others, the banks merely finance the outsourcing knowing that investment will produce massive returns. This is possible due to the repeal of certain regulations that prevented commercial banks from also acting as investment firms and other financial service providers. Reagan contributed to that deregulation, as did Clinton. Both parties are in their pockets. As alluded to, there was an entire decade of sustained massive growth and shared prosperity between 1981 and now. The difference is that free international trade began in the mid 90s and outsourcing soon became a reality. The consequences of that are being seen in a big way today. Ignore the problem. Your party wants you to.
Income as a % of GDP. Nonsense. Inflation is a function of the money supply, not labor. Things like tax increases on middle/lower income workers, massive tax cuts for the richest, demonizing and de-powering unions, letting the MW devalue There are several ways you can increase the pay of workers. . You can argue whatever you want. That Middle class incomes have stagnated and not shared in the prosperity since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution is fact. Family median income 2012 dollars http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls Year - income 2012 62,241 1979 57,734 1953 31,929 In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%. In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 8%. http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 126.4% In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 137.9% http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls The trillions of growth in income and wealth have not been shared with the middle classes since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. If it went' to foreigners, it would not be reflected in GDP. That is the "domestic" part of the title: Gross Domestic Product. Can you give a couple examples where bankers literally own the corporations who have the means to outsource? Inequality started skyrocketing in 1981, well before outsourcing became a big factor. Something else caused inequality to start skyrocketing in 1981.
Why would anyone ever learn to do anything more intrinsically valuable than operating a cash register if they are going to be paid as much as at any other job? Think of the sociological and technological repercussions if we make a cashier's income comparable to that of an engineer's. You are going to ruin us with this type of thinking. We can't just let all the valuable skills leave the country and simply pay less valuable workers more. We actually need people with valuable skills! Economics is quite a fascinating science. How do you account for the 1990s? Those policies were implemented to encourage businesses to invest in America. People did not foresee so much of that potential investment going overseas later in the name of free trade. That is what's happening. I am open to your suggestion as to how inflation is avoided when doing so. . You ignore the 90s, which is the only sample of history after Reaganomics not contaminated by massive outsourcing to cheap foreign labor. Which was precisely my point. "If there was going to be... we would not notice." Anyhow, purchases made of imported goods do count towards our gdp, so it is nevertheless artificially high, even while our exposure to the benefits of potential massive growth is limited by not being employed by or in the labor market for those corporations who outsource. Did you ever wonder what all the big fuss over wall street is about? You should look into it. You are begging the question of whether or not an income gap is inherently negative. I present the 1990s to show that it is not necessarily a bad thing. Outsourcing beginning in the mid 90s made it bad.
False premise. Why would they not get paid as much as other jobs that require special education or skill? Truly. I think it is part art. The question is, how do you account for the 1990s? Clinton came in and in the face of then record deficits (proportionally bigger than ours today) and a 7.5% unemployment rate passed what conservatives called the largest tax increase in history. Conservatives claimed that the Clinton tax increase would wreck the economy, destroy jobs, and increase the deficit. Instead, during the time of the Clinton tax increase, we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, a record 23 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the 2000 correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, real incomes rising for all income classes, and the best average annual real GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus. Don't increase the effective money supply. We had good wage and median income growth in the late 1990s (one of the few periods over the past 35 years) with a problem with inflation . See above. You ignore the 1990s, in which Clinton dismantled a key tenant of Reaganomics (his huge tax cut) and despite Conservatives' claims, had a record breaking economy. Imports and exports are netted out of GDP. I'm sorry, I'm asking you to give me a couple actual, specific examples of where bankers literally own the corporations who have the means to outsource as you claimed. While it is true that the income gap continued to grow in the 1990s, all incomes grew in that period. The income gap is a bad thing because it is gutting the great engine of spending, the middle classes, that have robustly driven our economy and recoveries in the past. Today, the bottom 90% is getting just under 50% of the nation's gross income, compared to about 65% before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. That 15 percentage points equates to 2.2 trillion every year that is not going to the folks who would spend it. This lack of purchasing power is reflected in the growth of consumption expenditures, which accounts for about 70% of GDP: Year - % chng real personal expenditures 1982 1.4 1983 5.7 1984 5.3 1985 5.3 Average: 4.4 1992 3.7 1993 3.5 1994 3.9 1995 3.0 Average 3.5 2002 2.5 2003 3.1 2004 3.8 2005 3.5 Average 3.2 2010 2.0 2011 2.5 2012 2.2 2013 2.0 Average 2.2 Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1 Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product This correlates exactly with the growing income inequality since 1980, as the middle classes, the great engine of spending, have gotten an ever smaller portion of the nation's income, they have not had, proportionately, the same spending power to drive robust recoveries. And the Republicans' austerity has only made things worse. How did that make it bad?
Yes, healthcare is s luxury. It promotes longer quality of life. Was it a right before its invention? Are cars and cell phones a right? You liberals have no concept of what a right is. Answer this: At what age is or should an American be entitled to live?
Except you can die without adequate health care. Kind of like you can if you don't have food or shelter. Nobody died because had to get a little smaller mega-yacht.
There are two fields that prefer to hire foreigners to come live in the U.S. and that is Physicians and IT professionals.
I ask this question because anyone who claims that Americans are entitled to life saving healthcare until death is saying that soldiers lives are worth less than theirs. I say healthcare is a luxury because it cannot be a right. The fact that it is necessary to extend life in some cases does not justify it being a right. Defending liberty costs soldiers their lives as young as 18, it only makes sense that all Americans defend liberty by at least this age and on. This would include treating healthcare as any other comodity. Same should go for incomes, food, housing etc...Exceptions would be major traumas where identification and ability to pay are unknown due to incapacitation and national defense related injuries. Americans should be aware at all times that healthcare has to be prioritized if desired. It may mean working two jobs to buy basic hospitalization insurance, living in smaller homes, eating less expensive foods, not smoking or drinking booze, driving cheaper cars, giving up other luxuries. It may also mean that you don't get treatment unless provided through voluntary charities. This is how our forefathers lived.
How in the hell do you possibly come up with that? Of course you do. Then you can deny it to poor folks and feel good about yourself and get tax cuts while they die from lack of health care. After all, were only talking about "luxuries" Bizarre. Americans should be aware at all times that healthcare has to be prioritized if desired. It may mean working two jobs to buy basic hospitalization insurance, living in smaller homes, eating less expensive foods, not smoking or drinking booze, driving cheaper cars, giving up other luxuries. It may also mean that you don't get treatment unless provided through voluntary charities. This is how our forefathers lived.[/QUOTE]
W [/QUOTE] I'm sure it does sound bizzare from your socialistic mindset. The fact remains, you accept soldiers dying for freedom, but not citizens dying for freedom. In a free society citizens are responsible for their personal needs and accept voluntary charity as help, not forced redistribution. Imo, if this were adhered to we would not have unaffordable healthcare, inner city violence, wealth disparity, unaffordable higher Ed or 19 trillion in debt.
You don't think an engineer who must train for years learning extremely difficult material that requires rare intellect and abilities should make more than a cashier who only has to pick his nose and press buttons? I asked you the question of why would anyone want to be an engineer under that scenario? Since you ignored that question and proceeded to blurt out the exact Democrat platform that is literally all you know, I am ending our discussion.
https://youtu.be/cdbRKfXyQEw Why wealth redistribution is the stupidest, lazy, envy driven idea ever.
Your views on responsibility have nothing to do with whether its a "luxury" which is the issue. You can say that someone as the responsibility to earn money to buy their food. That doesn't make food a luxury.
As a Political Forum member that I've always respected I'm rather disappointed in this post. Is the person that points out that the top 1% will have more wealth than the bottom 99% by 2016 a whiner or are they just a person addressing the facts? http://fortune.com/2015/01/19/the-1-will-own-more-than-the-99-by-2016-report-says/ Yes, this is worldwide and not just the United States but we're mirroring that increase in wealth accumulation here in the United States. What is misleading though is that this addressed the entire top 1% but that's really not where the issue becomes apparent. It's the top 1/10th of the top 1% that are really accumulating this over-abundance of wealth. http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/ Yes, at some point increasing taxation on the super-wealthy, the top 1/10th of 1%, will result in diminishing returns but that only occurs if we tax them to the point that it cuts into their spending on consumption which is only a small percentage of their gross income. It would be hard for us to do that with the top 400 income earners in the United States where it's doubtful that they spend even 10% of their average $270 million in annual income on consumption. The counter argument is that they invest in enterprise that produces wealth but based upon a review of SEC transations and investments into corporations less than 0.00005% of investment capital goes to fund enterprise. Effectively we can say that zero percent of investments fund enterprise because the amount is really that small. Of course this top 1/10th of 1% don't operate an enterprise and it's the workers engaged in enterprise that create the wealth. Even one of the very few highly paid CEO's is creating wealth because they're involved in the daily operations of the enterprise and they're predominately a "worker" and not an investor. It is true that taxing the rich will not increase income or wealth for Americans. Only higher income in excess of the cost of living allows a person to accumulate wealth. At the same time the tax dollars from the wealthy can mitigate the effects of poverty created by under compensation for employment (i.e. wages and benefits below the cost of living) and that does benefit those subjected to under compensation. To claim it provide no benefit when it can be used to compensate for under compensation is blatantly false. Can the government do something? Obviously it can because if it raised the minimum compensation level so that it provides for the median cost of living it will at least give people a chance to accumulate wealth. The workers, actually creating the wealth of America by producing goods and providing services, would actually have enough income to pay their bills, pay for food, and other basic necessities and could even have a few dollars left over to invest and accumulate wealth. It would also dramatically reduce the necessity for tax and spend welfare programs that are required to mitigate the effects of under compensation. This isn't about "whining" which is a very disparaging term to use in addressing those that want to talk about the facts. It's also disparaging to the workers that are actually producing the wealth of America but that aren't being fairly compensated for their production of wealth that's being funneled off to the super wealthy that produce virtually no wealth in the United States.
and yet conservatives and their minions in government have fought tooth and nail for "trickle down" redistribution to the rich for decades. And with tremendous success: Maybe not so stupid as you say.
