No, I'm simply saying that the gap in income inequality is greatest in the U.S. At one time there was a "wealth clock" on the internet, that charted the personal net worth of the worlds richest people. As I remember in 1998 the combined personal net worth of the two richest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, was nearly equal to the combined net worth of 200 Million Americans, put together. I don't know what the figures are now, but America has EXTREME INEQUALITY in income levels.
Ok, so you admit our system has provided the opportunity for a higher standard of living. The reality is, as we have seen, if we demand too high wages, there are always people, for example, in Asia who are willing to work for much less. What's better? A job that pays little, or no job at all?
Well, germana00 I can tell from your comments that we have absolutely nothing in common in our economic and our political views, so I'll say adios, auf wiedersehn, cheerio, good-bye, because I've got better things to do than, argue with someone who probably believes that Obama is a God-Cursed Socialist, because he thinks that the minimum wage should be raised more often, than once every TEN YEARS! Talk about "Horse and Buggy Thinking!" Americans are Neanderthals!
A minimum wage artificially establishes a supply/demand relationship for unskilled labor. When the cost of a thing increases, demand goes down. Artificially increase the cost of providing a job for unskilled labor and demand for unskilled labor goes down and those jobs will become scarce.
BTW Obama IS a socialist, you retard.
You probably still think manmade CO2 is causing global warming. Thirty years ago the worry was over global cooling. Explain that one.
You can't compare nations white and black anymore. Economies are very globalized.
Also, income equality is NOT an end game goal. You, sir, are trying to achieve the absurd goal of "equality among results" instead of "equality among opportunity." We're not all born equal in ability. Certain people WILL outproduce others and their wage will reflect that. This is the darwinistic reality we live in and people like myself and Friedman would argue the alternatives are worse and less free.
True, some 40 percent of families own (some) stocks or bonds, but almost all of these have total holdings of less than $ 2000 dollars. Taking into account their debts and mortgages, 90 percent of American Families have little or no net assets. The greatest source of individual wealth is inheritance. If you're not rich, it's probably because you lacked the right foresight to pick the proper parents at birth. The trend has been towards greater and greater economic inequality, here and abroad.
So you admit then you'd try and take someones property and money by force of government on the assumption that it is ill gotten. You deleted your comment that had in it my reason for calling you a thief. And, as a leftist, you are a thief. As an advocate for bigger government, you are a thief. As an advocate for use of government force against private companies to steal their property and redistribute it to your worthless counterparts, you are an enemy of the Constitution and of mine.
I do not support equal opportunity. I do not support equal pay. I do not support equality in any way except in Liberty and Freedom. Everything else is up to the individual. No one owes you anything you don't work for.
I reject the premise that there is a "free market" for ordinary working people. What we have is a Coercive Market. In a Coercive Market the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. Those who preach the virtues of "the free market" should be the first to recognize that a coercive market is as certain to be destructive as a genuine free market is presumed to be healthy.
I reject your rejection for no other reason than you have given no reason for rejecting the premise of a free market. Merely stating your opinion of a proposed existence of a Coercive Market is not evidence or reasoning.
You will also need to explain away the raw data demonstrating mobility of persons moving up and moving down the income quintiles because this fact is in direct opposition to your statement "those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth"
O.K. tnyrb444 I'll give you my reasons for rejecting the premise of a free market. These reasons come from my direct life experience. Coercion marks the employer-employee relationship at every point. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable nor a matter of free choice. It is "Take It Or Leave It". And few are in a position to leave it- not when a job is a necessity for survival! In a true free market, both the buyer and seller of work are free to bargain for terms.
In a true free market, both the buyer and seller of work or services are free to bargain for the best possible terms. When that freedom is replaced by coercion, when one party is dependent upon the other for survival, there is no longer a free market, and at precisely that point the actions of the party with a monopoly of economic power BECOME GOVERNMENTAL. Through its control of jobs and our livelihood, economic government is responsible for far more coercion in our daily lives than anything.
In a Real free Market both the buyer and seller of work or services are free to bargain for the best possible terms. As one with less power, you have a weaker bargaining position.
Your Government evaluation is spot on. The point is don't give the government the power or Don't let the government extort the power from you with silver lined promises of "Security" and "Free Stuff"
Today, more and more people work under terms of employment they are FORCED to accept rather than under terms they would demand if bargaining as equals. Employers have forced more and more employees to accept less job security, temporary rather than regular employment, lower pay and benefits than the prosperity of the country would seem to justify, and a steady slide from comfortable middle-class status to the chaos of chronic economic anxiety.
They're not equals and the Free Market doesn't promise you bargaining as equals. You Both Have A Free Choice and that's the only way you are the same.
When an agreement is rendered, the parties choose from their position as to whether the agreement benifits them. Because one might be in a position of , Doesn't mean the weaker is FORCED into the position of accepting the agreement.
Nor do I completely disagree with your picture of the current employment market place
The Nation's Wealth???? What arrogance to presume that any wealth earned in this country BELONGs to anyone who does not earn it. The wealth earned isn't the NATIONs... and when you push this unsupportable fallacy, you push us ever closer to an outright shooting war because those of us you try and steal wealth from will eventually turn on you thieves and kill you where you stand.
mr1001nights: "Work for a boss or starve" seems to be your only argument. It's not even really an argument, it's simply a posture that you repeat over and over, as if repetition makes something more true. Address the third "work for yourself" option or STFU.
CosmicFork, are you saying India has a higher standard of living than the US?
germana00 2 years ago
No, I'm simply saying that the gap in income inequality is greatest in the U.S. At one time there was a "wealth clock" on the internet, that charted the personal net worth of the worlds richest people. As I remember in 1998 the combined personal net worth of the two richest Americans, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, was nearly equal to the combined net worth of 200 Million Americans, put together. I don't know what the figures are now, but America has EXTREME INEQUALITY in income levels.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
Ok, so you admit our system has provided the opportunity for a higher standard of living. The reality is, as we have seen, if we demand too high wages, there are always people, for example, in Asia who are willing to work for much less. What's better? A job that pays little, or no job at all?
germana00 2 years ago
Well, germana00 I can tell from your comments that we have absolutely nothing in common in our economic and our political views, so I'll say adios, auf wiedersehn, cheerio, good-bye, because I've got better things to do than, argue with someone who probably believes that Obama is a God-Cursed Socialist, because he thinks that the minimum wage should be raised more often, than once every TEN YEARS! Talk about "Horse and Buggy Thinking!" Americans are Neanderthals!
CosmicFork 2 years ago
A minimum wage artificially establishes a supply/demand relationship for unskilled labor. When the cost of a thing increases, demand goes down. Artificially increase the cost of providing a job for unskilled labor and demand for unskilled labor goes down and those jobs will become scarce.
BTW Obama IS a socialist, you retard.
You probably still think manmade CO2 is causing global warming. Thirty years ago the worry was over global cooling. Explain that one.
kyufa 2 years ago 3
Raise the minimum wage? Do you have any idea how much that would hurt the poor even more?
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
You can't compare nations white and black anymore. Economies are very globalized.
Also, income equality is NOT an end game goal. You, sir, are trying to achieve the absurd goal of "equality among results" instead of "equality among opportunity." We're not all born equal in ability. Certain people WILL outproduce others and their wage will reflect that. This is the darwinistic reality we live in and people like myself and Friedman would argue the alternatives are worse and less free.
SuaveSavant 2 years ago
You gave a lot of stats, but refuse to source them. Anyone can make up statistics to prove a false point. 82% of people know that.
mattrmc19 2 years ago
True, some 40 percent of families own (some) stocks or bonds, but almost all of these have total holdings of less than $ 2000 dollars. Taking into account their debts and mortgages, 90 percent of American Families have little or no net assets. The greatest source of individual wealth is inheritance. If you're not rich, it's probably because you lacked the right foresight to pick the proper parents at birth. The trend has been towards greater and greater economic inequality, here and abroad.
CosmicFork 2 years ago
So you admit then you'd try and take someones property and money by force of government on the assumption that it is ill gotten. You deleted your comment that had in it my reason for calling you a thief. And, as a leftist, you are a thief. As an advocate for bigger government, you are a thief. As an advocate for use of government force against private companies to steal their property and redistribute it to your worthless counterparts, you are an enemy of the Constitution and of mine.
EvilMongrelMonkey 2 years ago
I do not support equal opportunity. I do not support equal pay. I do not support equality in any way except in Liberty and Freedom. Everything else is up to the individual. No one owes you anything you don't work for.
EvilMongrelMonkey 2 years ago
Start your own company moron... oh, yes, that's right, you have to be smart to actually start a business.
EvilMongrelMonkey 2 years ago
I reject the premise that there is a "free market" for ordinary working people. What we have is a Coercive Market. In a Coercive Market the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. Those who preach the virtues of "the free market" should be the first to recognize that a coercive market is as certain to be destructive as a genuine free market is presumed to be healthy.
CosmicFork 3 years ago
I reject your rejection for no other reason than you have given no reason for rejecting the premise of a free market. Merely stating your opinion of a proposed existence of a Coercive Market is not evidence or reasoning.
You will also need to explain away the raw data demonstrating mobility of persons moving up and moving down the income quintiles because this fact is in direct opposition to your statement "those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth"
tnyrb444 3 years ago
O.K. tnyrb444 I'll give you my reasons for rejecting the premise of a free market. These reasons come from my direct life experience. Coercion marks the employer-employee relationship at every point. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable nor a matter of free choice. It is "Take It Or Leave It". And few are in a position to leave it- not when a job is a necessity for survival! In a true free market, both the buyer and seller of work are free to bargain for terms.
CosmicFork 3 years ago
I understand your position, and I can see why you would not label the system "a TRUE Free Market". Regardless, There is a choice..
#1 Take it
#2 Leave it
If a job was necessary for survival,
There would be no unemployment or there would be alot of dead bodies.
I understand and agree with most of your point , I just wouldn't call it coercive. Similarly I don't think "Predatory Lending" exists.
tnyrb444 3 years ago
In a true free market, both the buyer and seller of work or services are free to bargain for the best possible terms. When that freedom is replaced by coercion, when one party is dependent upon the other for survival, there is no longer a free market, and at precisely that point the actions of the party with a monopoly of economic power BECOME GOVERNMENTAL. Through its control of jobs and our livelihood, economic government is responsible for far more coercion in our daily lives than anything.
CosmicFork 3 years ago
In a True free market your correct.
In a Real free Market both the buyer and seller of work or services are free to bargain for the best possible terms. As one with less power, you have a weaker bargaining position.
Your Government evaluation is spot on. The point is don't give the government the power or Don't let the government extort the power from you with silver lined promises of "Security" and "Free Stuff"
tnyrb444 3 years ago
Today, more and more people work under terms of employment they are FORCED to accept rather than under terms they would demand if bargaining as equals. Employers have forced more and more employees to accept less job security, temporary rather than regular employment, lower pay and benefits than the prosperity of the country would seem to justify, and a steady slide from comfortable middle-class status to the chaos of chronic economic anxiety.
CosmicFork 3 years ago
They're not equals and the Free Market doesn't promise you bargaining as equals. You Both Have A Free Choice and that's the only way you are the same.
When an agreement is rendered, the parties choose from their position as to whether the agreement benifits them. Because one might be in a position of , Doesn't mean the weaker is FORCED into the position of accepting the agreement.
Nor do I completely disagree with your picture of the current employment market place
tnyrb444 3 years ago
The Nation's Wealth???? What arrogance to presume that any wealth earned in this country BELONGs to anyone who does not earn it. The wealth earned isn't the NATIONs... and when you push this unsupportable fallacy, you push us ever closer to an outright shooting war because those of us you try and steal wealth from will eventually turn on you thieves and kill you where you stand.
EvilMongrelMonkey 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mr1001nights: "Work for a boss or starve" seems to be your only argument. It's not even really an argument, it's simply a posture that you repeat over and over, as if repetition makes something more true. Address the third "work for yourself" option or STFU.
kyufa 4 years ago 2