Income Inequality in America

Failing to distinguish between poverty and being poor can only lead to false conclusions.

 

No, socialism as defined by economists solves no problems at all, because eventually the money socialists take from capital runs out. Socialism robs people of ambition and motivation to work to improve their situation. Only under capitalism and an economy prosper sufficiently such that we now have the money to help the least productive persons in our system. Social programs are not socialism, they are the altruistic functions of capitalists under which prosperity can occur.

 

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.

States' and statism requires socialism to exist and is an evolution from mere capital based economies without the socialism necessary for public sector intervention in private sector markets.

Capitalism involves mutually beneficial and voluntary forms of trade.

 

I have distinguished between poverty and being poor.

Poverty effectively is the inability to provide and sustain the basic requirements of life such as food, clothing and shelter.

Poor is effectively having the ability to provide and sustain the basic requirements of life such as food, clothing and shelter and even enjoy some of the finer things society can provide.

In the US we only have relative poverty in the sense that most of our poor are simply the less wealthy in of our society with the government providing safety nets which tend to elevate most of our poor out of true poverty.

 

I think you are generally incorrect.

 

You are committing a fallacy of omission under any form of capitalism by not including in the definition of poverty, insufficient capital to make more capital under Any form of Capitalism. The poor may only be poor due to poor money management, not a poverty of money.

 

I agree!

That is a contradictory comment.

Yes, and is the only economic system which will provide long lasting prosperity such that poverty can be reduced to relativism rather than being true poverty in which the basic needs for survival are available to most people.

Look around the world and try to understand history. Every attempt at socialism has sapped the human animal of most of his motivation and ambition and only the leaders of the socialist countries attain any kind of prosperity at all. Private property, liberty are control of productions are major contributors to prosperity; whereas socialism diminishes the ability of the individual to excel.

- - - Updated - - -

That is your opinion.

 

It is only through capitalism that true poverty can be alleviated as only in capitalism is the economy sufficiently prosperous to help the poor.

 

Damned right. And we're all sharing opinion here. So be it.

 

Yep! So be it.

BTW, I don't do videos or sound. How about a short description of what the guy in your signature line says.

 

How about starting with a better basic education and pushing for a better family structure. Then job training etc.

 

I buy that 100%. Next to socialism I can't think of anything which creates more of an income inequality than lack of education, family structure and job training.

 

It's 2013; why not?

 

Choice!

 

FALSE! Raising the minimum wage will make income more equal. The gross inequality of incomes is most apparent at the lowest levels of those working for minimum wage.
The greed of employers makes legislation necessary. Not every employer pays their workers $150/hour, as I did when I was a business owner. Very few have the strong sense of morality that brings about good wages. In many, if not most, jobs, to get soulless employers, who see wages to be determined by how much they can gain, to get decent wages paid, requires force from the govt.

Better job training, more hard work, motivation, and ambition are all good things but they are no help if employers are simply greedy and won't pay a moral, decent living wage.

 

1. Nothing to do with greed ? Would you tell that to the guy who stands at the gates of heaven on your judgement day ? I wouldn't advise it. It course it's greed. When employers pocket incomes dozens of times bigger than their employees, it can only be greed. The employer doesn't have to take that much. He could raise wages and share the take more than he does. But some of these guys stuff as much as they can into THEIR pockets, and pay their workers the minimum they can get away with.

2. No, the market does NOT set wages. The market sets prices, as I explained back in in Post # Wages are set arbitrarily, by the employer starting at the minimum he's required to pay to make a reasonable profit, up to a maximum of where the height of the wages could endanger the welfare of the company. In many, if not most, companies this leaves a very wide gap, in which wages are determined by the fairmindedness of the employer or his greed and insensitivity.

3. My example isn't extreme at all. As I said before >> " " Thousands of employers in America are just as unfair in their wages as my example and many are far worse. Just look at the Billionaire Mars family WalMart owner for example or the Koch brothers.

4. "Some employers who lack integrity" ? There are millions of them. And yes it is useful in a discussion about reality because unlike YOUR little reality that you find convenient for yourself, morality is a BIG part of reality.

5. By saying the "value of labor" you are showing that you are only interested in what good the workers will do for YOU (as if they were nothing more than machines), and not interested in what the value of your job is to them.

 

Socialism creates income EQUALITY (nor INequality). That's what it's all about.

 

I do not believe that. The same people who are in the bottom quintile making minimum wage will be the same people who will be in the bottom quintile just a short time after a rise in minimum wage.

I agree with that, but I don't believe it would change a thing if the minimum wage is increased. Within a very short time inflation will eat up all of the additional income keeping their buying power very near the same thing. Actually it could decrease buying power as there are numerous wage contracts which dictate that when the minimum wage goes up, their wage will go up by the same rate.

And in my opinion based on historical data any gains from minimum wage increases are very short lived. Wages and poverty are all relative.

Your suggesting that most employers are greedy is simply not supported by the facts. Most jobs are local small business jobs, and most small businesses do not make a lot of money.

 

Socialism creates income EQUALITY...through poverty.

 

Actually socialism does create income equality; EVERYONE BUT THE DICTATORS AND LEADERS get high pay but most workers get equal and very low pay.

 

Apparently, you would rather be coddled than free. And unfortunately, this is the kind of weak mindset that has become rather prevalent in the west today. My question to you is in the practicalities, though. How exactly do you expect your government to provide so many creature comforts for so many people when everyone is required to remain perpetually uncomfortable in order to keep your system from collapsing? You see, the ultimate creature comfort is sloth. Thus how do you expect your society to run itself if nobody wants to work?

 

Exactly! More people are equally poor.

 

I feel very secure of my status at judgement day, because I believe that most employers pay their workers reasonable wages. Of course there are some who do not, but the economics fact are, unless the worker produces more for the employer than he earns in wages, the business will fail and jobs will be lost.

 

The corporate wealthy don't believe in "judgement day" Sir. Believing in God and greed aren't consistent with each other so, they abandon those "silly" beliefs. Tough to rape and pilfer with a pesky conscious interrupting
the cash flow so, they concentrate on the raping and pilfering, keeping focus, and profits high.

 

States' and statism requires socialism to exist and is an evolution from mere capital based economies without the socialism necessary for public sector intervention in private sector markets.

What part of that statement is "contradictory"?

- - - Updated - - -

This is a contradictory statement. How can Capitalism ever solve poverty for free?