US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

You could try some Austrian economics. You'd have to be careful mind you. Your 'divide and conquer' approach isn't consistent with their application of individualism.

 

Someone else's income doesn't have anything to do with my own income. If I want to have a higher income, then that's on me, not anyone else.

 

Well, in fact, it does. And if you understood that simple truth you'd be a member of a workers' union.

Your outlook on an "economics forum" is very closed. Life is not just "about you". Because you live with "us". Which is what this economics-forum is about - the whole and not the individual.

You don't like it? That unique concept is particularly difficult for the Replicants to accept.

So go elsewhere and stop cluttering the exchange with "me, me, me" provocations ...

 

One person's income doesn't have anything to do with another's income. One earns what one can fetch on the open market. The fact that there is someone out there making seventy billion dollars doesn't mean anything to anyone else.

Edit: BTW, WTF is a Replicant?

 

Go take a course in Economics 101, OK?

Once again, you're responding as if the subject of economics were all about you, you, you.

It aint. It's about "us".

Get it? (I doubt it ...)

 

Your ability to earn an income is dependent upon the infrastructure of the society in which you live. Why should the wealthy freeload off the society while the rest must carry the burden?

 

One person's income is not based upon another person's income.

 

If you think that you need infrastructure, then you should split the cost of that infrastructure evenly between yourselves.

 

ACUTE PENURY

Why indeed?

Because in countries that are social-democracies, higher taxation of the rich spreads the wealth generated by a market-economy further. By means of a good number of social-programs.

Not the least of which are two key deliverables: A National Healthcare Service and Very Low-cost Tertiary Education. With the former the vicissitudes of life become controllable (to some extent) and with the latter is built a nation of people who understand the commonality of the individual - particularly as it was described by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

We are all facing the challenge of satisifying those needs portrayed above. All I am saying is that those two bottom layers are the foundation of any society upon which the rest of the pyramid is built.

So, let's get at the very least the foundation right! And that is done by government subvention of key necessities - such as Health Care and Tertiary Education. And all the rest like housing, education, water, protection (fire and police), etc., etc., etc.

But what some don't understand is that if basic-needs are not made affordable to the poorest then Health Care can become an acute problem for a large percentage of our population*. Or, consider the exaggerated crime-rate in the US that has long since been proven a problem derived from acute penury.

And that's only two examples ...

*I was amazed to see a TV-report on French TV of Americans living out of their cars. Goodness! What have we become as a nation? Heartless?

 

Except that it does not work that way. Let us use an example of a farmer who uses the labor from a local village. The villagers walk along the road to his farm in order to work each day while the farmer does not need the road on a daily basis. Instead the farmer needs the road only once a week in order to bring his produce to the village market. When the farmer does so he uses his ox wagon which causes deep ruts in the road. Why must the villagers pay for the damage to the road caused by the farmer?

 

Joe's ability to earn an income does not depend upon Fred's income.

 

I, like you, am in favor of usage fees.

 

Here's the WikiP article on Maslow's Book, "Motivation and Personality"

Excerpt:

 

You are blind to the workings of a modern economy.

Too bad. For some "ignorance is bliss" ...

 

How do you collect "usage fees"? Must we now burden society with a toll collector along the road to the farm for the sole purpose of collecting these "usage fees"? Who is going to pay the living costs of the toll collector? You have just added a burden to society without any actual benefit. Your original premise was that the villagers and the farmer must all pay an EQUAL share of the cost of maintaining the road. Now you are changing the rules by incurring an unnecessary overhead that is of no benefit whatsoever to the villagers even though they are going to have to share equally in the cost of the toll collector.

Given that the farmer is the one who is receiving a significantly greater benefit from the road and a higher income why should he not be paying a larger share of the burden?

 

Yes, they are also called "Federal and State Taxation" ...

 

Wrong again - but I tire of repeating the same explanation about social-dynamics in a market-economy.

It is obvious that you are in this forum just to stir the shat. A useless activity that I shall no longer pursue with you.

So, on you go to Ignore ...

 

Your divide and conquer approach.
The market manipulators you shill for create the social division and sham tax codes that shift the burden to those that make a just a little bit more than the average.

 

Why don't you go create something, and stop trying to constantly get your hands on everything others have created

 

I'd only typically use it to understand discrimination. Your approach would be seen as much more Marxist!

You've gone off on one again. Has your application of Marxism led to dissonance?

 

You have yet to demonstrate your clown assertion statey boy.

 

Actually I want a very limited, low spending, liberty promoting government, so no.

 

Is that due to the gap itself, or from the living conditions that those on the 'lesser' side commonly suffer as a result? In our case in the US, the 'greater' side are making such huge amounts and growing at such a rediculous rate that we 'lessers' are still generally keeping a relatively high quality of life despite the gap. This probably cant continue forever, I imagine their rate of growth represents an inflationary dynamic bubble that must eventually burst... but I dont think them having excess would lead to violence until far more of the rest of us don't have enough to be happy.

Or put another way, should it matter that they can have fleets of yachts if I (and most americans) can still pay my mortgage, save for retirement and go on occassional vacations? Am I entitled to a yacht as well?

 

If they weren't using state implemened and enforced methods to create their inflationary bubble, enriching themselves while inflicting their costs onto the rest of us, nothing would be wrong with owning a fleet of yachts.

 

You must be part of the 9.9 percent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

The cost of maintaining a "middle class" lifestyle is becoming less and less achievable. Already 50 million Americans are living in poverty and that number is growing. 70+ million boomers are reaching retirement age and only about 20% of them can afford to do so. Which demographic is the most reliable when it comes to voting?