Income Inequality

[Speaker to Animals]

None of this has the slightest thing to do with Income Inequality.

Has everything to do with it.

Your enlightened racial theories do not explain why CEOs suddenly make way more than the average worker, why productivity has fallen sharply, or why nobody can make an actual "career" with a single employer anymore.

But do go on, and explain how the bad brown people took your fruit-picking job.

Labor glut.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Has everything to do with it.

Your enlightened racial theories do not explain why CEOs suddenly make way more than the average worker, why productivity has fallen sharply, or why nobody can make an actual "career" with a single employer anymore.

But do go on, and explain how the bad brown people took your fruit-picking job.

Labor glut.

Uh huh. So you believe that skilled wages rely entirely on an artificial restriction of the labor pool?

And no problem at all with executives making hundreds of times more than workers, or a leisure class developing far above, effectively squashing the lower- and middle-classes into one?

See, this is how they distract you and most people from the real issue. You're squabbling over crumbs with the sad shits at the bottom, while they sweep your legs out. We don't have much of a middle class left, because it's almost indistinguishable from the lower class.

[SilverEagle]

Has everything to do with it.

Your enlightened racial theories do not explain why CEOs suddenly make way more than the average worker, why productivity has fallen sharply, or why nobody can make an actual "career" with a single employer anymore.

But do go on, and explain how the bad brown people took your fruit-picking job.

Labor glut.

Another part of the glut in labor has to do with the decreasing amount of retirees. Older folks are either working until they die or close to it. It's keeping the working pool of the population larger than it should be. Vanished pensions, stagnant wages with inflation making saving for retirement close to impossible forces people to work longer than they ever intended to. That in turn reduces opportunity for younger workers.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your enlightened racial theories do not explain why CEOs suddenly make way more than the average worker, why productivity has fallen sharply, or why nobody can make an actual "career" with a single employer anymore.

But do go on, and explain how the bad brown people took your fruit-picking job.

Labor glut.

Uh huh. So you believe that skilled wages rely entirely on an artificial restriction of the labor pool?

And no problem at all with executives making hundreds of times more than workers, or a leisure class developing far above, effectively squashing the lower- and middle-classes into one?

You're being ridiculous. Stop with the virtue signaling and try to honestly debate it if you are so passionate about it.

(1) The real income of the middle class has been on the decline since the 1980s. This has everything to do with immigration policy. We opened the doors in the 1960s to rampant immigration from the developing world. Then we offshored manufacturing and half the services sector in the late 1990s. On top of that, we invented this kind of indentured slave program called the H1B visa which flooded high-paying labor sectors with cheap labor that is not allowed to complain or even look for work at another employer.

If you don't understand that supply and demand also work with respect to salaries and wages, then I don't know what else to tell you. Flood the market with more workers than you have jobs, and incomes fall.

(2) Whether or not a CEO makes hundreds of times more than workers is irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is happening to those middle and working class jobs, and the quality of life in general. People who fixate on income inequality like you do apparently would rather everybody be poorer just so that the wealthy are not much richer.

Furthermore, I'd argue that there at least exists more evidence that income inequality leads to a better quality of life for all than otherwise. Every successful civilization in history had a high degree of wealth inequality. If you want wealth equality, then go live with the Mashco-Piro people in the Amazon rain forest.

[SilverEagle]

StA and GCF.

I think you are both right on different points.

GCF is correct that the income inequality is out of control and is nothing more than corporate greed. In healthier middle class times the income gap between CEO and middle class worker was much, much, much smaller.

StA is correct that work visa's and immigration in general have diluted the skilled work force and that has had a negative effect on wage growth.

Both of those factors have brought wage growth to a screeching halt and in fact most workers are now earning far less than they were 17 years ago when factoring in the governments bullshit inflation figures. It's even worse when you factor in real inflation.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Labor glut.

Uh huh. So you believe that skilled wages rely entirely on an artificial restriction of the labor pool?

And no problem at all with executives making hundreds of times more than workers, or a leisure class developing far above, effectively squashing the lower- and middle-classes into one?

You're being ridiculous. Stop with the virtue signaling and try to honestly debate it if you are so passionate about it.

(1) The real income of the middle class has been on the decline since the 1980s. This has everything to do with immigration policy. We opened the doors in the 1960s to rampant immigration from the developing world. Then we offshored manufacturing and half the services sector in the late 1990s. On top of that, we invented this kind of indentured slave program called the H1B visa which flooded high-paying labor sectors with cheap labor that is not allowed to complain or even look for work at another employer.

I can certainly agree that H1B programs are bad for skilled workers. However, that's got nothing to do with Border Control, now does it?

If you don't understand that supply and demand also work with respect to salaries and wages, then I don't know what else to tell you. Flood the market with more workers than you have jobs, and incomes fall.

Again, you've changed topics - there are no MBA and PhD job candidates hiking across the fucking desert.

(2) Whether or not a CEO makes hundreds of times more than workers is irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is happening to those middle and working class jobs, and the quality of life in general. People who fixate on income inequality like you do apparently would rather everybody be poorer just so that the wealthy are not much richer.

This is where you really go off the rails. Paying the top brass proportionally many times more than they used to make vs. the rest of your workforce is NOT a lower wage for the workforce? How does math work for you? A company makes X dollars, and pays much more than it should to the top - that is zero-sum. How is that confusing?

Furthermore, I'd argue that there at least exists more evidence that income inequality leads to a better quality of life for all than otherwise. Every successful civilization in history had a high degree of wealth inequality. If you want wealth equality, then go live with the Mashco-Piro people in the Amazon rain forest.

Welcome to la-la-land. If the Rich can't have more, then everybody will starve. You're going to tell me about Trickle-Down next, aren't you?

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, goody. We already hit fisking. Must be only 1-2 posts away from the "Raaciisstt!!!!" post now.

Uh huh. So you believe that skilled wages rely entirely on an artificial restriction of the labor pool?

And no problem at all with executives making hundreds of times more than workers, or a leisure class developing far above, effectively squashing the lower- and middle-classes into one?

You're being ridiculous. Stop with the virtue signaling and try to honestly debate it if you are so passionate about it.

(1) The real income of the middle class has been on the decline since the 1980s. This has everything to do with immigration policy. We opened the doors in the 1960s to rampant immigration from the developing world. Then we offshored manufacturing and half the services sector in the late 1990s. On top of that, we invented this kind of indentured slave program called the H1B visa which flooded high-paying labor sectors with cheap labor that is not allowed to complain or even look for work at another employer.

I can certainly agree that H1B programs are bad for skilled workers. However, that's got nothing to do with Border Control, now does it?

You are moving goalposts again. My argument was about immigration.

If you don't understand that supply and demand also work with respect to salaries and wages, then I don't know what else to tell you. Flood the market with more workers than you have jobs, and incomes fall.

Again, you've changed topics - there are no MBA and PhD job candidates hiking across the fucking desert.

You are the one trying to change the topic. Whether or not people hiking across the desert to illegally immigrate here have college education has nothing to do with what I argued. I spoke of immigration policy in general, which does in fact include quite a lot of MBA and PhDs these days.

(2) Whether or not a CEO makes hundreds of times more than workers is irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is happening to those middle and working class jobs, and the quality of life in general. People who fixate on income inequality like you do apparently would rather everybody be poorer just so that the wealthy are not much richer.

This is where you really go off the rails. Paying the top brass proportionally many times more than they used to make vs. the rest of your workforce is NOT a lower wage for the workforce? How does math work for you? A company makes X dollars, and pays much more than it should to the top - that is zero-sum. How is that confusing?

Uh.. no, dude. What matters is whether real incomes for workers rises or falls. If lowering the income gap results in a slower rise (if any) for workers than not, then your policy is a dud. You and others like you constantly try to ignore the fact that rising real incomes for most people tend to be coupled with an increase in income inequality. The United States didn't land on the Moon, invent the internet, washing machines, and jet airliners because we had focused on narrowing the income gap.

You need to show the correlation between an income gap and falling real incomes, which doesn't really exist. Real incomes are falling because there exists an artificial labor glut through immigration policies and bad trade deals which offshored a huge percentage of our jobs. This income inequality is a red herring. Always has been.

Furthermore, I'd argue that there at least exists more evidence that income inequality leads to a better quality of life for all than otherwise. Every successful civilization in history had a high degree of wealth inequality. If you want wealth equality, then go live with the Mashco-Piro people in the Amazon rain forest.

Welcome to la-la-land. If the Rich can't have more, then everybody will starve. You're going to tell me about Trickle-Down next, aren't you?


Point being, that the more technologically advanced a society, and the higher quality of life enjoyed by its people, the higher the wealth inequality; and vice versa. If you want to live in a society with no wealth inequality, then my suggestion is to go native and live like a primitive -- because that's exactly what you are calling for.

[SuburbanFarmer]

(2) Whether or not a CEO makes hundreds of times more than workers is irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is happening to those middle and working class jobs, and the quality of life in general. People who fixate on income inequality like you do apparently would rather everybody be poorer just so that the wealthy are not much richer.

This is where you really go off the rails. Paying the top brass proportionally many times more than they used to make vs. the rest of your workforce is NOT a lower wage for the workforce? How does math work for you? A company makes X dollars, and pays much more than it should to the top - that is zero-sum. How is that confusing?

Uh.. no, dude. What matters is whether real incomes for workers rises or falls. If lowering the income gap results in a slower rise (if any) for workers than not, then your policy is a dud. You and others like you constantly try to ignore the fact that rising real incomes for most people tend to be coupled with an increase in income inequality. The United States didn't land on the Moon, invent the internet, washing machines, and jet airliners because we had focused on narrowing the income gap.

You need to show the correlation between an income gap and falling real incomes, which doesn't really exist. Real incomes are falling because there exists an artificial labor glut through immigration policies and bad trade deals which offshored a huge percentage of our jobs. This income inequality is a red herring. Always has been.

Real incomes are falling because they have barely fucking moved, while being undermined by 2% annually-compounded inflation.
Yet, somehow, that's not an issue for the top 1-10%. Why is that? Why do they look like a fucking hockey stick, while the other 90-99% have barely moved? No, it surely can't be a result of more money staying at the top - it's just a Socialist canard, right?

I don't need to show any causal connection between falling/rising GDP and income gaps, because I'm not making that causal connection - you are. I don't believe that they're related more than tangentially.

Furthermore, I'd argue that there at least exists more evidence that income inequality leads to a better quality of life for all than otherwise. Every successful civilization in history had a high degree of wealth inequality. If you want wealth equality, then go live with the Mashco-Piro people in the Amazon rain forest.

Welcome to la-la-land. If the Rich can't have more, then everybody will starve. You're going to tell me about Trickle-Down next, aren't you?

Point being, that the more technologically advanced a society, and the higher quality of life enjoyed by its people, the higher the wealth inequality; and vice versa. If you want to live in a society with no wealth inequality, then my suggestion is to go native and live like a primitive -- because that's exactly what you are calling for.

Technological advancement = higher income inequality. Now you've really struck some gold.

Care to tie those pins together with some yarn?

[SilverEagle]

agh......Both of you are right on the points I listed above.

Corporate greed is the real enemy here. Corporate greed has forged our current economic condition where the only goal is to increase the share price and fuck everything else and the first item on the fuck you list is employees. Corporate greed makes government policy, writes the laws and tells the government to ignore certain laws with it's sole goal in mind.....increased share price. Nothing more and nothing less. All you'll hear from mainstream media is that the American economy is doing great as long as the DJIA is climbing day after day and year after year.

The system needs to be demolished.

[Speaker to Animals]

Inflation is not a factor in real income. To get real income, you factor inflation out of it. When an economist says real incomes are stagnant or falling, he is saying that adjusted for inflation, we are STILL losing earning power over time.

We can't have a rational discussion about this if you don't understand what these terms mean.

Then you go on to accuse me of making a causal connection between real income and income inequality, when I have done precisely the opposite: there exists no causal connection between the two! Wealth inequality is not in of itself a bad thing at all.

There does, however, seem to exist a correlation between wealth inequality and societal advancement and quality of life. The more advanced our societies become, the more wealth inequality we experience. I would rather live in an advanced society where some CEO is making ten thousand percent more than me than live in Liberia. Had you thought about this much? Really?