Income inequality is the wrong focus

[Peter1469]

Income inequality is the wrong focus (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/upshot/its-not-the-inequality-its-the-immobility.html?ref=business&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0)

This has been my theme for some time. The focus on income inequality misses the mark. How well the rich are doing does not really affect the rest of us. We use fractional reserve banking. The economic pie is not fixed.

The real issue is economic mobility. We need policies that allow people to move up the economic ladder. Most, if not all (D) polices do not do this. They maintain a floor that people cannot fall below. And they aim to keep people there. In my book, that is evil.


Income inequality and economic immobility are often lumped together, but they shouldn’t be.


Consider the two concepts positively: Income equality is about bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, while economic mobility is about elevating the poor as rapidly as possible. Finding ways to increase economic mobility should be our greater concern.


For instance, while we have talked incessantly about the disproportionate gains of the top 1 percent, the wage slowdown in the United States in recent decades is a bigger problem for most people. Since 1973, for workers as a whole, wages have stagnated largely because of a severe productivity slowdown.


The consequences have been startling. Data from the Economic Report of the President (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_2015_erp.pdf) suggests that if productivity growth had maintained its pre-1973 pace, the median or typical household would now earn about $30,000 more today. Those higher earnings would constitute a form of upward mobility. For purposes of comparison, if income inequality had maintained its pre-1973 trend, the gain for the median household would be about $9,000 in income this year, a much smaller figure.

[Crepitus]

Income inequality is the wrong focus (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/upshot/its-not-the-inequality-its-the-immobility.html?ref=business&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0)

This has been my theme for some time. The focus on income inequality misses the mark. How well the rich are doing does not really affect the rest of us. We use fractional reserve banking. The economic pie is not fixed.

The real issue is economic mobility. We need policies that allow people to move up the economic ladder. Most, if not all (D) polices do not do this. They maintain a floor that people cannot fall below. And they aim to keep people there. In my book, that is evil.
Two ways of looking at the same problem, and calling it something else lets you hard righties continue to protect your rich heroes.

[Peter1469]

Two ways of looking at the same problem, and calling it something else lets you hard righties continue to protect your rich heroes.

If you think the two issues are the same thing, you are not ready for this thread.

What do you think about ice cream? I like French vanilla myself.

[Crepitus]

If you think the two issues are the same thing, you are not ready for this thread.

What do you think about ice cream? I like French vanilla myself.
Ah, now a subtle attempt at insult. Not bad, but I don't do, and thus don't really appreciate, subtle. I tend to be a more direct action type.

And yes, the two issues are one and the same.

[Green Arrow]

I largely agree with that. Income inequality should be considered a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself. You can't really ever fix income inequality, it's impossible. There will always be varying degrees of income. The real problem is social mobility, and until that problem is adequately addressed (hint for the partisan fools out there: neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are adequately addressing it), it will only continue to get worse.

[zelmo1234]

Two ways of looking at the same problem, and calling it something else lets you hard righties continue to protect your rich heroes.

I have no idea what you do, but I will help you make more money whatever it is!

And the amount that your boss makes will have nothing to do with how much you make

[zelmo1234]

Ah, now a subtle attempt at insult. Not bad, but I don't do, and thus don't really appreciate, subtle. I tend to be a more direct action type.

And yes, the two issues are one and the same.

So how does the CEO's salary effect yours?

[Crepitus]

I have no idea what you do, but I will help you make more money whatever it is!

And the amount that your boss makes will have nothing to do with how much you make


So how does the CEO's salary effect yours?
We've been over this ground more than a few times already. I'm going to tell you I own a small chain of retail stores, you will call me a liar because I don't do it the way you think it should be done, we will discuss the relative incomes between myself and my employees, and you will think you've made your point when I agree that yes, I do indeed make substantially more than my employees.

[zelmo1234]

We've been over this ground more than a few times already. I'm going to tell you I own a small chain of retail stores, you will call me a liar because I don't do it the way you think it should be done, we will discuss the relative incomes between myself and my employees, and you will think you've made your point when I agree that yes, I do indeed make substantially more than my employees.

Good, I am sorry I had forgotten that. but that gives us a basis of which to build on.

So if you were to find a new draw and your business were to more than double would you double your workers pay, or would you actually need to give them a raise but hire more people as well?

I will assume that you are not over staffed as you still are in business. so you would need to hire more people.

The percent that you take out of the business would not change. would it.

The percentage of revenue that your payroll would be allotted, would not change either. You would have more employee's and you would reward others with a raise, which they would be grateful for!

But the income gap between you and your employee's would grow would it not?

And in another 2 years lets say that it doubles again? Same thing. Your percentage never changes, or if it does it would actually go down so you could invest in the business say more stores.

But the income gap would continue to grow.

Now pretend that you have 100 billion in sales every quarter? How much do you make

[Peter1469]

Ah, now a subtle attempt at insult. Not bad, but I don't do, and thus don't really appreciate, subtle. I tend to be a more direct action type.

And yes, the two issues are one and the same.lol

[Peter1469]

The hard left typically fails because they focus hate on a myth.

lol

[Mister D]

If you think the two issues are the same thing, you are not ready for this thread.

What do you think about ice cream? I like French vanilla myself.

French vanilla is tasty. :smiley:

[Mister D]

It's notable that in the USA "hard left" and "hard right" are defined by a variation on the same economic policy.

[Crepitus]

Good, I am sorry I had forgotten that. but that gives us a basis of which to build on.

So if you were to find a new draw and your business were to more than double would you double your workers pay, or would you actually need to give them a raise but hire more people as well?

I will assume that you are not over staffed as you still are in business. so you would need to hire more people.

The percent that you take out of the business would not change. would it.

The percentage of revenue that your payroll would be allotted, would not change either. You would have more employee's and you would reward others with a raise, which they would be grateful for!

But the income gap between you and your employee's would grow would it not?

And in another 2 years lets say that it doubles again? Same thing. Your percentage never changes, or if it does it would actually go down so you could invest in the business say more stores.

But the income gap would continue to grow.

Now pretend that you have 100 billion in sales every quarter? How much do you make
All of these things are hypothetical, and dependent on the situation, such as how many people would I need to hire? Do I need to open more locations? What is the overhead for more locations? Is there cost involved in whatever is making my business expand?

It is expanding BTW, we are branching into furniture. I know the cost of the merch, but I'm still learning about the other costs involved. Will I need more space or can we fit it in existing locations? Will I need more sales people? More delivery people? I don't have all the answers yet.

[Green Arrow]

It's notable that in the USA "hard left" and "hard right" are defined by a variation on the same economic policy.

That's largely why I always say that terms like "left" and "right" are meaningless in American political discourse.

[Mister D]

That's largely why I always say that terms like "left" and "right" are meaningless in American political discourse.

I'd go further and say they're meaningless everywhere. The political fault lines of the contemporary world simply don't break down in such a way that makes these terms useful any longer.

[Green Arrow]

I'd go further and say they're meaningless everywhere. The political fault lines of the contemporary world simply don't break down in such a way that makes these terms useful any longer.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

[zelmo1234]

All of these things are hypothetical, and dependent on the situation, such as how many people would I need to hire? Do I need to open more locations? What is the overhead for more locations? Is there cost involved in whatever is making my business expand?

It is expanding BTW, we are branching into furniture. I know the cost of the merch, but I'm still learning about the other costs involved. Will I need more space or can we fit it in existing locations? Will I need more sales people? More delivery people? I don't have all the answers yet.

This is something that I am well versed in, feel free to ask questions. And good luck by the way.

[Dr. Who]

I have no idea what you do, but I will help you make more money whatever it is!

And the amount that your boss makes will have nothing to do with how much you make
It could, if the amount that the CEO makes is taken from the potential salary increases of everyone else. There is one pot of money in any given business and everyone gets paid from that pot. If the pot intended for salaries is overwhelmed by the salary of one individual then the rank and file are continually told stories about cut backs and economizing to justify lower increases despite performance. In spite of the fact that they are being asked to give more, work more hours, they are on a relative basis making less every year but CEOs are making more. In a business there is only one pie and if one individual continually takes a greater share of that pie, the rest are left with less. Not rocket science.

[zelmo1234]

It could, if the amount that the CEO makes is taken from the potential salary increases of everyone else. There is one pot of money in any given business and everyone gets paid from that pot. If the pot intended for salaries is overwhelmed by the salary of one individual then the rank and file are continually told stories about cut backs and economizing to justify lower increases despite performance. In spite of the fact that they are being asked to give more, work more hours, they are on a relative basis making less every year but CEOs are making more. In a business there is only one pie and if one individual continually takes a greater share of that pie, the rest are left with less. Not rocket science.

But the employee would be force to stay at that employer for your theory to work

[Dr. Who]

But the employee would be force to stay at that employer for your theory to work
Except that it's a really common story.

[Reason10]

Income inequality is the wrong focus (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/upshot/its-not-the-inequality-its-the-immobility.html?ref=business&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0)

This has been my theme for some time. The focus on income inequality misses the mark. How well the rich are doing does not really affect the rest of us. We use fractional reserve banking. The economic pie is not fixed.

The real issue is economic mobility. We need policies that allow people to move up the economic ladder. Most, if not all (D) polices do not do this. They maintain a floor that people cannot fall below. And they aim to keep people there. In my book, that is evil.

You're right.

[Reason10]

Two ways of looking at the same problem, and calling it something else lets you hard righties continue to protect your rich heroes.

You're wrong.

Pathetic.

[Crepitus]

This is something that I am well versed in, feel free to ask questions. And good luck by the way.
Thank you.

[Crepitus]

You're wrong.

Pathetic.
You're wong.

Pathetic.


See? I can do it too! :tongue:

[Peter1469]

Do you guys know what you are wrong about?

[Guerilla]

I think having a good education plan would help upward mobility the most.

[Green Arrow]

I think having a good education plan would help upward mobility the most.

It's certainly the starting point.

[zelmo1234]

Except that it's a really common story.

That may be, but that is still there choice! I can't help it when people make bad choices

[Guerilla]

Once you fix education, Im not sure what more you can do besides removing the regulations and involuntary taxes and other red tape.

You can teach them skills and how to be more self-sufficient so they can have more options and less pressures, but that's about it. If you teach them the right skills, and remove useless red tape, and they still don't prosper, then what more can you do?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Income inequality is the wrong focus (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/upshot/its-not-the-inequality-its-the-immobility.html?ref=business&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0)

This has been my theme for some time. The focus on income inequality misses the mark. How well the rich are doing does not really affect the rest of us.

The real issue is economic mobility. We need policies that allow people to move up the economic ladder. Most, if not all (D) polices do not do this. They maintain a floor that people cannot fall below. In my book The problem is that you want us to automatically assume that the rich earned their money rather than took it dishonestly. The legality of the way they did it is meaningless because they control the laws.

Again, inherited money is automatically unearned. If they convince themselves that it belongs to their mooching spoiled-putrid brats, then they must have gotten their own wealth through luck and cheating. And they also control class-climbing so their brats don't have to compete with the best, or only with the talented who have had all their self-respect ripped out of them on the ladder of thorns the ruling class puts up for the rest of us to climb.

Also, what the HeirHead makes over and above what Daddy gives to him is unearned because once he has such a head start, it is a lot easier to make money than it is for someone who had to spend time and energy to get to where the pre-positioned plutocrat started out at.

Many positions are windfalls. It's like the NBA champion getting the #1 draft pick. They still have to show up in order to win, but it is almost guaranteed that they'll become an unbeatable dynasty.

[The Sage of Main Street]

lol Another whimsical Peter Pan misspelling, I take it. You're lolling your tongue after licking the boots of the Plutes Who Wear the Boots.