|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 13 2013 19:28 coverpunch wrote:
Is inequality a problem because the poor are too poor or because the rich are too rich? There seems to be a disconnect as people seem to think it's self-evident that something is wrong with a society where some people are fantastically rich. But there doesn't seem to be any explicit reasoning why that's a bad thing, particularly in a mostly free market economy where we actively encourage people to seek wealth.
There are plenty of explicit reasonings out there. Just to throw an example, you can argue that, from an utilitarian point of view, inequalities are suboptimal in terms of general welfare. A homeless man will get a lot more out of an extra 50 bucks than a millionaire.
|
the American Republic seems to have turned into a Corporatist Zaibatsu, Showa Japanese style militarized state.
Frankly I think USA should stop invading the whole world, be more like Germany and not go for 'liberal interventionism' (not my words)
Perhaps some kind of English-speaking co-operation zone wouldn't be a bad idea, plenty of British Conservatives are warming to this idea for the 21st century; personally I agree with most things Daniel Hannan has to say: intense intellectual & a British Whig, drawing upon the 18th-19th century liberal capitalist values which the United States of America was actually built on and has made a radical departure from in the 20th century...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100142312/our-shared-anglosphere-heritage/
|
On November 13 2013 16:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 15:00 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 13:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 09:43 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2013 08:33 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 07:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 06:06 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 05:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 05:10 Roe wrote:
[quote]
By taxing wealth, employers will simply avoid that tax and boost productivity, giving wealth to the lower end. If they're going to pay that money anyway, they'll use it instead to increase productivity of their company.
edit: income, wealth, bleh w/e How do you avoid the tax by boosting productivity? Because you've hired someone, you've spend the money and thus aren't taxed. Not following. If you mean property tax you'll still owe it. If you mean income tax, reducing profit to avoid tax is a money losing prospect and would be the opposite of increasing productivity. If you mean hire someone to boost profits to offset the tax you should be doing that regardless. Huh? O.o You spend the money you would have spent on taxes, on hiring people for productivity. Hiring people doesn't increase productivity, and the report from taxes to production is not proved empirically. If you're a good business leader hiring people definitely increases productivity. And we were talking about whether in principle it would occur. If you are a good business leader you don't hire people as part of some half-baked tax avoidance scheme. On November 13 2013 12:46 IgnE wrote:On November 13 2013 11:41 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 16:33 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I wish you would listen to me I read every word and haven't been convinced yet. Frankly, you fly from subject to subject and argument to argument so fast in such little time that its hard to summarize what I've found out about your position. Granted, we've covered a lot of subject in the last hundred pages or so, so maybe some of it gets muddled in my mind. Just to grab a couple that concerned me: there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. No on both counts for the reasons I stated. I might also add at this time that there will be political cost for politicians ok for the rich to keep their earned money and spend it on expensive yachts. They will appear to be no friends to the poor, even as much as that was an argument I saw surface when Romney was angling for the presidency. I'm saddened that you don't understand my position on class structure, claiming I haven't read what you said. With good swaths of individual freedom still preserved, there is no rigid class structure ... look no farther than the shifting lists of Forbes's richest people or longitudinal studies from census data and social sciences research groups. On a side note that you already know, I advocate policies I understand to be helpful in removing obstacles to income/class mobility etc. I'm not going along with your pessimistic attitude, not because of its pessimism (and in fact I hold a few of those attitudes even in the realm of eSports) but because of how I analyze it against reality. On November 12 2013 16:32 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent.
You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes. I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality. On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion.
There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic. The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform. So this graph doesn't bother you: ![[image loading]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png) That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels? Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals? So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph? You are right that that graph does not bother me, nor do I consider it extreme income inequality (and it is wealth in your graph and not income inequality). Just because one man earns an extra dollar does not mean that another must necessarily earn a dollar less. Just because the gap looks like that on the scale of wealth owned not income earned does not make the bottom of the barrel no different than the grinding poverty you can find in areas of Africa, for instance. Does the average rich man fly in million dollar vacations and the average poor man have no food, water, shelter and languish until death? No. On November 12 2013 23:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2013 16:32 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion.
There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes. I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality. On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point.
So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic. The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform. So this graph doesn't bother you: + Show Spoiler +That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels? Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals? So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph? Wealth inequality is really hard to deal with. I don't recall any plausible ideas out of the left to deal with that (mostly they seem to be concerned with income / consumption inequality). If you can think of any, remind me, it could be a good discussion. And to both your and Danglars' concerns - yes we need to put resources into helping the poor, but we also need to be concerned about how we deploy those resources. And many options for using those resources exist. Let's not box ourselves into either blindly throwing money at the problem or not trying at all. Wholeheartedly agree. Throwing money at the problem has not helped the problem. The War on Poverty arguably increased poverty. In 2011 we spent $19k on means-tested benefits (welfare) for every lower-income person (lowest third based on income). Heck, if you just cut that in a direct check it would be enough to lift every one to 200% of federal poverty level ( see for example here). I don't really even see the point of talking about wealth inequality unless you are proposing a wealth tax similar to France. And yes, Republicans do support the EITC (in particular a real negative income tax), particularly if it was used as a replacement for existing direct aid welfare schemes. It is pretty counter productive when you observe prior to such plans that many people faced marginal tax rates in excess of 100% if they left the dole for a low-wage job. Talk about an adverse economic incentive! Do you think the income inequality graph looks much different from the wealth inequality graph? ![[image loading]](http://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/us-income-inequality_uneven_prosperity1.gif?w=640) 90% of the population on the far left. And it's only gotten worse since 2008. The vast majority of the rebound from the crash has gone entirely to the top 1%. But at least they aren't at African poverty level status with swollen bellies, malaria, and AIDS. http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousiClass mobility is a lie. The opportunities to advance are shrinking rapidly.
Although the increase in inequality over the last two decades has been extensively documented in the economics and policy literature, the authors find that this inequality largely constituted an increase in permanent inequality. Using a large panel of income data from U.S. federal tax returns for the period 1987-2009, the authors show that for men’s labor earnings, the increase in inequality was entirely permanent (100 percent), while for total household income, roughly three-quarters of the increase in inequality was permanent. They estimate that the permanent variance for men’s earnings roughly doubled in the 20 years between 1987 and 2009, while the permanent variance of total household income increased by about 50 percent over the same period.
And it's only going to get worse as the lost earnings for the generation of 20-somethings who graduated during and after the crash are going to continue long into the future, resulting in significant losses in total lifetime earnings. I'm not sure the graph should be showing a negative income increase for the bottom 90% for 2000 - 2006. Do you know what definition of income they're using? Pre-tax, pre-transfer taxable income? As for your comment about the 1% benefiting more during the recovery, they also lost more during the recession. Their income is more volatile. Why not? pay 50 bucks, or pay 50 bucks and get more out of your company. easy choice. Because that's not how the math works. If you are discussing something like a property tax, hiring another employee will not reduce your tax burden. If you mean an income tax, then hiring the employee to be productive will result in more taxes owed.
Meh, maybe it's just another thing that works everywhere else in the world. When you make less in profit you also pay less taxes. Maybe I'm thinking of corporate taxes.
|
On November 13 2013 21:35 coverpunch wrote:
Do you seriously think revolution is a possibility in the United States?
At this very moment? No.
But if the trend goes on for 50 more years? I don't see why not (this is no us specific problem).
|
On November 13 2013 23:58 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 21:35 coverpunch wrote:
Do you seriously think revolution is a possibility in the United States? At this very moment? No. But if the trend goes on for 50 more years? I don't see why not (this is no us specific problem).
I think that so long as a majority have access to cable television, any form of large rebellion is unlikely.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
So much for the developing party line that was that people shouldn't have bought those perceived to be inferior plans in the first place.
It's one thing for embattled red state Democrats to support legislation that significantly disrupts Obamacare. It's a very different thing for bright-blue state Democrats to support such a bill.
That's what's happening. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have signed on to legislation introduced by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) -- and supported by Sens. Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) -- that weakens a core Obamacare reform to the insurance market. Merkley, Landrieu, Hagan and Pryor are up for re-election in 2014; Manchin and Feinstein won't face re-election until 2018.
The Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act mandates that insurers continue individual market policies in effect as of Dec. 31, 2013 for as long as the carrier is operating in the market and the policyholder is paying premiums and meeting eligibility requirements. In short, insurers would not be permitted to cancel policies that failed to meet Obamacare's minimum standard for essential health benefits.
"The Affordable Care Act is a good law, but it is not perfect," Feinstein said. "I believe the Landrieu bill is a commonsense fix that will protect individuals in the private insurance market from being forced to change their insurance plan. I hope Congress moves quickly to enact it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/feinstein-cosponsors-landrieu-s-bill-to-unwind-obamacare-market-reforms
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
revolts etc is pretty simple. if you get a large amount of desperate people, it will be a possibility. they have to be desperate and marginalized though
|
On November 13 2013 23:12 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 16:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 15:00 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 13:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 09:43 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2013 08:33 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 07:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 06:06 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 05:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
How do you avoid the tax by boosting productivity? Because you've hired someone, you've spend the money and thus aren't taxed. Not following. If you mean property tax you'll still owe it. If you mean income tax, reducing profit to avoid tax is a money losing prospect and would be the opposite of increasing productivity. If you mean hire someone to boost profits to offset the tax you should be doing that regardless. Huh? O.o You spend the money you would have spent on taxes, on hiring people for productivity. Hiring people doesn't increase productivity, and the report from taxes to production is not proved empirically. If you're a good business leader hiring people definitely increases productivity. And we were talking about whether in principle it would occur. If you are a good business leader you don't hire people as part of some half-baked tax avoidance scheme. On November 13 2013 12:46 IgnE wrote:On November 13 2013 11:41 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 16:33 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I wish you would listen to me I read every word and haven't been convinced yet. Frankly, you fly from subject to subject and argument to argument so fast in such little time that its hard to summarize what I've found out about your position. Granted, we've covered a lot of subject in the last hundred pages or so, so maybe some of it gets muddled in my mind. Just to grab a couple that concerned me: there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. No on both counts for the reasons I stated. I might also add at this time that there will be political cost for politicians ok for the rich to keep their earned money and spend it on expensive yachts. They will appear to be no friends to the poor, even as much as that was an argument I saw surface when Romney was angling for the presidency. I'm saddened that you don't understand my position on class structure, claiming I haven't read what you said. With good swaths of individual freedom still preserved, there is no rigid class structure ... look no farther than the shifting lists of Forbes's richest people or longitudinal studies from census data and social sciences research groups. On a side note that you already know, I advocate policies I understand to be helpful in removing obstacles to income/class mobility etc. I'm not going along with your pessimistic attitude, not because of its pessimism (and in fact I hold a few of those attitudes even in the realm of eSports) but because of how I analyze it against reality. On November 12 2013 16:32 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion.
There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes. I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality. On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point.
So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic. The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform. So this graph doesn't bother you: That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels? Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals? So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph? You are right that that graph does not bother me, nor do I consider it extreme income inequality (and it is wealth in your graph and not income inequality). Just because one man earns an extra dollar does not mean that another must necessarily earn a dollar less. Just because the gap looks like that on the scale of wealth owned not income earned does not make the bottom of the barrel no different than the grinding poverty you can find in areas of Africa, for instance. Does the average rich man fly in million dollar vacations and the average poor man have no food, water, shelter and languish until death? No. On November 12 2013 23:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2013 16:32 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point.
So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes. I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality. On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic. The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform. So this graph doesn't bother you: + Show Spoiler +That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels? Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals? So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph? Wealth inequality is really hard to deal with. I don't recall any plausible ideas out of the left to deal with that (mostly they seem to be concerned with income / consumption inequality). If you can think of any, remind me, it could be a good discussion. And to both your and Danglars' concerns - yes we need to put resources into helping the poor, but we also need to be concerned about how we deploy those resources. And many options for using those resources exist. Let's not box ourselves into either blindly throwing money at the problem or not trying at all. Wholeheartedly agree. Throwing money at the problem has not helped the problem. The War on Poverty arguably increased poverty. In 2011 we spent $19k on means-tested benefits (welfare) for every lower-income person (lowest third based on income). Heck, if you just cut that in a direct check it would be enough to lift every one to 200% of federal poverty level ( see for example here). I don't really even see the point of talking about wealth inequality unless you are proposing a wealth tax similar to France. And yes, Republicans do support the EITC (in particular a real negative income tax), particularly if it was used as a replacement for existing direct aid welfare schemes. It is pretty counter productive when you observe prior to such plans that many people faced marginal tax rates in excess of 100% if they left the dole for a low-wage job. Talk about an adverse economic incentive! Do you think the income inequality graph looks much different from the wealth inequality graph? 90% of the population on the far left. And it's only gotten worse since 2008. The vast majority of the rebound from the crash has gone entirely to the top 1%. But at least they aren't at African poverty level status with swollen bellies, malaria, and AIDS. http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousiClass mobility is a lie. The opportunities to advance are shrinking rapidly.
Although the increase in inequality over the last two decades has been extensively documented in the economics and policy literature, the authors find that this inequality largely constituted an increase in permanent inequality. Using a large panel of income data from U.S. federal tax returns for the period 1987-2009, the authors show that for men’s labor earnings, the increase in inequality was entirely permanent (100 percent), while for total household income, roughly three-quarters of the increase in inequality was permanent. They estimate that the permanent variance for men’s earnings roughly doubled in the 20 years between 1987 and 2009, while the permanent variance of total household income increased by about 50 percent over the same period.
And it's only going to get worse as the lost earnings for the generation of 20-somethings who graduated during and after the crash are going to continue long into the future, resulting in significant losses in total lifetime earnings. I'm not sure the graph should be showing a negative income increase for the bottom 90% for 2000 - 2006. Do you know what definition of income they're using? Pre-tax, pre-transfer taxable income? As for your comment about the 1% benefiting more during the recovery, they also lost more during the recession. Their income is more volatile. Why not? pay 50 bucks, or pay 50 bucks and get more out of your company. easy choice. Because that's not how the math works. If you are discussing something like a property tax, hiring another employee will not reduce your tax burden. If you mean an income tax, then hiring the employee to be productive will result in more taxes owed. Meh, maybe it's just another thing that works everywhere else in the world. When you make less in profit you also pay less taxes. Maybe I'm thinking of corporate taxes.
It doesn't work that way anywhere in the world. Paying $50 in extra labor doesn't save you $50 in corporate taxes. If you have the employee sit around and do nothing your costs will go up by $50 and you'll owe $50*.35=$17.5 less in taxes. So paid $50 to save $17.5
If you have the employee work and increase EBT (after the cost of the new employee is incurred) by $0, it's a wash. You have an extra employee and you still owe $50 in taxes.
If you have the employee work and increase EBT (after the cost of the new employee is incurred) by >$0 you are better off, but you owe more than $50 in taxes.
|
On November 14 2013 01:28 oneofthem wrote:
revolts etc is pretty simple. if you get a large amount of desperate people, it will be a possibility. they have to be desperate and marginalized though
People, in developped countries at least, will not revolt for inequalities imo.
They will if there is a large amount of desperate people certainly, but in a country such as the US it will never happen because, no matter how "ill" the society may be, it is still a "rich" country.
People revolt when they form bounds, when social groups are institutionalized enough so that they can build a discurse that contradict the dominant storytelling. The history of politic movements proves this much at least.
|
On November 13 2013 21:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 19:28 coverpunch wrote:
Is inequality a problem because the poor are too poor or because the rich are too rich? There seems to be a disconnect as people seem to think it's self-evident that something is wrong with a society where some people are fantastically rich. But there doesn't seem to be any explicit reasoning why that's a bad thing, particularly in a mostly free market economy where we actively encourage people to seek wealth. Free market economy is economy for noobies who needs quick and easy reasonning to help them understand. In reality, inequalities have a number of bad effects on the economy. The economy of inequalities is a very fertile field in modern economy, but we are discovering year after year that a society with a lot of inequalities might be less mobile socially (it's the great gatsby curve see below), that a society with a lot of inequalities is more susceptible to be in a situation of crisis (that was one of the conclusion made by many economists after the subprime crisis), that a society with a lot of inequalities is also (it's a basic keynesian mecanism) potentially less productive or less innovative (more difficulty to finance an innovation in an inequitable environment for exemple). It's all a matter of discussion at the moment, partly because the US is full of people who refuse to see the obvious and partly because we don't really understand everything. We've made a lot of progress from the kuznets curve tho. The great gadsby curve : + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +The Great Gatsby curve is a chart plotting the (positive) relationship between inequality and intergenerational social immobility in several countries around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
Comparing the US to European countries with the great gatsby curve doesn't necessarily work. The US has a lot of regional inequality (Connecticut is rich, Mississippi is poor), as does Europe (Switzerland is rich, Portugal is poor), but that source of inequality doesn't get captured as much in the European figures.
Also, inequality has both good and bad effects on an economy. It's also an area that doesn't have a whole lot of consensus around the issues / solutions so I don't think you should be referencing so much as "obvious".
|
On November 14 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 21:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2013 19:28 coverpunch wrote:
Is inequality a problem because the poor are too poor or because the rich are too rich? There seems to be a disconnect as people seem to think it's self-evident that something is wrong with a society where some people are fantastically rich. But there doesn't seem to be any explicit reasoning why that's a bad thing, particularly in a mostly free market economy where we actively encourage people to seek wealth. Free market economy is economy for noobies who needs quick and easy reasonning to help them understand. In reality, inequalities have a number of bad effects on the economy. The economy of inequalities is a very fertile field in modern economy, but we are discovering year after year that a society with a lot of inequalities might be less mobile socially (it's the great gatsby curve see below), that a society with a lot of inequalities is more susceptible to be in a situation of crisis (that was one of the conclusion made by many economists after the subprime crisis), that a society with a lot of inequalities is also (it's a basic keynesian mecanism) potentially less productive or less innovative (more difficulty to finance an innovation in an inequitable environment for exemple). It's all a matter of discussion at the moment, partly because the US is full of people who refuse to see the obvious and partly because we don't really understand everything. We've made a lot of progress from the kuznets curve tho. The great gadsby curve : + Show Spoiler +The Great Gatsby curve is a chart plotting the (positive) relationship between inequality and intergenerational social immobility in several countries around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve Comparing the US to European countries with the great gatsby curve doesn't necessarily work. The US has a lot of regional inequality (Connecticut is rich, Mississippi is poor), as does Europe (Switzerland is rich, Portugal is poor), but that source of inequality doesn't get captured as much in the European figures. Also, inequality has both good and bad effects on an economy. It's also an area that doesn't have a whole lot of consensus around the issues / solutions so I don't think you should be referencing so much as "obvious".
Good thing the gatsby curve is not only about the US but also about other (smaller) countries.
And a country like Australia, who might have huge regional inequalities, still do better than the US. By the way, Mankiw's critic is also wrong for the same reason (altho his discussion is a bit more complicated and can't be resolve that simply). You cannot escape this with small tricks like you can't compare that country to that country, because the gatsby curve is a rather solid empirical correlation based on a various number of country.
You need to interpret it.
Also, inequality has both good and bad effects on an economy. It's also an area that doesn't have a whole lot of consensus around the issues / solutions so I don't think you should be referencing so much as "obvious".
Good effect ? Yeah we need incentive and all that bullshit... You can push someone to do something for, let's say, twice the salary of someone else (or even a small tap in the back and some recognition, yes that's life man). There are no justification, moral, economical or political, to gain 1 000 000x more than minimal wage.
|
Norway28674 Posts
yes. the notion that a CEO needs 600 times entry level salary to be motivated to do a good job is absolutely ridiculous. Some inequality is not bad though, and hardly anyone claims that some inequality is bad. That's why the chart with "this is how americans want wealth to be distributed - this is how they think it is - this is how it really is" chart is so powerful, because how americans want wealth to be distributed is actually very sensible, whereas the reality is so incredibly different from that. (and yes I know wealth distribution is very different from income distribution and the income distribution chart wouldn't be equally as top heavy, but whatever, wealth one was linked and debated recently. )
I don't mind my boss making twice as much as I do. He has more responsibility, he occasionally needs to have some really emotionally taxing meetings, he's not done with his job when he goes home. But would he want to trade jobs and salary with me? No way. He likes his wealth, and twice my pay actually makes him wealthy. Would he prefer 300 times as much as he's getting now? sure, but he does a great job even with just twice my salary, and if he was getting 300 times more, then that would either mean taking 10% of the paycheck from 6000 people, or it would mean that 599 people are out of a job, or somewhere in between those numbers. In the US, and well, many other parts of the world (but I only ever see non-wealthy americans actually defend this system), the salaries of the most wealthy are completely blown out of proportion, there's no reason why your top earners need to make so much, and it greatly hurts your society. CEO's of big companies could literally slice away 99% of their income and they would STILL be rich.
|
On November 14 2013 02:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yes. the notion that a CEO needs 600 times entry level salary to be motivated to do a good job is absolutely ridiculous. Some inequality is not bad though, and hardly anyone claims that some inequality is bad. That's why the chart with "this is how americans want wealth to be distributed - this is how they think it is - this is how it really is" chart is so powerful, because how americans want wealth to be distributed is actually very sensible, whereas the reality is so incredibly different from that. (and yes I know wealth distribution is very different from income distribution and the income distribution chart wouldn't be equally as top heavy, but whatever, wealth one was linked and debated recently. )
I don't mind my boss making twice as much as I do. He has more responsibility, he occasionally needs to have some really emotionally taxing meetings, he's not done with his job when he goes home. But would he want to trade jobs and salary with me? No way. He likes his wealth, and twice my pay actually makes him wealthy. Would he prefer 300 times as much as he's getting now? sure, but he does a great job even with just twice my salary, and if he was getting 300 times more, then that would either mean taking 10% of the paycheck from 6000 people, or it would mean that 599 people are out of a job, or somewhere in between those numbers. In the US, and well, many other parts of the world (but I only ever see non-wealthy americans actually defend this system), the salaries of the most wealthy are completely blown out of proportion, there's no reason why your top earners need to make so much, and it greatly hurts your society. CEO's of big companies could literally slice away 99% of their income and they would STILL be rich.
And to add to your point, this idea of incentive is also empirically wrong because when the average workers becomes more productive, more efficient in their work, they are not paid more anymore in the US (and in many developped countries).
Proof
![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/07/SherkImage1.gif)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/higher-productivity-used-to-mean-higher-wages-has-that-broken-down/
|
On November 14 2013 02:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 21:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2013 19:28 coverpunch wrote:
Is inequality a problem because the poor are too poor or because the rich are too rich? There seems to be a disconnect as people seem to think it's self-evident that something is wrong with a society where some people are fantastically rich. But there doesn't seem to be any explicit reasoning why that's a bad thing, particularly in a mostly free market economy where we actively encourage people to seek wealth. Free market economy is economy for noobies who needs quick and easy reasonning to help them understand. In reality, inequalities have a number of bad effects on the economy. The economy of inequalities is a very fertile field in modern economy, but we are discovering year after year that a society with a lot of inequalities might be less mobile socially (it's the great gatsby curve see below), that a society with a lot of inequalities is more susceptible to be in a situation of crisis (that was one of the conclusion made by many economists after the subprime crisis), that a society with a lot of inequalities is also (it's a basic keynesian mecanism) potentially less productive or less innovative (more difficulty to finance an innovation in an inequitable environment for exemple). It's all a matter of discussion at the moment, partly because the US is full of people who refuse to see the obvious and partly because we don't really understand everything. We've made a lot of progress from the kuznets curve tho. The great gadsby curve : + Show Spoiler +The Great Gatsby curve is a chart plotting the (positive) relationship between inequality and intergenerational social immobility in several countries around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve Comparing the US to European countries with the great gatsby curve doesn't necessarily work. The US has a lot of regional inequality (Connecticut is rich, Mississippi is poor), as does Europe (Switzerland is rich, Portugal is poor), but that source of inequality doesn't get captured as much in the European figures. Also, inequality has both good and bad effects on an economy. It's also an area that doesn't have a whole lot of consensus around the issues / solutions so I don't think you should be referencing so much as "obvious". Good thing the gatsby curve is not only about the US but also about other (smaller) countries. And a country like Australia, who might have huge regional inequalities, still do better than the US. By the way, Mankiw's critic is also wrong for the same reason. You cannot escape this with small tricks like you can't compare that country to that country, because the gatsby curve is a rather solid empirical correlation based on a various number of country. You need to interpret it.
The criticism is valid, small homogeneous economies have an advantage in the curve. It doesn't mean that the curve is useless, just that it doesn't tell the whole story. Fighting regional inequalities is very hard. Germany trying to integrate East Germany hasn't been a simple cakewalk and fighting an issue like that is different than fighting inequality between a poor and a rich individual in the same economy.
Show nested quote +Also, inequality has both good and bad effects on an economy. It's also an area that doesn't have a whole lot of consensus around the issues / solutions so I don't think you should be referencing so much as "obvious". Good effect ? Yeah we need incentive and all that bullshit... You can push someone to do something for, let's say, twice the salary of someone else. There are no justification, moral, economical or political, to gain 1 000 000x more than minimal wage.
Yes, good effects. There's a very strong consensus that some degree of inequality is good but too much is bad but who knows what's "best". As for the justification, it's that if someone produces 1,000,000X more than someone else, they should get a share based on that production.
|
On November 14 2013 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 02:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yes. the notion that a CEO needs 600 times entry level salary to be motivated to do a good job is absolutely ridiculous. Some inequality is not bad though, and hardly anyone claims that some inequality is bad. That's why the chart with "this is how americans want wealth to be distributed - this is how they think it is - this is how it really is" chart is so powerful, because how americans want wealth to be distributed is actually very sensible, whereas the reality is so incredibly different from that. (and yes I know wealth distribution is very different from income distribution and the income distribution chart wouldn't be equally as top heavy, but whatever, wealth one was linked and debated recently. )
I don't mind my boss making twice as much as I do. He has more responsibility, he occasionally needs to have some really emotionally taxing meetings, he's not done with his job when he goes home. But would he want to trade jobs and salary with me? No way. He likes his wealth, and twice my pay actually makes him wealthy. Would he prefer 300 times as much as he's getting now? sure, but he does a great job even with just twice my salary, and if he was getting 300 times more, then that would either mean taking 10% of the paycheck from 6000 people, or it would mean that 599 people are out of a job, or somewhere in between those numbers. In the US, and well, many other parts of the world (but I only ever see non-wealthy americans actually defend this system), the salaries of the most wealthy are completely blown out of proportion, there's no reason why your top earners need to make so much, and it greatly hurts your society. CEO's of big companies could literally slice away 99% of their income and they would STILL be rich. And to add to your point, this idea of incentive is also empirically wrong because when the average workers becomes more productive, more efficient in their work, they are not paid more anymore in the US (and in many developped countries). Proof http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/higher-productivity-used-to-mean-higher-wages-has-that-broken-down/
The graph is incorrect in terms of the economic theory. It should be productivity vs labor compensation (not wages) and compensation should use the same deflator as productivity (not CPI). There's still a bit of a breakdown, but not as dramatic.
|
On November 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On November 14 2013 02:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yes. the notion that a CEO needs 600 times entry level salary to be motivated to do a good job is absolutely ridiculous. Some inequality is not bad though, and hardly anyone claims that some inequality is bad. That's why the chart with "this is how americans want wealth to be distributed - this is how they think it is - this is how it really is" chart is so powerful, because how americans want wealth to be distributed is actually very sensible, whereas the reality is so incredibly different from that. (and yes I know wealth distribution is very different from income distribution and the income distribution chart wouldn't be equally as top heavy, but whatever, wealth one was linked and debated recently. )
I don't mind my boss making twice as much as I do. He has more responsibility, he occasionally needs to have some really emotionally taxing meetings, he's not done with his job when he goes home. But would he want to trade jobs and salary with me? No way. He likes his wealth, and twice my pay actually makes him wealthy. Would he prefer 300 times as much as he's getting now? sure, but he does a great job even with just twice my salary, and if he was getting 300 times more, then that would either mean taking 10% of the paycheck from 6000 people, or it would mean that 599 people are out of a job, or somewhere in between those numbers. In the US, and well, many other parts of the world (but I only ever see non-wealthy americans actually defend this system), the salaries of the most wealthy are completely blown out of proportion, there's no reason why your top earners need to make so much, and it greatly hurts your society. CEO's of big companies could literally slice away 99% of their income and they would STILL be rich. And to add to your point, this idea of incentive is also empirically wrong because when the average workers becomes more productive, more efficient in their work, they are not paid more anymore in the US (and in many developped countries). Proof http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/higher-productivity-used-to-mean-higher-wages-has-that-broken-down/ The graph is incorrect in terms of the economic theory. It should be productivity vs labor compensation (not wages) and compensation should use the same deflator as productivity (not CPI). There's still a bit of a breakdown, but not as dramatic.
Why is it not as dramatic? Healthcare costs that are soaring? Sick company discounts?
|
On November 14 2013 04:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 03:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 14 2013 03:00 WhiteDog wrote:On November 14 2013 02:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yes. the notion that a CEO needs 600 times entry level salary to be motivated to do a good job is absolutely ridiculous. Some inequality is not bad though, and hardly anyone claims that some inequality is bad. That's why the chart with "this is how americans want wealth to be distributed - this is how they think it is - this is how it really is" chart is so powerful, because how americans want wealth to be distributed is actually very sensible, whereas the reality is so incredibly different from that. (and yes I know wealth distribution is very different from income distribution and the income distribution chart wouldn't be equally as top heavy, but whatever, wealth one was linked and debated recently. )
I don't mind my boss making twice as much as I do. He has more responsibility, he occasionally needs to have some really emotionally taxing meetings, he's not done with his job when he goes home. But would he want to trade jobs and salary with me? No way. He likes his wealth, and twice my pay actually makes him wealthy. Would he prefer 300 times as much as he's getting now? sure, but he does a great job even with just twice my salary, and if he was getting 300 times more, then that would either mean taking 10% of the paycheck from 6000 people, or it would mean that 599 people are out of a job, or somewhere in between those numbers. In the US, and well, many other parts of the world (but I only ever see non-wealthy americans actually defend this system), the salaries of the most wealthy are completely blown out of proportion, there's no reason why your top earners need to make so much, and it greatly hurts your society. CEO's of big companies could literally slice away 99% of their income and they would STILL be rich. And to add to your point, this idea of incentive is also empirically wrong because when the average workers becomes more productive, more efficient in their work, they are not paid more anymore in the US (and in many developped countries). Proof http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/17/higher-productivity-used-to-mean-higher-wages-has-that-broken-down/ The graph is incorrect in terms of the economic theory. It should be productivity vs labor compensation (not wages) and compensation should use the same deflator as productivity (not CPI). There's still a bit of a breakdown, but not as dramatic. Why is it not as dramatic? Healthcare costs that are soaring? Sick company discounts?
I'm not sure what you are asking. I meant not as dramatic as in not as big. Or are you asking why the divergence isn't as big if you use correct numbers?
|
Yes, I know what you meant.
|
On November 14 2013 01:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2013 23:12 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 16:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 15:00 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 13:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 09:43 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:On November 13 2013 08:33 Roe wrote:On November 13 2013 07:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2013 06:06 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Because you've hired someone, you've spend the money and thus aren't taxed. Not following. If you mean property tax you'll still owe it. If you mean income tax, reducing profit to avoid tax is a money losing prospect and would be the opposite of increasing productivity. If you mean hire someone to boost profits to offset the tax you should be doing that regardless. Huh? O.o You spend the money you would have spent on taxes, on hiring people for productivity. Hiring people doesn't increase productivity, and the report from taxes to production is not proved empirically. If you're a good business leader hiring people definitely increases productivity. And we were talking about whether in principle it would occur. If you are a good business leader you don't hire people as part of some half-baked tax avoidance scheme. On November 13 2013 12:46 IgnE wrote:On November 13 2013 11:41 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 16:33 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I wish you would listen to me I read every word and haven't been convinced yet. Frankly, you fly from subject to subject and argument to argument so fast in such little time that its hard to summarize what I've found out about your position. Granted, we've covered a lot of subject in the last hundred pages or so, so maybe some of it gets muddled in my mind. Just to grab a couple that concerned me: there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. No on both counts for the reasons I stated. I might also add at this time that there will be political cost for politicians ok for the rich to keep their earned money and spend it on expensive yachts. They will appear to be no friends to the poor, even as much as that was an argument I saw surface when Romney was angling for the presidency. I'm saddened that you don't understand my position on class structure, claiming I haven't read what you said. With good swaths of individual freedom still preserved, there is no rigid class structure ... look no farther than the shifting lists of Forbes's richest people or longitudinal studies from census data and social sciences research groups. On a side note that you already know, I advocate policies I understand to be helpful in removing obstacles to income/class mobility etc. I'm not going along with your pessimistic attitude, not because of its pessimism (and in fact I hold a few of those attitudes even in the realm of eSports) but because of how I analyze it against reality. On November 12 2013 16:32 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point.
So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes. I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality. On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic. The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform. So this graph doesn't bother you: That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels? Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals? So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph? You are right that that graph does not bother me, nor do I consider it extreme income inequality (and it is wealth in your graph and not income inequality). Just because one man earns an extra dollar does not mean that another must necessarily earn a dollar less. Just because the gap looks like that on the scale of wealth owned not income earned does not make the bottom of the barrel no different than the grinding poverty you can find in areas of Africa, for instance. Does the average rich man fly in million dollar vacations and the average poor man have no food, water, shelter and languish until death? No. On November 12 2013 23:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2013 16:32 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes.
I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality.
[quote]
The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform. So this graph doesn't bother you: + Show Spoiler +That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels? Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals? So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph? Wealth inequality is really hard to deal with. I don't recall any plausible ideas out of the left to deal with that (mostly they seem to be concerned with income / consumption inequality). If you can think of any, remind me, it could be a good discussion. And to both your and Danglars' concerns - yes we need to put resources into helping the poor, but we also need to be concerned about how we deploy those resources. And many options for using those resources exist. Let's not box ourselves into either blindly throwing money at the problem or not trying at all. Wholeheartedly agree. Throwing money at the problem has not helped the problem. The War on Poverty arguably increased poverty. In 2011 we spent $19k on means-tested benefits (welfare) for every lower-income person (lowest third based on income). Heck, if you just cut that in a direct check it would be enough to lift every one to 200% of federal poverty level ( see for example here). I don't really even see the point of talking about wealth inequality unless you are proposing a wealth tax similar to France. And yes, Republicans do support the EITC (in particular a real negative income tax), particularly if it was used as a replacement for existing direct aid welfare schemes. It is pretty counter productive when you observe prior to such plans that many people faced marginal tax rates in excess of 100% if they left the dole for a low-wage job. Talk about an adverse economic incentive! Do you think the income inequality graph looks much different from the wealth inequality graph? 90% of the population on the far left. And it's only gotten worse since 2008. The vast majority of the rebound from the crash has gone entirely to the top 1%. But at least they aren't at African poverty level status with swollen bellies, malaria, and AIDS. http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-spring-permanent-inequality-panousiClass mobility is a lie. The opportunities to advance are shrinking rapidly.
Although the increase in inequality over the last two decades has been extensively documented in the economics and policy literature, the authors find that this inequality largely constituted an increase in permanent inequality. Using a large panel of income data from U.S. federal tax returns for the period 1987-2009, the authors show that for men’s labor earnings, the increase in inequality was entirely permanent (100 percent), while for total household income, roughly three-quarters of the increase in inequality was permanent. They estimate that the permanent variance for men’s earnings roughly doubled in the 20 years between 1987 and 2009, while the permanent variance of total household income increased by about 50 percent over the same period.
And it's only going to get worse as the lost earnings for the generation of 20-somethings who graduated during and after the crash are going to continue long into the future, resulting in significant losses in total lifetime earnings. I'm not sure the graph should be showing a negative income increase for the bottom 90% for 2000 - 2006. Do you know what definition of income they're using? Pre-tax, pre-transfer taxable income? As for your comment about the 1% benefiting more during the recovery, they also lost more during the recession. Their income is more volatile. Why not? pay 50 bucks, or pay 50 bucks and get more out of your company. easy choice. Because that's not how the math works. If you are discussing something like a property tax, hiring another employee will not reduce your tax burden. If you mean an income tax, then hiring the employee to be productive will result in more taxes owed. Meh, maybe it's just another thing that works everywhere else in the world. When you make less in profit you also pay less taxes. Maybe I'm thinking of corporate taxes. It doesn't work that way anywhere in the world. Paying $50 in extra labor doesn't save you $50 in corporate taxes. If you have the employee sit around and do nothing your costs will go up by $50 and you'll owe $50*.35=$17.5 less in taxes. So paid $50 to save $17.5 If you have the employee work and increase EBT (after the cost of the new employee is incurred) by $0, it's a wash. You have an extra employee and you still owe $50 in taxes. If you have the employee work and increase EBT (after the cost of the new employee is incurred) by >$0 you are better off, but you owe more than $50 in taxes.
Hence why taxes should be at 100% 
|
Healthcare.gov numbers to be announced in 45 minutes.
Will be interesting to see the % of folks refered to state medicaid, and the % of folks who have actually paid.
Just a raw number is going to be pretty meaningless. Along with the expected counting of people who have something in their "shopping cart" but haven't paid yet. Whatever the number is they need to explain their definition of "enrollment".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png/590px-The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png)
