Income Inequality shouldn't be addressed directly by the federal government, but it can provide the solution. Subsidies to crony corporations and already rich people, tax breaks to select companies and then asking the rest of us to shoulder the difference, a failing public education system that they are trying to make worse, a totally unfair progressive tax system that penalizes productivity, a plethora of socialistic programs intended to help level out opportunity, but instead create over spending and inefficiencies, an out of control defense department and a foreign policy of giving away boatloads of money and then sending our people and resources on foreign adventures. Spend, spend, spend, with no real plan to control it whatsoever. Yes, government should address it's socialism and counter-attempts as to who their programs benefit. The political pendulum swings left then right, left then right, money flows and guess what? The rich keep on getting richer, and most of us keep on getting screwed. Wake up America, Please.
"The government is not the answer and creates more problems than it solves from the redistribution of income and waste. More choices given to individuals with their money and the spontaneous order of society will bring about the most efficient outcomes. Therefore, those in society may not be getting paid what they are "worth" because of government manipulation and lack of capitalism, where risk equals reward or failure. Voter ignorance creates an environment in politics that repeats the same mistakes"
And before I get accused of "Class Envy" let me say, it ain't envy, it is Anger.
I voted no, but that doesn't mean I am naive to the chasm between the incomes of the top 1% and the rest of us. CEO's making 200 times the wage of the worker below him is wrong, but it should be the shareholders who dictate compensation, not the government.
My opinion kinda falls on Dave's side. I feel that the Govt DOES have a responsibility to remove writeoffs, subsidies and bailouts for corporations. Also that edc personnel salaries be brought more in line with reasonable levels. Income taxes would be much simpler and completely fair if it was just a flat certain percentage of income, no deductions or credits or anything. X% should be X% no more or less.
Very well said Dave. I cant help but feel that we have two very distinct problems. The right that is rolling forward with capitalist economy, and the left full steam a head with socialist teachings in the schools. One side says earn it, the other says give it to me.
Mike, you identified this "The right that is rolling forward with capitalist economy," as a distinct problem, why? And what alternative economy would you desire the US to take up?
thank you Mike, but the right is rolling with crony-capitalism which is really just another form of wealth re-distribution, except they are taking it from the poor and working classes and giving it to the rich, in the guise of saying "earn it". The left is also enriching favorite corporations such as big pharma and insurance companies by saying they are leveling the field, which basically takes from the poor and working classes and gives to the rich, instead of what they preach. They are both a big fat lie. Socialism light versus fascism light. Neither wants any sort of economic justice for the masses, no power for the people. The left versus right argument is what fuels it.
The progressive noting of income inequality is just another way of saying redistribution of wealth, which is another way of quoting Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The flaws of crony capitalism is an entirely different issue.
Read progressives on income inequality and they're not talking about crony capitalism. They're talking about giving money to people in lower socio-economic levels regardless of the merit of ones effort to gain higher incomes. They're same people who are saying burger flippers should be paid $15 an hour.
Crony capitalism is it's own kind of welfare.
Personal income should be based on merit, not on some government program. Otherwise, income inequality is an entirely fantastical and made up problem.
Everyone seems to want to raise the minimum wage, while totally ignoring the problem of government supplemented income. The welfare system incentivises not working. Why work for low wages when you can remain blissfully ignorant and feed at the government teat?
Wallymart knows people will settle for minimum wage when those workers can get free health care (free to Wallymart), food stamps, HEAP, WICK, government assisted housing. All that happens at the expense of the working class...the real working class that spent years honing a craft that demands higher wages. I'd say that has crony capitalism written all over the face of it.
I understand all that Howard, what I'm saying is that the so-called progressives who have gotten elected based on those principles, Obama and congressional members, are liars. They say they want one thing, then they do another. The so-called conservatives do the same damn thing. It all causes the income disparity and keeps it that way. Congress has about a 10% approval rate, yet the same people keep getting elected, of course they're corrupt and lie. The conservative movement is dead. Hello. Because they have not stuck to the principles, the progressives will earn the same fate for the same reason.
Welfare is welfare, personal or corporate, it is all re-distribution of wealth and it is all wrong. We need to get back to the rule of law known as The US Constitution and limit government to it's intended scope and size. Then the free markets will work and working folks will earn a decent living again. If most of us can do that, then few will care how rich the rich are.
My problem with Walmart isn't the wages they pay. It's the tax subsidies they get. $8 billion in tax breaks from local governments across the country to build their stores and destroy locally owned businesses.
Even without social services, certain industries -- retail among them -- would pay low wages, because it's low skilled work, and there's always a supply of low-skilled workers. Supply and demand. Basic economics.
The income inequality crowd wants to force Walmart and McDonald's to pay $15 an hour and they want to raise taxes on hard working people and give that money to people who haven't developed the skills and the worth ethic to earn it on their own.
Howard, there are quite a few displaced workers working those jobs, workers who have been trained in other professions that no longer exist.
I'm not saying they are worth 15 bucks an hour, but probably worth more than 7 an hour. Many of them have great work ethic, but who cares at
7 an hour. Do you know how much skill it takes to put up with customers who are nothing more than a p.i.t.a.?
Getting training in other areas can be all but impossible for some, take a class, or take a shit paying job to keep food on the table, not a
great set of choices.
If someone says 'Who Cares' I would dare to say that their work ethic isn't all that good. Pride in one's work is a large part of work ethic.
People with good work ethic, do not ever consider customers 'PITA's' they know that the customer is the reason that they have a job.
People with good work ethic generally do not care at all what someone above them on the pay scale earns, more often they look at what they have to do to close that gap by self improvement.
There are some people that punch a clock and do their best, and that is ok. Then there are some that do what it takes through hard work, education and yes sometimes luck that maximize their earnings.
The person that sits back and earns huge salaries for doing nothing is a total myth, I have never met, seen or heard of in business circles high wage earners or wealthy people who didn't work harder and longer.
Those born to wealth or born into a business that sit back and collect without hard work, 99% of the time squander the business or the wealth that their parents gave them away.
It is not what opportunities you have, it is what you do to maximize the opportunities before you that matter. Everyone whether born in a Ghetto, on a farm or in Manhattan has opportunities, and no matter which environment they are born, some succeed, some maintain and some inevitably fail,
No form of Government will ever eliminate the poor or curtail the privileged for long. A certain percentage will always rise above no matter what and through their own innovation and merit. Also a certain percentage will always fail do to their lack of innovation and lack of their own merit. In each class from poor to rich, those same percentages will show through in the end.
No matter how a Government tries to reshuffle the deck, everyone rich or poor has to play the cards they are dealt or fold. Everyone has to recognize their own opportunity large or small and either seize upon it or pass on it. In the end, we are all responsible for our own lives, even our children at some point have to take advantage of their own opportunities , we can guide them through advice and example, but the action or lack of action is their choice, We can, and should help the handicapped by injury or illness, but even they have the choice whether or not to seize on the opportunities that may and always do arise.
Opportunities may be large or they may be small, but they are always there, and no one ever said that seizing on them would be easy.
As hard and as well meaning as the progressive types try, the meddling of government always creates a few winners and an inordinate amount of loosers
Mr. Brudz, thats a very very nice story. In a very generalized way it's got a kernel of truth. But honestly its much more commonplace for hard workers to become stepping stones for either their peers, who will take advantage and claim praise and credit for things they didn't do. Or by supervisors who use them to make their job look better.
My father and stepmother were a couple of these types, they worked at Kodak and with this morality got pretty far and retired. Of course now they are scraping bottom because of that kind of work ethic. (Not everyone at Kodak was like that but I can guarentee they are reaping what they sowed back then in the here and now)
I worked myself like this and only 1/2 the time I got by on my work ethic and hard work. Most of the other times I was just used and discarded. Again what you said is what should be but the reality is it's a cutthroat world out there. If you have a steady job and job security then you had the right combination of luck and skills work out for you and thats great. But ask anyone out there struggling how fair the workplace really is. Like life it's really nothing close to fair....at all.
Kyle I have managed hundreds of hourly employees over the years, literally hundreds. There was something I discovered after retiring from the Corps and entering the business world, that is that managing people is pretty much not a general thing at all.
From the perspective of a manager, and as a business owner my observations have been very consistent from military, to management and finally to self employment.
As I pointed out in my post, at times there is even luck, but for the most part advancement anywhere does not come just from doing your job, rather from excelling at your job, and even then you are competing with others that excel at their job.
Your statement about supervisors using employees to make themselves look better is not the common thing that you and others believe, In the military and in the corporate world both, the supervisors that took credit rarely advanced as quickly as the supervisors that gave credit to their charges, it is a fundamental leadership tenant. Sure there are exceptions.
Your retort reeks of the same attitude that you in the past have chastised, that is faulting others for ones failure to achieve. When I spoke of opportunity, I spoke of more than just saying yes sir or yes ma'am to a supervisor, opportunities go far beyond that. Taking the right test at work at the right time, preparing yourself within your industry for advancement, or outside of your industry for personal growth.
Dealing with cut throats is in fact dealing with opportunities as well, I will agree with you on one point it's a cutthroat world out there, but it ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be, there will NEVER BE INCOME EQUALITY because all jobs are not equal, all performance is not equal, and yes the human element as well.
And ALWAYS, many who struggle will blame 'Fairness' but the true reality is that the successful adapt and overcome unfairness, and they are always the better person for it. You have no right to a certain income level, you have however the right to work toward that income level.
The idea of work wage fairness is a Politically Generated Fallacy,
Reality is that as human beings we will always face adversity, we will always face those who will try to gain on our efforts and we will always have obstacles in our way, the difference is how some navigate around them and how some stop dead when faced with them.
Well we agree on one thing, no one is entitled to certain income levels. As to the attitude you referred to, You seemed to miss my point, I agree that they way people rise to challenges will determine how they will succeed. But honestly it is very common for achievement failures to be someone else's fault. I have seen it, but never used it as an excuse. just dealt with it and moved on tot he next challenge.
Theres a difference in my opinion between faulting others part in things working out. vs Blaming the system and those in it and giving up.
Frank, just become somebody has a doctorate in engineering and is working at Walmart for $7 an hour doesn't mean the person is underpaid. All of that education doesn't change the qualifications necessary to get the job. I can't see the justification for the government to compel Walmart to pay more just because some people working there would be earning more if they were able to find employment within their chosen careers.
Howard, that's probably why some one with that degree wouldn't get hired at a WalMart in the first place, over qualified.Certainly not the group of workers I was refering to.
Mark, the ladder at Mickey D's has very few rungs, so again, who cares. You pay 7 an hour, you get 7 an hour type work, have you been to a fast
food joint recently, they screw up the simplest of orders. What incentive is there to perform any better than average, according to what I'm
reading here, some would agree, they don't deserve to make more than 7 an hour.
Now I know why some give up and fall back on the system, it pays better, has better benefits, and there is no work involved.
What incentive is there to perform any better. Gee how about one of those few rungs you speak of? How about pride in work? Frank to be honest attitudes like your contribute greatly to the whole attitude. As Mark pointed out, a job is a job is a job. Thats why people go stagnant in jobs like that, the attitude they get from friends, co-workers and such lead to a disappointing attitude.
As for "the system" yes there are people gaming the system and taking advantage of every loophole. But again I see alot of people complain, but does anyone pick up a phone and report it? Even anonymously? There is very small percentage that are committing fraud but they are there. Also do you have a concept of what "the system" entails? There is certifying and re-certifying every 6 months to a year, documentation in triplicate, and you have to job search and find some kind of job or your out of "the system" If you dont find a job then the county "places" you in a job unless you have kids that are below school age, or have a documented medical condition.
I see alot of comments that indicate that most are very ignorant of how the system works, and rely on generalizations from several decades ago. As Mark said your willingness to navigate problems and obstacles are what get you anywhere. The system sucks and there aren't enough people to run it. But they do the best they can. If you have complaints then get involved in volunteer programs or the like and see what the people you look down on are really going through. Instead of judging them on the actions of a few jerks in the system and ancient generalizations that have been around since the 60's and 70's.
Look at the last couple years headlines in western NY how many people are getting caught at welfare fraud. How many of those circumstances according to the articles are for offenses that seem more like paperwork errors rather than true fraud? I'll tell you one thing for every person you see in the paper there are 10 that also are kicked off and banned from the "system" you speak of.
If income is based on merit, why does some dupek selling junk bonds earn more than a farmworker? Why does a doctor earn more than a nurse? Why is an executioner's salary higher than a fireman's?
The issue isn't about making as much as a CEO. The issue is making as much as a head of household in 1960. That 1960 sole-earner represented more purchasing-power than 2.5 earners, today. The national obsession is getting paid like one's grandfather did. Nobody would give a hoot what Walmart or McDonald's paid if those jobs were after-school jobs or second-income. They aren't after-school jobs.
In today's economy people work two jobs. In 1960 nobody worked two jobs unless they were sending a kid to college or paying for an expensive medical treatment.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average mean wage of a Firefighter is $47,850 and the average mean wage of an "executioner" is $43,550
Taking all of the job titles out of it so the issue is boiled down to its pure essence: If person A can get paid $1,500 and hour and person B gets $10 an hour, they're both being fairly paid because they both agreed to work for that amount of money.
There's more to work and life than what your hourly wage is and the world is full of people who take jobs for a lot less money than they could otherwise make if it was all about the money. If I stayed in the newspaper executive world, I'd probably be making nearly three times what I make now. I've made my lifestyle choice as much as I've made my financial choice.
We all have made choices in life that have put us in the position we're in. Nobody owes us a living. In the old days, that was called a work ethic and that's what made America strong.
But when you start getting into the progressive agenda of trying to push "income inequality" and advocating for government fixes to this totally made up, bogus "problem," then what you're really talking about is government theft of other people's money. It's called communism.
Or working three jobs like my father did in the late fifties, not for medical problems, not for paying my way through school, rather for bettering himself by finishing his own education.
I honestly do not know when he slept back then, but the fruits of his labor and sacrifice are quite evident in myself, my brother and my sister.
C.M..back in 1960 many were lucky to have one car in the family.People didn't go out to eat every day.No one had cable or cell phones.Most families were lucky to have one TV let alone one for every room. Most vacations were by car to somewere local and not half way around the world.Less of your income went to to some kind of tax or user fee..Its our need to want all these extra's that back in 1960 they did with out...The one reason the liberals want a higher minimun wage is more tax dollars for them to spend..
But when you start getting into the progressive agenda of trying to push "income inequality" and advocating for government fixes to this totally made up, bogus "problem," then what you're really talking about is government theft of other people's money. It's called communism.
So a middle aged worker at Mickey D's is really going to go places, where, right into the clown suit?, sorry that job is taken.
If some beleive all is well, and nothing needs to change, I won't waste my time saying all is not well, keep dreamin.
"So a middle aged worker at Mickey D's is really going to go places" Actually that middle aged person could be on the fast track to a great career if he/she applied themselves. Over 40% of McDonalds executives earning 6 figure incomes and up started out as hourly employees with the company. You only rise as far as your hard work and determination take you.
Jeff, don't forget, sometimes you just have to move. Sure you might have ties here, but if you have a chance at getting more than minimum wage that means you have to relocate, then you just might have to do it.
Here is what I do know, when a mfg. plant, or company, goes under, it doesn't matter how much ass you kissed, how hard you worked, you go out the door with everyone else,enuff said.
Frank, when a MFG plant or company goes under, it goes under because of market conditions or under capitalization, not because some CEO or stock holder is greedy or out to stick it to the working man.
Companies owe you nothing except the wage that you agreed on, there are absolutely no guarantees that a job is for ever because there are absolutely no guarantees that a product can continue to sell or to be sold profitably.
Income Equality, has nothing to do with whether a company succeeds, fails or it's long term existence.
A fair wage is what the employee and company agree on, on the date of hire, nothing more, nothing less.
When a manufacturing plant closes, you immediately start putting in applications at other plants, you consider other options for employment other than manufacturing, you consider going back to school, you do what it takes to earn a paycheck (not always pretty, but it provides a living) and all the while you are doing that, the government will assist you with unemployment benefits, job retraining, job searching, job placement, and other forms of assistance until you get back on your feet. And once you are back on your feet, the sky is the limit, no cap on earnings or opportunity. There are literally thousands of stories of people who were at their last end and are now very successful. It is an awesome system conceived in a country that is the envy of the world and if you use it for what it's meant...a hand up, not a hand out, only you put limits on your destiny.
No C.M. That is from real people, many of whom I know personally and some of whose biographies I've read. People who determined not to lay blame to circumstance and live lives of dependence on handouts and hatred. Chocking these account up to fairy tale just further convinces those in dire straits that their situation is hopeless, that they are worthless and subservient to a life of scraping by on the assistance of others. I really hope that you have not wholesale abandoned the human spirit to overcome because without that, hope is lost.
"If person A can get paid $1,500 and hour and person B gets $10 an hour, they're both being fairly paid because they both agreed to work for that amount of money."
"There's more to work and life than what your hourly wage is and the world is full of people who take jobs for a lot less money than they could otherwise make if it was all about the money. If I stayed in the newspaper executive world, I'd probably be making nearly three times what I make now. I've made my lifestyle choice as much as I've made my financial choice."
Statement B reflects choice. Certainly choice overrules chance. Not everyone abides lower compensation for the sake of working in a field of choice. In many cases the lower compensation is married to the only field available.
On the one hand: I don't think anyone owes me anything. Still, I didn't write the rule book. The rules were in place when I got here. The way it works: you have to have money. How much money one requires depends on personal lifestyle choices. Most people prefer accommodations other than living under a bridge. You can't speak for everyone.
On the other hand: the unemployment figures and stagnant wages are not the result of some global catastrophe. No comet crashed into the Earth. No volcano erupted. Its no accident that the economy tanked. A cabal of greedy shitheads moved jobs overseas. A cabal of greedy shitheads bled millions of 401Ks dry. A cabal of greedy shitheads caused the housing finance debacle. A cabal of greedy shitheads caused the Enron collapse. And the same cabal of greedy shitheads will forge the next shaft that impales the working class posterior.
On that note we can package together Mr. Owen's vision of fairness, Mr. Allen's vision of hope and the cacophony of true-believers- where do we stand? ...With a wish in one hand and you-know-what in the other.
The bulk of the dissatisfied aren't looking for a free ride; they object to the ride they're being taken for.
Regardless of one's devotion to laissez faire, a quid pro quo exists between management and labor. You can't make widgets without workers, and there's no point in making widgets if no one can afford to buy one. The only institutions that exist outside that formula are banks and the post office.
Banks prosper when no one can afford to buy the widget. Junk mail and franking privilege will sustain the post office.
Jeff, not everyone rides that train, I had a chance to get training, but the classes were offered during my work hours, get training or eat.
Not a great choice.
Mark, then you would agree an employer should not expect an employee to do any more than he/she was capable of when first hired.
That is the flip side of your comment/logic.
CM, so you think corporate greed had a big role in turning this country into a min. wage haven? I do.
Frank, expectations by employers have absolutely nothing to do personal initiative. Doing no more than what you are paid for and doing beyond what is expected of you is the exact difference between those that move ahead and those that stagnate.
Mark, first you say a person should only get paid what they agreed to, now you say they should show iniatiative, for what?
Initiative without incentive, at a min.wage job, I hope you're not serious.
I'm not speaking of myself, I take pride in my work ethic, you know who and what I'm talking about, but you can keep pretending its all good though.
Frank I never said "a person should only get paid what they agreed to" I said a fair wage is what a person agreed to, there is a marked difference in the context and those that do not recognize that difference will never understand initiative equals more value for future agreements between employers and employee.
Well Mark the GCEDC just received a 2% across the board raise, that seems fair now doesn't it. Your beginning to split hairs Mark.
Have you ever seen a person get held back because they are good at the job they are currently doing, I have.
I'm talking about min.wage jobs Mark, they may promote some, but it will be a very short list, and you can probably bet it won't be the 55 and over group.
In a good economy, an employee has bargaining power, in an economy like ours is now, the employer has the power, can I make it any simpler.
We were not talking about fair wages, we are talking about min wage, and wage inequality.What formula do you use to determine a fair wage?
Frank, if there is an age mix being paid minimum wage, the older person in NY is more likely to get any raise given. Remember, NY (the taxpayer) subsidizes the minimum wage pay of younger people. Why promote them and lose the taxpayer money used for their pay?
I see Frank's side on minimum wage..We have no problem when the city and county hand out a raises to all its employee's and in this case the GCEDC..But for some reason raising the pay of others who are not in this group is wrong?..Why do city and county workers get pay increases every year whether they deserve it or not?...I do see both side of this issue....I don't believe that government's role is to addresss income inequality , but a fairness in what the starting wage should be..
I have no problem with it when an employer gives out raises. I have no problem with it an employer doesn't give out raises.
If it's not my raise, it's not my business. If it's my raise and I didn't get it, I can always polish up my resume and work my contacts and find an employer who better appreciates my work ethic and standards and abilities and experience. Or I can start my own business.
What I can't do is turn to the government and whine about it.
Frank seems to think life should be fair. Newsflash: It's not.
As for C.M., yeah, there's a big problem with crony capitalism, but socialism won't fix that. Free markets will fix that, if we can ever have free markets again. But even the system we have, as broken as it is, is no excuse for lack of ambition. It still leaves plenty of opportunity for those willing to grasp it.
Mark,
You use to be in a union. Most County and City workers are also in a union. The pay raises they get are negotiated, like yours use to be.
As for management, you have a good point. The elected representatives set their raises (if any) each year. If they are reelected, then they just might think the majority of the voters agree with their decisions, including the pay raises.
John i understand how collective bargianing works...My point is most have no issue with that ,but they will take issue with others who think that maybe we should look at the issue of raising the minimum wage....
Maybe there should be a difference between entry level wage and minimum wage.
I feel that minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living, which it obviously is not. Otherwise those unfortunate, or simply unable to do better than minimum wage fall farther behind every time the COL increases more than MW.
For one example, in 1980 I was working for minimum wage, it was $5/hr, and at that same time I bought the cheapest new car available, a base model Chevy Chevette for $3999. Today, the cheapest base model new car I could find is a KIA Rio for $10,800... with minimum wage at $7.25/hr. That's a discrepancy of a 270% commodity increase vs 145% min wage increase. The national CPI increased 161% from 1980 to 2009. Had the minimum wage in NY increased just 2% each year since 1980 it would be at $10,25/hr today.
Lastly, while NY has the highest taxes in the nation, only 4 States have a lower minimum wage than NY.
So, if that's the way free market enterprise is supposed to work I guess I don't support it. I fail to see the fairness.
Income Inequality shouldn't
Income Inequality shouldn't be addressed directly by the federal government, but it can provide the solution. Subsidies to crony corporations and already rich people, tax breaks to select companies and then asking the rest of us to shoulder the difference, a failing public education system that they are trying to make worse, a totally unfair progressive tax system that penalizes productivity, a plethora of socialistic programs intended to help level out opportunity, but instead create over spending and inefficiencies, an out of control defense department and a foreign policy of giving away boatloads of money and then sending our people and resources on foreign adventures. Spend, spend, spend, with no real plan to control it whatsoever. Yes, government should address it's socialism and counter-attempts as to who their programs benefit. The political pendulum swings left then right, left then right, money flows and guess what? The rich keep on getting richer, and most of us keep on getting screwed. Wake up America, Please.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3401/how-government-not-capitalism-is…
"The government is not the answer and creates more problems than it solves from the redistribution of income and waste. More choices given to individuals with their money and the spontaneous order of society will bring about the most efficient outcomes. Therefore, those in society may not be getting paid what they are "worth" because of government manipulation and lack of capitalism, where risk equals reward or failure. Voter ignorance creates an environment in politics that repeats the same mistakes"
And before I get accused of "Class Envy" let me say, it ain't envy, it is Anger.
I voted no, but that doesn't
I voted no, but that doesn't mean I am naive to the chasm between the incomes of the top 1% and the rest of us. CEO's making 200 times the wage of the worker below him is wrong, but it should be the shareholders who dictate compensation, not the government.
My opinion kinda falls on
My opinion kinda falls on Dave's side. I feel that the Govt DOES have a responsibility to remove writeoffs, subsidies and bailouts for corporations. Also that edc personnel salaries be brought more in line with reasonable levels. Income taxes would be much simpler and completely fair if it was just a flat certain percentage of income, no deductions or credits or anything. X% should be X% no more or less.
Very well said Dave. I cant
Very well said Dave. I cant help but feel that we have two very distinct problems. The right that is rolling forward with capitalist economy, and the left full steam a head with socialist teachings in the schools. One side says earn it, the other says give it to me.
Very frustrating to say the least.
Mike, you identified this
Mike, you identified this "The right that is rolling forward with capitalist economy," as a distinct problem, why? And what alternative economy would you desire the US to take up?
thank you Mike, but the right
thank you Mike, but the right is rolling with crony-capitalism which is really just another form of wealth re-distribution, except they are taking it from the poor and working classes and giving it to the rich, in the guise of saying "earn it". The left is also enriching favorite corporations such as big pharma and insurance companies by saying they are leveling the field, which basically takes from the poor and working classes and gives to the rich, instead of what they preach. They are both a big fat lie. Socialism light versus fascism light. Neither wants any sort of economic justice for the masses, no power for the people. The left versus right argument is what fuels it.
Get off the boat, Marine it's sinking.
Spot-on, Dave. I said "yes"
Spot-on, Dave. I said "yes" only because if the government does nothing to get out of the way, it's more crony capitalism at its finest.
The progressive noting of
The progressive noting of income inequality is just another way of saying redistribution of wealth, which is another way of quoting Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The flaws of crony capitalism is an entirely different issue.
Read progressives on income inequality and they're not talking about crony capitalism. They're talking about giving money to people in lower socio-economic levels regardless of the merit of ones effort to gain higher incomes. They're same people who are saying burger flippers should be paid $15 an hour.
Crony capitalism is it's own kind of welfare.
Personal income should be based on merit, not on some government program. Otherwise, income inequality is an entirely fantastical and made up problem.
Howard, you think Walmart
Howard, you think Walmart hates the social services income?
Everyone seems to want to
Everyone seems to want to raise the minimum wage, while totally ignoring the problem of government supplemented income. The welfare system incentivises not working. Why work for low wages when you can remain blissfully ignorant and feed at the government teat?
Wallymart knows people will
Wallymart knows people will settle for minimum wage when those workers can get free health care (free to Wallymart), food stamps, HEAP, WICK, government assisted housing. All that happens at the expense of the working class...the real working class that spent years honing a craft that demands higher wages. I'd say that has crony capitalism written all over the face of it.
Maybe I misunderstood you,
Maybe I misunderstood you, Howard, but I believe low wages (and income inequality) are a direct result of crony capitalism.
I understand all that Howard,
I understand all that Howard, what I'm saying is that the so-called progressives who have gotten elected based on those principles, Obama and congressional members, are liars. They say they want one thing, then they do another. The so-called conservatives do the same damn thing. It all causes the income disparity and keeps it that way. Congress has about a 10% approval rate, yet the same people keep getting elected, of course they're corrupt and lie. The conservative movement is dead. Hello. Because they have not stuck to the principles, the progressives will earn the same fate for the same reason.
Welfare is welfare, personal or corporate, it is all re-distribution of wealth and it is all wrong. We need to get back to the rule of law known as The US Constitution and limit government to it's intended scope and size. Then the free markets will work and working folks will earn a decent living again. If most of us can do that, then few will care how rich the rich are.
My problem with Walmart isn't
My problem with Walmart isn't the wages they pay. It's the tax subsidies they get. $8 billion in tax breaks from local governments across the country to build their stores and destroy locally owned businesses.
Even without social services, certain industries -- retail among them -- would pay low wages, because it's low skilled work, and there's always a supply of low-skilled workers. Supply and demand. Basic economics.
The income inequality crowd wants to force Walmart and McDonald's to pay $15 an hour and they want to raise taxes on hard working people and give that money to people who haven't developed the skills and the worth ethic to earn it on their own.
Howard, there are quite a few
Howard, there are quite a few displaced workers working those jobs, workers who have been trained in other professions that no longer exist.
I'm not saying they are worth 15 bucks an hour, but probably worth more than 7 an hour. Many of them have great work ethic, but who cares at
7 an hour. Do you know how much skill it takes to put up with customers who are nothing more than a p.i.t.a.?
Getting training in other areas can be all but impossible for some, take a class, or take a shit paying job to keep food on the table, not a
great set of choices.
If someone says 'Who Cares' I
If someone says 'Who Cares' I would dare to say that their work ethic isn't all that good. Pride in one's work is a large part of work ethic.
People with good work ethic, do not ever consider customers 'PITA's' they know that the customer is the reason that they have a job.
People with good work ethic generally do not care at all what someone above them on the pay scale earns, more often they look at what they have to do to close that gap by self improvement.
There are some people that punch a clock and do their best, and that is ok. Then there are some that do what it takes through hard work, education and yes sometimes luck that maximize their earnings.
The person that sits back and earns huge salaries for doing nothing is a total myth, I have never met, seen or heard of in business circles high wage earners or wealthy people who didn't work harder and longer.
Those born to wealth or born into a business that sit back and collect without hard work, 99% of the time squander the business or the wealth that their parents gave them away.
It is not what opportunities you have, it is what you do to maximize the opportunities before you that matter. Everyone whether born in a Ghetto, on a farm or in Manhattan has opportunities, and no matter which environment they are born, some succeed, some maintain and some inevitably fail,
No form of Government will ever eliminate the poor or curtail the privileged for long. A certain percentage will always rise above no matter what and through their own innovation and merit. Also a certain percentage will always fail do to their lack of innovation and lack of their own merit. In each class from poor to rich, those same percentages will show through in the end.
No matter how a Government tries to reshuffle the deck, everyone rich or poor has to play the cards they are dealt or fold. Everyone has to recognize their own opportunity large or small and either seize upon it or pass on it. In the end, we are all responsible for our own lives, even our children at some point have to take advantage of their own opportunities , we can guide them through advice and example, but the action or lack of action is their choice, We can, and should help the handicapped by injury or illness, but even they have the choice whether or not to seize on the opportunities that may and always do arise.
Opportunities may be large or they may be small, but they are always there, and no one ever said that seizing on them would be easy.
As hard and as well meaning as the progressive types try, the meddling of government always creates a few winners and an inordinate amount of loosers
Mr. Brudz, thats a very very
Mr. Brudz, thats a very very nice story. In a very generalized way it's got a kernel of truth. But honestly its much more commonplace for hard workers to become stepping stones for either their peers, who will take advantage and claim praise and credit for things they didn't do. Or by supervisors who use them to make their job look better.
My father and stepmother were a couple of these types, they worked at Kodak and with this morality got pretty far and retired. Of course now they are scraping bottom because of that kind of work ethic. (Not everyone at Kodak was like that but I can guarentee they are reaping what they sowed back then in the here and now)
I worked myself like this and only 1/2 the time I got by on my work ethic and hard work. Most of the other times I was just used and discarded. Again what you said is what should be but the reality is it's a cutthroat world out there. If you have a steady job and job security then you had the right combination of luck and skills work out for you and thats great. But ask anyone out there struggling how fair the workplace really is. Like life it's really nothing close to fair....at all.
Kyle I have managed hundreds
Kyle I have managed hundreds of hourly employees over the years, literally hundreds. There was something I discovered after retiring from the Corps and entering the business world, that is that managing people is pretty much not a general thing at all.
From the perspective of a manager, and as a business owner my observations have been very consistent from military, to management and finally to self employment.
As I pointed out in my post, at times there is even luck, but for the most part advancement anywhere does not come just from doing your job, rather from excelling at your job, and even then you are competing with others that excel at their job.
Your statement about supervisors using employees to make themselves look better is not the common thing that you and others believe, In the military and in the corporate world both, the supervisors that took credit rarely advanced as quickly as the supervisors that gave credit to their charges, it is a fundamental leadership tenant. Sure there are exceptions.
Your retort reeks of the same attitude that you in the past have chastised, that is faulting others for ones failure to achieve. When I spoke of opportunity, I spoke of more than just saying yes sir or yes ma'am to a supervisor, opportunities go far beyond that. Taking the right test at work at the right time, preparing yourself within your industry for advancement, or outside of your industry for personal growth.
Dealing with cut throats is in fact dealing with opportunities as well, I will agree with you on one point it's a cutthroat world out there, but it ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be, there will NEVER BE INCOME EQUALITY because all jobs are not equal, all performance is not equal, and yes the human element as well.
And ALWAYS, many who struggle will blame 'Fairness' but the true reality is that the successful adapt and overcome unfairness, and they are always the better person for it. You have no right to a certain income level, you have however the right to work toward that income level.
The idea of work wage fairness is a Politically Generated Fallacy,
Reality is that as human beings we will always face adversity, we will always face those who will try to gain on our efforts and we will always have obstacles in our way, the difference is how some navigate around them and how some stop dead when faced with them.
Well we agree on one thing,
Well we agree on one thing, no one is entitled to certain income levels. As to the attitude you referred to, You seemed to miss my point, I agree that they way people rise to challenges will determine how they will succeed. But honestly it is very common for achievement failures to be someone else's fault. I have seen it, but never used it as an excuse. just dealt with it and moved on tot he next challenge.
Theres a difference in my opinion between faulting others part in things working out. vs Blaming the system and those in it and giving up.
Frank, just become somebody
Frank, just become somebody has a doctorate in engineering and is working at Walmart for $7 an hour doesn't mean the person is underpaid. All of that education doesn't change the qualifications necessary to get the job. I can't see the justification for the government to compel Walmart to pay more just because some people working there would be earning more if they were able to find employment within their chosen careers.
Howard, that's probably why
Howard, that's probably why some one with that degree wouldn't get hired at a WalMart in the first place, over qualified.Certainly not the group of workers I was refering to.
Mark, the ladder at Mickey D's has very few rungs, so again, who cares. You pay 7 an hour, you get 7 an hour type work, have you been to a fast
food joint recently, they screw up the simplest of orders. What incentive is there to perform any better than average, according to what I'm
reading here, some would agree, they don't deserve to make more than 7 an hour.
Now I know why some give up and fall back on the system, it pays better, has better benefits, and there is no work involved.
What incentive is there to
What incentive is there to perform any better. Gee how about one of those few rungs you speak of? How about pride in work? Frank to be honest attitudes like your contribute greatly to the whole attitude. As Mark pointed out, a job is a job is a job. Thats why people go stagnant in jobs like that, the attitude they get from friends, co-workers and such lead to a disappointing attitude.
As for "the system" yes there are people gaming the system and taking advantage of every loophole. But again I see alot of people complain, but does anyone pick up a phone and report it? Even anonymously? There is very small percentage that are committing fraud but they are there. Also do you have a concept of what "the system" entails? There is certifying and re-certifying every 6 months to a year, documentation in triplicate, and you have to job search and find some kind of job or your out of "the system" If you dont find a job then the county "places" you in a job unless you have kids that are below school age, or have a documented medical condition.
I see alot of comments that indicate that most are very ignorant of how the system works, and rely on generalizations from several decades ago. As Mark said your willingness to navigate problems and obstacles are what get you anywhere. The system sucks and there aren't enough people to run it. But they do the best they can. If you have complaints then get involved in volunteer programs or the like and see what the people you look down on are really going through. Instead of judging them on the actions of a few jerks in the system and ancient generalizations that have been around since the 60's and 70's.
Look at the last couple years
Look at the last couple years headlines in western NY how many people are getting caught at welfare fraud. How many of those circumstances according to the articles are for offenses that seem more like paperwork errors rather than true fraud? I'll tell you one thing for every person you see in the paper there are 10 that also are kicked off and banned from the "system" you speak of.
If income is based on merit,
If income is based on merit, why does some dupek selling junk bonds earn more than a farmworker? Why does a doctor earn more than a nurse? Why is an executioner's salary higher than a fireman's?
The issue isn't about making as much as a CEO. The issue is making as much as a head of household in 1960. That 1960 sole-earner represented more purchasing-power than 2.5 earners, today. The national obsession is getting paid like one's grandfather did. Nobody would give a hoot what Walmart or McDonald's paid if those jobs were after-school jobs or second-income. They aren't after-school jobs.
In today's economy people work two jobs. In 1960 nobody worked two jobs unless they were sending a kid to college or paying for an expensive medical treatment.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
According to the Bureau of
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average mean wage of a Firefighter is $47,850 and the average mean wage of an "executioner" is $43,550
Taking all of the job titles
Taking all of the job titles out of it so the issue is boiled down to its pure essence: If person A can get paid $1,500 and hour and person B gets $10 an hour, they're both being fairly paid because they both agreed to work for that amount of money.
There's more to work and life than what your hourly wage is and the world is full of people who take jobs for a lot less money than they could otherwise make if it was all about the money. If I stayed in the newspaper executive world, I'd probably be making nearly three times what I make now. I've made my lifestyle choice as much as I've made my financial choice.
We all have made choices in life that have put us in the position we're in. Nobody owes us a living. In the old days, that was called a work ethic and that's what made America strong.
But when you start getting into the progressive agenda of trying to push "income inequality" and advocating for government fixes to this totally made up, bogus "problem," then what you're really talking about is government theft of other people's money. It's called communism.
Or working three jobs like my
Or working three jobs like my father did in the late fifties, not for medical problems, not for paying my way through school, rather for bettering himself by finishing his own education.
I honestly do not know when he slept back then, but the fruits of his labor and sacrifice are quite evident in myself, my brother and my sister.
Howard hit the nail smack dab
Howard hit the nail smack dab in the head
C.M..back in 1960 many were
C.M..back in 1960 many were lucky to have one car in the family.People didn't go out to eat every day.No one had cable or cell phones.Most families were lucky to have one TV let alone one for every room. Most vacations were by car to somewere local and not half way around the world.Less of your income went to to some kind of tax or user fee..Its our need to want all these extra's that back in 1960 they did with out...The one reason the liberals want a higher minimun wage is more tax dollars for them to spend..
Mark, I was born in 1953. I
Mark, I was born in 1953. I don't require a guided tour.
It would seem you do. Mark,
It would seem you do.
Mark, great point.
Howard your
Howard your statement..........
But when you start getting into the progressive agenda of trying to push "income inequality" and advocating for government fixes to this totally made up, bogus "problem," then what you're really talking about is government theft of other people's money. It's called communism.
Is spot on...5 thumbs up ..
Well all that seems to be
Well all that seems to be missing from this back slapping, deliberate disagreement fest is the crass sexist remark.
CM, as usual, I am impressed by and agree with you.
Julie, dont be such a girly
Julie, dont be such a girly girl..... (sorry it was the only remotely sexist remark I could think of that wouldnt violate any of Howard's rules) :)
So a middle aged worker at
So a middle aged worker at Mickey D's is really going to go places, where, right into the clown suit?, sorry that job is taken.
If some beleive all is well, and nothing needs to change, I won't waste my time saying all is not well, keep dreamin.
"So a middle aged worker at
"So a middle aged worker at Mickey D's is really going to go places" Actually that middle aged person could be on the fast track to a great career if he/she applied themselves. Over 40% of McDonalds executives earning 6 figure incomes and up started out as hourly employees with the company. You only rise as far as your hard work and determination take you.
Jeff, don't forget, sometimes
Jeff, don't forget, sometimes you just have to move. Sure you might have ties here, but if you have a chance at getting more than minimum wage that means you have to relocate, then you just might have to do it.
Here is what I do know, when
Here is what I do know, when a mfg. plant, or company, goes under, it doesn't matter how much ass you kissed, how hard you worked, you go out the door with everyone else,enuff said.
Frank, when a MFG plant or
Frank, when a MFG plant or company goes under, it goes under because of market conditions or under capitalization, not because some CEO or stock holder is greedy or out to stick it to the working man.
Companies owe you nothing except the wage that you agreed on, there are absolutely no guarantees that a job is for ever because there are absolutely no guarantees that a product can continue to sell or to be sold profitably.
Income Equality, has nothing to do with whether a company succeeds, fails or it's long term existence.
A fair wage is what the employee and company agree on, on the date of hire, nothing more, nothing less.
It always matters how hard
It always matters how hard you work, unless you have no pride.
When a manufacturing plant
When a manufacturing plant closes, you immediately start putting in applications at other plants, you consider other options for employment other than manufacturing, you consider going back to school, you do what it takes to earn a paycheck (not always pretty, but it provides a living) and all the while you are doing that, the government will assist you with unemployment benefits, job retraining, job searching, job placement, and other forms of assistance until you get back on your feet. And once you are back on your feet, the sky is the limit, no cap on earnings or opportunity. There are literally thousands of stories of people who were at their last end and are now very successful. It is an awesome system conceived in a country that is the envy of the world and if you use it for what it's meant...a hand up, not a hand out, only you put limits on your destiny.
Is that from Mother Goose or
Is that from Mother Goose or Horatio Alger?
No C.M. That is from real
No C.M. That is from real people, many of whom I know personally and some of whose biographies I've read. People who determined not to lay blame to circumstance and live lives of dependence on handouts and hatred. Chocking these account up to fairy tale just further convinces those in dire straits that their situation is hopeless, that they are worthless and subservient to a life of scraping by on the assistance of others. I really hope that you have not wholesale abandoned the human spirit to overcome because without that, hope is lost.
He that lives upon hope will
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
Hope deceives more men than cunning does. ~Vauvenargues, Reflections and Maxims, 1746
In reality, hope is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs man's torments. ~Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, 1878
Hope is the only universal liar who never loses his reputation for veracity. ~Robert G. Ingersoll
There is nothing so well known as that we should not expect something for nothing - but we all do and call it Hope. ~Edgar Howe
"If person A can get paid
"If person A can get paid $1,500 and hour and person B gets $10 an hour, they're both being fairly paid because they both agreed to work for that amount of money."
"There's more to work and life than what your hourly wage is and the world is full of people who take jobs for a lot less money than they could otherwise make if it was all about the money. If I stayed in the newspaper executive world, I'd probably be making nearly three times what I make now. I've made my lifestyle choice as much as I've made my financial choice."
Statement A would be meaningful IF the job market was evenly spread between the extremes cited. It is not. The opportunities for middle-income employment are both limited and shrinking. http://www.ibtimes.com/what-us-economy-missing-jobs-middle-pay-spectrum…
Statement B reflects choice. Certainly choice overrules chance. Not everyone abides lower compensation for the sake of working in a field of choice. In many cases the lower compensation is married to the only field available.
On the one hand: I don't think anyone owes me anything. Still, I didn't write the rule book. The rules were in place when I got here. The way it works: you have to have money. How much money one requires depends on personal lifestyle choices. Most people prefer accommodations other than living under a bridge. You can't speak for everyone.
On the other hand: the unemployment figures and stagnant wages are not the result of some global catastrophe. No comet crashed into the Earth. No volcano erupted. Its no accident that the economy tanked. A cabal of greedy shitheads moved jobs overseas. A cabal of greedy shitheads bled millions of 401Ks dry. A cabal of greedy shitheads caused the housing finance debacle. A cabal of greedy shitheads caused the Enron collapse. And the same cabal of greedy shitheads will forge the next shaft that impales the working class posterior.
On that note we can package together Mr. Owen's vision of fairness, Mr. Allen's vision of hope and the cacophony of true-believers- where do we stand? ...With a wish in one hand and you-know-what in the other.
The bulk of the dissatisfied aren't looking for a free ride; they object to the ride they're being taken for.
Regardless of one's devotion to laissez faire, a quid pro quo exists between management and labor. You can't make widgets without workers, and there's no point in making widgets if no one can afford to buy one. The only institutions that exist outside that formula are banks and the post office.
Banks prosper when no one can afford to buy the widget. Junk mail and franking privilege will sustain the post office.
Someone needs a hug
Someone needs a hug
Jeff, not everyone rides that
Jeff, not everyone rides that train, I had a chance to get training, but the classes were offered during my work hours, get training or eat.
Not a great choice.
Mark, then you would agree an employer should not expect an employee to do any more than he/she was capable of when first hired.
That is the flip side of your comment/logic.
CM, so you think corporate greed had a big role in turning this country into a min. wage haven? I do.
Frank, expectations by
Frank, expectations by employers have absolutely nothing to do personal initiative. Doing no more than what you are paid for and doing beyond what is expected of you is the exact difference between those that move ahead and those that stagnate.
Which would you rather be?
Mark, first you say a person
Mark, first you say a person should only get paid what they agreed to, now you say they should show iniatiative, for what?
Initiative without incentive, at a min.wage job, I hope you're not serious.
I'm not speaking of myself, I take pride in my work ethic, you know who and what I'm talking about, but you can keep pretending its all good though.
Frank I never said "a person
Frank I never said "a person should only get paid what they agreed to" I said a fair wage is what a person agreed to, there is a marked difference in the context and those that do not recognize that difference will never understand initiative equals more value for future agreements between employers and employee.
Well Mark the GCEDC just
Well Mark the GCEDC just received a 2% across the board raise, that seems fair now doesn't it. Your beginning to split hairs Mark.
Have you ever seen a person get held back because they are good at the job they are currently doing, I have.
I'm talking about min.wage jobs Mark, they may promote some, but it will be a very short list, and you can probably bet it won't be the 55 and over group.
In a good economy, an employee has bargaining power, in an economy like ours is now, the employer has the power, can I make it any simpler.
We were not talking about fair wages, we are talking about min wage, and wage inequality.What formula do you use to determine a fair wage?
Frank, if there is an age mix
Frank, if there is an age mix being paid minimum wage, the older person in NY is more likely to get any raise given. Remember, NY (the taxpayer) subsidizes the minimum wage pay of younger people. Why promote them and lose the taxpayer money used for their pay?
Frank I am not the one
Frank I am not the one splitting hairs, but you are the one that seems to be bitter against anyone that earns more than do you.
I see Frank's side on
I see Frank's side on minimum wage..We have no problem when the city and county hand out a raises to all its employee's and in this case the GCEDC..But for some reason raising the pay of others who are not in this group is wrong?..Why do city and county workers get pay increases every year whether they deserve it or not?...I do see both side of this issue....I don't believe that government's role is to addresss income inequality , but a fairness in what the starting wage should be..
I have no problem with it
I have no problem with it when an employer gives out raises. I have no problem with it an employer doesn't give out raises.
If it's not my raise, it's not my business. If it's my raise and I didn't get it, I can always polish up my resume and work my contacts and find an employer who better appreciates my work ethic and standards and abilities and experience. Or I can start my own business.
What I can't do is turn to the government and whine about it.
Frank seems to think life should be fair. Newsflash: It's not.
As for C.M., yeah, there's a big problem with crony capitalism, but socialism won't fix that. Free markets will fix that, if we can ever have free markets again. But even the system we have, as broken as it is, is no excuse for lack of ambition. It still leaves plenty of opportunity for those willing to grasp it.
Mark, You use to be in a
Mark,
You use to be in a union. Most County and City workers are also in a union. The pay raises they get are negotiated, like yours use to be.
As for management, you have a good point. The elected representatives set their raises (if any) each year. If they are reelected, then they just might think the majority of the voters agree with their decisions, including the pay raises.
John i understand how
John i understand how collective bargianing works...My point is most have no issue with that ,but they will take issue with others who think that maybe we should look at the issue of raising the minimum wage....
Maybe there should be a
Maybe there should be a difference between entry level wage and minimum wage.
I feel that minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living, which it obviously is not. Otherwise those unfortunate, or simply unable to do better than minimum wage fall farther behind every time the COL increases more than MW.
For one example, in 1980 I was working for minimum wage, it was $5/hr, and at that same time I bought the cheapest new car available, a base model Chevy Chevette for $3999. Today, the cheapest base model new car I could find is a KIA Rio for $10,800... with minimum wage at $7.25/hr. That's a discrepancy of a 270% commodity increase vs 145% min wage increase. The national CPI increased 161% from 1980 to 2009. Had the minimum wage in NY increased just 2% each year since 1980 it would be at $10,25/hr today.
Lastly, while NY has the highest taxes in the nation, only 4 States have a lower minimum wage than NY.
So, if that's the way free market enterprise is supposed to work I guess I don't support it. I fail to see the fairness.