Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
@FFJ:
"Did it ever occur to you that the reason it is systemic is because that is what the job market will bear?"
This ignores the elephant in the room--executive pay at 300-500x (I believe ~700x in the specific case of Walmart) that of employee pay. Not to mention dividends, lobbying expenses, et cetera. While I have never run one, I tend to imagine there are many more levers to pull in a large multinational business than a simple linear relationship whereby "wages go up = prices go up = going out of business".
As I asked Jenny: If they increased worker pay while lowering executive pay (and maybe dividends, lobbying, et cetera), why would any current customers STOP going to Walmart? How would that drive them out of business?
"Have you ever employed anyone? What did you base their pay on?"
If I were hiring an employee, I would probably pay what I thought was the average pay for the position and skills, based on prevailing market trends. If I could afford it and needed loyalty, maybe a little extra than my nearest competitor. I'd probably negotiate on an individual basis from there (if called for) depending on how much I needed the work. Basically, as a self-interested actor, I would seek to get as much labor as I thought I could get away with for as little money as possible, thereby maximizing my return. Of course I would--just like Wal-mart and every other corporation.
See, this gets to what I alluded to with wanting it both ways. To me it seems that a business will always attempt to pay the absolute minimum it can to a worker so as to maximize profits. Which is exactly why the market cannot be relied on to be self-regulating with regard to worker rights. Which is exactly why worker protections like a decent minimum wage have proven necessary historically, to counteract what would otherwise be a race to the bottom.
I don't see how this is counter to my point. If anything, it bolsters my argument for more and better* regulation of industry.
*Particularly regulation that isn't bought and paid for by industry itself--this, of course, being the kicker. Which brings me to...
"if Walmart were a net drain on a community then they wouldn't be wooed by city and county governments"
Unless those city and county governments were corrupt/inept/etc or otherwise didn't give a shit about the community? It's a little convenient to assume the big bad government you otherwise fear suddenly has the community's interests at heart for the sake of this one argument. It seems just as likely if not more so that in this, as in many other matters, the political class acts at the whim of the business class for reasons of personal gain and power, resulting in things like massive, systemic handouts to corporations.
"we should encourage and protect providers over takers."
If technology continues to lower the need for and numbers of the workforce employed by corporations, who or what is to employ and provide for the displaced workers who will still need food/shelter/income?
Is a holder of capital really "providing" more than a laborer? Is it not the laborer who actually produces the fruits of the labor? If productivity AND capital wealth has skyrocketed while the income of labor has been stagnant, aren't the holders of capital "taking" the majority of the "production" of the laborers?
ETA: Your "secondly" and "thirdly" reasons seem like reasons why you are concerned with welfare programs in general, NOT reasons why you are more concerned with individuals taking welfare than with corporate welfare. Again, whether or not those points are valid, IMO they also apply equally or more to corporate welfare.
"Did it ever occur to you that the reason it is systemic is because that is what the job market will bear?"
This ignores the elephant in the room--executive pay at 300-500x (I believe ~700x in the specific case of Walmart) that of employee pay. Not to mention dividends, lobbying expenses, et cetera. While I have never run one, I tend to imagine there are many more levers to pull in a large multinational business than a simple linear relationship whereby "wages go up = prices go up = going out of business".
As I asked Jenny: If they increased worker pay while lowering executive pay (and maybe dividends, lobbying, et cetera), why would any current customers STOP going to Walmart? How would that drive them out of business?
"Have you ever employed anyone? What did you base their pay on?"
If I were hiring an employee, I would probably pay what I thought was the average pay for the position and skills, based on prevailing market trends. If I could afford it and needed loyalty, maybe a little extra than my nearest competitor. I'd probably negotiate on an individual basis from there (if called for) depending on how much I needed the work. Basically, as a self-interested actor, I would seek to get as much labor as I thought I could get away with for as little money as possible, thereby maximizing my return. Of course I would--just like Wal-mart and every other corporation.
See, this gets to what I alluded to with wanting it both ways. To me it seems that a business will always attempt to pay the absolute minimum it can to a worker so as to maximize profits. Which is exactly why the market cannot be relied on to be self-regulating with regard to worker rights. Which is exactly why worker protections like a decent minimum wage have proven necessary historically, to counteract what would otherwise be a race to the bottom.
I don't see how this is counter to my point. If anything, it bolsters my argument for more and better* regulation of industry.
*Particularly regulation that isn't bought and paid for by industry itself--this, of course, being the kicker. Which brings me to...
"if Walmart were a net drain on a community then they wouldn't be wooed by city and county governments"
Unless those city and county governments were corrupt/inept/etc or otherwise didn't give a shit about the community? It's a little convenient to assume the big bad government you otherwise fear suddenly has the community's interests at heart for the sake of this one argument. It seems just as likely if not more so that in this, as in many other matters, the political class acts at the whim of the business class for reasons of personal gain and power, resulting in things like massive, systemic handouts to corporations.
"we should encourage and protect providers over takers."
If technology continues to lower the need for and numbers of the workforce employed by corporations, who or what is to employ and provide for the displaced workers who will still need food/shelter/income?
Is a holder of capital really "providing" more than a laborer? Is it not the laborer who actually produces the fruits of the labor? If productivity AND capital wealth has skyrocketed while the income of labor has been stagnant, aren't the holders of capital "taking" the majority of the "production" of the laborers?
ETA: Your "secondly" and "thirdly" reasons seem like reasons why you are concerned with welfare programs in general, NOT reasons why you are more concerned with individuals taking welfare than with corporate welfare. Again, whether or not those points are valid, IMO they also apply equally or more to corporate welfare.
Last edited by Spartan_Warrior on Thu May 19, 2016 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
@IlliniDave, GandK:
So by that reasoning, would it be permissible to take government assistance as long as one's overall tax burden remained positive? (I'm not even sure if it's possible to qualify for benefits if your income is enough to owe substantial federal taxes, but hypothetically?) Or is it simply the difference between the government labeling it "assistance" versus "tax cut", not the cash inflow/outflow, that is the difference between "government giving things"?
The way I see it, if I give you $20 and you give me back $5, it's the same result as if I give you $15. With the latter you "took fewer of my things", whereas with the former you "gave me things". Right...?
So by that reasoning, would it be permissible to take government assistance as long as one's overall tax burden remained positive? (I'm not even sure if it's possible to qualify for benefits if your income is enough to owe substantial federal taxes, but hypothetically?) Or is it simply the difference between the government labeling it "assistance" versus "tax cut", not the cash inflow/outflow, that is the difference between "government giving things"?
The way I see it, if I give you $20 and you give me back $5, it's the same result as if I give you $15. With the latter you "took fewer of my things", whereas with the former you "gave me things". Right...?
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
Also, this assumption that people receiving benefits are automatically "takers" is... false, to put it lightly. As the example of Wal-mart also shows, the majority of people on benefits ARE in the workforce, merely earning poverty wages for their effort.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/ ... -have-one/
Again, you can't be against both welfare AND a living minimum wage. It just doesn't work. What are people supposed to do?
(Don't you dare say ERE. ERE is great for a special class of people determined to beat the system--and capable of doing it. But not everyone is going to live in RVs, eat lentils, and master the stock market, nor should they have to. Frankly, I wish I didn't have to.)
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/ ... -have-one/
Again, you can't be against both welfare AND a living minimum wage. It just doesn't work. What are people supposed to do?
(Don't you dare say ERE. ERE is great for a special class of people determined to beat the system--and capable of doing it. But not everyone is going to live in RVs, eat lentils, and master the stock market, nor should they have to. Frankly, I wish I didn't have to.)
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
@Spartan_Warrior
Remember we're talking about wages where Jacob could live his current lifestyle at only 11 hours per week, and that's BEFORE counting the additional tax benefits available (EITC, SNAP, etc). I'm not shedding any tears for the Wal-Mart employee. Take their average salary and go plug it into http://www.globalrichlist.com to get a picture of how great they're doing.
Yes, the CEO of Wal-Mart makes a ridiculously high salary, but that's not why the employees are paid so little. The CEO is paid $35 million per year and WMT has 1.4 million employees. If he was paid $0 and his salary was distributed to the average employee, they would make another $25 per year, or $0.02 per hour.
It's not a question of WMT going out of business if they paid their workers more, but at the margin, if you doubled salaries then certain stores would need to be closed and certain positions would disappear(additional self-checkout stations, fewer greeters, more advanced inventory management etc). There are some WMT stores that are only marginally profitable, and a doubling of salary would just force WMT to close those locations.
Also keep in mind that if WMT doubled the employees salaries, they would LOSE all the government benefits they are currently receiving. So while the average employee would get the psychological benefit of knowing they're not on welfare, but they wouldn't have a dime more money to spend. And that's if they don't lose their job entirely (due to their location being closed or their position replaced with a self-checkout).
We live in a world where most of our needs are completely taken care of my mechanization and technology, and the government is making an(in my opinion, weak) attempt to take care of the population while simultaneously encouraging them to get out and do a little work (10-20 hours per week). If the local community gets to enjoy very low prices as a result, why does this bother you? You're neglecting to appreciate the benefits while paying attention to the detriments. Your pro/con list is only half completed.
Would you rather the government shred it's welfare programs and Wal-Mart not pay anyone less than $15 an hour? Do you really think they wouldn't have to raise prices? If they raised prices, do you really think people would still shop there compared to Target? I sure wouldn't. And why are you only championing for the people who are currently employed at Wal-Mart? What about the people who have no job at all? Remember that only 60% of our population has a job at all. People who villainize WMT for not paying the 60% of the population more are completely ignoring the other 40% of the population who doesn't even have a job. Raising the minimum wage to $15 helps them absolutely zero.
Remember we're talking about wages where Jacob could live his current lifestyle at only 11 hours per week, and that's BEFORE counting the additional tax benefits available (EITC, SNAP, etc). I'm not shedding any tears for the Wal-Mart employee. Take their average salary and go plug it into http://www.globalrichlist.com to get a picture of how great they're doing.
Yes, the CEO of Wal-Mart makes a ridiculously high salary, but that's not why the employees are paid so little. The CEO is paid $35 million per year and WMT has 1.4 million employees. If he was paid $0 and his salary was distributed to the average employee, they would make another $25 per year, or $0.02 per hour.
It's not a question of WMT going out of business if they paid their workers more, but at the margin, if you doubled salaries then certain stores would need to be closed and certain positions would disappear(additional self-checkout stations, fewer greeters, more advanced inventory management etc). There are some WMT stores that are only marginally profitable, and a doubling of salary would just force WMT to close those locations.
Also keep in mind that if WMT doubled the employees salaries, they would LOSE all the government benefits they are currently receiving. So while the average employee would get the psychological benefit of knowing they're not on welfare, but they wouldn't have a dime more money to spend. And that's if they don't lose their job entirely (due to their location being closed or their position replaced with a self-checkout).
We live in a world where most of our needs are completely taken care of my mechanization and technology, and the government is making an(in my opinion, weak) attempt to take care of the population while simultaneously encouraging them to get out and do a little work (10-20 hours per week). If the local community gets to enjoy very low prices as a result, why does this bother you? You're neglecting to appreciate the benefits while paying attention to the detriments. Your pro/con list is only half completed.
Would you rather the government shred it's welfare programs and Wal-Mart not pay anyone less than $15 an hour? Do you really think they wouldn't have to raise prices? If they raised prices, do you really think people would still shop there compared to Target? I sure wouldn't. And why are you only championing for the people who are currently employed at Wal-Mart? What about the people who have no job at all? Remember that only 60% of our population has a job at all. People who villainize WMT for not paying the 60% of the population more are completely ignoring the other 40% of the population who doesn't even have a job. Raising the minimum wage to $15 helps them absolutely zero.
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
And this can become extremely complicated. For instance, just a few years ago I was living with a very well-off man to whom I was not legally married. My marital-ex went AWOL after we split and I didn't hunt him down for child support, so I was the established head of household for my daughter. My daughter was attending a very expensive private university on a full-ride academic scholarship, but still needed financial support from me for living expenses. Due to legal decisions made in palimony and common-law marriage cases, any financial support I received from my well-off partner was not to be reported as income, and any household labor contributions I made were not to be counted as income generating activities, and I could not be claimed as a dependent in his household. Therefore, my income was limited to my earnings from my rare book business which was to be regarded as active income since my involvement was not passive. Therefore, I was eligible to receive the Earned Income Credit which rendered my tax burden (disregarding SS contributions, etc.) negative, even though I was living in quite affluent circumstances. To further complicate the matter, in that same tax year, my partner won a major lawsuit against a major corporation which previously employed him, so his taxable income was sky-high that year. The corporation from which he won the lawsuit had previously declared bankruptcy and received a bail-out from the US taxpayers.Spartan Warrior said: 3. In an objective analysis, "tax burden" is simply the inflow/outflow of money between an individual and the government.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
"I'm not shedding any tears for the Wal-Mart employee. Take their average salary and go plug it into http://www.globalrichlist.com to get a picture of how great they're doing."
I'm sympathetic to the plight of third world countries and worldwide poverty, but it pains me to see that held up as a viable contrast in defense of the condition of the American middle and working class. Why can't, or why shouldn't, we aim for better than third world wages?
Why is it necessary or good that Wal-Mart "remain the powerhouse that it is today"? At the end of the day, why do we care if a few Wal-Mart stores close, when the opening of those Wal-marts killed on average three local jobs for every two they made? Why does it matter if people shop at Target instead of Wal-Mart? Isn't competition and creative destruction the ideal of free market capitalism?
"Also keep in mind that if WMT doubled the employees salaries, they would LOSE all the government benefits they are currently receiving. So while the average employee would get the psychological benefit of knowing they're not on welfare, but they wouldn't have a dime more money to spend. And that's if they don't lose their job entirely (due to their location being closed or their position replaced with a self-checkout)."
I'll give you that. However, it's a bit of a microcosmic analysis. For instance, theoretically, lower burdens on public assistance would also result, which would benefit every tax payer, right?
If we're discussing this in the context of raising the minimum wage, there would be many other effects--the stimulative effect of new money, the rising of the pay scale across the board, etc.
I don't know why you think I'm "only championing for the people who are currently employed at Wal-Mart". Again, Wal-Mart is just an example. I am equally concerned about low-wage workers in all industries. I am also concerned about joblessness. To me the two are related to the same underlying issue, which is that the labor class is no longer valued and no longer sees the fruits of its own productivity.
What disturbs me in general is what I see as the widespread refusal to acknowledge the reality that not everyone can be among the wealthiest 1% that holds all the capital, nor even among the top 10% who are the most talented/valued/luckiest enough to not worry about the shrinking need for and value of labor. But what about the other 90% of the population?
Anyway, considering the original topic is related more to the morality of taking public assistance when you don't really need it, rather than justifying public assistance in general, I think we're probably way off the topic at this point if we're veering this far into justifications of a higher minimum wage. It also feels like ground I've covered here before.
Regardless, I think nothing that's been said has directly disputed my point that IF one is concerned about welfare programs, then one should be aware that many large corporations act in ways that perpetuate such programs, and supporting them is thus supporting welfare. The pros and cons of that welfare are technically another story.
I'm sympathetic to the plight of third world countries and worldwide poverty, but it pains me to see that held up as a viable contrast in defense of the condition of the American middle and working class. Why can't, or why shouldn't, we aim for better than third world wages?
Why is it necessary or good that Wal-Mart "remain the powerhouse that it is today"? At the end of the day, why do we care if a few Wal-Mart stores close, when the opening of those Wal-marts killed on average three local jobs for every two they made? Why does it matter if people shop at Target instead of Wal-Mart? Isn't competition and creative destruction the ideal of free market capitalism?
"Also keep in mind that if WMT doubled the employees salaries, they would LOSE all the government benefits they are currently receiving. So while the average employee would get the psychological benefit of knowing they're not on welfare, but they wouldn't have a dime more money to spend. And that's if they don't lose their job entirely (due to their location being closed or their position replaced with a self-checkout)."
I'll give you that. However, it's a bit of a microcosmic analysis. For instance, theoretically, lower burdens on public assistance would also result, which would benefit every tax payer, right?
If we're discussing this in the context of raising the minimum wage, there would be many other effects--the stimulative effect of new money, the rising of the pay scale across the board, etc.
I don't know why you think I'm "only championing for the people who are currently employed at Wal-Mart". Again, Wal-Mart is just an example. I am equally concerned about low-wage workers in all industries. I am also concerned about joblessness. To me the two are related to the same underlying issue, which is that the labor class is no longer valued and no longer sees the fruits of its own productivity.
What disturbs me in general is what I see as the widespread refusal to acknowledge the reality that not everyone can be among the wealthiest 1% that holds all the capital, nor even among the top 10% who are the most talented/valued/luckiest enough to not worry about the shrinking need for and value of labor. But what about the other 90% of the population?
Anyway, considering the original topic is related more to the morality of taking public assistance when you don't really need it, rather than justifying public assistance in general, I think we're probably way off the topic at this point if we're veering this far into justifications of a higher minimum wage. It also feels like ground I've covered here before.
Regardless, I think nothing that's been said has directly disputed my point that IF one is concerned about welfare programs, then one should be aware that many large corporations act in ways that perpetuate such programs, and supporting them is thus supporting welfare. The pros and cons of that welfare are technically another story.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
@FFJ: Compassion is not condescension. What I'm actually saying is: "Not everyone had the luck I did to be born in the circumstances I was, in the place and time I was, with the health I have, which combined with causal laws set me on my unique course through life that happened to include acquiring the specific resources, skills, and knowledge to be exposed to the ideas that led me to ERE and the resolve/inclination to see it through."
Don't get me started on a free will vs. determinism discussion. That'll really derail things. :lol
ETA: I believe somebody else in this thread, possibly you, also said: "There will always be winners and losers."
Don't get me started on a free will vs. determinism discussion. That'll really derail things. :lol
ETA: I believe somebody else in this thread, possibly you, also said: "There will always be winners and losers."
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
Ha. Most of the people in the third world are perfectly content with their wages. In fact, if you complained about Wal-Mart wages to someone in Ukraine, Hungary, or Argentina, they'd respond by asking you if you wanted to cheese to go with your wine.Spartan_Warrior wrote: Why can't, or why shouldn't, we aim for better than third world wages?
Keep in mind you're on a forum where most of us spend below the poverty line and live exactly the life we want with a massive amount of freedom. How could any of us feel pity for someone who makes $15,000 per year when we live amazing lives for $7,000 per year?
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
I mean to elaborate further on that also. The idea that life's problems can be solved with a little bit more money is a distinctly American middle class concept. Most of the 99% you're worried about don't need an extra $200 per month to fix their problems - they need something fundamentally different.
And take a wider view than what the US media thinks of the 1%. The 1% is anyone who makes $33,000 per year after tax. That's you. If the crusade against the 1% succeeds, they're coming to take YOUR stuff!
And take a wider view than what the US media thinks of the 1%. The 1% is anyone who makes $33,000 per year after tax. That's you. If the crusade against the 1% succeeds, they're coming to take YOUR stuff!

-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
You didn't actually answer my question, though. I guess the implicit answer is "because some can, therefore everyone can and should live happily on less than $XXXX/year." Okay. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but why is that a better alternative than a more equal distribution of the fruits of labor, or paying workers better than third world wages?
I do know the audience of the forum. Like I said, I've tread pretty much all of this ground here before. I am not surprised that (what I see as) compassion and empathy come second-place to autonomy, libertarianism, etc. in terms of value-rankings of the community. The theory of ERE itself is somewhat self-selecting of its political and philosophical values. (Likewise, I'm not surprised I don't see as many of the old liberal voices chiming in as much anymore. Doesn't mean I won't occasionally make the mistake of one off-hand comment that becomes two pages of debate.)
I do know the audience of the forum. Like I said, I've tread pretty much all of this ground here before. I am not surprised that (what I see as) compassion and empathy come second-place to autonomy, libertarianism, etc. in terms of value-rankings of the community. The theory of ERE itself is somewhat self-selecting of its political and philosophical values. (Likewise, I'm not surprised I don't see as many of the old liberal voices chiming in as much anymore. Doesn't mean I won't occasionally make the mistake of one off-hand comment that becomes two pages of debate.)
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
I'm all for redistribution. I think the world could stand $1,000 per month UBI right now. The difference is I don't think it can be solved by taking away from CEOs and the 1% (there's not enough IMO), and I don't think that concept is healthy at all. It's based on greed and envy. I don't care how much or little money you have to your name, if you run around comparing what you have to what everyone else has then you're an envious, greedy person. I don't think that line of thinking should be supported.
I think UBI could be funded by eliminating inefficiencies. The ERE crowd is encouraging this by re-allocating money (by reducing their income taxes/increasing tax credits/using ACA subsidies/deferring tax through 401(k)/submit your own euphemism) from inefficient uses to efficient ones. 7W5 taking a SNAP benefit - which would pay for guns, pesticides, gasoline, and other nonsense - and spending it on locally grown produce produces a net benefit for society. It's more efficient. If everyone did this then those entire industries would disappear, thousands of dollars and man hours would be saved, and it would be very easy to fund a nice life for everyone.
I think UBI could be funded by eliminating inefficiencies. The ERE crowd is encouraging this by re-allocating money (by reducing their income taxes/increasing tax credits/using ACA subsidies/deferring tax through 401(k)/submit your own euphemism) from inefficient uses to efficient ones. 7W5 taking a SNAP benefit - which would pay for guns, pesticides, gasoline, and other nonsense - and spending it on locally grown produce produces a net benefit for society. It's more efficient. If everyone did this then those entire industries would disappear, thousands of dollars and man hours would be saved, and it would be very easy to fund a nice life for everyone.
-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
That may be fair, but I can't help but take that personally since I've laid out two pages of argument that had nothing to do with me wanting a CEO's money and everything to do with developing a moral system that fairly distributes the fruits of labor. Is it greed and envy to ask for fairness, or only if you're part of the class that's getting the shaft? (What if I'm not even part of the class that's getting the shaft, by your own argument? I'm also near the 1% for my age group even within the US.)
I mean, really, we're talking about CEOs and you're calling me greedy.
I mean, really, we're talking about CEOs and you're calling me greedy.

Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
Absolutely. The line of thinking that encourages CEO's to push the boards for higher wages is because they're sitting there comparing their $35 million to their neighbors $35.5 million. We both agree that that's greedy, yeah? Well if a WMT employee is making $8 per hour and if he's pining for more wages because he's comparing himself to his neighbor who makes $8.25 per hour then I don't see how that's any different. Both the CEO and the WMT employee look totally fucking rich to anyone in Tunisia. If your relative wealth determines whether you're greedy or not, then they're both totally greedy in the eyes of the majority of the world.Spartan_Warrior wrote:I mean, really, we're talking about CEOs and you're calling me greedy.
I mean, if I were a CEO who only makes $2 million and I ask for $2.1 million, am I not greedy because the WMT CEO makes $35 million? My $2m is nearly poverty compared to $35m.
The line of wealth stretches 7 billion people long. If you're only looking at the people in front of you in line, you're kind of an asshole.

Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
Yeah, I think the main issue is that everyone has a different idea of what fairness means.Spartan_Warrior wrote:Is it greed and envy to ask for fairness, or only if you're part of the class that's getting the shaft?
So, fairness is... what, in this context?
Be specific.

-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
You know what? That's fine. I don't mind being a greedy asshole. I'd imagine most are by those parameters. Again, that's why expecting the free market to somehow regulate--rather than encourage--everyone's greedy assholishness seems so incoherent.
For the record, I personally do see a clear distinction, not only between the employee's desire for an extra $.25 (that may actually make a tremendous difference in his life) and a CEO's desire for an extra $1 million, but also between what both classes of people have the power to do to get what they desire. E.g., the wealth disparity would probably matter less to me personally if we lived in a democratic republic rather than a plutocratic oligarchy.
It's also worth noting that, yes, again, Americans are wealthy by international standards; but the top 0.1% of Americans owns as much as the bottom 90%. The line of wealth may be 7 billion people long, but the line is also 1000 miles tall at the front and 2 inches tall by the end.
For the record, I personally do see a clear distinction, not only between the employee's desire for an extra $.25 (that may actually make a tremendous difference in his life) and a CEO's desire for an extra $1 million, but also between what both classes of people have the power to do to get what they desire. E.g., the wealth disparity would probably matter less to me personally if we lived in a democratic republic rather than a plutocratic oligarchy.
It's also worth noting that, yes, again, Americans are wealthy by international standards; but the top 0.1% of Americans owns as much as the bottom 90%. The line of wealth may be 7 billion people long, but the line is also 1000 miles tall at the front and 2 inches tall by the end.
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
No personal offense intended, I just used asshole to enunciate my point. We are totally off-topic also, I apologize. I felt like ranting against the 1% rhetoric. It's hard to vent these concepts in person but oh so easy on the anonymous internet. 

-
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
@GandK: I'm mostly talking now about fairness in the context of distributing the gains of productivity between labor and capital. You're right, it's hard to pin down an objective figure, but I'd say what we have now is pretty unfair. Certainly, we've been fairer:
http://i.imgur.com/vDy4gAh.png (Can't embed, too big.)
Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/understa ... -its-real/
@JL13: It's cool. Like I said, maybe you're not wrong. Either way, yes, very off-topic... and I should really do something more "productive".
http://i.imgur.com/vDy4gAh.png (Can't embed, too big.)
Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/understa ... -its-real/
@JL13: It's cool. Like I said, maybe you're not wrong. Either way, yes, very off-topic... and I should really do something more "productive".

Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
The primary factor that makes most of the members of this forum who are able to live on $8000/year or less different than people who struggle to get by on minimum wage is that they don't have any children or invalid dependents. Add just one dependent to your economic reality, and the whole problem changes. Will anybody sublet a room to a single mom and her infant? It's not just a matter of one more mouth to feed and shelter. A young child needs to be provided with care while you work. Minimum wage minus the least expensive daycare possible leaves maybe $10,000 to cover the expenses for 2 people. Also, when you get home from your minimum wage job, with intention to engage in frugal type activities or maybe studying to improve your employment potential, you still have the job of caring for that child into the evening to accomplish. According to the current guidelines under which I am actually disqualified from receiving food stamps (rendering this thread moot mental exercise), if you manage to save more than $5000 in assets, beyond your primary residence and a car, you are too wealthy.
For most of our lifetimes, most welfare recipients fell under the umbrella of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Everybody knows this means single moms or might-as-well-be-single-moms. My new BF pays $1000/month in child support for one 11 year old and around $800/month in temporary alimony to his ex. My marital-ex paid $0 for the support of his 16 year old daughter (our son was 19), because he quit his job and took off for parts unknown 3 months after we separated. I might be wrong, but I think men, and women who are in their masculine energy, mostly don't like working to pay for the support of children, if nobody makes them dinner or is available to have sex with them or whatever else makes them feel like they are loved and appreciated. I probably wouldn't substitute teach for net $80/day if I didn't get hugs and "thank-yous" as part of the deal. I try to feel compassion for 5 year olds with congenital hip deformations, no English, no money, no skills AND grouchy old men with lots of money and skills, but nobody who loves or appreciates them.
For most of our lifetimes, most welfare recipients fell under the umbrella of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Everybody knows this means single moms or might-as-well-be-single-moms. My new BF pays $1000/month in child support for one 11 year old and around $800/month in temporary alimony to his ex. My marital-ex paid $0 for the support of his 16 year old daughter (our son was 19), because he quit his job and took off for parts unknown 3 months after we separated. I might be wrong, but I think men, and women who are in their masculine energy, mostly don't like working to pay for the support of children, if nobody makes them dinner or is available to have sex with them or whatever else makes them feel like they are loved and appreciated. I probably wouldn't substitute teach for net $80/day if I didn't get hugs and "thank-yous" as part of the deal. I try to feel compassion for 5 year olds with congenital hip deformations, no English, no money, no skills AND grouchy old men with lots of money and skills, but nobody who loves or appreciates them.
-
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:40 am
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Re: Food stamps, medicaid, for ERE
Spartan have you read Henry George? We're not going to have fairness without addressing economic rent.Spartan_Warrior wrote:That may be fair, but I can't help but take that personally since I've laid out two pages of argument that had nothing to do with me wanting a CEO's money and everything to do with developing a moral system that fairly distributes the fruits of labor. Is it greed and envy to ask for fairness, or only if you're part of the class that's getting the shaft? (What if I'm not even part of the class that's getting the shaft, by your own argument? I'm also near the 1% for my age group even within the US.)
I mean, really, we're talking about CEOs and you're calling me greedy.