Income Inequality.

[EconGuy]

There are some very poor people living in very low population areas as well. I am not sure you are right about this.

But being very poor in a low population area, there might not be any one to call.

Sure, but 911 is a national system and someone will always answer, responding might be a different story.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I missed where I said that, or even hinted at it. What I was suggesting is that there is a more meaningful wage gap in America than those other countries. It's a measure of wealth inequality within the USA, not a measure of quality of life in the USA versus Turkey.
Picking Mexico as your example...which was almost as poor by this measure as the US...is kinda interesting. I'd say France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Belgium and Portugal are more similar, in terms of being so-called First World liberal democracies.

We're dancing around w/ all kinds of topics, like comparing min. wage to median incomes of the U.S. and Turkey, to shipping jobs overseas, and now we're on the quality of life in the U.S.? One thing at a time. Let's agree that the table you posted shows how the table of min.wage/median incs shows nothing about the relative quality of life in a country.

So what are we saying now? Are we saying that it's better for all to have equal incomes even if all live in squalor, or is it better for most to be well off even tho a few have enormous riches?

 

[Heyo]

Let me stir the pot a little here: Uncontrolled Capitalism appears to be Civilized Slavery.

Civilized?
America is the only country in history that has passed directly from barbarism to decadence without passing through civilization at all. - attributed to Ogden Nash and many others.

 

[timothy1027]

Civilized?
America is the only country in history that has passed directly from barbarism to decadence without passing through civilization at all. - attributed to Ogden Nash and many others.

I noticed that there is even chocolate in the grocery store today that claims to be "decadent."

 

[Kfox]

Just to be clear: You were born in a slum where cops wouldn't dare to drive around unless there was some kind of task force involved because otherwise they would be sitting ducks that would get shot by drug dealers. This is what you mean by 'high crime neighborhood', right? If it is not, I don't think you know what living in a high crime neighborhood means.

No; I lived in Compton California (before the Mexicans took over) and even though I wouldn’t call it a slum, it was a high crime area, but the cops were not afraid to go there.

First of all, statistics please?
Second, since the government took away the possibility of using force to legally settle all kinds of disputes, what else can they do? Risk fighting against the police if someone else call the cops?

I’ve lived in high crime financially oppressed neighborhoods, and I’ve lived in low crime financially secure neighborhoods; and there is a world of difference. for starts you rarely see the police in the low crime financially secure neighborhoods, I can assume this is based on the fact that people just don’t seem to have a need to call them as often due to the crime level.

 

[Nakosis]

How do we determine if someone is being exploited? I consider this to be central to this matter.

Good question but I think it is like morals. If you agree with with whatever the ongoing situation is, then you're not being exploited. If you don't, then you are. What the situation actually is doesn't matter as much.

 

[Kfox]

So we don't loose the flow of what's been said:

Kfox said:
I don’t think any business is morally obligated to pay a living wage according to your chosen lifestyle.

EconGuy said:

I'm curious, because this leads to other unspoken consequences.

For example, if a 3 year old boy is brought to a hospital with a life threatening injury, but the parent/s of that child cannot pay for his care, do you think there is any obligation to help the child or should the parents be turned away?



Right, but do you think they should be obligated?

Yes. Most States have some sort of State insurance for people people who can’t afford insurance like Apple Health, but for those states that might not have such insurance, I believe the hospital should be required to foot the cost.

 

[Kfox]

Because it does not benefit my social class. Everyone loves inequality until they are the ones with less.

Social class? What social class are you a part of?

 

[EconGuy]

Yes. Most States have some sort of State insurance for people people who can’t afford insurance like Apple Health, but for those states that might not have such insurance, I believe the hospital should be required to foot the cost.

Ok, you think employers shouldn't be required to pay people enough to earn a living wage, but you think the state and local government's and by extension taxpayers should pay for services they cannot afford because as a result of deficient wages employers foists the bill onto the community/ society, because that's exactly what happens when businesses don't pay a living wage, but ppl like yourself believe society should force hospitals and society to foot the cost?

Why not make employers foot the cost though adequate pay and benefits? Where the true cost will be passed on to society in the form of prices that reflect the costs to live in a society that believes that children and adults shouldn't be turn away from life saving medical care because they can't afford it. This is end where innovation takes place, not in forcing the state to increase taxes to pay for employers who want to drive wages down in order to increase profit and pass the costs on to society.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[sayak83]

Luv em or hate em; you gotta admit, what they did indicates a lot of power.

Actually it does not. Based on what I have followed, they have not achieved anything at all. In fact they have been villified precisely because what they want, however beneficial those goals may be for the minorities, go against the interests of the institutional power structures.

 

[sayak83]

The rich are who the police was invented for. They are the ones who have to fear that their wealth is taken away. The poor have nothing to lose.

Actually the BLM raised issues with police forces in places where the wealthy never go anyways. Be sure that police force in wealthy districts will never be defunded.

 

[Heyo]

Actually it does not. Based on what I have followed, they have not achieved anything at all. In fact they have been villified precisely because what they want, however beneficial those goals may be for the minorities, go against the interests of the institutional power structures.

There has been no effect nationwide, like revoking qualified immunity but as police is local business, there have been communities who have taken measures, some going as far as dismantling the entire police force and rebuilding it from scratch.

 

[sayak83]

There has been no effect nationwide, like revoking qualified immunity but as police is local business, there have been communities who have taken measures, some going as far as dismantling the entire police force and rebuilding it from scratch.

Yes. But overall has it has any nationwide measurable effect? I fear it is like efforts to "reuse and recycle" or "bike to work" drives that make a few communities feel good without having any impact

 

[Koldo]

Good question but I think it is like morals. If you agree with with whatever the ongoing situation is, then you're not being exploited. If you don't, then you are. What the situation actually is doesn't matter as much.

What do you mean by 'agree'?
Do I automatically agree with whatever the ongoing situation is if I keep working on a certain job and there is no coercion going on?

 

[Kfox]

Ok, you think employers shouldn't be required to pay people enough to earn a living wage, but you think the state and local government's and by extension taxpayers should pay for services they cannot afford because as a result of deficient wages employers foists the bill onto the community/ society, because that's exactly what happens when businesses don't pay a living wage, but ppl like yourself believe society should force hospitals and society to foot the cost?

Why not make employers foot the cost though adequate pay and benefits? Where the true cost will be passed on to society in the form of prices that reflect the costs to live in a society that believes that children and adults shouldn't be turn away from life saving medical care because they can't afford it. This is end where innovation takes place, not in forcing the state to increase taxes to pay for employers who want to drive wages down in order to increase profit and pass the costs on to society.

Respectfully,

EG

If I own a small business and I can afford to pay someone money to scrub my toilets and sweep my floors, but I cannot afford to pay them 10% more and give them health insurance as well, according to your idea, I should not be allowed to employ them because I am shifting that 10% costs on to the tax payer; right? I say it is still good to pay someone who is currently getting 100% support from the tax payer to do my job because though they are still being supported by the tax payer, I would rather see their support reduced to 10% rather than no reduction at all

 

[Kfox]

Actually it does not. Based on what I have followed, they have not achieved anything at all. In fact they have been villified precisely because what they want, however beneficial those goals may be for the minorities, go against the interests of the institutional power structures.

They had Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police written in large letters in the middle of the street in DC

https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/06/08/872234932/activists-painted-defund-the-police-next-to-the-new-black-lives-matter-mural

To accomplish something like that required power! To suggest that it was not power because it has now been removed makes no more sense than to claim the Ku Klux Klan never had any power in this country because the policies and beliefs they had back then are vilified today.

 

[PureX]

You've moved the goalpost. You wrote, "the actual purpose of engaging in commercial trade: to serve the well being of all those involved in the trade." I answered, "that's not why most people go into business." Now you're saying legitimate purpose. I still disagree. Making a living is a legitimate purpose for going into business.

Making a living by exploiting others economically is not a legitimate way to make a living. Commerce is not exploitation. And exploitation is not fair trade. And the fact that most people living under a capitalist system don't understand the difference doesn't change the truth of it, and doesn't make exploitation a legitimate trade practice. So however many people choose to do it, is irrelevant. It's bad for humanity to engage in exploitation as commerce. And it is destroying our collective well-being as a result.

It has nothing to do with moving any goal posts. The goal was always the same: the best results for the most people. Unfortunately, we have allowed the selfishness inherent to the greed of capitalism to completely blind us to the truth and wisdom of this collective goal. To the point that many of us here are trying to argue against it, and defend selfishness and greed as positive traits, or at least as inevitable and acceptable aspects of commerce. And they are not. They are a kind of poison that ruins everything and everyone it infects.

Exploitation is also not the purpose of going into business. It wasn't my purpose.

It doesn't matter what your purpose was. You will be exploited for maximum profit whenever possible by almost anyone you trade with. And that will inevitably force you to respond in kind just to stay in business. Commerce is a battleground in a capitalist system because it's based on exploiting every exchange with everyone else for maximum profit returned on the capital invested.

I listed many of the remedies that government can employ to protect workers. Competing for dollars in an unregulated environment with no social safety net doesn't work except for a very few, but the system works well for most in the hands of progressives.

The problem is that it does not work well for long, because the capitalists are constantly trying to circumvent those remedies. And they have the wealth and power to do that because capitalism is a rigged system that rewards the wealthy and powerful with more of both.

Some of those measures were imposed in the middle of the last century, and they worked well for a few decades. But now most of them have been erased, or reversed, or rendered impotent by capitalist bribery, and it only took them 50 years to do it. And they've been destroying the nation and the economy for 40 years since. Half our population is now in or on the edge of poverty. Towns all across America are collapsing into gutted main streets and falling down abandoned houses. People with jobs are living in broken down RVs and tents because they can't afford a place to live. The income disparity has become that drastic.

Our weak half-measures don't work because they don't address the real problem of systemic greed being rewarded by an economic system that cares only about profit on capital investment and not at all about human well-being. And we humans are INSANE to continue engaging in it. It's a form of collective suicide.

Regarding exploitation, on a playing field that protect workers and allows them to earn a working wage if they work fulltime, people aren't exploited. They are expected to develop useful and saleable skills including the trades and to apply themselves. Absent mental illness, able-bodied people of little intellectual ability can do that. If you make nothing of yourself, you'll end up your back or selling Big Macs, but I don't consider that exploitation.

Not everyone has the same capacity for navigating such a system. Not everyone wants to. Stop using yourself as the yardstick for everyone else's capabilities and desires. I agree we all need to contribute to the collective function of our society. But we all need to benefit from it, too. And not just the ones that contribute much, but those that contribute little, too. But capitalism doesn't care about any of that. It's nothing more than a money pump for the wealthy investors. So long as you work to keep that pump operating, they will let you live. When you can no longer do that, they are happy to let you die. And in either case, they are not going to share any of their profits with anyone else that they don't absolutely have to, to keep the money pump pumping.

It's a stupid way for a society of human beings to live. And it causes great unnecessary strife and suffering. We need to grow up and get rid of it once and for all.

 

[PureX]

When you say all the people engaged in it, do you mean 100% of the people engaged in this business have to receive positive value? Or only a reasonable percentage.

Yes, I know this will shock you, but the purpose of people trading goods and services with each other is that in doing so they increase their collective well-being and quality of life.

But those poor feel it is better to have what you call “junk” than to have nothing at all

That's called "exploitation". We exploit their poverty to force them to buy cheap, crappy products and services while we who already have far more than they do get even richer. And the wealth disparity continues to widen. While their suffering continues to increase so we can be even more fat and comfortable.

There are policies and laws in place requiring business to provide safe products; I am not suggesting such laws should not exist

But the capitalists erase and subvert those laws at every turn because they have the money and power to it, rendering those laws so ineffective or non-existent that half of the American population is now either living in poverty of teetering on the edge of it. While the richest 5% are getting so rich from all this systemic exploitation that they can literally buy off every politician in the government and eliminate any laws they don't like.

 

[Koldo]

No; I lived in Compton California (before the Mexicans took over) and even though I wouldn’t call it a slum, it was a high crime area, but the cops were not afraid to go there.

If it wasn't a slum nor an area where cops were afraid to drive around then it was neither high crime nor financially oppressed.

I’ve lived in high crime financially oppressed neighborhoods, and I’ve lived in low crime financially secure neighborhoods; and there is a world of difference. for starts you rarely see the police in the low crime financially secure neighborhoods, I can assume this is based on the fact that people just don’t seem to have a need to call them as often due to the crime level.

1) You didn't bring up, once again, any statistics.
2) You didn't address my point on how the government took away the power from the poor to settle their issues by themselves.

 

[Koldo]

They had Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police written in large letters in the middle of the street in DC

https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/06/08/872234932/activists-painted-defund-the-police-next-to-the-new-black-lives-matter-mural

To accomplish something like that required power! To suggest that it was not power because it has now been removed makes no more sense than to claim the Ku Klux Klan never had any power in this country because the policies and beliefs they had back then are vilified today.

Come on, please.
Writting stuff on the street is power? Really?
What do you call the capacity to enact legislative changes that influence the livelihood of millions of people then?