Income Inequality.

[Heyo]

What reply number were these facts listed?

Nope, not gonna do your work for you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Last post you made up something I did not say,
about China being more free.

That was a different thread. If I'm mistaken I apologize.

This time you pull a sentence out of context
to ask a snarky question that makes no sense
IF it were in context.

I just used that one because all the rest are equally bs. Just a way to blame those who are less fortunate over things out of their control.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are welcome to trash your country.

It trashes itself. Ever since day one with a great, terrific idea that only existed on paper and not in practice.

 

[Audie]

That was a different thread. If I'm mistaken I apologize.


I just used that one because all the rest are equally bs. Just a way to blame those who are less fortunate over things out of their control.

***IF*** you'd bothered to read either post
you'd know your response is the b.s.

The ghetto bit was about new African
immigrants ( who outperform nearly everyone )
knowing better than to let their kids grow up
in a negative culture like the ghetto.

The other was about how " freedom" is not
a thing you can rate like 1 thru 10.

In China one is free to do
many things illegal in the USA
and vice versa. Simple. All there was to it
but you just HAD to drag it in from the archives
falsify it and try to make me look ridiculous.

Apology not accepted because you are still doing it.

Your bit about " blame the less fortunate " is
you, tiresomely yet again, making up something
phony and trying to stick it on me.

It is a fail if you think it gives you some virtue
signal access to the moral high ground.

I asked you to quit it.
In the name of decency, please do so.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The cops should have been convicted back when they were doing it to white folk, but they did'n't have a powerful organization like BLM to speak stand up for them so the cops got away with it. Another example of the power BLM has.

I agree that they should have been convicted if they weren't, and more often they are not than they are. The rare time that they face consequences is when some group can manage to turn it into a case of prejudice known the nation over, or so it seems. An example of true power.

Doesn't bring the victims back, just because the living could see justice be served. Don't only give them credit. BLM isn't the first, only, and won't be the last group to bring injustices and prejudices to the light of the public eye. An example of the true power that BLM was wielding; The torch passed on from like-minded groups from similar creeds and backgrounds.

"We The People" comes to mind. "United We Will Stand, but Divided We Shall Fall!"

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Employers don’t charge you for safe working conditions, the employer is required to have you do things in a safe way which costs the employer more money than allowing you to do things in an unsafe way.

You mean 'stupid'. Because there is the right way, the safe way. Then there is stupid.

How does this cost the employer more money? It would cost them more if they were training people to be stupid and constantly forking out workman's comp.

 

[Kfox]

Nope, not gonna do your work for you.

Do my work? It's not my job to justify your views. However, as pointed out before, to simply prove an economic system works means nothing because all economic systems work for some people. East Germany system worked even though they had to build a wall to keep people in, slavery worked in the South even though people were risking their lives to escape to the Northern States and Canada; so to say something works means nothing.

 

[Kfox]

You mean 'stupid'. Because there is the right way, the safe way. Then there is stupid.

How does this cost the employer more money? It would cost them more if they were training people to be stupid and constantly forking out workman's comp.

Like the procedures you have to go through when dealing with Asbestos Chromate, or other toxic materials, required tethering when working X amount of feet above the ground, and years ago they didn’t even have workman’s comp, if you got hurt they just hired someone else; now it is a tax everybody pays into. All of this costs money.

 

[Stevicus]

Do my work? It's not my job to justify your views. However, as pointed out before, to simply prove an economic system works means nothing because all economic systems work for some people. East Germany system worked even though they had to build a wall to keep people in, slavery worked in the South even though people were risking their lives to escape to the Northern States and Canada; so to say something works means nothing.

Another way of looking at it would be to judge the aggregate, or collective whole of a country and determine its relative power, influence, and competitiveness with the rest of the world. It may not necessarily take into consideration matters of human rights, civil liberties, or even property rights - but more a matter of weighing the raw power of a nation and its material capabilities as a collective unit. In other words, basing one's evaluation of a given system solely on the material results, and not so much on the means or processes used to achieve those results.

Many business-minded people always seek out the "bottom line," focusing more on the results of the final product - even if they had to break a few eggs to get to that point. The same method can be used to evaluate the quality of a given political/economic system.

What are the results? That's what we can look at.

So, in the case of the agrarian, plantation-based economy of the South, mostly dependent on a single product, that system ultimately did not work for them, as they were soundly defeated by the North, whose economy was industrial-based producing a diverse array of products.

 

[Heyo]

Another way of looking at it would be to judge the aggregate, or collective whole of a country and determine its relative power, influence, and competitiveness with the rest of the world. It may not necessarily take into consideration matters of human rights, civil liberties, or even property rights - but more a matter of weighing the raw power of a nation and its material capabilities as a collective unit. In other words, basing one's evaluation of a given system solely on the material results, and not so much on the means or processes used to achieve those results.

Many business-minded people always seek out the "bottom line," focusing more on the results of the final product - even if they had to break a few eggs to get to that point. The same method can be used to evaluate the quality of a given political/economic system.

What are the results? That's what we can look at.

So, in the case of the agrarian, plantation-based economy of the South, mostly dependent on a single product, that system ultimately did not work for them, as they were soundly defeated by the North, whose economy was industrial-based producing a diverse array of products.

In theory a good idea, in practice I see the bickering what to include in the sum. Do we include environmental impact? Do we include bio diversity? Capitalism has the tendency to exploit everything and everyone, creating wealth in the short term and destroying its environment in the long term.

 

[Stevicus]

In theory a good idea, in practice I see the bickering what to include in the sum. Do we include environmental impact? Do we include bio diversity? Capitalism has the tendency to exploit everything and everyone, creating wealth in the short term and destroying its environment in the long term.

::informative::

 

[Kfox]

Another way of looking at it would be to judge the aggregate, or collective whole of a country and determine its relative power, influence, and competitiveness with the rest of the world. It may not necessarily take into consideration matters of human rights, civil liberties, or even property rights - but more a matter of weighing the raw power of a nation and its material capabilities as a collective unit. In other words, basing one's evaluation of a given system solely on the material results, and not so much on the means or processes used to achieve those results.

Many business-minded people always seek out the "bottom line," focusing more on the results of the final product - even if they had to break a few eggs to get to that point. The same method can be used to evaluate the quality of a given political/economic system.

What are the results? That's what we can look at.

So, in the case of the agrarian, plantation-based economy of the South, mostly dependent on a single product, that system ultimately did not work for them, as they were soundly defeated by the North, whose economy was industrial-based producing a diverse array of products.

I agree! The South was invested in a slave economy, they had no interest in the Industrial revolution the North was involved in during that time, the slave economy was only working for the rich plantation owners; not the poor whites who could not compete against the free labor slaves provided. As a result the North flourished and built their railways and infrastructure in a way the South had no interest in doing which contributed to the South losing the war.

 

[Stevicus]

In theory a good idea, in practice I see the bickering what to include in the sum. Do we include environmental impact? Do we include bio diversity? Capitalism has the tendency to exploit everything and everyone, creating wealth in the short term and destroying its environment in the long term.

I would say yes, and a system should be evaluated as much on its long-term impact as anything else. If it leads to disaster on a global scale as suggested by this video, then that would be a reflection upon the economic system and those who support/uphold it.

I would also suggest that much of this has to do with unrestrained and unchecked population growth. We still could have had industry and all of its benefits without destroying the ecosystem, if only there weren't so many people.

 

[PureX]

I think the real problem is that as a species we are making all our decision based on the individual pursuit of wealth. And that's a very poor basis upon which we humans should be making decisions; especially decisions that effect our collective well-being.

As individuals, we mostly just don't care about our collective well-being. That is obvious. And so decisions that should be made on our collective behalf are just being ignored. And we are reaching a point where the Earth and humanity can no longer tolerate that kind blind selfishness anymore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The cops should have been convicted back when they were doing it to white folk, but they did'n't have a powerful organization like BLM to speak stand up for them so the cops got away with it. Another example of the power BLM has.

No, not really. But can you figure out, how that is the case that is not just BLM?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

years ago they didn’t even have workman’s comp, if you got hurt they just hired someone else; now it is a tax everybody pays into.

Again. If your employer charges you, IN ANY WAY, for workman's comp. That is illegal.

It comes out of their Employer Taxes.
I don't know, but assume they get that back at the end of each season unless it's used... I'd have to look into it, I wouldn't doubt it though.

Like the procedures you have to go through when dealing with Asbestos Chromate, or other toxic materials, required tethering when working X amount of feet above the ground

Why does your comment seem to imply that these are bad things?

If I worked a job that required rigging or tethering, I would likely supply my own safety equipment, honestly. Employers like to cut corners where they can, and not all nylon is produced equal, s you better trust that nylon manufacturer.

I often supply my own equipment. I've even had employers ask if I wanted them to compensate me, and I tell them the reason I trust/prefer this brand or that item over the ones the employer provided. Guess how many have actually taken my advice and spent a little more for better equipment. Guess.

Dat greed.

 

[Pete in Panama]

View attachment 79088
I don't know about the '30s but this graph shows the problem I'm talking about. Can you accept this as real or do you have contradictory data?

So let's all understand that there's no connection between production and compensation.

Hourly compensation (wages) are the market price for the labor. If we have the government arbitrarily pay to make this price higher then there will be surpluses of what we're selling. IOW, there will be a lot of workers available not needed who'll be sitting around w/ nothing to do. If we arbitrarily make the price lower than the market price there will be shortages --that's why there are always long lines at the 'free' clinics.

This is neither good nor bad, it's how things work and we need to deal w/ it. I'd say that people's ability to deal w/ difficult situations is a good thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hourly compensation (wages) are the market price for the labor.

Any proof for that claim?

 

[Heyo]

So let's all understand that there's no connection between production and compensation.

Hourly compensation (wages) are the market price for the labor. If we have the government arbitrarily pay to make this price higher then there will be surpluses of what we're selling. IOW, there will be a lot of workers available not needed who'll be sitting around w/ nothing to do. If we arbitrarily make the price lower than the market price there will be shortages --that's why there are always long lines at the 'free' clinics.

This is neither good nor bad, it's how things work

Yep. That is what happens in unbridled capitalism (or not enough bridled). And I hope I have explained that it is so and that is has to be so. Once we know that, we can decide if we like it.

and we need to deal w/ it.

Yep, by taxing those who skim the surpluses - with a progressive income tax that has an upper limit of 100%.

I'd say that people's ability to deal w/ difficult situations is a good thing.

I'd say that people's inability to understand and deal with this is a bad thing.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Any proof for that claim?

You're asking if I can "prove" that hourly compensation (wages) are the market price for the labor? Sure, I could probably show that this is how most economists use the terms but my personal bet is that if you've simply decided that it's not true --w/ absolute certainty-- then any info I tried to pass on wouldn't get any where.

That's fine, I could use the terms in a way that that enables me to communicate w/ a lot of folks, and you could define the terms like you alone want. We could all be happy. Of course this all assumes how you've already decided...