Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

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

Whaaat??? Can you rephrase this?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Where are these places you have worked?

Warehouses mainly. Cleaning and janitorial. Food service.

The only reason I ever supply my own equipment begrudgingly, is because faulty equipment is supplied by the employer. The stuff I PURCHASE NEW and store in my lockers/area, is better. Name brand and depending on the situation (I'm paranoid) above the rating I need. You think I'm bringing some gritty/oily sling and trusting it? You must think I'm stupid.

 

[Audie]

Whaaat??? Can you rephrase this?

Now, you are just repeating what everyone else says.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

As a result, US policymakers focused on key hot spots around the world where they felt it necessary to contain the spread of communism and to intervene against anything they deemed Marxist or inspired by Marxism.

U.S. used policy towards their allies that would ensure they were obliged to play along as well. UK and U.S. primarily I believe.

 

[Kfox]

Warehouses mainly. Cleaning and janitorial. Food service.

The only reason I ever supply my own equipment begrudgingly, is because faulty equipment is supplied by the employer. The stuff I PURCHASE NEW and store in my lockers/area, is better. Name brand and depending on the situation (I'm paranoid) above the rating I need. You think I'm bringing some gritty/oily sling and trusting it? You must think I'm stupid.

Humm..... let me guess.... Non Union?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Humm..... let me guess.... Non Union?

Ya, Right To Work act didn't make those things so popular.

I hear it was removed recently or being removed soon? Hopeful wishing with these Michigan policy makers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whaaat??? Can you rephrase this?

You have made a single factor explanation. Have you checked if there are several factors for which BLM is one factor, but not the only one?

 

[Pete in Panama]

To me, that phrase sounds like "Too many entrepreneurs and profit minded idiots decided that they couldn't/shouldn't increase the amount they spend on payroll rates unless their peers do."

Oh well, Rome burned too. It's the people with property and something to lose that should worry. I feel safe.

There are some realities here we might want to keep in mind.

One is that the total of U.S. payrolls is about $10 trillion (from here), and the total corporate profit after taxes is a fourth of that (from here). Another consideration is the fact that while less than 40% of U.S. employees work for a big corporation, more than 60% don't (from here).

 

[Pete in Panama]

We may be

No hostility from me (at least not towards you personally), except I find myself extremely skeptical when people use terms like "this is how things work" when discussing a social science or the mechanics of human society. It's not so much a matter of wages/salaries being the market value of labor. It's the idea of reducing human beings down to commodities where their labor is bought and sold in the marketplace - but without taking into consideration that these are human beings with rights and needs. Every human being's absolute right to housing, healthcare, education, and other guarantees outlined in the UDHR outweighs any business's right to gain a profit.

This is a concept of human rights. Either people believe in human rights or they don't. If they don't, then all I would ask is that they stop the hypocritical pretense that they care about human rights, liberty, or freedom, when nothing could be further from the truth.

We may be confusing divergent realities here. Let's consider the fact that humans are good and they have rights. Those realities are absolute. Another reality set includes physical properties, and humans have weight, height, skin tone, talents and abilities, and there are market prices for their labor. One group of realities does not negate the others.

 

[Audie]

U.S. used policy towards their allies that would ensure they were obliged to play along as well. UK and U.S. primarily I believe.

So?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

One is that the total of U.S. payrolls is about $10 trillion (from here), and the total corporate profit after taxes is a fourth of that (from here).

They only pull $2.5 trillion profits? Lemme pull out my violin if I can find it, it's awfully small.

Do they struggle to put food on the table too? Do they have to choose which bills will or won't get paid this month? Do they deal with late fees and/or overdraw fees, further exacerbating the problem?

No, but when the nation is struggling, it's the corporations that are preserved. Hold on... I'll find that violin, might be behind my survival gear.

Another consideration is the fact that while less than 40% of U.S. employees work for a big corporation, more than 60% don't (from here).

Those numbers may be skewed, I was recently employed at a McDonald's. I was not employed by a corporation.

"McDonald’s is the world’s leading global foodservice retailer with over 38,000 locations in over 100 countries. Approximately 93% Of McDonald’s restaurants worldwide are owned and operated by independent local business owners." - Micky Disease

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

So?

Just an addition he missed. Does it not disturb you, the level of shyster in my country?

It does me and I'm used to it, I am so accustomed to it I gaslight and manipulate on accident and unintentionally. (May be an exaggeration)

 

[Audie]

We may be

We may be confusing divergent realities here. Let's consider the fact that humans are good and they have rights. Those realities are absolute. Another reality set includes physical properties, and humans have weight, height, skin tone, talents and abilities, and there are market prices for their labor. One group of realities does not negate the others.

You think its an absolute reality that humans are good?

That's a multi- fail

 

[Audie]

They only pull $2.5 trillion profits? Lemme pull out my violin if I can find it, it's awfully small.

Do they struggle to put food on the table too? Do they have to choose which bills will or won't get paid this month? Do they deal with late fees and/or overdraw fees, further exacerbating the problem?

No, but when the nation is struggling, it's the corporations that are preserved. Hold on... I'll find that violin, might be behind my survival gear.

Those numbers may be skewed, I was recently employed at a McDonald's. I was not employed by a corporation.

"McDonald’s is the world’s leading global foodservice retailer with over 38,000 locations in over 100 countries. Approximately 93% Of McDonald’s restaurants worldwide are owned and operated by independent local business owners." - Micky Disease

A string of rheotoical questions is a sure sign
of loser argument

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

A string of rheotoical questions is a sure sign
of loser argument

I'm in this argument to win. I can't win.

Unless the greedmongers plan on reversing the gap. Why would racketeering profiteers do that though?

 

[Pete in Panama]

It was probably more a rejection of a form of Soviet hegemony and that government's interpretations of Marxism. This is commonly viewed as the end of the nearly half-century period known as the Cold War, which itself came about when former Allies fell out and could not agree on what a post-WW2 world should look like. But they did agree on a number of key concepts, such as their shared opposition to fascism, racism, and malignant nationalism which was seen as the primary cause of the most devastating and atrocious conflict in human history.

Of course, among the Western Allies, some countries had to clean up their own act in that department, as the imperial powers of Europe and the segregationist, racist policies in the U.S. were ideologically inconsistent with the principles of freedom and human rights which they claimed to uphold. Plus, Marxism was gaining a foothold in areas which had histories of long-term oppression due to hegemony and colonialism by foreign powers, namely Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. As a result, US policymakers focused on key hot spots around the world where they felt it necessary to contain the spread of communism and to intervene against anything they deemed Marxist or inspired by Marxism. There was no "massive rejection" of Marxism as much as it was a forced rejection of Marxism, using whatever weapons or other means of coercion in their arsenal.

Still, what has happened since the end of the Cold War? What have we seen in the world? The most significant change I've noticed is that attitudes towards nationalism have shifted. Russians have been far more nationalistic than they ever were Marxist. The Ukrainians are also highly nationalistic at this point, and nationalism is increasing in numerous states in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Even in the U.S., the "America Firsters" and so-called "Christian (white) nationalists" also appear to be increasing. As you've pointed out, there are many people moving to other countries - although not necessarily because of how much governments intrude into free markets. Still, a lot of people in those countries don't want them to come there. In the U.S., a lot of people want to secure the border and keep immigrants out. Such attitudes are prevalent in Europe as well.

I've known some people who ostensibly embraced a globalist/free market idea that there should be no tariffs, no border controls, and/or no borders whatsoever - or at least, they believe that it would be more in line with the precepts behind the "global economy," which seemed to be the goal around the time of the end of the Cold War. That was an argument often used to justify reducing trade barriers with China, since the idea was that if we worked closer with that country, integrated them into the global economy, it would promote greater peaceful interaction and eventually turn us into lifelong friends - all in the name of "visualizing world peace." At its core, I see it as a belief rooted in anti-fascism and anti-nationalism, so I don't actually oppose it, but there have been pitfalls and roadblocks to contend with, since it turns out that nations don't really want to give up their own sovereignty or identity, nor do they want to open up their countries so just anybody can come in.

With other issues also in the mix, such as climate change and the growing depletion of natural resources in world where the population has quadrupled in the past century, the tendency towards national entrenchment may rise even higher.

What you originally said was--

...As I see it people are not dealing with it, nor do they understand it. "It" being wealth and income inequality. We have let the divide open up more and more without dealing with it. That is the bad thing.

We just have to find a way to decouple income from either wage or investment. Otherwise we are preparing for a revolution.

--and what I see is that people in the U.S. don't flee to North Korea or Cuba, but rather people flee in the other direction. The world dosn't want communism, people want to buy and sell in open markets w/o coercion. Even the biggest so-called comunist nation -China- has more than twice the private employees as government employees (from here).

 

[Audie]

I'm in this argument to win. I can't win.

Unless the greedmongers plan on reversing the gap. Why would racketeering profiteers do that though?

Three invidious claims there.

Who are these " greedmongers"?

 

[Stevicus]

We may be

We may be confusing divergent realities here. Let's consider the fact that humans are good and they have rights. Those realities are absolute. Another reality set includes physical properties, and humans have weight, height, skin tone, talents and abilities, and there are market prices for their labor. One group of realities does not negate the others.

Except that market prices are not physical properties. They are socially-derived, just as the concept of human rights is socially-derived.

Of course, I'm not saying that the concept negates the concept of market prices, but the bottom line is that human rights must be upheld no matter what. Or at least, that's what the stewards of political systems and the values of Western society have claimed all these years.

Just like environmentalism has been a societal value in recent decades, so if companies are required by law to find less polluting, more environmentally friendly ways of doing things, then that may cost them more - and may have an effect on market prices as a consequence.

 

[Stevicus]

What you originally said was--

--and what I see is that people in the U.S. don't flee to North Korea or Cuba, but rather people flee in the other direction. The world dosn't want communism, people want to buy and sell in open markets w/o coercion. Even the biggest so-called comunist nation -China- has more than twice the private employees as government employees (from here).

You got me mixed up with @Heyo.

 

[Stevicus]

What you originally said was--

--and what I see is that people in the U.S. don't flee to North Korea or Cuba, but rather people flee in the other direction. The world dosn't want communism, people want to buy and sell in open markets w/o coercion. Even the biggest so-called comunist nation -China- has more than twice the private employees as government employees (from here).

Well, that's pretty obvious, although there have also been people fleeing capitalist countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and many other countries which are either capitalist or considered part of the "free world."