Wages and Poverty

[Revoltingest]

So why exactly do you look down on people who work more and earn less than you do?

I look down on people who expect others to subsidize
them, & make the choice to not work enuf to support
themselves. May you some day rise above that.
I know you're quite capable.

 

[Kooky]

I look down on people who expect others to subsidize them

Like landlords, you mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Guaranteed basic income.
It's the most libertarian solution I've yet seen.

The option with the most government intervention - and the one that gives the biggest middle finger to market forces - is the "most libertarian"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Like landlords, you mean.

We pay higher property taxes than home owners.
We get no government subsidy, unlike you folk
who live in housing subsidized with taxes paid
by landlords.

 

[Revoltingest]

The option with the most government intervention - and the one that gives the biggest middle finger to market forces - is the "most libertarian"?

As an anti-libertarian, I'm not at all surprised that you
don't understand my reasoning.

It's a given that government will provide assistance to
those in need. There are many different ways to do it.
I say that it should be done in the manner that's the
most effective, the least coercive, the least controlling,
& the least intrusive.
This runs counter to the liberal approach, which involves
micro-managing the lives of recipients of largesse. I see
that as degrading & counter-productive.

Current programs have problems....
- Assistance that requires quitting all employment as
a condition of getting the benefit. (2 people I know
discovered this when applying.)
- Government housing places limits on who can occupy
the premises permanently or even as guests. Section 8
housing requires landlords to surveil the tenants for this
purpose. Perhaps you approve of this because such
people aren't equipped to manage their own affairs?
- Food stamps place restrictions one what recipients
can buy.

The UBI has no strings attached....everyone gets it
merely for being alive. People spend it as they see fit,
eg, renting where they want, buying the food they want.

 

[Revoltingest]

About libertarianism.....

We don't live in a world where we perfect libertarians
are the leaders & the populace. Countries have
other systems. So how can we, a small minority,
have any influence?
I see opportunity to guide public policy & laws in
the direction of more liberty, less government,
lower taxes, & more peaceful relationships.

We'll never be libertarian.
But we can be more libertarian.
This can be a better approach than what liberals &
conservatives come up with among only themselves.

 

[Kooky]

We pay higher property taxes than home owners.

There are no property taxes where I live, so no, they don't.

We get no government subsidy

Oh no, the government doesn't pay you on top of people giving you money for doing nothing!
The humanity!

If being a landlord is so hard on you, then why not just get a job instead?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh no, the government doesn't pay you on top of people giving you money for doing nothing!
The humanity!

Government does pay me to do nothing, although
it's a mere pittance from Social Security. But it
would be rude for me to turn it down.

If being a landlord is so hard on you, then why not just get a job instead?

Because landlording is a noble calling, despite the aggravations.
I live to serve the masses, who wouldn't get by without me.

 

[Kfox]

That's not a general rule, but has more to do with the nature of risky investments.
By comparison COVID-19 both tanked the global economy and benefitted billionaires to a disproportional degree:

Get the Facts on Inequality and Covid-19

Covid was an unusual example because that was the only time when we purposefully tanked a thriving economy, and even then; numerically speaking most billionaires saw losses due to the collapse of the Stock Market; only a half dozen or so billionaires who were involved in the technology field saw gains because that technology helped everyone middle income and poor included deal with the Covid crisis. But every other time within the last half century when the economy tanks, the vast majority of the loss comes from those who have more to lose which is the wealthiest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Covid was an unusual example because that was the only time when we purposefully tanked a thriving economy, and even then; numerically speaking most billionaires saw losses due to the collapse of the Stock Market; only a half dozen or so billionaires who were involved in the technology field saw gains because that technology helped everyone middle income and poor included deal with the Covid crisis. But every other time within the last half century when the economy tanks, the vast majority of the loss comes from those who have more to lose which is the wealthiest.

I suspect that the wealthy recovered well.
The stock market returned to normal, & even above.
BTW, when it was at rock bottom, I took out a loan
to buy stock. As Louis Pasteur said (but in French)...
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

 

[Kfox]

Its almost a direct line this entire half century of increasing inequality and a worsening situation for the middle and lower classes in America.

Do you want the last 30 years? The average househould income in 1990 was about 50k . In todays money that is worth about 106k in today's money. The average household income is just over half of that. We have effectively lost half of our buying power. We are more than 3x as productive per worker today. The GDP has grown more than the inflation which means we have vastly more wealth than we did even when calculating inflation. And yet the middle class and lower are poorer now than they have been in decades.

$50.000 in 1990? Not even close! Maybe half that! Here is a link that totally disagrees with you
Median annual wage - USAFacts

Every single employer is actively doing it right now.

Employers who hire employees are not the super rich, they're just managers. I asked for an example of the rich who got that way by exploiting the poor; care to try again?

 

[Kooky]

Employers who hire employees are not the super rich, they're just managers.

"Manager" is a largely meaningless title that frequently used to be applied to employees overseeing other employees. The term you're looking for is "business owners".

I asked for an example of the rich who got that way by exploiting the poor; care to try again?

From history, Andrew Carnegie, George Pullman and David Rockefeller are the most well known of the bunch.

For the modern day, we have e.g. Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, the Versace family (in fact, most of the global textile industry likely qualifies here), the Waltons, Peter Thiel, and, almost, Martin Shkreli before he got convicted for fraud.

 

[Kooky]

Covid was an unusual example because that was the only time when we purposefully tanked a thriving economy, and even then; numerically speaking most billionaires saw losses due to the collapse of the Stock Market; only a half dozen or so billionaires who were involved in the technology field saw gains because that technology helped everyone middle income and poor included deal with the Covid crisis. But every other time within the last half century when the economy tanks, the vast majority of the loss comes from those who have more to lose which is the wealthiest.

If you're going to dispute the numbers I pull up, you better have some of your own.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I made $2.10 an hour as a phone operator and did live on that.
Had no car though and walked everywhere until I could afford a bike.
Eventually saved enough to afford a used moped if anyone remembers those things.

I always wanted a Vespa. I'm a big FLCL fan.

 

[Kooky]

Government does pay me to do nothing, although
it's a mere pittance from Social Security. But it
would be rude for me to turn it down.

So your condemnation of
my living arrangements was,
essentially, just hypocrisy.

 

[Revoltingest]

So your condemnation of
my living arrangements was,
essentially, just hypocrisy.

No, it's of your sloth, not working enuf to afford your abode.
You expect others to support you.
Social Security is something I paid into for decades, Now
I'm getting some back, but I pay income tax on this too.

 

[Kfox]

"Manager" is a largely meaningless title that frequently used to be applied to employees overseeing other employees. The term you're looking for is "business owners".

From history, Andrew Carnegie, George Pullman and David Rockefeller are the most well known of the bunch.

For the modern day, we have e.g. Jeff Bezos, Phil Knight, the Versace family (in fact, most of the global textile industry likely qualifies here), the Waltons, Peter Thiel, and, almost, Martin Shkreli before he got convicted for fraud.

The people you mention are not business owners, they may have started the business that made them super rich, but the business is now owned by individual shareholders, and they are just another shareholder; they aren't responsible for who, or under what condition employees get hired. Care to try again?

 

[Kfox]

If you're going to dispute the numbers I pull up, you better have some of your own.

This link sorta makes my point. Even though the poor suffered more during the recession, because the rich had so much more to lose, dollar wise the rich lost far more than the poor thus the gap between the rich and the poor lessened during that time.
Who suffered the most during a recession? The Rich or the Poor? – KCLau.com

 

[Kooky]

This link sorta makes my point. Even though the poor suffered more during the recession, because the rich had so much more to lose, dollar wise the rich lost far more than the poor thus the gap between the rich and the poor lessened during that time.
Who suffered the most during a recession? The Rich or the Poor? – KCLau.com

Overall, the wealthiest few lost the least, and so are now controlling an even larger share of a slightly smaller pie.

Also, I think you underestimate just how much wealth the wealthiest people on Earth actually control, compared to the majority. Jeff Bezos' net worth alone is estimated to be 112+ billion $ in assets. If he lost half his money, he would still be wealthier than half the world's population put together.

 

[Kfox]

Overall, the wealthiest few lost the least, and so are now controlling an even larger share of a slightly smaller pie.

Also, I think you underestimate just how much wealth the wealthiest people on Earth actually control, compared to the majority. Jeff Bezos' net worth alone is estimated to be 112+ billion $ in assets. If he lost half his money, he would still be wealthier than half the world's population put together.

If both the richest and the poorest lost half their money, the gap between the rich and the poor would be less; do you agree?