Income Disparity

The answer to each of your questions is no, but you already knew that. The only solution I can see that actually might work amounts to societal revolution. It would entail personal responsibility at every level, and that isn’t a likely scenario. Hold fathers fiscally responsible. Literally, a license to have children. Proof from both parents of the ability to support and raise each child. They have no procreation rights not granted by society. Government must provide the assets and oversight capabilities to enforce all of this.

Do we just accept the poverty as a result ? Well, we have so far and it hasn’t worked very well.

But it isn’t hard to see the shitstorm such measures would create. The only other possible solution would be compulsory reversible sterilization at, say, 10 yrs of age. This could be reversed when a couple was able to prove their ability to support and raise a child to adulthood. Either solution has about a 1% chance of ever being put in place.

Can you hear the screaming at your place? It’s so loud here I’m getting a headache.

I never said $50,000, but would shoot for $40,000 hoping to end up with $30,000. This wage hike would be accomplished by way of less greed which would equal less profits for company owners, pay cuts for CEO’s, upper management, and middle management, and less influence for majority shareholders in companies gone public, simple 1, 2, 3. This would not happen due to acquiescence of the horribly greedy parties at the top who have already been mentioned, but would be doable with labor dept. wage enforcement swat teams. Employees who ratted out their employers greed would be monetarily compensated by company profits which they were denied through their work environment. Trust me, it’d be easy breezy. Repeat offending companies could be seized by the government like they can seize whatever they already want to, just in this case companies would be seized and auctioned off without missing a beat for a good reason. :mrgreen:

Companies that only profit themselves more than the people of the country can be replaced, which would also hold them to higher public safety standards, but that’s another thread.

No, make higher education and job placement help available for all participants free of charge which would solve the problem of them finding work and earning a decent salary and would also automatically qualify them for free family co-parent planning, parenting assistance, and medical maternity costs once they work for 5 years.

Isn’t it about helping people onto a track that enriches their lives and the lives of their offspring?

Okay, so you’re on to me, tent. Again, I am trying to make the point that there isn’t just one cause of poverty in america and so there is not just one cure. Raising minimum wage to $15.00 won’t cure poverty, but it will help. Some large companies, such as Target, see the handwriting on the wall. Fast food chains can surely afford it. It can happen.

But here’s a story. Friend of mine lost his factory job. Place closed down. He took a job as less pay, also in a factory. His salary is subsidized, so for now, he’s making what he used to make. I’m not sure where the money comes from - the state or a manufacturer trust fund. It doesn’t matter, because either way, the general public is paying the freight, either in taxes or in higher prices. He was also eligible for job retraining. He chose not to. Felt he was too old to begin again.

That’s okay - he’s a big boy. Soon enough, the subsidy runs out. do we bemoan his reduced salary? Do we say that there should be no subsidy unless he retrains, so we are not in the same situation when the factory he now works in shuts down?

As a society, we have to make up our minds. Do we subsidize with no strings attached (this is common in my state)? Do we require that you have to be more than a victimized laid-off worker to get the subsidy? Do we skip the subsidy and just offer the training?

The thing is, his salary now contributes to “poverty” stats. Why should we worry? He chose not to try for a better paying job. So he makes about 11 bucks an hour, now. His wife makes 40k. They own a home and they’re not in danger of losing it. I think they own it outright.

Stats are stats, but there are stories behind the stats. There are tons of anti-poverty programs. There are countless combinations of family size, social resources, incomes, assets, costs of living. One percent, 20 percent, eighty percent.

Everyone hates the 1% except for their favorite athlete, entertainer or doctor. And Warren Buffet.

How much should CEO’s be allowed to make?

Warren Buffet is a criminal who owns a chunk of the world yet lives like a pauper. He hoards wealth.

$12, 332. :evilfun: Why are you worried about those CEOs who swim in money and not those poor single mothers and what they are allowed to make? Pay your employees well, provide safe products and work environments and I have no problem with them earning big money, but don’t shortchange the backbone of your company…your employees, your consumers, or the Earth’s environment.

Well, you mention pay cuts for greedy CEO’s. I understood you to mean that their high salaries could be diverted to impoverished employees. So the swat teams will be enforcing something. Like lower CEO salaries?

Look, if you don’t mean any of this literally, just say so.

No, I mean it all, companies need to pay an honest days wage for an honest days work, but the little people should not always be the ones to do without.

The labor department wage enforcement officers could also do impromptu safety inspections.

Oh. So CEO pay is okay the way it is. So, what if forcing higher wages makes a company go bankrupt? Again, a higher minimum wage probably won’t do this. But $40,000 for the guy who empties the wastebasket might. Because those with higher skill levels will want more than $40,000. How much should someone with greater skills than the janitor make? $41,000? $45,000? And if the goods made by the company become uncompetitive with China or Mexico, we erect trade tariffs? And when prices go up, do we then have to pay the janitor and everyone else even more?

Wealth is created by achieving greater productivity. That means job-erasing technology. So would it be better to train workers to be more productive? Even though that is, by definition, job-eliminating? When shoemakers got metal tools, shoes got better, easier to make - and thusly labor was eliminated.

The key to wealth is technology and automation. So that factory workers are really computer operators. Paying more for hand-made items won’t get anyone rich.

Higher quality products will always be handmade which is not rocket science. Technology increases productivity, but at the cost of quality and jobs for those who instilled quality.

You want to clean your own shit smeared work toilets, it’s the same guy?

The problem both of us has faced since the beginning of this thread is trying to get people to see that there HAS to be alternative ways of looking at the issues because of the complexity. But Nooooo. We want simple answers! (something that looks good on a bumper sticker) I don’t know what more to do with this. It’s probably the wrong venue for any serious discussion.

But that said: Your friend is taking a risk and that is his choice. If he ends up living in poverty he risked that choice. Society owes nothing to those who refuse helping themselves. Wait! I know! Blame it on someone else! Yeah, that’s the ticket. After all, it couldn’t possibly be my fault. I’m the victim here. I’m poor because I’m oppressed by those others. (sniff)

It would be interesting to know what sort of re-training is being offered to displaced coal miners and how many are taking advantage of any such programs. I’m guessing damn few. People seem to resist change - even for their own betterment.

The fast food industry won’t contribute higher wages to anyone. They’ll simply continue with automation. Want to place an order? Talk to my computerized order system. And have a nice day…

Higher quality products are not always handmade. Not even close. Many high quality items are impossible to make by hand. Computer chips are not handmade.

I thought we were at $40,000 as a living wage in a factory. Does everyone make $40,000? That’s a sort of communist vision. But I’m really just wondering how your far-left vision works in practice.

The naive know not whether they are the naive, but know for certain of the guilt of others.

tent - the thing about my friend is that while he’s looking for a higher paying job, I would never call his circumstances those of poverty. He and his wife just don’t fit the stats. They were immigrants. I know a lot about this immigrant group. Generally, they just don’t borrow money. They scrape and save and pay cash. They are not typical americans - from a “financial practices” point of view, they are better than typical americans. They have a nice house in the suburbs. Their kids went to school.

And yeah, I think society owes them nothing. They feel the same way. Even though he makes, ultimately, about $22,000 per year, maybe a little more.

What they have, which so many truly poor people don’t, is social resources. A person making $22,000 with few social resources can be poor while someone with the same income but rich social resources can be just fine.

You could be more incitefully direct than that JSS. Do you understand the work place justice that I am shooting for? Weigh in more please.

All full-time workers would be guaranteed $40,000 while highly specialized jobs/technical jobs would receive higher pay. A great many folks who work at desks are modern versions of paper pushers who are not highly skilled nor strained in any way, but often paid ridiculously well, I’d like to see them work for $40,000 too. Some of the money that used to be distributed to the top owners/employees would be redistributed to the bottom’s lower employees. The top would still earn far more than the bottom, but the divide between the two would lessen.

I’m no social/political/economist so I’m not exactly sure of how the details would all work at this point since I just came up with this idea a few days ago. I’d need to research a few large companies with all their financials to make a model of its workability in paper pushing industries and manufacturing industries.

I haven’t considered small businesses in this initiative yet, but partnering programs with the government until they grow stable, might be an option. Small business operations with less than 10 employees might not be able to meet the $40,000 minimum salary but may be eligible for alternative investment programs on their employees behalf which would accrue monies in a retirement account or an emergency account available to the employee after so much time.

Before productivity escalated, how were most companies able to offer their employees all those bygone benefits (medical, dental, pension, severance packages, paid vacations, paid maternity leave for moms/dads, paid personal days, paid sick days, paid relocation, sign-on bonuses, quarterly/yearly bonuses, etc.)? Most companies no longer offer benefits packages yet for some reason they were able to in the past…how?

I would say that wealth is created by creating a product or service that is worth buying. What we have in the consumer marketplace now are consumers who are forced to settle on low quality products and services due to small, limited incomes and that is how high productivity crap get purchased. If more people had more purchasing power, they’d choose to buy higher quality, USA products, some of which might even be handcrafted. I’m old fashioned, I want to save the trade industries, I want cars that people put together with pride, I want clothes that are stitched by human hands…I guess I want a world where people have a sense of purpose and that their purpose matters to others.

Your friend sounds like a first generation immigrant - the kind of immigrant we should be welcoming into this country. The ones who start at the bottom doing the shitty jobs and slowly work their way up the ladder. They are contributors not users.

My turn for a story.

I have hispanic neighbors who are good friends. Both are illegals, but only because of our fucked up immigration policies. We both live in an old section of town and our homes are barely on the marketable scale because of their age. Neither of us have ever made enough to just throw money at these places. Everything little project requires scrounging materials, and more importantly, scrounging help when we can’t do the work by ourselves. I had the “social network” because of my pawnshop. I had lots of friendly acquaintances in low places - but some of them had construction skills. My friend works in construction so he has a large group of people capable of helping out now and then. So social resources? Absolutely. It’s called trade outs. I’ll help you now, you can help me later. With those trade outs, we have gotten a lot done that would never have happened otherwise. The result is that we’re working poor (dollars) but managing to be OK. We pay for all the necessities and have a few bucks leftover for whatever.

Wasn’t that a song? “I’ll get by with a little help from my friends.” I feel badly for those who find themselves alone without anyone to help them now and then. They truly are poor - no matter how many dollars they make.

tent - my friend is a first generation, yes. So, social network. There are many reason why poor people don’t have one, or enough of one. The reasons I have heard, from such people include but are not limited to: They’re on drugs and their family has disowned them. They get shuttled around by state agencies and so are living far from home. They don’t work, which limits their contacts with people who can help. They are perhaps single moms, who don’t have time for anything but work and kids. They are mentally ill. They have criminal records, which makes it difficult to find decent housing in a neighborhood that isn’t full of people who share their plight.

We talked once about how your average poor person is one $300 car breakdown away from disaster. Unfortunately, increasing their income by $300 doesn’t solve the problem. We have a bus system where I live. Very low ridership. I am told by the operator of the local food pantry that no one uses the bus or walks to get there - they either drive or get a ride. I have seen homeless people, who were housed temporarily in a motel, refuse housing because it didn’t have air conditioning.

John Rawls made a great point about distributive justice - that what each of us could reasonably want by way of social justice is that when one group benefits, say from a government police, all groups should have their reasonable expectations met.

But what is a reasonable expectation? many, but not all, poor people need hope, education, substance abuse counseling and a kick in the ass. It’s tough to succeed if you don’t believe you can. But just as teenage girls unreasonably see a Kardashian as the paragon of beauty, poor people are taught that without a college education, they’re screwed. It’s just not true. We should not have an education system that has as its only goal a college degree and a Colonial in a gated community. Shit, if i gave you a Colonial in a gated community, you’d sell it and probably buy a camper and then we’d never hear from you again.