Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The Concentration of Wealth

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Wealth distribution inequality has nothing to do with envy or sour grapes. Most of us have learned long ago that not everyone can be a millionaire of a billionaire. But what most of the wealthy conservatives in this country, who claim they have no obligation to help create jobs (at least that's what they say), need to know, is that we ALL ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPERS! Unfortunately the drive to just make more and more money has left them with various ways and means to work around meaningful financial regulations without suffering personal consequences for being greedy or unethical.

As someone who comes from a strong and traditional working-class background I think I speak for many when I say---go ahead and earn a billion or even a trillion dollars. I won't care if you do it with ethics in mind, and not to just rip off as much money as you can from those who actually turn the gears of your businesses. Very few of us can or want to be wealthy, but we do want to be treated fairly and not exploited by greedy jerks. Big business can either learn this, or periodically plunge us into one recession after another. We were not formed to be the Corporate States of America, and as long as Citizens United creates rampant greed and corruption, we might as well hang signs on our voting booths saying---VICTORY GOES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! The America I grew up in had more heart and compassion than that. Eventually even Wall Street financiers will have to learn that, or face dying an unwanted death caused by their own fingers on the trigger of uncontrollable economic insecurity. Most people are becoming hip to them, and change will eventually happen---just like the law of gravity must happen. That's what our greedy CEO's will eventually have to learn if they expect to survive!

Just my two cents worth!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 8:35:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wealth distribution inequality has nothing to do with envy or sour grapes. Most of us have learned long ago that not everyone can be a millionaire of a billionaire. But what most of the wealthy conservatives in this country, who claim they have no obligation to help create jobs (at least that's what they say), need to know, is that we ALL ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPERS! Unfortunately the drive to just make more and more money has left them with various ways and means to work around meaningful financial regulations without suffering personal consequences for being greedy or unethical.

According to NPR, the two-hundred riches companies in America spent five-billion dollars on political campaigns during the election of 2012 while receiving trillions of dollars in beneficial legislation in return.

As someone who comes from a strong and traditional working-class background I think I speak for many when I say---go ahead and earn a billion or even a trillion dollars. I won't care if you do it with ethics in mind, and not to just rip off as much money as you can from those who actually turn the gears of your businesses. Very few of us can or want to be wealthy, but we do want to be treated fairly and not exploited by greedy jerks. Big business can either learn this, or periodically plunge us into one recession after another. We were not formed to be the Corporate States of America, and as long as Citizens United creates rampant greed and corruption, we might as well hang signs on our voting booths saying---VICTORY GOES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! The America I grew up in had more heart and compassion than that. Eventually even Wall Street financiers will have to learn that, or face dying an unwanted death caused by their own fingers on the trigger of uncontrollable economic insecurity. Most people are becoming hip to them, and change will eventually happen---just like the law of gravity must happen. That's what our greedy CEO's will eventually have to learn if they expect to survive!

Just my two cents worth!

I could not have said it better, myself.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 5:20:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 8:35:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Wealth distribution inequality has nothing to do with envy or sour grapes. Most of us have learned long ago that not everyone can be a millionaire of a billionaire. But what most of the wealthy conservatives in this country, who claim they have no obligation to help create jobs (at least that's what they say), need to know, is that we ALL ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPERS! Unfortunately the drive to just make more and more money has left them with various ways and means to work around meaningful financial regulations without suffering personal consequences for being greedy or unethical.

According to NPR, the two-hundred riches companies in America spent five-billion dollars on political campaigns during the election of 2012 while receiving trillions of dollars in beneficial legislation in return.

As someone who comes from a strong and traditional working-class background I think I speak for many when I say---go ahead and earn a billion or even a trillion dollars. I won't care if you do it with ethics in mind, and not to just rip off as much money as you can from those who actually turn the gears of your businesses. Very few of us can or want to be wealthy, but we do want to be treated fairly and not exploited by greedy jerks. Big business can either learn this, or periodically plunge us into one recession after another. We were not formed to be the Corporate States of America, and as long as Citizens United creates rampant greed and corruption, we might as well hang signs on our voting booths saying---VICTORY GOES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! The America I grew up in had more heart and compassion than that. Eventually even Wall Street financiers will have to learn that, or face dying an unwanted death caused by their own fingers on the trigger of uncontrollable economic insecurity. Most people are becoming hip to them, and change will eventually happen---just like the law of gravity must happen. That's what our greedy CEO's will eventually have to learn if they expect to survive!

Just my two cents worth!

I could not have said it better, myself.

Thanks!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 10:20:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

So if you want to see more unaccountability of big investors and big banks and more economic instability, then you should continue to vote for politicians who promise to increase crony regulations funded by political contributions by these crony businesses.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 8:25:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So if you want to see more unaccountability of big investors and big banks and more economic instability, then you should continue to vote for politicians who promise to increase crony regulations funded by political contributions by these crony businesses.

I agree; cronyism is destroying our economy. We need another Teddy Roosevelt.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 9:59:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 8:25:29 PM, s-anthony wrote:
So if you want to see more unaccountability of big investors and big banks and more economic instability, then you should continue to vote for politicians who promise to increase crony regulations funded by political contributions by these crony businesses.

I agree; cronyism is destroying our economy. We need another Teddy Roosevelt.

unfortunately truly effective legislation is far from being a part of economic reality for big banks, they go through the motions of appeasing regulators, and then basically just rewrite legislation (though the power of lobbying) to suit themselves again. Yes democrats are also frequently under their thumbs, but, Elizabeth Warren seems like the most positive or possible exception to this rule so far. I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, but Warren would make a much better candidate if we really want real and long lasting reforms.

Another two cents worth.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 7:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

I don't even thing there should be a minimum wage.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 3:11:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why won't conservatives recommend giving drug tests to executives of companies that receive tax breaks and other government handouts like they do those on welfare?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 9:12:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 7:59:49 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

I don't even thing there should be a minimum wage.

Does that mean you'd be willing to work for fifty cents, an hour?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 9:21:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:11:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
Why won't conservatives recommend giving drug tests to executives of companies that receive tax breaks and other government handouts like they do those on welfare?

I heard on NPR, Congress is considering legislation that would raise the tax on gasoline by forty-five cents, a gallon, so they could reduce the corporate income tax.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 3:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

LOL, what?
First, a large chunk of Americans don't pay taxes (federal income).
Second, those that do, most pay far less than 1/3 of their income in taxes. I'd love to hear your tax rate. Last year I had 0%, the year before that, 0.6%. This year, probably around 3.6%.

Third, Stock options are indeed taxed, although, they may be deferred (not 100% sure). They are certainly taxed when they are sold.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:14:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/5/2015 3:11:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
Why won't conservatives recommend giving drug tests to executives of companies that receive tax breaks and other government handouts like they do those on welfare?

Interesting....
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 5:25:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:55:52 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Wealth distribution inequality has nothing to do with envy or sour grapes. Most of us have learned long ago that not everyone can be a millionaire of a billionaire. But what most of the wealthy conservatives in this country, who claim they have no obligation to help create jobs (at least that's what they say), need to know, is that we ALL ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPERS! Unfortunately the drive to just make more and more money has left them with various ways and means to work around meaningful financial regulations without suffering personal consequences for being greedy or unethical.

As someone who comes from a strong and traditional working-class background I think I speak for many when I say---go ahead and earn a billion or even a trillion dollars. I won't care if you do it with ethics in mind, and not to just rip off as much money as you can from those who actually turn the gears of your businesses. Very few of us can or want to be wealthy, but we do want to be treated fairly and not exploited by greedy jerks. Big business can either learn this, or periodically plunge us into one recession after another. We were not formed to be the Corporate States of America, and as long as Citizens United creates rampant greed and corruption, we might as well hang signs on our voting booths saying---VICTORY GOES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! The America I grew up in had more heart and compassion than that. Eventually even Wall Street financiers will have to learn that, or face dying an unwanted death caused by their own fingers on the trigger of uncontrollable economic insecurity. Most people are becoming hip to them, and change will eventually happen---just like the law of gravity must happen. That's what our greedy CEO's will eventually have to learn if they expect to survive!

Just my two cents worth!

I don't care how much people earn on their own hard work and talent. Profit is not earned. Profit is made, on labor. In spite of what Johnson said of Money, that it was no made, but minted, or earned; profit is not earned. Even then; if there is a reason for allowing high profits at the expense of wages this situation should not result in hereditary wealth. Taxes should force profit to work as capital, or be returned to the commonwealth. We have seen how hereditary government served humanity, and when hereditary wealth results in the same end, who can desire it but fools?

I do not know from memory if Marx was speaking for himself or quoting another, but he said High profits are synonymous with glut, meaning depression. Since Keynes, deficit spending and adding liquidity to the economy where there should be none has kept our economy going long after it should have perished; but this liquidity added often at the top has resulted in more and more of our commonwealth in private hands. A lot of little people lost a lot of wealth in this last bust. Those people who ran the economy like a ponzi will never be captured. I was looking at housing the entire time of the market collapse. It was always impossible to get houses at a reasonable cost out of banks. Their losses were covered. They could not be ruined, and they could afford to sit on even garbage houses until they would become profitable. It was our government making that possible. Where was an equal protection for the people in those houses who lost all and walked away with nothing but a bad reputation.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:53:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

I don't believe the concentration of wealth itself matters. I believe the factors responsible for it do.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:53:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:55:52 PM, pj43176 wrote:
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Wealth distribution inequality has nothing to do with envy or sour grapes. Most of us have learned long ago that not everyone can be a millionaire of a billionaire. But what most of the wealthy conservatives in this country, who claim they have no obligation to help create jobs (at least that's what they say), need to know, is that we ALL ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPERS! Unfortunately the drive to just make more and more money has left them with various ways and means to work around meaningful financial regulations without suffering personal consequences for being greedy or unethical.

As someone who comes from a strong and traditional working-class background I think I speak for many when I say---go ahead and earn a billion or even a trillion dollars. I won't care if you do it with ethics in mind, and not to just rip off as much money as you can from those who actually turn the gears of your businesses. Very few of us can or want to be wealthy, but we do want to be treated fairly and not exploited by greedy jerks. Big business can either learn this, or periodically plunge us into one recession after another. We were not formed to be the Corporate States of America, and as long as Citizens United creates rampant greed and corruption, we might as well hang signs on our voting booths saying---VICTORY GOES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! The America I grew up in had more heart and compassion than that. Eventually even Wall Street financiers will have to learn that, or face dying an unwanted death caused by their own fingers on the trigger of uncontrollable economic insecurity. Most people are becoming hip to them, and change will eventually happen---just like the law of gravity must happen. That's what our greedy CEO's will eventually have to learn if they expect to survive!

Just my two cents worth!

You hit the nail on the head.
You can call me Mark if you like.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 1:11:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Regular people own stocks too you know. They aren't exclusively for the rich. I don't have the numbers on me, but I doubt that CEOs own a large percentage of the stocks. Probably 3-10% at best. It all depends on whether the CEO was the founder of the company or not (in which case, he owns the stocks because he/she owns a lot of money)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ShadyLamp
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 12:11:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hi everyone,

I just joined this forum, but would love to give offer my opinion on this matter! Although I do agree that many of the rich and powerful CEOs do exploit the majority of lesser skilled labour it is not dependent on how much profit they make, but rather shareholder satisficing, which can't be blamed on CEOs, who are not the actual owners of the company. No doubt about the fact, that they are paid in stocks (which many people actually despise), because it is a pain to deal with the fluctuating prices of stocks, as most investments do not turn out the way you want them to. Now imagine you are not even given a choice whether you want to undertake the investment or not? As someone whose father was actually once paid in stock (unsure of the reasons) and having had absolutely no idea of how to deal with it, it became an absolute burden on the family as that monthly flow of income just wasn't there. Sure many people are paid as well and given the stocks as extra benefits for bonuses and such, but it can be argued about how much better off these CEOs really are than we believe.

Anyways, getting back to the point. I completely agree with what has been said in this forum, that the rich are getting richer and the less fortunate are staying pretty much the same, if not worse. I am unsure as to why this is the case, because although inflation in many economies are at record lows, people are still complaining that they can't afford the same amount of G&S that they could have a year ago. From an article that I read recently on the BBC it said that the 1%ters make up around 50% of worldwide wealth, which is pretty believable considering many of these billionaires do not return anything at all to the people and those suffering at their enjoyment, partying on yachts and trying to outdo each other in terms of who has the biggest house, who has the most cars etc. All I can say about this is that it is absolutely ridiculous that even many economies are only donating "0.7%" of their GDP as foreign aid, which isn't even done voluntarily, but the work of an organisation that is trying to reduce this spread of wealth and I admire the UN for that.

One last point and then I believe I am done pulling out everything I have on this topic. Although I am someone who strongly believes that equality is a must, the more I think about it the more it seems to me that as long as we manage to lift all those struggling of poverty out of it, the job has been more or less completed. And to be fair in recent many MNCs have invested in Africa (not for the right reasons), but at least they have done something to boost those economies in a way. I know that these giant companies have a hidden agenda at all times, but it doesn't change the fact that some of them are trying to do some good in the process, whereas others are blindly buying produce from there without even realising how terrible they're being to some of these poor primary sector producers, such as Cocoa farmers who are far more exploited than anyone in the West can even begin to understand. What does everyone else think about this?

Kind Regards,
ShadyLamp
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:27:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Concentration of wealth is a non-issue. The issue becomes when this current bubble busts what will be done. During the next down turn, banks' balance sheets will be showing huge loses. That is when politicians will step in to help the banks in order to save us all, again.

The stock market appears to be in an asset value bubble. When this bubble pops, 2008 will not longer be refer to as the great recession. Stock prices are extremely high based on nothing except easy credit. If the fed raises interest rates what will happen to stock prices?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:39:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:27:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Concentration of wealth is a non-issue. The issue becomes when this current bubble busts what will be done. During the next down turn, banks' balance sheets will be showing huge loses. That is when politicians will step in to help the banks in order to save us all, again.

The stock market appears to be in an asset value bubble. When this bubble pops, 2008 will not longer be refer to as the great recession. Stock prices are extremely high based on nothing except easy credit. If the fed raises interest rates what will happen to stock prices?

Lol, such utter bullsh1t which betrays a complete ignorance about even fundamental economics.

Let's debate it: something to the effect of "the U.S. economy is currently experiencing an asset bubble."
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:47:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:39:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/4/2015 5:27:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Concentration of wealth is a non-issue. The issue becomes when this current bubble busts what will be done. During the next down turn, banks' balance sheets will be showing huge loses. That is when politicians will step in to help the banks in order to save us all, again.

The stock market appears to be in an asset value bubble. When this bubble pops, 2008 will not longer be refer to as the great recession. Stock prices are extremely high based on nothing except easy credit. If the fed raises interest rates what will happen to stock prices?

Lol, such utter bullsh1t which betrays a complete ignorance about even fundamental economics.

Let's debate it: something to the effect of "the U.S. economy is currently experiencing an asset bubble."

Your profile will not accept debate challenges.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:52:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:47:38 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/4/2015 5:39:47 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/4/2015 5:27:02 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Concentration of wealth is a non-issue. The issue becomes when this current bubble busts what will be done. During the next down turn, banks' balance sheets will be showing huge loses. That is when politicians will step in to help the banks in order to save us all, again.

The stock market appears to be in an asset value bubble. When this bubble pops, 2008 will not longer be refer to as the great recession. Stock prices are extremely high based on nothing except easy credit. If the fed raises interest rates what will happen to stock prices?

Lol, such utter bullsh1t which betrays a complete ignorance about even fundamental economics.

Let's debate it: something to the effect of "the U.S. economy is currently experiencing an asset bubble."

Your profile will not accept debate challenges.

That's peculiar. That must be a default setting.

Can you PM me? I'd like to hash out the particulars of this resolution.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 12:08:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Pretty sure all income is taxable. And even if they did tax it (assuming we don't already do), it doesn't matter. They would still have the stocks, and the stock market would grow.

It should be noted stocks aren't always proof of a good economy. It should also be noted that wage rates can increase or decrease for a variety of different factors, including minimum wage laws, inflation, economic growth, the unemployment rate, welfare, etc. etc.

Also I don't see why the concentration of wealth is inherently bad. It all depends on the situation. Say the economy used to be worth one dollar. A rich guy comes along and takes 99 cents, but causes the economy to grow. Now he has 990 dollars and everyone else is sharing 1000 dollars. SO even though he got rich, and got rich a lot faster, he caused economic growth meaning everyone is better off. Any other system doesn't cause people to do this. Serfdom, for example, is literally a static pie (economic growth is sluggish under those regimes), same with communism (there was growth in the USSR, but it only grew because it was better than what they had before... serfdom :P). So the concentration of wealth is not a bad thing necessarily. My analogy was kinda bad, but it made the point.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 2:52:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:35:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage only increased by 0.8% from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the stock market had a very successful year. The significance of this is most CEO's receive most of their income in stock options, which are not taxable. While the average hourly worker pays a third of his, or her, income in taxes, he, or she, has seen negligible wage growth; at the same time, the executives of companies have seen their income grow, substantially, while decreasing their taxable income.

Can you provide evidence of the underlined?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
pressman57
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 10:02:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The working people in this country pretty much sealed their own fate when they turned away from organized labor. Power is taken, never given. Just my humble opinion.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 4:33:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:02:28 AM, pressman57 wrote:
The working people in this country pretty much sealed their own fate when they turned away from organized labor. Power is taken, never given. Just my humble opinion.

All labor is now organized and regulated by the government, unless you're an illegal immigrant, in which case the government selectively allows freedom to contract only for illegals.
pressman57
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 7:01:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 4:33:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:02:28 AM, pressman57 wrote:
The working people in this country pretty much sealed their own fate when they turned away from organized labor. Power is taken, never given. Just my humble opinion.

All labor is now organized and regulated by the government, unless you're an illegal immigrant, in which case the government selectively allows freedom to contract only for illegals.

And who is the Government owned by? We live, IMHO, in a plutocracy. Labor unions were the only effective mechanisms at the worker's disposal and now they have been castrated. Without organization American labor is at the mercy of the propertied classes.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 9:33:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 7:01:49 PM, pressman57 wrote:
At 3/7/2015 4:33:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:02:28 AM, pressman57 wrote:
The working people in this country pretty much sealed their own fate when they turned away from organized labor. Power is taken, never given. Just my humble opinion.

All labor is now organized and regulated by the government, unless you're an illegal immigrant, in which case the government selectively allows freedom to contract only for illegals.

And who is the Government owned by? We live, IMHO, in a plutocracy. Labor unions were the only effective mechanisms at the worker's disposal and now they have been castrated. Without organization American labor is at the mercy of the propertied classes.

Who do you think owns the union bosses?

You will always be at the mercy of propertied classes without freedom to contract.

I envy the illegal alien,