Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Income inequality harms economic growth

BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 11:36:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Ok, answering as a libertarian, really an anarchist, and I agree! With the first half, that being income inequality does harm growth. The second part where there is suggestion on how to solve it, now that's where I'm going to disagree.
Just handing people money essentially from the pockets of other people does not solve this. Unless you have the brain of a child and think that's how the world works. The idea of that kind of 'redistribution of wealth' is effective long term is so simplistic and dumb it's completely amazing. We know that intergenerational welfare dependence is real. We know that 'projects' were a failure. We know that some of the highest funded school districts perform the worst. We know that higher taxes lowers the incentive for productivity, we know this for a fact. All things equal, your wage goes down.. Do you have more or less incentive to produce? And the opposite is true for those collecting benefits. Tell me it's not. I know people that have settled for lower pay to keep state benefits. Why work harder for the same money? It doesn't make sense.
My solution, actually make this equal, remove the state from markets and wa-lah, economic equality. Solve problems, get paid. This isn't that hard.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:25:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Amusing how you ascribe to Libertarians that somehow we enjoy income inequality. It's all a matter of how unequal the income is, not a matter of it exists.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:27:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.

I love John Oliver, its my favorite show now.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:28:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:25:33 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Amusing how you ascribe to Libertarians that somehow we enjoy income inequality. It's all a matter of how unequal the income is, not a matter of it exists.

They don't like it, but they dont't think we should do anything about it.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:28:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

That paper was written by Federico Signano, who is an economist at the Bank of Italy and is affiliated with the OECD organization. He has no credentials either, so I suggest you quote a better economist.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:30:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:28:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:25:33 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Amusing how you ascribe to Libertarians that somehow we enjoy income inequality. It's all a matter of how unequal the income is, not a matter of it exists.

They don't like it, but they dont't think we should do anything about it.

Yes, we don't think we should forcefully take money from one person to give to the other.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:33:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:30:35 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:28:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:25:33 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Amusing how you ascribe to Libertarians that somehow we enjoy income inequality. It's all a matter of how unequal the income is, not a matter of it exists.

They don't like it, but they dont't think we should do anything about it.

Yes, we don't think we should forcefully take money from one person to give to the other.

exactly
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 2:34:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:33:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:30:35 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:28:03 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:25:33 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Amusing how you ascribe to Libertarians that somehow we enjoy income inequality. It's all a matter of how unequal the income is, not a matter of it exists.

They don't like it, but they dont't think we should do anything about it.

Yes, we don't think we should forcefully take money from one person to give to the other.

exactly

And is there anything inherently wrong with refusing to force people to give up their earnings? Never-mind the economic issues that come along with redistribution, because the moral issues are just as apparent.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 5:59:32 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Income Inequality is incorrectly labeled, and misdiagnosed, that leads to wrong solutions.

First and most importantly, people that earn income through mutually beneficial voluntary exchange without special treatment from collective power can never be considered part of any problem. Income earned by serving your fellow man is an honest living and should be the preferred method of income distribution. Only a small number of people will disagree here.

Next, people that earn income by using direct coercion, that is forceful expropriation should be punished. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point.

Getting to contentious points, direct special benefits from government that provides advantages to a few at expense of others are part of the issue. Any and all government economic intervention, progressive taxation, and direct payments are included. When people see companies and wealthy individuals receiving government bailouts and subsidy money, tax breaks, or other direct assistance there is strong and justified anger. Many will respond with "where is mine?" which only exacerbates maltreatment of individuals. Politicians on right and left have their favored groups that receive direct payments. Since, this is not the core cause of "income inequality" it is not the point of this post.

Many people, when framing this issue only talk about the symptoms and not the disease. The master at this is Bernie Sanders. He talks extensively about problems but never explains causation. If the causation is properly defined then a real solution can be adapted. The core dishonest cause of this misnamed issue is currency inflation.

Inflation defined as an increasing currency supply, benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Inflation benefits the first users of currency the most. As new currency trickles down the economic pipes diluting purchasing power of all currency as it goes. By the time the lowest of us have access to this new currency its value is much less. In this situation, the top 1% gain the most, especially those in financial sectors.

By design, money and currency has been made to be very hard to understand. As President Jackson said, "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning..." The money creation process by debt is the unjust tool that is used to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. As prices rise due to increased currency supply, those with the least skills and those that are dependent on savings are hurt the most. With prices of assets increasing current holders are able to gain access to this new currency. This moves currency thru the economy without increasing real wealth. When wealth is measured in currency of ever decreasing value, that is not real. Which widens the gap between the top and bottom.

A trick governments use to hide inflation to by measurement methods. Consumer prices can not measure all flows of currency, especially when much of the new currency is used to purchase stocks, bonds, and real estate. This increases the time for new currency to reach measured consumer goods. The higher values of assets benefit the top income earners the most, again increasing inequality.

Government also benefits greatly from inflation. As central banks continually require additional debt to be monetized, governments are the supply for this debt. Also, past debt is easier to pay due to decreased value of currency.

Since this issue is not about equality before government and the core problem is not income. A better term for "Income Inequality" would be "inflation is legal expropriation", but "inflation is theft" sounds much better. This correctly identifies the causation of the core problem and coercive nature of inflation.

Inflation is coercive due to government force being used to enforce central banker's ability to create it.

Theft is a good term to describe the legalized expropriation, since governments should be no deferent than individuals.

With causation correctly identified and the issue renamed to reflect this reality. The question becomes how is inflation created? That is by one source, central banks. The simple solution is to end government fiat currencies issued by central banks.

The cause of this issue is government. Thus, to eliminate the core causes of government injustices is to separate economy and state.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 11:26:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 5:59:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income Inequality is incorrectly labeled, and misdiagnosed, that leads to wrong solutions.

First and most importantly, people that earn income through mutually beneficial voluntary exchange without special treatment from collective power can never be considered part of any problem. Income earned by serving your fellow man is an honest living and should be the preferred method of income distribution. Only a small number of people will disagree here.

I am going to have to disagree here. The idea in itself is legitimate, however when markets evolve their new equilibrium points do not necessarily constitute an optimal situation for an economy. Our production is becoming more dependant on capital and high-skilled labor. We are getting rid of many traditionally middle class jobs, furthering income inequality.

I can understand that this may not bother a libertarian or an anarchist, as they will simply argue everyone gets paid according to the value they produce. There are however macroeconomic arguments to be made as to why this is not the most efficient constilation to increase wealth. On top of that many feel it is immoral for the few to have so much more then the many, and I would argue there is some truth to that sentiment.

Next, people that earn income by using direct coercion, that is forceful expropriation should be punished. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point.

Again, I definitely agree this is something to be avoided. But I would not go so far as to claim that any type of expropriation is wrong.

Getting to contentious points, direct special benefits from government that provides advantages to a few at expense of others are part of the issue. Any and all government economic intervention, progressive taxation, and direct payments are included. When people see companies and wealthy individuals receiving government bailouts and subsidy money, tax breaks, or other direct assistance there is strong and justified anger. Many will respond with "where is mine?" which only exacerbates maltreatment of individuals. Politicians on right and left have their favored groups that receive direct payments. Since, this is not the core cause of "income inequality" it is not the point of this post.

Many people, when framing this issue only talk about the symptoms and not the disease. The master at this is Bernie Sanders. He talks extensively about problems but never explains causation. If the causation is properly defined then a real solution can be adapted. The core dishonest cause of this misnamed issue is currency inflation.

It is generally agreed on by most economists that monetary policy does not have any significant impact on an economy in the long run. This doesn't falsify your claim, but it does make me very sceptical concerning its truthfulness.

Inflation defined as an increasing currency supply, benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Inflation benefits the first users of currency the most. As new currency trickles down the economic pipes diluting purchasing power of all currency as it goes. By the time the lowest of us have access to this new currency its value is much less. In this situation, the top 1% gain the most, especially those in financial sectors.

Why do you think currency looses its value by changing hands from first user to last user? I don't see any reason why it should loose its value.
A bank that recieves currency from the Fed has to pay interest on it in addition to be obligated to pay the money back, hence they do not gain from having that money given to them.

By design, money and currency has been made to be very hard to understand. As President Jackson said, "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning..."

The functioning of the money market is inherently complex. Sure there are systems alternative to what we currently have that are much simpler to understand, but their simplicity often lacks representation of market forces which in turn can lead to a broken market.

The money creation process by debt is the unjust tool that is used to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. As prices rise due to increased currency supply, those with the least skills and those that are dependent on savings are hurt the most. With prices of assets increasing current holders are able to gain access to this new currency. This moves currency thru the economy without increasing real wealth. When wealth is measured in currency of ever decreasing value, that is not real. Which widens the gap between the top and bottom.

The damage done to the less wealthy depends on the level of inflation and on whether their incomes are pegged to the price level. Pegged incomes pretty much cover them from any loss through inflation.
People who save large summs of currency are hurt hard by inflation, as it devalues their currency.

Economists are well aware of the need to make measurements in real terms. Their measurements have no effect on the gap between rich and poor, although I am not sure if that is what you meant to say here.

A trick governments use to hide inflation to by measurement methods. Consumer prices can not measure all flows of currency, especially when much of the new currency is used to purchase stocks, bonds, and real estate. This increases the time for new currency to reach measured consumer goods. The higher values of assets benefit the top income earners the most, again increasing inequality.

This is the third time you bring up this point, I really hope you explain to me why you think there is an advantage in recieving currency first hand. There possibly is an advantage, I simply don't see it at the moment.

Government also benefits greatly from inflation. As central banks continually require additional debt to be monetized, governments are the supply for this debt. Also, past debt is easier to pay due to decreased value of currency.

Most central banks operate free from governmental influence, as the government has an incentive to misuse inflation for its own benifit by creating seigniorage. Seigniorage is an implicit form of taxation.

Since this issue is not about equality before government and the core problem is not income. A better term for "Income Inequality" would be "inflation is legal expropriation", but "inflation is theft" sounds much better. This correctly identifies the causation of the core problem and coercive nature of inflation.

Every problem has its name, and every cause of a problem has its name. There is no need to change the name of the problem to that of its cause. This is just playing around with names trying to make some point that could perfectly be made with simple argumentation.

Inflation is coercive due to government force being used to enforce central banker's ability to create it.

I guess one can put it that way. But does it mean this is wrong?

Theft is a good term to describe the legalized expropriation, since governments should be no deferent than individuals.

Why should governments not be different? They have a complete different function than any private citizen.

With causation correctly identified and the issue renamed to reflect this reality. The question becomes how is inflation created? That is by one source, central banks. The simple solution is to end government fiat currencies issued by central banks.

And replace it with what?

The cause of this issue is government. Thus, to eliminate the core causes of government injustices is to separate economy and state.

A state can not run without funding, and unregulated markets often prove disasterous to society. Economic theory shows how there are many potential cases of market failure with big consequences.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 4:17:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 11:26:40 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:59:32 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income Inequality is incorrectly labeled, and misdiagnosed, that leads to wrong solutions.

First and most importantly, people that earn income through mutually beneficial voluntary exchange without special treatment from collective power can never be considered part of any problem. Income earned by serving your fellow man is an honest living and should be the preferred method of income distribution. Only a small number of people will disagree here.

I am going to have to disagree here. The idea in itself is legitimate, however when markets evolve their new equilibrium points do not necessarily constitute an optimal situation for an economy. Our production is becoming more dependant on capital and high-skilled labor. We are getting rid of many traditionally middle class jobs, furthering income inequality.

I can understand that this may not bother a libertarian or an anarchist, as they will simply argue everyone gets paid according to the value they produce. There are however macroeconomic arguments to be made as to why this is not the most efficient constilation to increase wealth. On top of that many feel it is immoral for the few to have so much more then the many, and I would argue there is some truth to that sentiment.

Next, people that earn income by using direct coercion, that is forceful expropriation should be punished. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point.

Again, I definitely agree this is something to be avoided. But I would not go so far as to claim that any type of expropriation is wrong.


I typed a point by point reply and failed to post it. So a summary.

The point I'm attempting to make is that the mechanism at the root of income inequality is inflation. Progressive and libertarians share common ground on an injustice that harms a great number of us. Progressive that see accumulated capital by voluntary exchange as a problem can argue that issue independently. The income inequality issue can be framed outside of class warfare and effects greatly reduced by acknowledging that inflation is a major root cause.

The feelings of those that see income inequality as a problem are justified. Those with accumulated capital (first users of new currency) are able to use inflation to increase income faster that those that must depend on labor. By ending inflation those dependent on labor can keep up with those with capital.

As more currency enters the system it dilutes the value of every other unit. For example, say the producer of a scarce item is slowing increasing production, each additional unit has less value. People are not will to pay as much for items that are easier to obtain. It is not the exchange that causes devaluation, the lack of knowledge of creation of new currency is the cause. The first users gain advantage from this lack of knowledge. The quantity theory of money explains the result once knowledge of additional currency has been disseminated.

Those in the real economy disagree about the effects of monetary policy. They parse every word from central bankers. This is because government use violence to ensure usage of central bank issued notes. Very few people would voluntarily select to use violence backed currency if a full understanding of the people harmed by this decision. If given freedom to select currencies, most people would choose a peaceful non-inflationary currency that reduce the impacts of income inequality.

Markets may not deliver an optimal result, but the result was reach by fair methods. Removing unjust third party market influence, like inflation, is imperative. Markets have a proven record of distributing scarce resources to there most valuable use. Every other man directed method of distribution causes much more misuse of resources.

Progressives and libertarians have a real opportunity to tackle an issue that important to both simply by correctly identifying the source of economic injustice. Progressives have a proven record of taking small steps to move toward their goals thus working with libertarians the effects of income inequality can be reduced. Progressives that are sincere reducing income inequality should support ending currency inflation.

On replacement of central banks, when a sick patient has cancer nobody asks the doctor "what will you replace the cancer with?" the cancer is destroyed. In most causes the patient gets worse during treatment but once the cancer is gone a body heals. Inflation is a cancer to economies and once removed, people will replace the cancer with spontaneous voluntary systems that treat everyone more fairly.

Lastly, a thread for your comments on why state and economy should not be separated http://www.debate.org... .
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 6:33:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 2:34:01 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
And is there anything inherently wrong with refusing to force people to give up their earnings? Never-mind the economic issues that come along with redistribution, because the moral issues are just as apparent.

You just set yourself a greater burden of proof. Here's what you have to do:

1. Clarify your moral/normative framework for government legislation
2. Demonstrate the truth of the framework when it comes to law
3. Prove that your moral framework prohibits redistribution
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 7:38:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 6:33:20 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:34:01 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
And is there anything inherently wrong with refusing to force people to give up their earnings? Never-mind the economic issues that come along with redistribution, because the moral issues are just as apparent.

You just set yourself a greater burden of proof. Here's what you have to do:

1. Clarify your moral/normative framework for government legislation
2. Demonstrate the truth of the framework when it comes to law
3. Prove that your moral framework prohibits redistribution

Economics knows no morality.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 8:20:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/2/2016 7:38:44 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/2/2016 6:33:20 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/29/2016 2:34:01 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
And is there anything inherently wrong with refusing to force people to give up their earnings? Never-mind the economic issues that come along with redistribution, because the moral issues are just as apparent.

You just set yourself a greater burden of proof. Here's what you have to do:

1. Clarify your moral/normative framework for government legislation
2. Demonstrate the truth of the framework when it comes to law
3. Prove that your moral framework prohibits redistribution

Economics knows no morality.

Irrelevant.

Bball's argument against redistribution suggested that moral issues with redistribution are apparent. I asked him to justify that claim.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 10:01:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I watched that one a while back. Good show.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 2:19:08 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/3/2016 10:01:24 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I watched that one a while back. Good show.

I love John Oliver
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2016 2:29:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/4/2016 2:19:08 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 7/3/2016 10:01:24 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah I watched that one a while back. Good show.

I love John Oliver

Same
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:58:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Everything you say is WRONG and HEARTLESS
At 6/28/2016 11:36:46 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Ok, answering as a libertarian, really an anarchist, and I agree! With the first half, that being income inequality does harm growth. The second part where there is suggestion on how to solve it, now that's where I'm going to disagree.
Just handing people money essentially from the pockets of other people does not solve this. Unless you have the brain of a child and think that's how the world works. The idea of that kind of 'redistribution of wealth' is effective long term is so simplistic and dumb it's completely amazing. We know that intergenerational welfare dependence is real. We know that 'projects' were a failure. We know that some of the highest funded school districts perform the worst. We know that higher taxes lowers the incentive for productivity, we know this for a fact. All things equal, your wage goes down.. Do you have more or less incentive to produce? And the opposite is true for those collecting benefits. Tell me it's not. I know people that have settled for lower pay to keep state benefits. Why work harder for the same money? It doesn't make sense.
My solution, actually make this equal, remove the state from markets and wa-lah, economic equality. Solve problems, get paid. This isn't that hard.

I work in HR, Employee Relations, and Payroll, EVERYTHING you said is WRONG! Employers are SEVERELY UNDER paying their employees and NOT giving them ANY benefits to boot!
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:59:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
you're a terrible human being
At 6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.

people DESERVE a LIVING WAGE
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:59:27 PM, migmag wrote:
you're a terrible human being
At 6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.

people DESERVE a LIVING WAGE

I think your brain size is akin to the berry I stepped on when I was walking to get ice cream.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:46:37 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:58:05 PM, migmag wrote:
Everything you say is WRONG and HEARTLESS
At 6/28/2016 11:36:46 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Ok, answering as a libertarian, really an anarchist, and I agree! With the first half, that being income inequality does harm growth. The second part where there is suggestion on how to solve it, now that's where I'm going to disagree.
Just handing people money essentially from the pockets of other people does not solve this. Unless you have the brain of a child and think that's how the world works. The idea of that kind of 'redistribution of wealth' is effective long term is so simplistic and dumb it's completely amazing. We know that intergenerational welfare dependence is real. We know that 'projects' were a failure. We know that some of the highest funded school districts perform the worst. We know that higher taxes lowers the incentive for productivity, we know this for a fact. All things equal, your wage goes down.. Do you have more or less incentive to produce? And the opposite is true for those collecting benefits. Tell me it's not. I know people that have settled for lower pay to keep state benefits. Why work harder for the same money? It doesn't make sense.
My solution, actually make this equal, remove the state from markets and wa-lah, economic equality. Solve problems, get paid. This isn't that hard.

I work in HR, Employee Relations, and Payroll, EVERYTHING you said is WRONG! Employers are SEVERELY UNDER paying their employees and NOT giving them ANY benefits to boot!

Wrong? And Heartless? Where am I wrong? How is anything I said heartless? Because I don't promote government theft and wealth redistribution? None of the things I listed are working and matter of fact do way more harm than good. Are you saying projects are a success? That intergenerational welfare dependence isn't a proven fact?
Really where am I wrong? I want everyone to have a fair and equal chance at success, I really don't see how anything I said can be perceived as heartless. Also what does employers underpaying their employees have to do with anything? I never made any claim about anything relating to that.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:49:58 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:59:27 PM, migmag wrote:
you're a terrible human being
At 6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.

people DESERVE a LIVING WAGE

People deserve to get what they put in, and the freedom to do so.
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 6:36:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
GUESS who just got REPORTED for PERSONAL ATTACKS!
At 7/12/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:59:27 PM, migmag wrote:
you're a terrible human being
At 6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.

people DESERVE a LIVING WAGE

I think your brain size is akin to the berry I stepped on when I was walking to get ice cream.
SO GLAD your account is going to be FROZEN for PERSONAL ATTACKS, bye bye
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 6:49:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
NO ONE agrees with YOU Bill, time to WAKE UP to that REALITY! YOU are HEARTLESS if you are so SELFISH that you ONLY care about YOURSELF who makes LOTS of money but you DONT care about the HUNDRED MILLION Americans who make LESS than $15/hour!!! : You are LITERALLY SICK if you have to be EXPLAINED WHY your heartless!!! it's NOT government theft because GUESS WHAT, it's LEGAL what they are doing because MOST Americans think it's GOOD to TAX THE RICH since we have MILLIONS Of people who are VERY POOR and HOMELESS!!! Apparently you are COMPLETELY unfamiliar with welfare but NO ONE can get it who is not VERY POOR and who does NOT have kids!! HOW are people supposed to have a FAIR and EQUAL chance at success when people like YOU do NOT let the government PROTECT us from ABUSIVE people and employers LIKE YOU! You do NOT get to play GOD with people's happiness and financial survival!!! Employers UNDER paying their employees have EVERYTHING to do with it because they have ALL the power to ABUSE their employees financially by giving them FIVE to TEN dollars an hour which is NO WHERE NEAR enough to even cover RENT, let alone all the OTHER bills we all have to pay. Does ANY of this make ANY sense or you COMPLETELY SELFISH all the time?
migmag
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 6:51:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Actually Bill, I work in Payroll, HR, and Employee Relations and what they "put in" is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE and in TOTAL control of their Supervisor/Manager, the employee has NOTHING they can do to get a FAIR SHAKE
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 6:36:53 AM, migmag wrote:
GUESS who just got REPORTED for PERSONAL ATTACKS!
At 7/12/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:59:27 PM, migmag wrote:
you're a terrible human being
At 6/29/2016 2:24:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 4:02:33 PM, Hayd wrote:
came from this
https://www.youtube.com...

Yes, John Oliver is a great source on things.

people DESERVE a LIVING WAGE

I think your brain size is akin to the berry I stepped on when I was walking to get ice cream.
SO GLAD your account is going to be FROZEN for PERSONAL ATTACKS, bye bye

Lol, as if. You should hop off this site.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.