• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income Equality, Not Inequality, Is the Problem

Torus34 said:
Hi, NatMorton.

Nice to see you posting. Your choice of topics is usually spot on when it comes to generating a discussion.

Given the OP, I can only add a cautionary comment. The jump from the statistics [which I don't question,] to the conclusion leaves open the possibility of some degree of assumption that correlation implies causation. It's a really rough sociological road to pin something like that down.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Click to expand...
I wonder if their numbers consider gig and contract workers? Neither are “employed” by how the government counts employment.
 
NatMorton said:
Again, if our current level of welfare payments isn't creating a disincentive for work, how is the near 50% drop in the percentage of those employed in the bottom 20% of earners explained?
Click to expand...
Gig and contract workers. Under the table labor. None of those are counted as “employed”.

Single Men don’t get welfare. So what are they eating?

And don’t y’all want all babies born? They gotta eat, so you also want folks on welfare. Because think of the babies, right?
 
What if...? said:
Gig and contract workers. Under the table labor. None of those are counted as “employed”.

Single Men don’t get welfare. So what are they eating?

And don’t y’all want all babies born? They gotta eat, so you also want folks on welfare. Because think of the babies, right?
Click to expand...
I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say.
 
NatMorton said:
There's a very insightful article from Phil Graham and John Early in today's WSJ. Wish I could post the whole thing, but it's behind a paywall (article here).

The gist is this: the charts we so often see in the media about income inequality are incredibly misleading because they do not account for taxation and most welfare benefits. Graham and Early have argued this point for years and make a compelling case. They went further today with census data and demonstrate that when you factor in taxes and both federal and state benefits, the lower three quintiles of earners, i.e. the bottom 60% of earners, net out to about the same level of income. Here's a chart that summarizes their analysis:

View attachment 67409519

There data shows the lowest 20% of earners actually do slightly better than those in the second quintile. This cannot help but create an incredible disincentive for work, and it surely does. Perhaps the most depressing statistic in the article is this: in 1967 68% of those in the bottom 20% of earners were employed. That means two-thirds of those in the lowest income bracket at least had a chance of working their way up the economic ladder. In 2017, only 36% of those in the bottom 20% of earners were employed, which means almost two-thirds of those in that income bracket today are trapped; economically speaking, they're going nowhere.

Make no mistake, this is the outcome the political left seeks: large blocks of voters financially dependent on federal and state welfare programs with no hope of supporting themselves, ever.

It all makes sense once you realize a dependent voter is a loyal voter.
Click to expand...

Really dumb way for the Journal to try and justify inequality.
 
noonereal said:
Really dumb way for the Journal to try and justify inequality.
Click to expand...
Graham and Early are making the case, and they don't work for The Journal. If they're data is correct, they've demonstrated equality, not inequality.
 
NatMorton said:
Graham and Early are making the case, and they don't work for The Journal. If they're data is correct, they've demonstrated equality, not inequality.
Click to expand...

Its silly.
 
NatMorton said:
When you look at what's happened to the labor participation rate in the bottom quintile, it's not silly. It's sad. These people are trapped in a cycle of dependency.
Click to expand...
Better than they starve, no?
 
The premise of 'equity', 'equality', and 'fairness' is flawed right out of the starting gate.

No one is owed anything...not equality, not equity, and there damn sure isnt anything called fairness. The poor arent poor because the rich steal their pennies. The poor are poor because they make or their ancestry made bad decisions. Even when people from their past faced oppression, one is a fool if they make the choices that keep them oppressed for generations.

There are some basic rules that everyone can follow that will help change their future. Graduate from high school. Dont have children out of wedlock. Dont get married until you can afford to provide for a family. Dont live in the excuses of yesterday...be mindful of your future when making career choices. Assume that no one is going to carry your sorry ass through life and YOU have the responsibility to change the course of your life.

Start there. If you didnt prepare yourself for a future and find yourself in a minimum wage job, too ****ing bad. No one owes you 'equity'. No one owes you equal pay for doing a menial job. Change jobs, move, join the military, bust your ass within your minimjum wage job and become a manager...work two jobs...go to school. Whatever.

Or dont. Sit around and bitch and cry about how unfair life is and how the bad rich people stole your pennies and shoved your face in the mud.
 
NatMorton said:
Again, if our current level of welfare payments isn't creating a disincentive for work
Click to expand...

A hallmark of the left is to take away someone's sense of personal responsibility, leaving them vulnerable to empty promises.
 
NatMorton said:
No, ignoring the disincentive for work we've created is the stupidity.
Click to expand...

The disincentive for work is working hard and still not having enough. When prices go up but incomes don't, it's effectively a pay cut for workers.

I'll agree that the left is occupied with lifting the poorest Americans and we're finding that some people will only be lifted as much as someone else will work to achieve it for them...which is temporary and futile. However, the right is equally occupied with giving more to those who don't need it, which is stupid and fascist.
 
What the OP posted is absolutely true and has been true for decades. People who don't work at all have more 'income' and live better than the low-income workers that struggle. I've had the privilege of knowing people in these two classes and what's striking is the huge difference in attitude and motivation. I don't know what the answer is but what we DON'T need is a growing class of non-working people dependent on the taxpayers.
 
NatMorton said:
Yes, but not better than working and contributing to your community rather than leaching off it.
Click to expand...

What a ignorant post. Sad really, sincerely.
Total lack of understanding. So so sad.
 
dmpi said:
What the OP posted is absolutely true and has been true for decades. People who don't work at all have more 'income' and live better than the low-income workers
Click to expand...

well, if you say so

and you don't support a national minimum wage that is livable, correct?
 
NatMorton said:
You have something those on the dole will never have: the dignity of work and of providing for yourself.
Click to expand...
Get off the attacks on People who utilize public assistance. Geez!!! You don't know a darn thing about those people, other than Republicanism Right Wing Spin, based on their concepts born of Confederacy Ideology, because the Confederacy had no concern to have programs to help anyone.
 
noonereal said:
What a ignorant post. Sad really, sincerely.
Total lack of understanding. So so sad.
Click to expand...
Not at all ignorant. It's reality that we're creating an able-bodied economic underclass that has very little chance of improving the quality of their lives through work. Their only avenue toward economic growth is through larger and larger government handouts. Now that's sad.
 
NatMorton said:
Not at all ignorant. It's reality that we're creating an able-bodied economic underclass that has very little chance of improving the quality of their lives through work. Their only avenue toward economic growth is through larger and larger government handouts. Now that's sad.
Click to expand...


Just admit the fact you don't like to see people helped, and you continue to try and solicit backers and supporters of your "dislike for seeing people helped".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom