• 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!

Sharing Wealth in America

It seems to me that you are being more of a troll. Sorry, if I am incorrect about that. For example, what part of, employment is at the Will of Either party (for public policy purposes) do you not seem to understand?


You're going off onto tangents. You claim the Equal Protection Clause can solve poverty. You tell me how it can. It's your claim.
 
I really don't know what your point is. What you're trying to say. Please clarify.

He is (correctly) noting that very few work for the federal MW, and those who do will (quickly) get a pay raise.
 
I really don't know what your point is. What you're trying to say. Please clarify.

On July 24, 2009, the minimum wage was adjusted to $7.25 where it has remained fixed for the past twelve years.

Which means what? That people working at the MW have been punished by price-rises and have recieved no increase in MW-salary to compensate.

What the hell kind of MW is that? One the punishes the poor and assures that their wages do not affect in the least inflation. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Those who work for the MW are exchanging their labor at cost-price that simply does not change according to the cost-price of goods/services.


So, why does pricing increase if there in change in the cost of labor-input?

Pray tell, how that is fair-and-equitable?

Quote from the EU Parliament here (November 2021) :

New rules for fair minimum wages in the EU New-rules for fair minimum wages in the EU (Press Releases EMPL 11-11-2021)
*A minimum wage should ensure a decent standard of living
*Collective bargaining should be strengthened in countries where it covers fewer than 80% of workers
*The powers of national authorities and social partners’ autonomy to determine wages must be fully respected
*A new draft EU law will ensure a minimum level of wage protection in all member states, in order to guarantee decent living standards for workers and their families
 
On July 24, 2009, the minimum wage was adjusted to $7.25 where it has remained fixed for the past twelve years.

Which means what? That people working at the MW have been punished by price-rises and have recieved no increase in MW-salary to compensate.

What the hell kind of MW is that? One the punishes the poor and assures that their wages do not affect in the least inflation. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Those who work for the MW are exchanging their labor at cost-price that simply does not change according to the cost-price of goods/services.


So, why does pricing increase if there in change in the cost of labor-input?

Pray tell, how that is fair-and-equitable?

Quote from the EU Parliament here (November 2021) :

The biggest problem with the “living wage” concept is that it (like the federal poverty level) varies based on household size and other household income.
 
A form of "minimum wage". It makes it simpler for the private sector to recognize demand and supply.

Yep, you demand money for not supplying anything. That would certainly be a great state government “job” if you could get it. Somehow, I can’t see the electorate demanding to pay more taxes so that folks who would simply rather not work can all get a state “paycheck” in exchange for their sincere promise not to take any other paying job.
 
Yep, you demand money for not supplying anything. That would certainly be a great state government “job” if you could get it. Somehow, I can’t see the electorate demanding to pay more taxes so that folks who would simply rather not work can all get a state “paycheck” in exchange for their sincere promise not to take any other paying job.
Our market based economy functions best with full employment of capital resources. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Our Commerce Clause implies market-friendly public policies.
 
Our market based economy functions best with full employment of capital resources. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Our Commerce Clause implies market-friendly public policies.

Yep, some folks would naturally rather not bother to work. That is not a valid reason to send them government funds to replace their voluntarily missed ”paychecks”.
 
Yep, some folks would naturally rather not bother to work. That is not a valid reason to send them government funds to replace their voluntarily missed ”paychecks”.
It is about equality and equal protection of the law for legal purposes. Why do right-wingers prefer to "hate on the Poor" and deny and disparage them a simple solution to simple poverty. We already know we need to upgrade infrastructure for supply-side purposes. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.
 
It is about equality and equal protection of the law for legal purposes. Why do right-wingers prefer to "hate on the Poor" and deny and disparage them a simple solution to simple poverty. We already know we need to upgrade infrastructure for supply-side purposes. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

That (bolded above) is called getting a job. BTW, you are not homeless.
 
That (bolded above) is called getting a job. BTW, you are not homeless.
We would have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Via existing legal and physical infrastructure.


You're being evasive. Giving me the runaround. You've not provided evidence supporting your claim, which is thus unfounded with not further debate called for. See you on another thread.
 
You're being evasive. Giving me the runaround. You've not provided evidence supporting your claim, which is thus unfounded with not further debate called for. See you on another thread.
The logarithms are getting better, though
 
You're being evasive. Giving me the runaround. You've not provided evidence supporting your claim, which is thus unfounded with not further debate called for. See you on another thread.
What part of solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is so difficult to understand? Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can generate a positive multiplier of Two and help automatically stabilize our economy in the process. Capital must circulate under Capitalism. It really is that simple, and we can accomplish it on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
 
That poster had stated as much in his prior posts and will not attempt to refute my claim. He will state that I’m a “right-winger” for supporting the current conditional UI benefit laws in place in Califronia.

Regardless of "that poster", you made a claim in your post to me that "He thinks that he deserves to be paid UI benefits despite not having (recently) becoming unemployed. His desired ‘occupation’ is to be paid (forever?) by the state for his natural state of intentionally remaining unemployed." The claim is yours to prove, not for others to refute. Regardless of your debate points with the poster, mine had to do with his claim of equal protection as the constitutional clause applicable for which reasons, when asked for, he cannot cite as evidence in support of his claim. A useless endeavor on my part.
 
1) the rules of basketball favors the best players
2) the rules of tennis favor the best players
3) the rules of chess favor the best players
4) the rich who remain rich tend to be the best players.


I ID'd law that particularly favors the rich and large corps you can't refute. The law changed the rules to achieve those favors. The same rules in basketball, tennis and chess apply the same to everyone without exception. There are diff strokes for diff bloke to do with the rich and large corps that were especially evident in the changes made to tax policy under Trump. None of which you can refute, nor refute the facts I've introduced in this post countering your "rules" claim.
 
1) the rules of basketball favors the best players
2) the rules of tennis favor the best players
3) the rules of chess favor the best players
4) the rich who remain rich tend to be the best players.
Chess players get to bribe the judges?

They stole the chessboard from the natives?
 
That people working at the MW have been punished by price-rises and have recieved no increase in MW-salary to compensate.

Your lack of knowledge of all things-economic is nothing short of astonishing.

Economics is about scarcity of goods, services, commodities and resources and how they are distributed. There is no law, theorem or corollary in the Laws of Economics that says wages must be increased to compensate for rising prices.

In fact, the laws, theorems and corollaries say just the opposite, except in one instance.

When Monetary Inflation exists, prices rise, and prices includes wages which also rise, meaning people are paid more than whatever the minimum wage is. However, Monetary Inflation is practically non-existent in your economy.

To insist that wages rise due to Cost-push Inflation is sheer tautology.

You elected people who you knew were going to raise the State/county/local sales tax or you sat by idly twiddling your thumbs while your elected officials raised your State/county/local sales tax and now you're going to go to your employer and throw a hissy-fit demanding that you get paid more to off-set the increase in sales taxes?

That's absurd.

In the case of Demand-pull Inflation, rising prices are part of the laws, theorems and corollaries of Economics and are intended to protect goods, services, commodities and resources from being over-used, over-consumed or depleted.

Increasing wages does not stop Demand-pull Inflation but it does accelerate it.

Because you don't understand Economics, you don't understand that people can compensate.

People can:

1) Stop consuming like the Borg
2) Seek substitutes
3) Increase Supply to offset Demand
 
Wealth is not static and fixed.
That's because wealth --like everything on Earth-- is affected by Supply & Demand.

The problem is not that some people make more money than others. The problem is the system that effects wealth distribution inequitably (unfairly) favors the rich and large corps, most specifically as exemplified by our tax system.

Congratulations on your Göbbels-style Equivocation Fallacy. You just equivocated income with wealth. They are not the same thing.

Wealth continues to be distributed more towards those with the most and away from those with less by govt distribution.

Wrong. Wealth continues to be distributed to those who have the desire and put forth the effort to create wealth.

What effort do The Poor® put forth?

No effort at all. That's because of Class Attitudes.

The Class Attitude of The Poor® is to live for today and work to satisfy every imaginable infantile urge with no consideration of the Future.

When The Poor® choose to build/create wealth, then they will have it.

Therefore, there is less govt money available for distribution to where it is most needed, such infrastructure or those with the least income via what legislation might be passed for such programs.

Again, you have falsely equivocated income with wealth.

Wealth is not inherently cash. It is assets and as it stands, 98% of the wealth in this country is non-cash assets.
 
What the hell kind of MW is that? One the punishes the poor and assures that their wages do not affect in the least inflation. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Those who work for the MW are exchanging their labor at cost-price that simply does not change according to the cost-price of goods/services.

So, why does pricing increase if there in change in the cost of labor-input?

The fatal flaw in your baseless argument is the inability to understand that rising prices does not equal rising profits.

Profit margins for grocery stores is typically 1%-3%.

That was true in 1990 and it's still true today. In spite of the fact that prices have risen, their profit margins have not.


The federal Minimum Wage was last reset at $7.25 per hour since July 2009, the last time Congress raised it. Would you like to work for that MW for 12 years?

It was good enough for Cuban sugarcane fieldworkers.

You made Cuban sugarcane fieldworkers work for $0.30/day from 1898 to 1958 when Castro increased it to $0.90/day which is why you tried to overthrow him after you put him in power.
 
1) the rules of basketball favors the best players
2) the rules of tennis favor the best players
3) the rules of chess favor the best players
To be clear, in these cases, they don't favour the best players so much as the best players optimize their play within the by and large fixed rules.

4) the rich who remain rich tend to be the best players.
The rich, unlike every other instance you're talking about, actively redefine the rules in their favour, often at the direct expense of literally everyone else which obviously undermines any argument to actual merit/meritocracy. It's like if a player (or set of players) who was the world's best at speed chess was able to successfully lobby the International Chess Federation, in exchange for continually passing its officials fat envelopes, to make speed chess the official format for the international championships while featuring ever more prohibitive time limits with each subsequent competition.
 
Last edited:
Why do right-wingers have any problem whatsoever with solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage to compensate for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
 
Back
Top Bottom