Technology and Unemployment

[MusicAdventurer]

Who's advertising these bad choices? EVERYBODY in the media! When you show every superstar acting like a fool, having sex with everyone and everything, and then taking home $20 million for being a shame of humanity, what are kids supposed to think? The problem is that it affects impoverished neighborhoods more than others; they have fewer successful role models. You say everybody should recognize how their decisions alter their fate, and I agree. But, that recognition isn't common sense or instinct, it has to be taught.

Again, I'm not for the nanny state, but the government should provide safety nets. It's too easy for a good person to make a stupid choice; civilized society requires empathy.

I like where you are going with this. This is a new take, at least to my ears. So what would the solution be then?

BTW did you read my other post in response to yours a few posts up?

 

[douglas]

I like where you are going with this. This is a new take, at least to my ears. So what would the solution be then?

BTW did you read my other post in response to yours a few posts up?

The solution remains elusive from a government perspective. Making negative influences leave the media would require a massive amount of censorship; we'd have to kiss the 1st amendment goodbye.

Oh, and yes I read your post. I think we were writing the same sort of thing at the same time; great minds think alike?

 

[MusicAdventurer]

The solution remains elusive from a government perspective. Making negative influences leave the media would require a massive amount of censorship; we'd have to kiss the 1st amendment goodbye.

Oh, and yes I read your post. I think we were writing the same sort of thing at the same time; great minds think alike?

Yeah... so its back to education and career/life counseling, IMO

 

[douglas]

Yeah... so its back to education and career/life counseling, IMO

The biggest problem with negative influences is that people secretly love it; for as much as people complain about the negative consequences, they love their reality tv, raunchy music, and action films. To end the age of harmful media, it'd be as simple as boycotting it; but we all know that's not going to happen.

I said before that impoverished neighborhoods are more susceptible to these negative influences because they lack role models. A citizens movement to demonstrate the "right" way to become successful might help. But, it would always come down to helping people in these situations to become role models themselves. A large part is education. No young person thinks education is worth it, but in affluent neighborhoods they can see the reward in the people who surround them. Poor neighborhoods don't have that first successful generation, each successive generation doesn't have any role model support from the previous generation; it becomes a vicious cycle. But, the other problem is just the over-reliance of education in the workforce. For example, I recently saw a help wanted ad that required a 4 year degree for hiring janitors. Our current system doesn't really promote helping the people around you; most organizations that help the poor are volunteer work, not government or corporations.

 

[imagep]

Right, and if most voters, say, use cars and pay an excise tax on gasoline, then that'll probably temper their enthusiasm for raising it. On the other hand, if only a certain class is left to pay an income tax, then I can see the class that doesn't pay it but that receives a benefit from raising it on others clamoring to raise the tax to the moon. An income tax hits a poor man directly at one of his most fundamental rights--the right to the fruits of his own labor. Tax his income and his enthusiasm for an ever-expanding government will be slowed. Having one class pay the tax and another not also, I think, would tend to divide the nation on class grounds. I don't think that's productive for our democracy.

Tax his income earned from work and his enthusiasm for working will also be slowed. Thats not productive for our economy.

It's really a myth that poor people elect politicians that promise them freebies. Poor people are the minority of our population, and tend to vote in even smaller percentages than our general population, thus it is mathematically impossible for them to vote themselves freebies. Most people who consider themselves democrats aren't particularly supportive of massive freebie welfare, and tons of self proclaimed conservatives will tell you that we need to keep safty nets (although I don't agree with that).

It's our misguided politicians who created means tested welfare, not the voters.

 

[imagep]

I agree for the most part, but it doesn't address the need for a progressive tax. If wage disparity wasn't as high and the average worker made more, we wouldn't have a need for a progressive tax. But disparity is high and wages are low, so we need a way of smoothing out the problems.

Yup.

As ones income and wealth increases, each marginal dollar becomes exponentially easier to acquire, due to exponential increases in negotiating power. And most of our taxes, other than income taxes, tend to be regressive, as a percent of income.

Thus, in order to offset that regressiveness of other taxes, and the fact that obtaining more income and wealth is exponentially easier for those who already have more income and wealth, income tax has to be progressive, or else wealth will pool, and ultimately, all wealth would pool into the hands of the few, and everyone not included in that few would be dirt poor, and essentially slaves to the rich, with absolutely no bargaining power. This is perfectly natural in a free market capitalistic economy, but the eventual outcome also destroys the effectiveness of the free market capitalistic economy.

Progressive income tax, as much as it is hated by many, is the savor of the free market capitalistic system. And we are not really that far away from having enough progressiveness in our income tax system. During the middle of the 20th century, when our growth was at it's peak, all income classes increased in income and wealth by about the same percentage. Then along came changes, some which are apparent (reductions in the progressiveness of our tax system and increases in welfare), some which are not so apparent (like the general acceptance that if the worker gets a 3% raise the boss should get a 20% raise), and suddenly income growth stopped for all but the top few percent, and the income and wealth of the top few percent started to skyrocket.

So how do we know when our tax system is progressive enough? I think that it should be pretty obvious, once people set aside their issues about fairness. The answer is that when all income classes are growing in wealth and income at about the same rate. Of course there is one obvious exception, and that is the group of people who are poor by choice (chosing not to work or be productive). When your income is $0, even a 100% increase in income leaves you with $0. So when we are measuring income disparity, we should really be looking at the difference between the median income, and the top 1%, not the difference between the bottom 1% and the top 1% as the vast majority of our citizens are fairly close to the median income, and improving the quality of life for the masses is much more important that improving the quality of life for either the few who chose to be poor, or those who already have so much income and wealth that further increases do not substantially increase their quality of life.

Most of the time, when we talk about making our tax system more progressive, we think of higher taxes for the rich. But it's not how much the rich pay in taxes, it's the difference between what the median income earner pays and what the rich pay that makes our tax system progressive. So we could just as easily make our tax system more progressive by lowering taxes on the non-rich, without having to increase taxes on the rich (which of course would requires some reduction in the amount of government spending). I really don't understand why so many conservatives fight this idea, it fits well within what they CLAIM that they want - lower taxes and less government and more wealth and prosperity for everyone. Maybe they really don't want more wealth and prosperity for everyone though, I have had at least one honest conservative to tell me that he "doesn't want others to have what he has".

 

[imagep]

Who's advertising these bad choices? EVERYBODY in the media! When you show every superstar acting like a fool, having sex with everyone and everything, and then taking home $20 million for being a shame of humanity, what are kids supposed to think? The problem is that it affects impoverished neighborhoods more than others; they have fewer successful role models. You say everybody should recognize how their decisions alter their fate, and I agree. But, that recognition isn't common sense or instinct, it has to be taught.

Again, I'm not for the nanny state, but the government should provide safety nets. It's too easy for a good person to make a stupid choice; civilized society requires empathy.

The issue with safety nets is that they encourage people to make poor choices, first by enabling those poor choices (providing them with income to spend on stuff that they shouldn't be spending it on) then by discouraging them from trying to climb the economic ladder by making more money (being more personally productive). At least the nanny state discourages poor choices. Pull the safety nets out from under the slackers and poor decision makers, and we would no longer need the nanny state. The nanny state is largely necessary only because we have safety nets. I'm against both.

It's kind of funny that I get accused of being a liberal or progressive by so many on the right, when in actuality, I am more conservative than most self proclaimed conservatives.

 

[douglas]

The issue with safety nets is that they encourage people to make poor choices, first by enabling those poor choices (providing them with income to spend on stuff that they shouldn't be spending it on) then by discouraging them from trying to climb the economic ladder by making more money (being more personally productive). At least the nanny state discourages poor choices. Pull the safety nets out from under the slackers and poor decision makers, and we would no longer need the nanny state. The nanny state is largely necessary only because we have safety nets. I'm against both.

It's kind of funny that I get accused of being a liberal or progressive by so many on the right, when in actuality, I am more conservative than most self proclaimed conservatives.

Part of the problem is that we don't actually seem to want the poor or middle class to buy within their means. If people were to save their money and be fiscally responsible, entire industries would fall. The worst thing a society can do is save money; that is one of the biggest problems with the rich getting richer. If the rich didn't hoard money, we'd have less unemployment or wage disparity.

I agree with the idea that a safety net can encourage bad behavior, but I don't classify that as a "bad" thing. To use the metaphor of a tightrope and an actual safety net; without a safety net maybe 100 people walk the rope and 10 break their legs, but with a safety net 10,000 people walk the rope and 10 break their legs. Having more people get away with doing stupid stuff isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you can't prove that it increases the consequences.

In my experience, most poor people are NOT getting a free ride on the gravy train. Even with food stamps and welfare checks, being poor isn't comfortable. A lot of these benefits are blown out of proportion in the media; I know some people who use food stamps, and it's to the tune of $25 a month. I've seen people that defraud the system, or buy lobster and ribs on the public dime, but it's very rare. I'd also go further and say that plenty of successful people have been on public assistance at one point in their life.

The most basic argument on welfare/safety nets is "fairness". Most people say it isn't fair that they work, while other people can get free money. But, I propose this question; would you quit your job for a welfare check? No? Then the fairness is a farce, it's about as fair as winning the lottery. Until unemployment is completely voluntary, wage disparity is a minimum, and people have a real public education; there's no such thing as "fair" or free will. Welfare is just the product of a dozen other problems in modern capitalism.

 

[MusicAdventurer]

The issue with safety nets is that they encourage people to make poor choices, first by enabling those poor choices (providing them with income to spend on stuff that they shouldn't be spending it on) then by discouraging them from trying to climb the economic ladder by making more money (being more personally productive). At least the nanny state discourages poor choices. Pull the safety nets out from under the slackers and poor decision makers, and we would no longer need the nanny state. The nanny state is largely necessary only because we have safety nets. I'm against both.

It's kind of funny that I get accused of being a liberal or progressive by so many on the right, when in actuality, I am more conservative than most self proclaimed conservatives.

Safety nets are needed. Safety nets that encourage poverty are not. There should be incentives to climbing out of poverty.

On the other hand, this problem would be solved if companies were forced to pay a living wage and not exploit their employees. Just saying.

 

[What if...?]

The biggest problem with negative influences is that people secretly love it; for as much as people complain about the negative consequences, they love their reality tv, raunchy music, and action films. To end the age of harmful media, it'd be as simple as boycotting it; but we all know that's not going to happen.

I said before that impoverished neighborhoods are more susceptible to these negative influences because they lack role models. A citizens movement to demonstrate the "right" way to become successful might help. But, it would always come down to helping people in these situations to become role models themselves. A large part is education. No young person thinks education is worth it, but in affluent neighborhoods they can see the reward in the people who surround them. Poor neighborhoods don't have that first successful generation, each successive generation doesn't have any role model support from the previous generation; it becomes a vicious cycle. But, the other problem is just the over-reliance of education in the workforce. For example, I recently saw a help wanted ad that required a 4 year degree for hiring janitors. Our current system doesn't really promote helping the people around you; most organizations that help the poor are volunteer work, not government or corporations.

I read an interesting thought on the phenomenon you are discussing.

LSS, the way our system works, the people the inner cities need the most are "drawn away" by our current iteration of capitalism. They leave and never return. Mostly just because their talents are valuable but their original environments offer no incentive to remain. No good paying jobs where they grew up. So they go where the jobs are, leaving a void in their original communities.

Capitalism skims the cream from impoverished areas. Leaving nothing but the "blue john" as my dad called skimmed milk. Not a damnantion of capitalism, just one of its unintended effects.

 

[imagep]

Safety nets are needed. Safety nets that encourage poverty are not. There should be incentives to climbing out of poverty.

On the other hand, this problem would be solved if companies were forced to pay a living wage and not exploit their employees. Just saying.

Minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage. Minimum wage is for teenagers, part time workers, old retired folk, and people who are mentally/physically challenged.

So shy of increasing minimum wage (which I do support to an extent, but for other reasons), how do you "force" companies to pay a living wage? How can you force a company to hire anyone at all? Or even to be in business?

The incentive for climbing out of poverty should be having an income, and not starving to death. It would be helpful if that income wasn't taxed (withholdings or income taxes), at least until that income becomes exceptionally large.

the fear of starving is quite a good motivator, and when we simply give people money, or food stamps, we have taken away their motivation to do for themselves.

But otherwise, I totally get what you are saying.

 

[Ahlevah]

I agree for the most part, but it doesn't address the need for a progressive tax. If wage disparity wasn't as high and the average worker made more, we wouldn't have a need for a progressive tax. But disparity is high and wages are low, so we need a way of smoothing out the problems.

What problems might those be and how will a progressive tax fix them? Really rich people don't work for wages. Then tend to own companies.

 

[douglas]

What problems might those be and how will a progressive tax fix them? Really rich people don't work for wages. Then tend to own companies.

Corporate income is it's own problem. Mind that there's nothing "fair" about taxes, it's just that they are necessary. If poor people could afford to pay a flat tax, then I'd support the flat tax, but they can't so the rich need to pay more. It's as fair as not paying workers more. I propose this to the rich; just give me your money and you'll have a lower tax bracket. :2razz:

Someone just posted this on a different thread, but it illustrates the ridiculousness of our current system. McDonalds Tells Workers To Budget By Getting A Second Job And Turning Off Their Heat | ThinkProgress Mcdonalds has made a budget to prove that minimum wage is perfectly liveable; they make the assumption that an acceptable work week is 62+ hours and even then their budget isn't liveable. Some say that McDonalds is just a "school" job, but I say this flawed budget is applicable to all minimum wage jobs, which are now being proposed as a "solution" for unemployment.

I propose that if Executive pay and Corporate derived income was set to a reasonable ratio of minimum wage (some propose 20:1), we could employ every American and simultaneously raise the median wage; Unemployment and Low Wages are inversely proportional to income disparity. Even if we can't agree on an Executive pay cap, I think we can all agree on more regulation over golden parachutes.

 

[MusicAdventurer]

Minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage. Minimum wage is for teenagers, part time workers, old retired folk, and people who are mentally/physically challenged.

So are you saying it should be illegal to pay anything but a living wage to healthy people between the ages of 25 (the end of adolescence) and say 55? Or should married folk that are younger be included? Perhaps people who serve in the military should be included too? I am trying to understand where you are coming from here....

So shy of increasing minimum wage (which I do support to an extent, but for other reasons),

yeah.. what reasons?

how do you "force" companies to pay a living wage?

Great question and this is the heart of my argument and something I am trying to work out as well. I have ideas... perhaps we could work something out? Perhaps there should be a certain minimum percentage based on profits that dictate how much living wages could be given to employees. Combine this with increased minimum wage and we may have something. Perhaps this model could be altered... or maybe there is a better way to get living wages back on the table? Throw some ideas out there!

How can you force a company to hire anyone at all? Or even to be in business?

Yeah, I'm not sure that forcing a company to hire someone or to even be in business would be a good idea at all... what made you think of it?

The incentive for climbing out of poverty should be having an income, and not starving to death.

I would agree with this, but add that the incentive should also be having shelter and the necessities. Of course this would be in an ideal world where there was always a job that could provide these things for you. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, so we don't want to kill our citizens. At least I don't want to. I also don't want to increase crimes rates either. There is plenty of incentive for people to get out of poverty. The problem may not be incentive as much as lack of opportunity and being stuck in unhealthy cultural living patterns.

It would be helpful if that income wasn't taxed (withholdings or income taxes), at least until that income becomes exceptionally large.

Couldn't agree more

the fear of starving is quite a good motivator, and when we simply give people money, or food stamps, we have taken away their motivation to do for themselves. But otherwise, I totally get what you are saying.

While you are correct that the fear of starving is a good motivator... you are forgetting that without ability and opportunity, and without an adequate safety net... people will find other ways... ways that are not so legal... to survive. Do we really want that?

 

[MusicAdventurer]

Corporate income is it's own problem. Mind that there's nothing "fair" about taxes, it's just that they are necessary. If poor people could afford to pay a flat tax, then I'd support the flat tax, but they can't so the rich need to pay more. It's as fair as not paying workers more. I propose this to the rich; just give me your money and you'll have a lower tax bracket. :2razz:

Someone just posted this on a different thread, but it illustrates the ridiculousness of our current system. McDonalds Tells Workers To Budget By Getting A Second Job And Turning Off Their Heat | ThinkProgress Mcdonalds has made a budget to prove that minimum wage is perfectly liveable; they make the assumption that an acceptable work week is 62+ hours and even then their budget isn't liveable. Some say that McDonalds is just a "school" job, but I say this flawed budget is applicable to all minimum wage jobs, which are now being proposed as a "solution" for unemployment.

I propose that if Executive pay and Corporate derived income was set to a reasonable ratio of minimum wage (some propose 20:1), we could employ every American and simultaneously raise the median wage; Unemployment and Low Wages are inversely proportional to income disparity. Even if we can't agree on an Executive pay cap, I think we can all agree on more regulation over golden parachutes.

Oh no... we couldn't do that... that might make the underlings lives more liveable, more comfortable... they might start demanding to be paid what they are worth... corporations might not have enough money to destroy our environment, people's health and lives and they also might not have enough money to corrupt our governmental system. Heavens no... bad bad thoughts... bad ju-ju douglas - LOL!

while I'm being sarcastic... I sometimes wonder if some people may think this at least semi-consciously, or perhaps just barely tucked in the unconscious mind

 

[Canell]

It seems we are moving towards socialism, as Marx once predicted (he stated that socialism is only possible in a technically advanced country, not an agrarian one).

 

[imagep]

So are you saying it should be illegal to pay anything but a living wage to healthy people between the ages of 25 (the end of adolescence) and say 55? Or should married folk that are younger be included? Perhaps people who serve in the military should be included too? I am trying to understand where you are coming from here....

Possibly. Every time that a new minimum wage law is proposed in congress, the issue of having a lower "training wage" comes up. I think thats fair and reasonable. People in the military make some pretty decent money when you consider free housing and food and medical care. Way back in the day, one of my drill seargents in basic training told me that the thing that he liked the most about being in the military is that he knew he would never be homleess or starving or broke.

yeah.. what reasons?

To provide some of the necessary redistribution so that all wealth and income doesn't accumulate with the rich, and to increase demand and thus create more jobs and more profits.

Great question and this is the heart of my argument and something I am trying to work out as well. I have ideas... perhaps we could work something out? Perhaps there should be a certain minimum percentage based on profits that dictate how much living wages could be given to employees. Combine this with increased minimum wage and we may have something. Perhaps this model could be altered... or maybe there is a better way to get living wages back on the table? Throw some ideas out there!

Thats possible. Maybe like a mandatory profit sharing plan. It's also been suggested that wages at the bottom should be tied to wages at the top by some sort of formula. So if the CEO wants a 20% raise, he has to give a 20% raise to the lower paid workers also, and if the CEO gets a bonus of X% of the net profit, the workers also get a bonus based on profit.

Yeah, I'm not sure that forcing a company to hire someone or to even be in business would be a good idea at all... what made you think of it?

I've had customers coming into my business demanding that I do this or that for them. When I tell them that what they are asking for (usually something shady or illegal, like forging a reciept or making full color copies of money orders) is not a service that we offer, I've had them say "your a business you are required by law to serve me". Usually I just say that I'm not required by law to offer any service that we don't offer, and make a comparison to them asking for a steak at Pizza Hut, or asking a Brain Surgeon to do heart surgery on them. No law requires me to sell any particular goods or services that I don't chose to offer, and no law even requires me to be in business.

I would agree with this, but add that the incentive should also be having shelter and the necessities. Of course this would be in an ideal world where there was always a job that could provide these things for you. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, so we don't want to kill our citizens. At least I don't want to. I also don't want to increase crimes rates either. There is plenty of incentive for people to get out of poverty. The problem may not be incentive as much as lack of opportunity and being stuck in unhealthy cultural living patterns.



Couldn't agree more



While you are correct that the fear of starving is a good motivator... you are forgetting that without ability and opportunity, and without an adequate safety net... people will find other ways... ways that are not so legal... to survive. Do we really want that?

I think that most people who aren't surrounded by illegal activities would likely prefer there to be many more opportunities in legal industries, and that it's mostly people who come from the "hood" or from families that are deeply rooted in crime that would prefer to be criminals. I say this because I know of families where everyone in the family is a criminal of some sort, and families where everyone is a welfare slacker, and other families where everyone has a good (and legal) job of one type or another. We probably can't do a lot to end crime, but we can certainly end means tested welfare, and figure out a way to have more legit job opportunities.

 

[douglas]

I would agree with this, but add that the incentive should also be having shelter and the necessities. Of course this would be in an ideal world where there was always a job that could provide these things for you. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, so we don't want to kill our citizens. At least I don't want to. I also don't want to increase crimes rates either. There is plenty of incentive for people to get out of poverty. The problem may not be incentive as much as lack of opportunity and being stuck in unhealthy cultural living patterns.



Couldn't agree more



While you are correct that the fear of starving is a good motivator... you are forgetting that without ability and opportunity, and without an adequate safety net... people will find other ways... ways that are not so legal... to survive. Do we really want that?

The issue I have is that most people are literally saying that your incentive to work should be the right to live. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness are undeniable human rights; they shouldn't be conditional on the terms of employment. Our entire culture of thinking that the poor are living on the backs of others is an argument framed by the employers of the world; it's designed to make them look great, people who work for them are ok, and people who don't work are scum.

Most people would work for their money on three conditions, A) That there are jobs available, B) That the job isn't demeaning to human dignity, and C) That the wage rate will actually make a difference within a reasonable amount of hours worked. Mind you, it's more than possible for all of these things to be true and have a working society, but it's not going to stem from a free-market or laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[Mach]

My issue is that this has nothing to do with Utopianism, which has never been implemented. Utopianism =/= Socialism, they aren't the same thing. Utopianism is just one possible answer to some of our problems.

I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you mentioned utopianism. I googled it and this is the definition that showed up.

u·to·pi·an·ism also U·to·pi·an·ism (y-tp--nzm)
n.The ideals or principles of a utopian; idealistic and impractical social theory.

Would we even really need to debate the virtues of implementing a, by definition, idealistic and impractical social theory? Come on, I assumed you meant utopian-esque, you know, realistic flavored with the impractical!

My fear for the current system is that it will fail catastrophically, not gradually; I compare it to a ponzi scheme, which always look great until people are being arrested on the 10 O'clock news. I can't have evidence for an economic collapse that hasn't happened yet, but I can propose that it's likely.

Then you'd have evidence for this "high probability of collapse". You can't escape the lack of evidence with probability. Scientists who make probability predictions still are required to use evidence to back their claims if they intend to be taken seriously, for good reason. I can assure you that if anything fails it's due to finance, and that's largely a government creation, not a capitalist one.

But, there is a real mistake in thinking that the free market is the best way to reward efficiency or new ideas; the best way to profit in capitalism is to cheat.

First, it's the only practical and effective way, both in theory and in practice. Second, that's why libertarians are very clear that preventing fraud, i.e. cheat, is one of the two pillars of a proper use of government. If government is too busy playing politics and grabbing money for themselves, expanding power, their efforts in ensuring fraud prevention become diluted. That written, we have one of the least corrupt economies in the world, throughout human history. So again if you compare this outstanding success to "nothing", you can claim it's terrible. But when compared to the rest of the world/history, it's ridiculously awesome.

Even when you adjust for the inflation rate, the top earners of America are skyrocketing, where the rest of us are pretty much stagnant.

The rest of us? You can become a top income earner, and take part in that "skyrocketing". And stagnant on income, what's wrong with that? Quality of life continues to increase regardless. Instead of a B&W TV and a rotary phone, people have smartphones and the internet and have far, far greater "value" as a result. You don't adjust for that do you...

But, that doesn't mean I should turn a blind eye to the problems around me.

The only problems I've seen written here are problems in your reasoning. Which is OK, but to think you know the economies problems and the solutions given what you've written, I have to urge some humility.

Utopianism is dependent on a more efficient form of government, ideally run by computers. Socialism fails because of inefficient government, Capitalism survives besides an inefficient government, Utopianism succeeds by creating an efficient government. (In theory, since there hasn't been one yet.)

Run by computers? I don't know what's more outlandish, that or imagep's approval of it

Well, when we achieve singularity, I'm in for the ride. Until then, we need to work for a living and continue to fight to protect our freedoms.

 

[Sisyphus]

1. Minimum wage shouldn't be a living wage. Minimum wage is for teenagers, part time workers, old retired folk, and people who are mentally/physically challenged.

2. So shy of increasing minimum wage (which I do support to an extent, but for other reasons), how do you "force" companies to pay a living wage? How can you force a company to hire anyone at all? Or even to be in business?

3. The incentive for climbing out of poverty should be having an income, and not starving to death. It would be helpful if that income wasn't taxed (withholdings or income taxes), at least until that income becomes exceptionally large.

the fear of starving is quite a good motivator, and when we simply give people money, or food stamps, we have taken away their motivation to do for themselves.

But otherwise, I totally get what you are saying.

1. It needs to be, since dead men flip no burgers. Moreover, FDR, whose Admin created the wage minimum, said, rightly so, that no company that does not pay a living wage has a right to exist in this country. And here's why: a business needs customers with the power to purchase more than mere subsistence-level products and services. So paying a mere subsistence level while relying on the workers of companies that pay a living wage, makes that business parasitical, which lowers the value of our middle class, which is the life blood of all American businesses. And as an aside, the minimum wage worker you characterize as young/old/challenged, bears no resemblance to the actual demographic of our worker making minimum wage or slightly above it.

2. The minimum wage is exactly how we "force" higher pay; or what we in fact do, which is protect markets from shrinking to a level that workers and businesses suffer from too little economic activity. Retailers and Fast Food have competition, and of course cannot compete if they and they alone raise wages substantially. They need a policy that raises wage across the board, offsetting their higher pay with demand that covers the added cost. So Walmart is not the bad guy, nor are McDonald's franchises. It's our fault for not mandating a wage that sustains our vital middle class.

3. Absurd. You think people in Darfur and Sierra Leone lack incentive to climb out of abject poverty? Or is their environment such that not all the effort in the world yields the reward workers do here thanks to our middle class? (tip: the latter). So until we create an environment that rewards effort sufficiently to sustain our markets, we'll continue to have the higher unemployment and anemic GDP growth we do today, and have had for most of this century.

 

[imagep]

What problems might those be and how will a progressive tax fix them? Really rich people don't work for wages. Then tend to own companies.

Great point. Thats part of the reason that all income should be taxed identically, whether it be from a job, or from capital gains. It's not actually the top income tax bracket rate that needs to be raised to make our system more progressive, simply doing away with the special deals that the rich get, like the discount rate of capital gains, that could make our tax system more progressive.

 

[imagep]

It seems we are moving towards socialism, as Marx once predicted (he stated that socialism is only possible in a technically advanced country, not an agrarian one).

Why do you say that? Most of the types of things that many would call "socialism" or at least "socialistic", were established decades ago, and we have actually been moving away from that.

Welfare was reduced and limited during the 1990's and hasn't been expanded since.

Our income tax system has gradually become less progressive over the course of the last 80 years.

State and local governments have been cutting back spending like crazy ever since 2008, and even the federal government is shedding jobs.

Some claim that the government takeover of GM was socialism in progress, but the reality is that it was an emergency measure needed to save jobs, and the government has been giving control of GM back to the private sector by selling GM stock. Soon, GM will be totally private again.

 

[douglas]

I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you mentioned utopianism. I googled it and this is the definition that showed up.

Would we even really need to debate the virtues of implementing a, by definition, idealistic and impractical social theory? Come on, I assumed you meant utopian-esque, you know, realistic flavored with the impractical!

The definition from a dictionary doesn't undo my idea. If that was the way it worked, politicians would just carry dictionaries everywhere they go. Part of the problem is with the word "Utopia", which stems from two greek words, eu-topos (a good place) and ou-topos (no place). When they are translated to old english they became eutopia and utopia. In modern English, they've become the same word and are both spelled as "utopia". But, I really don't care what Marriam-Webster has to say on the issue. Although no label is perfect to describe my proposal, the closest umbrella-term for this idea would be Technological Utopianism; Technological utopianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a dozen groups working towards there own idea of technological Utopianism, with one of the best known groups being The Venus Project. The Venus Project

Then you'd have evidence for this "high probability of collapse". You can't escape the lack of evidence with probability. Scientists who make probability predictions still are required to use evidence to back their claims if they intend to be taken seriously, for good reason. I can assure you that if anything fails it's due to finance, and that's largely a government creation, not a capitalist one.

I agree that it will be a government problem, but they are just reacting to the market. The government and the market are inseparably connected.

On the issue of evidence for the impending collapse of our economy, neither I nor anyone can give you any specifics. All I can say is that the wage disparity, unemployment rate, and national debt, all have a positive correlation with an increasing chance of economic collapse. The exact function is still unknown, especially since it must contain a "human" variable and must have an unknown lead in period; but there is a definite correlation. The last time we had wage inequality and unemployment this high, it was the lead in to the Great Depression. Can I "prove" that we're going towards another depression? No, of course not. But, I'm saying that it "seems" likely based on historical patterns. The exact opposite happens when inequality goes down; Check out the Great Compression, which is one of the more significant patterns I'm referring to. Great Compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First, it's the only practical and effective way, both in theory and in practice. Second, that's why libertarians are very clear that preventing fraud, i.e. cheat, is one of the two pillars of a proper use of government. If government is too busy playing politics and grabbing money for themselves, expanding power, their efforts in ensuring fraud prevention become diluted. That written, we have one of the least corrupt economies in the world, throughout human history. So again if you compare this outstanding success to "nothing", you can claim it's terrible. But when compared to the rest of the world/history, it's ridiculously awesome.

I'd have no problem with government if I thought a fair one was possible. The second that government service provides a means to make money, it will be corrupted. Most of our corruption is "legal"; campaign contributions, no-bid contracts and private auctions, zoning for profit, etc. Corruption doesn't have to mean bribery. There are plenty of people that would argue that we do have the most corrupt government in the world. (I am not typically one of them, but any corruption is bad enough for me.) The problem that I have with the free-market is that it does not promote equal wages or employment. The rules of the game are the same whether you have Big Government or no government; make the most amount of money for doing the least amount of work. Replacing an employee with a machine will always be profitable, paying your workers less will always be profitable, creating false demand for a sub-standard product is always profitable. Wage inequality is directly connected to unemployment and low economic activity; if you reduce inequalities, you increase the amount of available jobs. The period that we are in right now, the Great Divergence, has indicated this. Great Divergence (inequality) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Notice that we were in a divergence just before the Great Depression)

The rest of us? You can become a top income earner, and take part in that "skyrocketing". And stagnant on income, what's wrong with that? Quality of life continues to increase regardless. Instead of a B&W TV and a rotary phone, people have smartphones and the internet and have far, far greater "value" as a result. You don't adjust for that do you...

The only problems I've seen written here are problems in your reasoning. Which is OK, but to think you know the economies problems and the solutions given what you've written, I have to urge some humility.

This is the "skyrocketing" I wrote about.


When there are only 10 jobs and 100 people apply, 90 walk home. Until there is an actual path to becoming wealthy, that's not really a valid argument. It's a lottery, nothing more; you might as well have told me to go out and play scratch-offs. (I don't play the lotto, it's a tax for people who failed math.)

That we have a greater quality of life is perfectly true, but that is a product of technology not the free market. Quality of life was absurdly low during the industrial revolution, even though it was a period of great economic progress.

Run by computers? I don't know what's more outlandish, that or imagep's approval of it

Well, when we achieve singularity, I'm in for the ride. Until then, we need to work for a living and continue to fight to protect our freedoms.

Where automation is a mixed blessing/curse in the market, there is no reason to keep paying government employees for nothing. If we could make a DMV bot, it'd probably be faster, cheaper, and more cheerful than an actual DMV employee. Replacing the upper branches of government isn't the biggest issue right now, but we need to do more to limit their corruptibility.

Oh, and here's a funny cartoon on the progressive tax. (I'm neither for nor against Obama, I didn't draw this)

 

[Ahlevah]

Great point. Thats part of the reason that all income should be taxed identically, whether it be from a job, or from capital gains. It's not actually the top income tax bracket rate that needs to be raised to make our system more progressive, simply doing away with the special deals that the rich get, like the discount rate of capital gains, that could make our tax system more progressive.

The problem with that idea is if you tax capital heavily then why would anyone invest here? We already see corporations refusing to repatriate almost $2 trillion in retained earnings. Why would they ever invest it here if the U.S. is going to tax the dog piss out of it?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-companies-overseas-earnings-hit-record-1-9-185750919.html

 

[Ahlevah]

I propose that if Executive pay and Corporate derived income was set to a reasonable ratio of minimum wage (some propose 20:1), we could employ every American and simultaneously raise the median wage; Unemployment and Low Wages are inversely proportional to income disparity. Even if we can't agree on an Executive pay cap, I think we can all agree on more regulation over golden parachutes.

So someone who runs a multi-billion dollar business and works 70-plus hours per week is supposed to make no more than 20-times the lowest paid worker? That will never fly, my friend. I mean, who do we want to use as a role model? France or Singapore?

Can The Last Taxpayer Leaving France Please Turn Out The Lights? - Forbes