whats your solution for poverty

[dnsmith]

Catawba, I suspect you would have felt right at home with the anarchists of the Occupy Wall Street people.

 

[dnsmith]

It really doesn't matter who causes the concentration or why it is caused.

What does matter is the fact that in an otherwise stable economy, when one group receives a larger share of income, other groups receive less. The more that income and wealth become concentrated in the hands of a few, to the extent that they have excess (more money than they desire to spend, which is my definition of "rich"), then others have less than they desire to spend, and thus potential sales and production are reduced. Anytime that something reduces production, then a society will not become as rich as it otherwise would have.

And it's not necessarily the fact that some people make more than others that causes the problem. That's probably an economic necessity. It's the extent of the difference, and the amount of wealth that pools that harms our economy. So let's say that the current trend is for the median worker to lose just a tiny fraction of his income a year, and for the top 1% to reap the rewards of all income growth, and thus to reap the rewards of all increase in wealth. Chart wealth accumulation and income of the top 1% and the 99% over an infinite time span, eventually all wealth and income would have accumulated with the 1%, leaving the 99% with absolutely nothing but extreme poverty. Since most people in the 1% already have all the income and wealth that they wish to spend, this further income and wealth accumulation doesn't benefit them at all, yet it is to the detriment of the 99%. Is that the society that we really want to create?

Government exists for whatever purpose that it's leaders decide that it should exist for. In a democracy, or even a representative democracy existing in the framework of a republic, the leaders of government are the people. We get to decide what power and function that government has. We get to decide what sort of economy that we have. If we chose to have vast poverty of the 99% and incredible wealth of the 1%, then so be it. But if we chose for everyone who is willing to work to have the opportunity to have a nice lifestyle, even if it is at the expense of the rich not having massive holdings that don't personally benefit themselves outside of being like monopoly money or points in a basketball game, then "we, the people" have the right and the power to have a government that will mold our economy into anything that we want it to be.

Where I disagree with you is, the one does not distract from the other.

 

[dnsmith]

That's the theory anyhow. It sounds good on the surface, to people who don't understand that wages, like all products, are determined by a combination of negotiating power and the law of supply and demand, not productivity.

Every day, I take a pill that keeps my blood pressure in check, and thus I would suggest that it is exceptionally productive. It costs me $4 a month. I take another pill that helps me to reduce my triglycerieds, it costs me $135/mth. I would think that both pills are equally productive and valuable to my health, yet there is a huge difference in price. The difference has nothing to do with productivity, or even the manufacturing cost of the pills, it has everything to do with the fact that one pill is available from multiple producers who have to compete based upon price since there is no patent on the pill, the other pill is only made by one manufacturer, thus the manufacturer of that more expensive pill has more negotiating power.

In the screen printing department of my company, I pay my shirt folder $10/hr, and my screen print setup guy $14/hr. They are both necessary positions, I can't print shirts without either one of them and they and equally valuable to me and equally productive, but people with setup skills are less common that people who can fold shirts, thus I have to pay my setup guy more money to keep him. He had more negotiating power than the shirt folder.

People who make larger salaries generally have more negotiating power than people who have lower salaries, regardless of productivity. Negotiating power can exist for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with productivity. It can be skill based, or appearance based (like a model), or it can be based upon celebrity, or who one knows.

I notice that you choose to pay the person who produces more profits for your company more money that he who does not. Thus in fact even in your example to the contrary you are touting the more productive a worker/position is, the more you pay him. I don't neglect market forces on supply and demand of the labor force but it all boils done to after every thing is said and done (enough cliches?) he who makes more money for the company tends to make more money. That was the basis for my facility and I suspect whether you know it or not it is the basis for most facilities.

 

[imagep]

Where I disagree with you is, the one does not distract from the other.

It actually does:

When the share of income going to the 1% increases, the share of income going to most everyone else decreases, and of course it also works in the reverse.

Our economy is fairly stable even though we do have occasional bubbles and recessions. When any one group starts to get a larger percent of our production, it's a mathematical necessity that others will get less.

 

[imagep]

I notice that you choose to pay the person who produces more profits for your company more money that he who does not. Thus in fact even in your example to the contrary you are touting the more productive a worker/position is, the more you pay him. I don't neglect market forces on supply and demand of the labor force but it all boils done to after every thing is said and done (enough cliches?) he who makes more money for the company tends to make more money. That was the basis for my facility and I suspect whether you know it or not it is the basis for most facilities.

Both of those individuals are necessary for my production line to work correctly, thus they are equally valuable. No point in having someone to setup the equipment, if the product never gets boxed. And we can't box product without having the setup guy. Every single position in my company is equally necessary, and thus equally productive. The difference in pay is not based upon productivity of different jobs (although obviously there may be differences in productivity between different workers), it's based upon how difficult it is to locate or train people to do a job. People with more rare skills get paid more because they have more negotiating power, not because those rare skills are always more productive.

 

[imagep]

Distribution of a fixed quantity is ALWAYS a zero sum game.

Granted, quantities can change, but for any particular span of time, the quantity is what it is, and no one particular individual really makes a significant difference in productivity. Even when quantities (of production) do change, the distribution of a higher or lower percent of that increase or decrease in productivity still directly and inversely effects the distribution of that change in production to another group.

So let's say that an individual company increases it's profit by a million bucks. If the CEO gets a raise of two million, then either the owners or the workers necessarally get less than they would have if the CEO didn't get such a large raise. Now you might say that the CEO deserved a big raise because the increase in profit is proof that he is a good CEO. On the surface that seems to make sense, but regardless of how much money a company makes or loses, when one person or group gets a larger percent of that distribution than another, it still effects how much someone else gets.

Income distribution IS a zero sum game, even if the quantity varies.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Distribution of a fixed quantity is ALWAYS a zero sum game.

Granted, quantities can change, but for any particular span of time, the quantity is what it is, and no one particular individual really makes a significant difference in productivity. Even when quantities (of production) do change, the distribution of a higher or lower percent of that increase or decrease in productivity still directly and inversely effects the distribution of that change in production to another group.

So let's say that an individual company increases it's profit by a million bucks. If the CEO gets a raise of two million, then either the owners or the workers necessarally get less than they would have if the CEO didn't get such a large raise. Now you might say that the CEO deserved a big raise because the increase in profit is proof that he is a good CEO. On the surface that seems to make sense, but regardless of how much money a company makes or loses, when one person or group gets a larger percent of that distribution than another, it still effects how much someone else gets.

Income distribution IS a zero sum game, even if the quantity varies.

There is no "fixed quantity" in business. It's always variable. Do you really own a business?

 

[imagep]

There is no "fixed quantity" in business. It's always variable. Do you really own a business?

Even if the quantity does vary, for whatever quantity that it happens to be, the distribution of that quantity is still a zero sum game.

So let's say that I have 10 cookies and 10 children to distribute them to. The obvious "fair" distribution would be one cookie each.

Now let's say that the quantity of cookies that I have increases two 20 cookies. If I distribute 100% of the increase in the number of cookies to just one person, then that particular distribution effected the number of cookies that everyone else could have had if I had distributed them equally, or in some other fashion. It doesn't particularly matter that the quantity changed, what mattered to those children is how I distributed the cookies.

And yes, I really own a business. A very small one, nothing impressive and not particularly profitable, but a business indeed.

 

[dnsmith]

Distribution of a fixed quantity is ALWAYS a zero sum game.

What fixed quantity? Surely you are not talking about wealth?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Even if the quantity does vary, for whatever quantity that it happens to be, the distribution of that quantity is still a zero sum game.

So let's say that I have 10 cookies and 10 children to distribute them to. The obvious "fair" distribution would be one cookie each.

Now let's say that the quantity of cookies that I have increases two 20 cookies. If I distribute 100% of the increase in the number of cookies to just one person, then that particular distribution effected the number of cookies that everyone else could have had if I had distributed them equally, or in some other fashion. It doesn't particularly matter that the quantity changed, what mattered to those children is how I distributed the cookies.

No economy is a box of cookies...

 

[cannuck]

No economy is a box of cookies...

No, but this one sure is a bag of shyte.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No, but this one sure is a bag of shyte.

I can't disagree with that...

 

[imagep]

What fixed quantity? Surely you are not talking about wealth?

During any particular span of time, even wealth is fixed.

Like up how much wealth that a particular corporation had in 2003. Now look it up again. It didn't change did it?

If you read the rest of my posts, you will see that I admit that quantities can change. But even when they do change, the particular distribution is still a zero sum game. The real life historic chart of income distribution that I posted a few posts ago does a great job to illustrate this. If one person or group get's a larger percentage of something, regardless of if the amount of that something changes, it still directly effects how much another person or group gets.

 

[imagep]

No economy is a box of cookies...

While there may be different size economies, just like there may be a different number of cookies in a box, regardless of the size of the economy, or box of cookies, if one person gets a larger or smaller percent of the economy or percent of cookies, it effects how much someone else gets.

 

[imagep]

No, but this one sure is a bag of shyte.

Even with shyte, regardless of the size of the poo, if one person gets a larger or smaller percent of the turd, mathmatically someone is effected.


Same with peanuts, or bottles of hairspray, or cars, or anything else which does not have a limitless supply. The supply of what we produce is limited the the quantity that we produce. We can't distribute more or less than we produce, distribution, no matter how it is distributed, always equals production.

Now granted that if we lived in a world where everyone personally produced whatever they have, and they get to keep everything that they produce, and didn't trade with others, then the amount that one individual kept wouldn't be dependent on how many that another produced or kept. But we haven't lived in that type of economy in a long long time. In the current modern economy, where our total wealth is determined by our total production, and most of us work for someone else, it doesn't work like it did back in caveman days. How wealthy we individually become largely depends on how much we produce in aggregate, and the forces that shape the distribution of what we make in aggregate.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

While there may be different size economies, just like there may be a different number of cookies in a box, regardless of the size of the economy, or box of cookies, if one person gets a larger or smaller percent of the economy or percent of cookies, it effects how much someone else gets.

No, it doesn't, as economies are dynamic not static, and you generally are rewarded for what you produce.

 

[imagep]

No, it doesn't, as economies are dynamic not static, and you generally are rewarded for what you produce.

I wish that people were directly rewarded for what they produce, no more and no less. In reality, that's not how people are rewarded. In most cases, compensation is determined by factors other than production. Factors like supply and demand, and negotiating power.

So you might have two actors, who are equal in all ways, except that one, for whatever reason, is a bigger celebrity than the other (maybe one is a drama queen who is constantly on the news for getting arrested for smoking dope in public). The one with the most celebrity is typically going to be better paid, even if they do the exact same job, equally.

Now let's say that a company needs to hire to highly skilled workers immediately. they have two equally qualified applicants, but one applicant has been out of work for a while and his home is near foreclosure, and the other is currently working at a good salary for another company and has no pressing financial issues. The company hires both of them because they are equally qualified, but unless the salary is somehow fixed and non-negotiable, that guy who was starving isn't going to be in a good negotiating position and is highly likely to be offered a low salary and is highly likely to accept that low salary.

Unless one is self employed, and often not even then, productivity is a very small factor in determining how much of our aggregate production that any one particular individual receives.

 

[American]

The biggest obstacle to adopting the best ideas from Europe in the USA is that in general, the people of European countries think of everyone in their country as part of "them" and don't resent helping them,. (sadly, that is changing with increased immigration in those countries) In the USA, much of the resistance to helping the poor is that they are considered as "others" because of their race and/or nationality.

"Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.""

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atwater is an idiot.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I wish that people were directly rewarded for what they produce, no more and no less. In reality, that's not how people are rewarded. In most cases, compensation is determined by factors other than production. Factors like supply and demand, and negotiating power.

So you might have two actors, who are equal in all ways, except that one, for whatever reason, is a bigger celebrity than the other (maybe one is a drama queen who is constantly on the news for getting arrested for smoking dope in public). The one with the most celebrity is typically going to be better paid, even if they do the exact same job, equally.

Now let's say that a company needs to hire to highly skilled workers immediately. they have to equally qualified applicants, but one applicant has been out of work for a while and his home is near foreclosure, and the other is currently working at a good salary for another company and has no pressing financial issues. The company hires both of them because they are equally qualified, but unless the salary is somehow fixed and non-negotiable, that guy who was starving isn't going to be in a good negotiating position and is highly likely to be offered a low salary and is highly likely to accept that low salary.

Unless one is self employed, and often not even then, productivity is a very small factor in determining how much of our aggregate production that any one particular individual receives.

How much should individuals be rewarded for no production?

 

[imagep]

How much should individuals be rewarded for no production?

Obviously nothing.

So if what you are asking is if I believe that we should "rob from the productive to give to the non-productive", the answer is a firm "no". I am totally against all forms of means tested welfare.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Obviously nothing.

So if what you are asking is if I believe that we should "rob from the productive to give to the non-productive", the answer is a firm "no". I am totally against all forms of means tested welfare.

Yet we do just this. Is it time to stop?

 

[imagep]

Yet we do just this. Is it time to stop?

Of course it is. We should have never began that nonsense in the first place.

Somehow I get this feeling that you think that I am the liberal that your "lean" would indicate that you claim to be. I'm neither conservative or liberal, even though on some particular issues, to people who disagree with me, I may seem to lean one way or the other. I've actually been accused of being a socialist and on the far right in the same thread. I'm an independent, that means that I am allowed to think for myself and I don't have to buy into any party or ideological nonsense.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Of course it is. We should have never began that nonsense in the first place.

Somehow I get this feeling that you think that I am the liberal that your "lean" would indicate that you claim to be. I'm neither conservative or liberal, even though on some particular issues, to people who disagree with me, I may seem to lean one way or the other. I've actually been accused of being a socialist and on the far right in the same thread. I'm an independent, that means that I am allowed to think for myself and I don't have to buy into any party or ideological nonsense.

What a refreshing response. I do not claim, or lean, to be anything I am not, and like you, I receive criticism with the positions I hold from all sides. The only issue I'm having is with your economic viewpoints...

 

[imagep]

What a refreshing response. I do not claim, or lean, to be anything I am not, and like you, I receive criticism with the positions I hold from all sides. The only issue I'm having is with your economic viewpoints...

Ya, I understand. Learning the reality about economics can be tough when most people on both sides have been brainwashed with the bullcrap of partisan politics for so long.

 

[Catawba]

I disagree! IOW you have found nothing to refute it.

The reality of the nature of supply and demand refutes it.