Is the frame "Income Inequality" gonna fly?

[fromderinside]

Look at all the seats the Democrats have picked up since OWS started.

Must be doing something right.

How many republican eats in blue areas are up for vote in 2016?

 

[dismal]

Let us not confuse concern over income inequality and the Democratic party. Those are two separate things.

That's a fair point, but it puts a rather negative answer on the OP question as well.

If the frame's not going to fly with the Democrats the frame doesn't look to be flying high any time soon.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Let us not confuse concern over income inequality and the Democratic party. Those are two separate things.

That's a fair point, but it puts a rather negative answer on the OP question as well.

If the frame's not going to fly with the Democrats the frame doesn't look to be flying high any time soon.

Jeb Bush would disagree with you.

 

[NobleSavage]

Look at all the seats the Democrats have picked up since OWS started.

Must be doing something right.

It's pretty common for the President's Party to lose seats in Congress during a midterm. Political Scientists have even measured this effect. The President isn't running and all things being equal, it's a good strategy to run against the Prez.

 

[untermensche]

Look at all the seats the Democrats have picked up since OWS started.

Must be doing something right.

The Democrats have not embraced OWS nor proposed legislation that could be seen as appeasement to OWS.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Look at all the seats the Democrats have picked up since OWS started.

Must be doing something right.

The Democrats have not embraced OWS nor proposed legislation that could be seen as appeasement to OWS.

This is true. Did anyone see Nancy Pelosi marching in the streets demanding debt relief and Wall Street Prosecutions? Uh, no.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

And after say you that, show this

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except this has been an ongoing issue for the last 30 or so years. The parties go back and forth and how much rhetoric is paid to this issue goes up and down. I'm up for minimum wage going to a million dollars an hour that way everyone can be a millionaire and live in a mansion.

 

[NobleSavage]

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

You want to clarify the point I bolded?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except this has been an ongoing issue for the last 30 or so years. The parties go back and forth and how much rhetoric is paid to this issue goes up and down. I'm up for minimum wage going to a million dollars an hour that way everyone can be a millionaire and live in a mansion.

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

You want to clarify the point I bolded?

That people demonize what people receive on welfare, especially the working poor.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

You want to clarify the point I bolded?

That people demonize what people receive on welfare, especially the working poor.

And you are making the bad assumption that creating the living wage won't hurt the people that need it. If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

You want to clarify the point I bolded?

That people demonize what people receive on welfare, especially the working poor.

And you are making the bad assumption that creating the living wage won't hurt the people that need it.

Services and goods will go up in price, that was already stated. The big bill items would be less affected.

If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

Lets make the same argument with radiation treatment and cancer.

 

[dismal]

The Democrats have not embraced OWS nor proposed legislation that could be seen as appeasement to OWS.

This is true. Did anyone see Nancy Pelosi marching in the streets demanding debt relief and Wall Street Prosecutions? Uh, no.

tip: Nancy Pelosi is rich.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Lets make the same argument with radiation treatment and cancer.

Not sure your point there.

As we've seen over the decades, and the reason that wages stay flat is that prices are in direct proportion to the costs going into them, so as you raise the costs to make the products, the price goes up in a direct relationship. So all the expenses that the person who now makes a living wage prices will adjust to be where they were. It's how fast and who gets hurt in the time it takes to equalize is the question.

 

[Axulus]

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

So you are essentially proposing the equivalent of a tax on low cost goods and services (since such prices will tend to rise due to higher labor costs), which are disproportionately paid for by the poor, and the equivalent of a tax on hiring low wage workers, which will also disproportionately affect the poor, instead of just paying it out of the general pool of tax collections?

Isn't that kind of like robbing Peter to pay Paul? Seems like a very poorly thought out strategy.

 

[ksen]

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

I can't wait until he breaks out the old "If they want to pay a living wage they should just start their own businesses and pay the employees whatever they want to."

That one's awesome too.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

I can't wait until he breaks out the old "If they want to pay a living wage they should just start their own businesses and pay the employees whatever they want to."

That one's awesome too.

You mean the belief that since CostCo runs their business the way they do every other business out there can copy it?

 

[ksen]

And you are making the bad assumption that creating the living wage won't hurt the people that need it.

Well, where's your evidence that a living wage of $10-$15/hr will hurt the people that need it?

I mean ballooning CEO pay packages hasn't seemed to hurt the CEO market much at all.

If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount-with-inflation/

The MW in 2013 dollars back in the mid to late 1960s was almost $11/hr. Why is it that that level of MW was able to be dealt with by businesses over 50 years ago but modern businesses won't be able to as well?

I suspect it has something to do with "shareholder value" not being a thing 50 years ago like it is today.

 

[SimpleDon]

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

You want to clarify the point I bolded?

That people demonize what people receive on welfare, especially the working poor.

And you are making the bad assumption that creating the living wage won't hurt the people that need it. If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

That is ridiculous. We aren't talking about increasing wages to increase costs and there is no reason that increasing wages slowly over time would have any harmful effects to employment. What we are talking about is increasing wages and cutting profits, that is all. Increasing the amount of income that goes to the 99% by decreasing the amount of income that goes as profits to the 1%.

Profits and wages are both costs of production. We simply want more money to go to wages and less to go to profits. All of the inflation that we have had since 2009 has been due to increased profits.