Minimum wage hypocrisy

[arkirk]

You think you have a small enough amount that nothing would be taken. If you look at the world's population, though, that's not the case.

We are not trying to take care of the world's poor now by intentionally boosting the incomes of the wealthy. We are not even taking care of the poor in our country. Why do you think that it is our responsibility to take care of the world's poor if we decide to take care of the poor in this country?

I noted that Loren recoiled at the notion of redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is redistribution and it is happening now. It really is not a matter of whether or not there will be redistribution but the direction I suggest for that redistribution that bothers him. He treats my suggestion as one that would be unguided and unheeding of overriding social needs...that we would just take a big preemptive knife and start cutting the rich people's pies up. Then, he leans toward me and in a tone of big brotherliness tells me that I better watch my thoughts...someone might take a piece of my pie.

Economic news is data on redistribution of wealth and is ongoing. It is not a matter of whether wealth will be redistributed, but how it is currently being redistributed. He accepts this as simply a matter of fact that cannot be adjusted for fairness. Even in his Utopian capitalist system, it has been grossly redistributed in favor of a limited number of our population. This redistribution from the general population and the commons took a sharp right turn in the 80's toward a very unsustainable, very unfair condition. That is what we have today within our country. Further, this condition is set to continue in the Stock Market and financial markets.

In the past, we have made minor adjustments to our method of wealth distribution on several occasions when this method led to social breakdowns...(the early 30's for example). Adjustments were made based on the state of our knowledge at that time and while we continued to unduly harm our environment, there became a temporary improvement in the mechanisms of wealth distribution.

This redistribution of wealth is what the economy is all about. It is an ongoing process and most economists believe that it should be a fluid flow of wealth through a system that operates continuously. Big banks and the filthy rich put the brakes on this system when they become worried that somebody might take some of their pie away. The problem becomes aggravated when everybody regards things in this narrow, very selfish manner. Our media has promoted this frame of mind in almost all of our population and many of the poorer people among us cannot imagine an easing in their economic condition without winning some sort of lottery. These are the conditions that Loren wishes to extend. I think this are wrong thinking and wrong acting if our goal is a civil society that honors human rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think you have a small enough amount that nothing would be taken. If you look at the world's population, though, that's not the case.

We are not trying to take care of the world's poor now by intentionally boosting the incomes of the wealthy. We are not even taking care of the poor in our country. Why do you think that it is our responsibility to take care of the world's poor if we decide to take care of the poor in this country?

If redistribution is the right approach then why does it not apply to everyone?

 

[arkirk]

We are not trying to take care of the world's poor now by intentionally boosting the incomes of the wealthy. We are not even taking care of the poor in our country. Why do you think that it is our responsibility to take care of the world's poor if we decide to take care of the poor in this country?

If redistribution is the right approach then why does it not apply to everyone?

Ultimately it does, Loren. The redistribution is ongoing this very minute....just in the wrong direction. When the direction changes, if it changes, it will apply to everybody. What you are missing is that redistribution of wealth has just occurred with the largest transfer of wealth ever from people of color in the U.S. during the last housing bubble. You ignore that the system is constantly redistributing wealth upward. This is a dead end street.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If redistribution is the right approach then why does it not apply to everyone?

Ultimately it does, Loren. The redistribution is ongoing this very minute....just in the wrong direction. When the direction changes, if it changes, it will apply to everybody. What you are missing is that redistribution of wealth has just occurred with the largest transfer of wealth ever from people of color in the U.S. during the last housing bubble. You ignore that the system is constantly redistributing wealth upward. This is a dead end street.

You're assuming a deliberate redistribution as opposed to money simply going to those who take the long view.

 

[+or-1]

Re "redistributing wealth," less than forty years ago the average CEO made about forty dollars for each dollar the average worker made. today, it's more like four hundred. The wealth has been redistributed, just not in most of our favor. What I can't understand is why the one percenters can't look at the world around them and see the ultimate outcome of such a practice. More intelligent people would understand that a healthy economy supported by a healthy and solvent middle class is a much more sustainable situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Re "redistributing wealth," less than forty years ago the average CEO made about forty dollars for each dollar the average worker made. today, it's more like four hundred. The wealth has been redistributed, just not in most of our favor. What I can't understand is why the one percenters can't look at the world around them and see the ultimate outcome of such a practice. More intelligent people would understand that a healthy economy supported by a healthy and solvent middle class is a much more sustainable situation.

Merger mania. We now have fewer, larger companies. A lot of the lower-wage CEOs aren't CEOs anymore.

 

[fromderinside]

Re "redistributing wealth," less than forty years ago the average CEO made about forty dollars for each dollar the average worker made. today, it's more like four hundred. The wealth has been redistributed, just not in most of our favor. What I can't understand is why the one percenters can't look at the world around them and see the ultimate outcome of such a practice. More intelligent people would understand that a healthy economy supported by a healthy and solvent middle class is a much more sustainable situation.

Merger mania. We now have fewer, larger companies. A lot of the lower-wage CEOs aren't CEOs anymore.

...a lot of higher wage employees aren't employees any more and the company has moved off shore so it can avoid responsibility for providing its share of costs for employee safety net expenses.

 

[arkirk]

Ultimately it does, Loren. The redistribution is ongoing this very minute....just in the wrong direction. When the direction changes, if it changes, it will apply to everybody. What you are missing is that redistribution of wealth has just occurred with the largest transfer of wealth ever from people of color in the U.S. during the last housing bubble. You ignore that the system is constantly redistributing wealth upward. This is a dead end street.

You're assuming a deliberate redistribution as opposed to money simply going to those who take the long view.

There is NO LEGITIMATE "LONG VIEW" when it comes to sub prime mortgages. That was carefully plastered over by the sales efforts in these mortgages. It was deliberate and criminal and should have been prosecuted. It destroyed the city of Detroit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming a deliberate redistribution as opposed to money simply going to those who take the long view.

There is NO LEGITIMATE "LONG VIEW" when it comes to sub prime mortgages. That was carefully plastered over by the sales efforts in these mortgages. It was deliberate and criminal and should have been prosecuted. It destroyed the city of Detroit.

Subprime mortgages weren't about redistribution.

If anything they took from the well to do and gave the money to the less well to do.

 

[Togo]

There is NO LEGITIMATE "LONG VIEW" when it comes to sub prime mortgages. That was carefully plastered over by the sales efforts in these mortgages. It was deliberate and criminal and should have been prosecuted. It destroyed the city of Detroit.

Subprime mortgages weren't about redistribution.

If anything they took from the well to do and gave the money to the less well to do.

Of course it was. It was about buying property now and getting poor people to pay for it in instalments. The end result was that the people with money now would get even more money, while poor people would get an asset that had emotional connotations to them but was of dubious long-term value as an investment. Meanwhile you sell your stake in the whole affair to a third party who doesn't really understand what you're doing, and walk away from the whole thing with a massive short-term profit.

It worked the way most market scams work - by giving the cash to the rich class, and leaving the customer with the risk exposure to the asset.

 

[ksen]

If you exclude the 10% of the top earners the wages of the remaining 90% of earners has stayed the same or even gone down in real terms. It is redistribution to the wealthy. How can anyone justify this?

That's easy. Redistributing upwards rewards the righteous and good. Redistributing downwards rewards the unrighteous and evil.

I am continually amazed at how many atheists buy into a hyper-protestant work ethic.

 

[ksen]

Ultimately it does, Loren. The redistribution is ongoing this very minute....just in the wrong direction. When the direction changes, if it changes, it will apply to everybody. What you are missing is that redistribution of wealth has just occurred with the largest transfer of wealth ever from people of color in the U.S. during the last housing bubble. You ignore that the system is constantly redistributing wealth upward. This is a dead end street.

You're assuming a deliberate redistribution as opposed to money simply going to those who take the long view.

See? Upward distribution is Holy and Just.

 

[ksen]

There is NO LEGITIMATE "LONG VIEW" when it comes to sub prime mortgages. That was carefully plastered over by the sales efforts in these mortgages. It was deliberate and criminal and should have been prosecuted. It destroyed the city of Detroit.

Subprime mortgages weren't about redistribution.

If anything they took from the well to do and gave the money to the less well to do.

Sure, which is why the less well to do lost their homes and most likely their livelihoods while the well to do suffered a small short term loss and recovered quickly to even higher levels of wealth while keeping their homes and livelihoods.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Subprime mortgages weren't about redistribution.

If anything they took from the well to do and gave the money to the less well to do.

Of course it was. It was about buying property now and getting poor people to pay for it in instalments. The end result was that the people with money now would get even more money, while poor people would get an asset that had emotional connotations to them but was of dubious long-term value as an investment. Meanwhile you sell your stake in the whole affair to a third party who doesn't really understand what you're doing, and walk away from the whole thing with a massive short-term profit.

It worked the way most market scams work - by giving the cash to the rich class, and leaving the customer with the risk exposure to the asset.

The beneficiaries were mostly the middle class, not the rich.

 

[Togo]

Of course it was. It was about buying property now and getting poor people to pay for it in instalments. The end result was that the people with money now would get even more money, while poor people would get an asset that had emotional connotations to them but was of dubious long-term value as an investment. Meanwhile you sell your stake in the whole affair to a third party who doesn't really understand what you're doing, and walk away from the whole thing with a massive short-term profit.

It worked the way most market scams work - by giving the cash to the rich class, and leaving the customer with the risk exposure to the asset.

The beneficiaries were mostly the middle class, not the rich.

No, the rich did pretty well out of it. I know a guy who made about £2-300,000 a year for 5 years, packaging and selling sub prime mortgage securitisations to the Far East. That's not his pay, that's the increase over expected he calculated he was getting in his annual bonus as a result of the business he was doing. He got the biggest payout for continuing to sell after he knew that the crisis was going to blow, because his firm wanted to get rid of them as quickly as possible before the rest of the market worked it out. . I did fairly well, acting as a consultant trying to clear up the whole mess in firms that faced bankruptcy as a result. There are also a lot of people who did well by picking up cheap assets.

The reason why these people did well is that they got their money up front, and passed the risky bit to either the mortgagee or a third party investors. So the risk got richer, some mortgage holders did ok, a lot of mortgage holders suffered, and a lot of non-sophisticated investors, pension funds and the like did quite badly.

The only benefit that got passed to the middle class was the ability to borrow more money than was strictly prudent, which is of questionable benefit, and something they were historically able to do fairly well in any case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The beneficiaries were mostly the middle class, not the rich.

No, the rich did pretty well out of it. I know a guy who made about £2-300,000 a year for 5 years, packaging and selling sub prime mortgage securitisations to the Far East. That's not his pay, that's the increase over expected he calculated he was getting in his annual bonus as a result of the business he was doing. He got the biggest payout for continuing to sell after he knew that the crisis was going to blow, because his firm wanted to get rid of them as quickly as possible before the rest of the market worked it out. . I did fairly well, acting as a consultant trying to clear up the whole mess in firms that faced bankruptcy as a result. There are also a lot of people who did well by picking up cheap assets.

The reason why these people did well is that they got their money up front, and passed the risky bit to either the mortgagee or a third party investors. So the risk got richer, some mortgage holders did ok, a lot of mortgage holders suffered, and a lot of non-sophisticated investors, pension funds and the like did quite badly.

The only benefit that got passed to the middle class was the ability to borrow more money than was strictly prudent, which is of questionable benefit, and something they were historically able to do fairly well in any case.

The primary beneficiaries were those who sold houses for inflated prices.