PDA

View Full Version : America and the Rich



wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 10:16 AM
Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=9&u=/latimests/wageslaggingbehindprices)

It's from Yahoo news, so it must be true.

This is simply the way the American economy has progressing for years now. Try labelling me a communist as a dispute, but even Keynes would agree that things need to be done that aren't being done. And if I recall correctly, Keynes was a liberal.

What we see here, is that while we have record profits for corporations, the salary of the working class, in effect, is lowering. The expendable pay is lowering. What does this mean? Obviously living conditions are lowering. I mean, even with the examples that Yahoo News chose, where the guy is getting 25$ an hour or so, is having a hard time. And most cops I knew back in the states were making around 15-17 dollars an hour.

So, what is the cause for the rising poverty? Is it merely just poor people being lazy?

RXP
04-12-2005, 10:32 AM
Easy solution, raise the progressive tax scale and use that money to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't inflationary as the UK evidece has shown. Economy is healthy the Lorenz curve is flatter.

Of course this won't happen because of hte current government. But if the people truly want it they can get it.

Easy solutoin without the revoultion! omg.

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 11:40 AM
I said nothing of revolution. In fact, I even mentioned Keynes, who I think, would've agreed with you.

The revolution would happen under a worse economic crisis.

Norwegian Cat
04-12-2005, 12:05 PM
Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=9&u=/latimests/wageslaggingbehindprices)

That's called capitalism.

The U.S.A. is really the only country in the world where capitalism has fastened its roots. I mean, the economy of the U.S. is capitalism come true:
money makes money; rich get richer, and poor get poorer. And a result of a so strong form of capitalism is: corruption.

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 12:09 PM
That's called capitalism.

The U.S.A. is really the only country in the world where capitalism has fastened its roots. I mean, the economy of the U.S. is capitalism come true:
money makes money; rich get richer, and poor get poorer. And a result of a so strong form of capitalism is: corruption.
It's happening in Norway. You think with your crippled unions and increasing outsourcing, that your country shows an acceptable turn from Capitalism?

notoriousdoc
04-12-2005, 12:12 PM
AMERICAN FATCATS DESTROY OUR WORLD AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR LOVES WHY MUST WE BOW TO THEM? IM TYPING THIS ON A DELL KEYBOARD ANOTHER COMPANY THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIER WALLETS! THE CAPITALIST WORLD WHOSE CORRUPT BUISNESSMEN WILL DESTROY US CONTROL US. WE MUST REVOLT! SUPPORT THE REVOLUTION WE WILL RISE AGAINST THE POLITICIANS AND BUISNESSMEN! AND WILL NO LONGER BE CONTROLLED BY THE ILLUMINATI, THE CENTRAL CORRUPT POWERS!

RISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Norwegian Cat
04-12-2005, 12:16 PM
I know... Norway is another case; there you have a goddamn try to get socialism and capitalism together, while pakistanis invade my country with the excuse of asylum, selling drugs and driving in BMW's and Mercedes', and building freaking mosque's every hundered meters...

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 12:26 PM
I know... Norway is another case; there you have a goddamn try to get socialism and capitalism together, while pakistanis invade my country with the excuse of asylum, selling drugs and driving in BMW's and Mercedes', and building freaking mosque's every hundered meters...
You're a moron.

You think it's the Pakistani's that cause your problems? How many do you actually know? I'm an immigrant here in Denmark, I've made most of my friends among other immigrants, they don't live nearly as well as you think.

The crime rate, among both Norwegians and ethnic minorities, when you calculate social class, is nearly exactly the same. It's not ethnicity that is the difference, (duh...shit, you think the Human Genome Project had already affirmed that), it's the system of social class that is causing these problems. Your simpleton politicians have just been telling you that all of society's problems lies in the hands of your ethnic minorities.

Had you, I don't know, actually followed your capitalism-critique to a logical position, you would've realized that it's the class structure, and not race-relations that create these problems. Ease the class structure, and you ease race-relations. How do you ease class structure? By altering the economic system of your country. You have no mix of capitalism and socialism in your country. Not nearly, what you have is a capitalist state with a large welfare sector. That only means that the Unions, at one point in time, were strong in your country. Nothing else.

Norwegian Cat
04-12-2005, 12:36 PM
Look what's happening in the Netherlands... Muslim majority get their own schools, their own hospitals...

But hey! There's no sense in telling what will happen in Norway and the rest of the Scandinavian countries (although I think it's quite logical...), so only the future will tell...

BTW, nice beret...

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 12:54 PM
Look what's happening in the Netherlands... Muslim majority get their own schools, their own hospitals...

But hey! There's no sense in telling what will happen in Norway and the rest of the Scandinavian countries (although I think it's quite logical...), so only the future will tell...

BTW, nice beret...
I'm not talking about what they got. I'm talking about them being an integrated part of Netherlandic society. They weren't. Is it any wonder they felt alienated?

I'd say it's even worse in the Scandinavian countries.

Social programs have been proven to work. Especially in America for example, where efforts to give black society a chance (I can't remember the correct name, but in effect, it was giving racial quotas for companies to hire) allowed them to enter the middle class, and crime dropped dramatically. Crime is always hirer in the areas of high unemployment. That is a fact. If you want to fight crime, you must change these things. However,we can do it your way as well, and send away all the foreigners. Cause, crime didn't exist before them.

RXP
04-12-2005, 01:00 PM
Fucking Muslims are invading EVERYWHERE with this shitty clothes and smelly barber shops.

Norwegian Cat
04-12-2005, 01:00 PM
I'm not saying to send all the foreigners back home; I'm saying that there must be INTEGRATION, not COLONIZATION.

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 01:02 PM
I'm not saying to send all the foreigners back home; I'm saying that there must be INTEGRATION, not COLONIZATION.
Well I gaurantee you, that you'll fail at it. Not with the understanding of your society that you have now.

Mota Boy
04-12-2005, 01:07 PM
Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.

...What we see here, is that while we have record profits for corporations, the salary of the working class, in effect, is lowering. The expendable pay is lowering. What does this mean? Obviously living conditions are lowering...
Are you kidding?

For one, Yahoo doesn't actually select its own news, it uses a program similar to Google's news service, but less overt. That piece was written by the L.A. Times.

But did you read the article?


For the first time in 14 years, the American workforce has in effect gotten an across-the-board pay cut.
Yes, the poor got poorer... for the first time in over a decade. You remind me of my Marxist TA in Philosophy 101 who chose this example of grocers in California who were protesting over losing their dental plan as indicative of the way that capitalism is slowly crushing the working class... completely ignoring the long, steady gains of the proletariat over the course of the 20th century.

I'm sure that there are much better examples out there of capitalism's exploitation of the lower class, but I don't see wages as part of it. One of the aspects about America is the easy movement between the class structure. A large number of people on the bottom are kids fresh out of high school and college (like myself at the moment), people that eventually move into the middle or even upper class.

Now, I'm not saying that we live in a utopian paradise - far from it - but the problem of the poor getting poorer is a bit overstated. Right now the biggest problem seems to be the rich getting richer - out-of-control executive pay.

Norwegian Cat
04-12-2005, 01:09 PM
I've lived 13 years on Oslo's eastside, and I know what it is to see every single pakistani driving a mercedes, not working, getting money from the asylum reception, and living in a mansion at Oslo's westside...
Where the heck did they get all that money from???????
Just wait 10-20 years... you'll see what will happen.

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 01:21 PM
Mota Boy, it's really a fact that the American lower class, has gotten larger in the 20th century, than smaller. The middle class is shrinking. In many ways this is because our Minimum wage has actually lowered. We have impotent unions, and strong government support of management. 50 years ago there wasn't a concept of the 'Working Poor'. That you could work a full-time job and yet still be living below the poverty line. Things have changed.

And I'm all aware of how news services work, I work on a newspaper myself. I just found it interesting that yahoo would have such an article.

Norwegian Cat, I spend most of my time around immigrants. I'm fully aware of the fact that you are full of shit. Even with high Norwegian standards.

Mota Boy
04-12-2005, 01:31 PM
50 years ago there wasn't a concept of the 'Working Poor'...
...but eighty years ago there was the Great Depression - it's all from which vantage point you begin. Starting with the greatest economic expansion in the world - at a point where America made up fully half of the global GDP - is a little unfair.

Sure, as I've said, there are many areas that can be improved, but it's not as if we're spiralling into an abyss. The fact that wages contracted is more indicative of a weak economy than an evil corporation... the fact that they expanded in each of the previous four years of economic contraction is rather impressive.

wheelchairman
04-12-2005, 02:13 PM
I never said we were spiralling into an abyss. I've said at least twice that this is not really revolutionary material at the moment. That this is not a potential collapse in the market.

The entire point, was to show that while the average man's living conditions worsen, the business elite are living it better. To use marxist terms, the national capital is being centralized in the hands of the bourgeois.

Betty
04-12-2005, 02:31 PM
There is a lot more going on in that article that what you make it out to sound like.

It seems to me that it is more about an economic downtime than being a "down with capitalism!!!" piece.

And you are just using the hint of that theme to bolster your marxist ideals.

Many things are rationalized:

"But higher wages could hurt the economy by stoking inflation further."

"The biggest factor is the slack employment market, which means there is little pressure on businesses to boost pay."

"With benefits factored in, workers' total compensation did outpace inflation in 2004, even if they didn't see it in their paychecks."

"Historically, periods when wage growth is outpaced by inflation rarely last more than 18 months. That's partly because businesses don't want their employees' living standards to fall, as that injures morale, said Trewman Bewley, a Yale University economist who has studied wage activity during economic downturns. Many economists figure it's only a matter of time until workers can pry more money out of their employers to catch up to inflation again. If economic growth remains robust, as many forecasters predict, workers may gain greater leverage to negotiate wage hikes."

So there... moral of the story... the workers are slightly more poor than usual than they have been in 14 years. (0.2% to be exact).

And again with with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer! Okay, is that supposed to mean that the divide between the two is getting bigger? That might be true, I'm not sure. But what is happening is that the poor are getting richer AND the rich are getting even richer! That's what happens in capitalism. The really poor might be getting slightly more fucked over, but overall the workers are doing pretty fine for themselves.

Even look at the example that you pointed out... the people that are complaining about their wages are still making $25 an hour, it's not like they're suffering.

Jesus
04-12-2005, 03:50 PM
No worries people, Hayek's ghost will save the US and Burke Europe. ahum

Anyway, WCM seen Darwin's Nighmare? If so, is it worth seeing?

wheelchairman
04-13-2005, 09:26 AM
The poor are getting richer? The poor are more in debt than ever it seems. hmm I honestly don't know where you are getting this. Would you mind linking it?

RXP
04-13-2005, 10:31 AM
The thing is the gap is increasing but the poor are getting richer. The rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are getting richer, thus the gap is increasing.

There's plenty of evidence out there. I can't be bothered to research it but I remember doing it economics. If your really interested do some research into economic journals rather than reading political stuff.

Betty
04-13-2005, 10:39 AM
What I say is a common view among people who think like me, just as the "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer" is a common view among people like yourself. I could ask you to backup your claims just as well as you can ask me to back up mine. It's not easy to find information to backup very specific claims, and I'm not going to do an in-depth research project on it so that I can submit my essay to you. I will however do a quick search and see what it turns up.

Okay, well here is a 62 page report on Standards of living in Canada... it is dated 1998. A couple excerpts from the intro (I was hooked since the first sentence!):


One of the most well-worn phrases of social reformers and political pundits is that ``the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.'' In recent times, this has been joined by the equally depressing notion that our access to affluence is stagnating--that the honey pot is actually shrinking in size overall. A careful attempt to trace the origins of these ideas finds that they are based on speculation and erroneous impressions about the real world. An attempt to get to the facts is frustrated because, in spite of all of the data that we have for making such an assessment, there has been no systematic attempt to assemble comprehensive measures of how the way we live has changed over the decades.

(...)

Depending upon which dimension is in focus, the gap between the rich and the poor has either not changed or has narrowed modestly. But, the overall standard of living of Canadians at all income levels has improved dramatically over the several decades that Sarlo examines. His careful analysis leaves very little room for the pessimistic outlook that often attends a discussion of growth in real income.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=228

Betty
04-13-2005, 10:43 AM
The thing is the gap is increasing but the poor are getting richer. The rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor are getting richer, thus the gap is increasing.

Hmm... could it possibly be that that the poor get richer BECAUSE the rich get richer?!? I see a pattern...

That is my point. Sure, rich people don't need billions of dollars... and sure there may be injustice and exploitation going on... but if it benefits most people by allowing most people to lead comfortable lives... I can see the benefits.

/hopeless efforts

RXP
04-13-2005, 10:52 AM
The rich should get richer to a lesser degree. Tax should be increased and put into raising the minimum wage. Social justice for all then. At the moment it's totally corupt that a fat cat gets a million pound bouns when his company does well but the shop floor workers get a free box of chocolates at xmas.

But WCM you do need to back up your claims. I do know that the gap is always increasing but the living standards of the poor are constantly rising. It's just the gap that increases. ANd so what if there are richer people than you? Stop being greedy. There are bound to be richer people bt there just needs to be more public services and social welfare justice.

I watch PM question week after week and I ALWAYS her Tony BLair mention how under his working famlies tax credit, under his employment initivates the poor's lot is far better than in 1997 under the conservatives.

The poor are getting it better, just ignore the fact the rich are getting insanely rich.

But the debt thing is interesting. If you less mortgages from the debt total it is a lot less than the problem initially shows. But of course the very idea of a mortgage is a redistro of income from the poorer to the richer shareholders of banks and owners of buliding socities. But how else would people buy property? How else would I invest?

RXP
04-13-2005, 10:55 AM
Also on a world wide scale WCM does have a point. THe poorer countries do awful while the richer countries get richer. In this macro scale there is huge injustice and something needs to be done. But in a intra country aspect, in developed countries the poor are getting richer.

wheelchairman
04-13-2005, 10:58 AM
So what you are then saying Betty, is that when the rich are at their richest, the poor will be at their richest as well?

Thank you for looking though, I do know very well it can be tedious to find links to these things, especially if it is something you found offline or a long time ago.

Would someone answer some questions I have, then.

We say that the rich get richer, but so do the poor. But it just doesn't seem to be evident. The number of people living below the poverty line seems to be rising (a general trend world-wide, not solely an American thing, like most Europeans like to believe). The rising number of people living below the poverty line, is this, because the poverty line is being raised? Is it because they simply are richer now, and the poverty-line is misrepresentative?

Also, wealth is all about relativity. (anyone studying accounting can tell you this rather annoying fact, which provides a large part of the main work, with ratios, analysis etc.), if the rich are getting richer, faster, than the poor are, are the poor not poorer? I mean, as prices rise, (and as they seem to be, rising faster than the minimum wage, or wages in general)), it seems to me that the poor are having a harder time affording these things.

In the end, you are right Betty. We have two quite contradictory world views. Should we ever agree on something, it would be outside the world of politics. heh.

wheelchairman
04-13-2005, 11:04 AM
The rich should get richer to a lesser degree. Tax should be increased and put into raising the minimum wage. Social justice for all then. At the moment it's totally corupt that a fat cat gets a million pound bouns when his company does well but the shop floor workers get a free box of chocolates at xmas.

But WCM you do need to back up your claims. I do know that the gap is always increasing but the living standards of the poor are constantly rising. It's just the gap that increases. ANd so what if there are richer people than you? Stop being greedy. There are bound to be richer people bt there just needs to be more public services and social welfare justice.

I watch PM question week after week and I ALWAYS her Tony BLair mention how under his working famlies tax credit, under his employment initivates the poor's lot is far better than in 1997 under the conservatives.

The poor are getting it better, just ignore the fact the rich are getting insanely rich.

But the debt thing is interesting. If you less mortgages from the debt total it is a lot less than the problem initially shows. But of course the very idea of a mortgage is a redistro of income from the poorer to the richer shareholders of banks and owners of buliding socities. But how else would people buy property? How else would I invest?

First, just like to clear up a common misconception. Socialism/Communism is not about total income equality. It's about eliminating exploitation of man by man. (so obviously, more equal incomes. But one person can earn more than another person, without exploiting people.)

And I honestly can't make an intelligent comment on the conditions of the British working class. I mean, obviously there was a need for large change. As we talked about before, there was no minimum wage. Obviously with such small (in the course of class history) changes in favor of the working class, will make huge differences.

And on people buying property, my ideas would not be to your taste anyways. Although people like Hugo Chavez are doing good things in this area.

RXP
04-13-2005, 11:04 AM
We say that the rich get richer, but so do the poor. But it just doesn't seem to be evident. The number of people living below the poverty line seems to be rising (a general trend world-wide, not solely an American thing, like most Europeans like to believe). The rising number of people living below the poverty line, is this, because the poverty line is being raised? Is it because they simply are richer now, and the poverty-line is misrepresentative?

YES!!

You hit the nail on the head.

And if your country has inflation under control the poor can afford more things. Any ratio/equation/calculation worth its weight is in real terms taking into account for inflation.

Take the average wage in the UK for instance. It's at some stupid level like 450 a week. I know like 2 people who get that. My mum gets liek 220-250. She'd seem poor but she's gotten richer it's just the average wage keeps going up.

If your really really into all this do some proper indepth research. If you have access to a uni hit the economic journals you'll find loads of info in there that will open your eyes.

Mota Boy
04-13-2005, 12:53 PM
Also on a world wide scale WCM does have a point. THe poorer countries do awful while the richer countries get richer. In this macro scale there is huge injustice and something needs to be done. But in a intra country aspect, in developed countries the poor are getting richer.
Actually, that's incorrect. If you look into factors such as life expectancy, average calorie consumption, literacy rates, infant mortality and the like, the third world has improved every decade. Again, it's just that we first worlders have done so much better.


The rich should get richer to a lesser degree. Tax should be increased and put into raising the minimum wage. Social justice for all then. At the moment it's totally corupt that a fat cat gets a million pound bouns when his company does well but the shop floor workers get a free box of chocolates at xmas.
Are you suggesting that the government somehow pay salaries for workers? Currently businesses pay the minimum wage, not the government - more government funds couldn't be used to raise the minimum wage.

Also, I think it makes more sense that the head of a corporation would get a bonus if the company did well rather than his/her employees, as he's directing the company, but there is a severe problem with executive pay. For one, to what are bonuses supposed to be tied? Short-term gains? Will those be good for the company? Also, executives can take advantage of creative accounting to meet those goals. One solution was thought to be to tie executive bonuses to stock prices... those were fairly solid standards of company health, right? And we all know how that ended up. So far it doesn't appear that there is really any good way to keep check on unscrupulous CEOs.

RXP
04-13-2005, 01:10 PM
Actually, that's incorrect. If you look into factors such as life expectancy, average calorie consumption, literacy rates, infant mortality and the like, the third world has improved every decade. Again, it's just that we first worlders have done so much better.


.

Oh granted it might have gone up but there's a line I draw where poverty = destitution. Once the 3rd world rises above thsi I don't care if we're far richer, far more powerful. It's about setting a minimum quality of life. I think you'll find tho AIDS is higher than ever.

And actually good point about the minimum wage I ddin't think it thru. But if they do raise it the companies have to find the money from somewhere. Maybe the income tax taken from the higher income earners could be given back to coperations in the form of a national insurance credit.

In the UK firms have to pay natoinal insurance for their workers to the government. So the money saved here could be used to meet the minimum wage demands. An indirect way.

But I really can't see past this causing inflation unless the economy can meet the extra demand placed on it. A good way of doing that would obviously to be to invest in people's education, technology etc.

And if there is a higher minimum wage firms will have to divert pay from fat cats anyway. They have to. It's the law that they meet that minimum wage any means how. What do you think will first go? A rise in product prices? No that will reduce revenue it will be higher income earners in the company getting cuts. And they couldn't go elsewhere in the labour marker because all firms have the same problem.

Also the director absolustely should not be the only one to get a huge bonus. There has to be regulation here. It'st he shop floor workers, the people in the office, on the phones who make that company work. Granted the fat cat is Admiral of the ship, his decisions are make or break. But the shop floor workers deserve their lot too. I'm not not thousands of pounds, I'm just sayng a little xmas bounus.

I really believe in what I say and the social democrat way IS the way foward without utopian misconceptions.

Mota Boy
04-13-2005, 01:49 PM
And if there is a higher minimum wage firms will have to divert pay from fat cats anyway. They have to. It's the law that they meet that minimum wage any means how. What do you think will first go? A rise in product prices? No that will reduce revenue it will be higher income earners in the company getting cuts. And they couldn't go elsewhere in the labour marker because all firms have the same problem.

Also the director absolustely should not be the only one to get a huge bonus. There has to be regulation here. It'st he shop floor workers, the people in the office, on the phones who make that company work. Granted the fat cat is Admiral of the ship, his decisions are make or break. But the shop floor workers deserve their lot too. I'm not not thousands of pounds, I'm just sayng a little xmas bounus.
People who argue against a minimum wage say that the cuts will fall upon the workers - that companies will employ less people because it now costs more to employ them (in the same way that you're less likely to buy something the more expensive it is) if , and that the people usually fired are the poorest people. One third of all minimum-wage employees are teens or other young people still living off their parents. The cuts usually effect older people who depend on it, thus worsening their situation.

I still think though that that's somewhat offset by the fact that people purchase more with their extra money, thus increasing jobs. But companies look to use less workers first before any other cuts.

Regarding the second part, the "people on the floor" or either largely unskilled labor, which is hard to justify rewarding, or they get bonuses in other ways. For instance, at my job we get money for signing up customers for other services. Oh, and the Christmas bonus does exist, it's just that executives get more.

RXP
04-13-2005, 02:35 PM
Doesn't exist here. People who argue against the minimum wage attempt to use economic theory to prove their point. But in practice it fails. All the naysayers said inflation would rise, unemployment would rise when we introduced the minimum wage. It hasn't.

It's bull.

'unskilled labour' is a very stupid term. The directors of firms have just gotten a cushy ride in life or the right breaks. I'm 100% sure if I dind't get the right breaks in life I woudln't be in law school and instead a common 'unskilled' shop floor worker. Those guys deserve the bonus too. Esp. in service industries.

xmas bounus exists? maybe in the US. Here box a chocolates is what most retail workers get.

Betty
04-14-2005, 10:06 AM
I have to disagree. Heads of corporations deserve the bonuses.

It's a master of risk.

It's similar to how doctors get paid lots because they are responsible for people's lives and can get sued for millions of dollars if they make a mistake.

Let's say you're going to start up a new factory. There is a lot of planning involved in that. Important issues are location and size, amongst others. In terms of size, a larger plant that functions at full capacity makes more profit than a smaller once functioning at full capacity (see: economy of scale). Therefore, if you make your plant too small and have more demand than output, you're losing business for one, and also making less profit on what you do sell. However, if your plant is too large and cannot operate at full capacity, you could be losing profit. The huge risk involved in starting these things and investing YOUR millions of dollars explains why when these businesses do end up being successful, the head boss reaps the profit. Because at the same time, if the business were to fail miserably, he/she would be the one losing millions. The average worker does not have any of that responsibility.

On the flipside, I think as management it would be wise to increase wages/bonuses for your employees if your business is doing well to increase staff morale and therefore get better output. But it shouldn't be a necessary thing, it should be on a case by case basis.

So yeah. The moral of the story here is: risk and responsibility. That's what it comes down to.

RXP
04-14-2005, 10:09 AM
I never said Admirals shoudln't get bounusI said that they should get less bounus. million pound bounus are stupid. It's getting out of hand.