Do you believe Americans who work full time should earn a living wage?

[UncleBuck]

Actually, I did come out and say it. Apparently, you needed it repeated. Fifteen years of first hand knowledge and experience working side by side, managing and training the very people we're discussing doesn't lend credibility to my position?

no, because you are a lying sack of shit and a bad consumer and dispenser of information.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

"Since the 1980s, we've been redistributing wealth upwards thanks to neoliberal ideology. We were told that giving the wealthy a bigger piece of the pie would make the pie bigger for everyone. But all they managed to do with that redistributed wealth was shrink the rate at which the pie grew.

It's time we admit that this experiment in upward redistribution has failed, and increase the taxes on those who had their taxes decreased courtesy of this economic farce.

Following WWII, there was a rapid growth in progressive taxation and social welfare spending in most of the rich capitalist countries. Despite this (or rather partly because of this), the period between 1950 and 1973 saw the highest-ever growth rates in these countries – known as the "Golden Age of Capitalism."

Before the Golden Age, per capita income in the rich capitalist economies used to grow at 1–1.5% per year. During the Golden Age, it grew at 2–3% in the US and Britain, 4–5% in Western Europe, and 8% in Japan. Since then, these countries have never managed to grow faster than that. When growth slowed down in the rich capitalist economies from the mid 1970s, however, the free-marketeers dusted off their nineteenth-century rhetoric and managed to convince others that the reduction in the share of the income going to the investing class was the reason for the slowdown.

Since the 1980s, in many (although not all) of these countries, governments that espouse upward income redistribution have ruled most of the time. Even some so-called left-wing parties, such as Britain’s New Labour under Tony Blair and the American Democratic Party under Bill Clinton, openly advocated such a strategy – the high point being Bill Clinton introducing his welfare reform in 1996, declaring that he wanted to "end welfare as we know it."

In the event, trimming the welfare state down proved more difficult than initially thought. However, its growth has been moderated, despite the structural pressure for greater welfare spending due to the ageing of the population, which increases the need for pensions, disability allowances, healthcare and other spending directed to the elderly. More importantly, in most countries there were also many policies that ended up redistributing income from the poor to the rich. There have been tax cuts for the rich – top income-tax rates were brought down. Financial deregulation has created huge opportunities for speculative gains as well as astronomical paychecks for top managers and financiers. Deregulation in other areas has also allowed companies to make bigger profits, not least because they were more able to exploit their monopoly powers, more freely pollute the environment and more readily sack workers. Increased trade liberalization and increased foreign investment – or at least the threat of them – have also put downward pressure on wages.

As a result, income inequality has increased in most rich countries. For example, according to the ILO, of the twenty advanced economies for which data was available, between 1990 and 2000 income inequality rose in sixteen countries, with only Switzerland among the remaining four experiencing a significant fall. During this period, income inequality in the US, already by far the highest in the rich world, rose to a level comparable to that of some Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Venezuela. The relative increase in income inequality was also high in countries such as Finland, Sweden and Belgium, but these were countries that previously had very low levels of inequality – perhaps too low in the case of Finland, which had an even more equal income distribution than many of the former socialist countries.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 1979 and 2006, the top 1% of earners in the US more than doubled their share of national income, from 10% to 22.9%. The top 0.1% did even better, increasing their share by more than three times, from 3.5% in 1979 to 11.6% in 2006. This was mainly because of the astronomical increase in executive pay in the country, whose lack of justification is increasingly becoming obvious in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (see above about shareholder value maximization). Of the sixty-five developing and former socialist countries covered in the above-mentioned ILO study, income inequality rose in forty-one countries during the same period. While the proportion of countries experiencing rising inequality among them was smaller than for the rich countries, many of these countries already had very high inequality, so the impacts of rising inequality were even worse than in the rich countries."

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/35tlic/the_emerging_populist_agenda_all_agree_that_our/

 

[Padawanbater2]

"I DON'T LIKE READING!"

Not something I'd be very proud of, but says a lot that you are

lol

 

[Padawanbater2]

 

[Fogdog]

Actually, I did come out and say it. Apparently, you needed it repeated. Fifteen years of first hand knowledge and experience working side by side, managing and training the very people we're discussing doesn't lend credibility to my position? But, a couple professors with a preconceived agenda, that have zero real world experience in that environment, patch together some bullshit "study" and you'll do backflips touting their horseshit.

Yeah, I'll take experience over liberal bullshit, any day.

There it is. You stupidly confused statistics with opinion again. Your words: "90% of minimum wage workers fail on 100% of those standards" means something different when your despised professors do a study than when you say it. They would have done some work, surveyed a population and prepared a peer-review-able study. You on the other hand spit out some cheetos, wipe your hand on your pants and type it in without a thought. We went through this before supidhead. Statistics when used properly aren't made-up dressing to pour over an opinion. I was giving you more credit than was due.

 

[Harrekin]

There it is. You stupidly confused statistics with opinion again. Your words: "90% of minimum wage workers fail on 100% of those standards" means something different when your despised professors do a study than when you say it. They would have done some work, surveyed a population and prepared a peer-review-able study. You on the other hand spit out some cheetos, wipe your hand on your pants and type it in without a thought. We went through this before supidhead. Statistics when used properly aren't made-up dressing to pour over an opinion. I was giving you more credit than was due.

99% of Statistics are lies...

 

[Rob Roy]

Why do you hate your government so much ? Do you really think this country or world with be better without any government. Pretty much would be a free for all. You ready for the chaos ?

I believe in peace and freedom.

Your chaos assertion is based in fear and sychopantic indoctrination and has lots of contradiction baked into it.

I'd love to discuss this, but that would require a real conversation, previous attempts I've made to do that with you end up mired in
a redirect, poor comprehension or some other kind of foolishness. When you're ready, maybe it will happen.

 

[londonfog]

I believe in peace and freedom.

Your chaos assertion is based in fear and sychopantic indoctrination and has lots of contradiction baked into it.

I'd love to discuss this, but that would require a real conversation, previous attempts I've made to do that with you end up mired in
a redirect, poor comprehension or some other kind of foolishness. When you're ready, maybe it will happen.

too many inhabitants live on this planet to even think your way would work. Everyone would want to do their own thing. The "have not" would start to kill, hurt, and take from those that have. We human are born with emotions. Jealousy and envy would make your utopia a chaotic nightmare.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

There it is. You stupidly confused statistics with opinion again. Your words: "90% of minimum wage workers fail on 100% of those standards" means something different when your despised professors do a study than when you say it. They would have done some work, surveyed a population and prepared a peer-review-able study. You on the other hand spit out some cheetos, wipe your hand on your pants and type it in without a thought. We went through this before supidhead. Statistics when used properly aren't made-up dressing to pour over an opinion. I was giving you more credit than was due.

Lol, because SURVEYS are more accurate than first hand observation and a decade and a half of experience. Libs peer-reviewing other lib's studies based on surveys? Yeah, not worth as much as the first month of my experience on the subject. "If Professor Liberal Douchebag didn't do a study and if it wasn't golf-clapped by like-minded, equally unqualified to address the subject, liberal fuckhead profs, then foggy won't hear of it.

I don't accept your premise or conclusion. Whoops.

In the real world, those of us that KNOW, don't back down because some vapid asshole trots out a study and bleats about citation. Sorry.

 

[AlecTheGardener]

Lol, because SURVEYS are more accurate than first hand observation and a decade and a half of experience. Libs peer-reviewing other lib's studies based on surveys? Yeah, not worth as much as the first month of my experience on the subject. "If Professor Liberal Douchebag didn't do a study and if it wasn't golf-clapped by like-minded, equally unqualified to address the subject, liberal fuckhead profs, then foggy won't hear of it.

I don't accept your premise or conclusion. Whoops.

In the real world, those of us that KNOW, don't back down because some vapid asshole trots out a study and bleats about citation. Sorry.

You believe that peer reviewed studies are less substantial then ONE person experiences?

Absurd.

Progress is easily measured when using studies and not individual experience alone, a wonderful tool. You have thrown away a major part of any scientific mind's logic tree.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

You believe that peer reviewed studies are less substantial then ONE person experiences?

Absurd.

Progress is easily measured when using studies and not individual experience alone, a wonderful tool. You have thrown away a major part of any scientific mind's logic tree.

When the study is based on a "survey", you bet it's less substantial.

 

[Fogdog]

You believe that peer reviewed studies are less substantial then ONE person experiences?

Absurd.

Progress is easily measured when using studies and not individual experience alone, a wonderful tool. You have thrown away a major part of any scientific mind's logic tree.

Whew, finally a bit of intelligence rises out of the muck. The unbelievable lack of understanding of modern methodology represented in two previous posts shows exactly what's wrong with the tea party and others in the extreme right. Not all are like that but most* are.

*Note that I did not say 90% are. I was expressing an opinion..

 

[AlecTheGardener]

When the study is based on a "survey", you bet it's less substantial.

No disagreement there, but you made a much broader statement.

"If Professor Liberal Douchebag didn't do a study and if it wasn't golf-clapped by like-minded, equally unqualified to address the subject, liberal fuckhead profs, then foggy won't hear of it."

Your intent seemed to be to discredit studies in general not just one type.

"In the real world, those of us that KNOW, don't back down because some vapid asshole trots out a study and bleats about citation. Sorry."

This also points to a lack of trust with metrics and studies in general not a specific source or type of study.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Whew, finally a bit of intelligence rises out of the muck. The unbelievable lack of understanding of modern methodology represented in two previous posts shows exactly what's wrong with the tea party and others in the extreme right. Not all are like that but most* are.

*Note that I did not say 90% are. I was expressing an opinion..

Semantics. Most (implying a high percentage) is fine, 90% (obviously implying MOST) ruffles your little feathers?

I won't even get into the likelihood that the 90% is very accurate.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

No disagreement there, but you made a much broader statement.

"If Professor Liberal Douchebag didn't do a study and if it wasn't golf-clapped by like-minded, equally unqualified to address the subject, liberal fuckhead profs, then foggy won't hear of it."

Your intent seemed to be to discredit studies in general not just one type.

"In the real world, those of us that KNOW, don't back down because some vapid asshole trots out a study and bleats about citation. Sorry."

This also points to a lack of trust with metrics and studies in general not a specific source or type of study.

Bingo!

 

[AlecTheGardener]

Bingo!

*confusion*
Please clarify you previous post and expand on your ideas so we may further our discourse.

Are you saying that you distrust any form of study?

You deny metrics conducted in scientific rigor?

 

[Fogdog]

99% of Statistics are lies...

Lol, because SURVEYS are more accurate than first hand observation and a decade and a half of experience. Libs peer-reviewing other lib's studies based on surveys? Yeah, not worth as much as the first month of my experience on the subject. "If Professor Liberal Douchebag didn't do a study and if it wasn't golf-clapped by like-minded, equally unqualified to address the subject, liberal fuckhead profs, then foggy won't hear of it.

I don't accept your premise or conclusion. Whoops.

In the real world, those of us that KNOW, don't back down because some vapid asshole trots out a study and bleats about citation. Sorry.

I think that a car salesman could benefit from experience. Learn the tricks of the trade, work really hard and milk the situation for what its worth. Reliance on experience is great except when the situation is new. Then, to the bone yard for you. I made a pretty good career steamrolling so called experts who were blocking progress in high tech businesses. Science, steadfastly gathering facts (not opinions) and, yes designed experiments that relied on statistics trumped experience when dealing with really hard problems. In this thread, we are talking about a society that is changing for the worse and we are confronted with different problems than in the past. We aren't talking about selling cars.

Yes, studies show that without a doubt that the wealthy are gradually accumulating all the wealth of this nation. If the trend continues, we will see an entrenched oligarchy of super wealthy families overseeing this nation without a viable opposition. Some say it's already happened. Lower wage people are not the source of this problem, they are being crushed by it. Most of the arguments made by the conservatives on this thread bash lower wage people. I took exception to Muy Toke-o because he accused low wage workers of being shiftless and with low work ethics. The truth could not be farther from this. The working poor do the heavy lifting for this nation. They work harder than car salesmen every day. Yet the conservative right denigrates them for this. The reason for their denigration?

Because respect for the working poor might entail a harder look at the worth of their work.
Because respect might put higher value on person's life.
Because changes to the economic situation of the working poor might cause changes to society.
Because changes to society will put people that rely on experience in the old system in the uncomfortable situation of changing themselves.
Because people who can't change - lose.

 

[UncleBuck]

99% of Statistics are lies...

your 4'11'' height is more of a measurement than a statistic.

 

[UncleBuck]

SURVEYS are more accurate than first hand observation and a decade and a half of experience.

you finally made a factual statement, but it was only by mistake. that is truly pretty sad.

 

[Harrekin]

I think that a car salesman could benefit from experience. Learn the tricks of the trade, work really hard and milk the situation for what its worth. Reliance on experience is great except when the situation is new. Then, to the bone yard for you. I made a pretty good career steamrolling so called experts who were blocking progress in high tech businesses. Science, steadfastly gathering facts (not opinions) and, yes designed experiments that relied on statistics trumped experience when dealing with really hard problems. In this thread, we are talking about a society that is changing for the worse and we are confronted with different problems than in the past. We aren't talking about selling cars.

Yes, studies show that without a doubt that the wealthy are gradually accumulating all the wealth of this nation. If the trend continues, we will see an entrenched oligarchy of super wealthy families overseeing this nation without a viable opposition. Some say it's already happened. Lower wage people are not the source of this problem, they are being crushed by it. Most of the arguments made by the conservatives on this thread bash lower wage people. I took exception to Muy Toke-o because he accused low wage workers of being shiftless and with low work ethics. The truth could not be farther from this. The working poor do the heavy lifting for this nation. They work harder than car salesmen every day. Yet the conservative right denigrates them for this. The reason for their denigration?

Because respect for the working poor might entail a harder look at the worth of their work.
Because respect might put higher value on person's life.
Because changes to the economic situation of the working poor might cause changes to society.
Because changes to society will put people that rely on experience in the old system in the uncomfortable situation of changing themselves.
Because people who can't change - lose.

Wtf you quote me for biatch?

Just cos you didn't get the funny...