Looking at income disparity/inequality...

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by purojogo, Apr 3, 2011.

Tags:
  1. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here is BS yes, but not for Economists, at least on terms on a big hike. Economist tend to agree on moderation.

    http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

    on a range.

    http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-good-harm-they-should-be-set-technocrats-not

    That they do have consequences, specially for minorities and the low skilled labor.

    black teens.

    http://www.bet.com/news/national/2011/05/12/black-teens-lose-jobs-when-the-minimum-wage-rise.html

    Low skilled and why we would need protectionism if we go with the higher minimum wage (and perhaps a way to slow down technology advancement, maybe high capital gains tax?)

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...will-a-minimum-wage-hike-help-or-hurt-workers

    Jeff Clemens, an assistant professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research
     
  2. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is why we need more trade with poor countries, we in the 1% (Rich develop countries) can not continue to hoard all the money. wealth and power, we need to share the love.
     
  3. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not all that interesting to me. Quite a few of them are southern states with large Black populations, who are legacy Clinton voters.
     
  4. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    May 18, 2002
    New Orleans, LA
    Yup, and if those poor people had not voted then maybe Sanders would have won. If he had tried to mobilize more poor people to vote before the election, rather than wait until after he got blown out, he would have more credibility. Now, especially with his supporters whining about how so many primaries were "stolen," it just sounds like sour grapes.

    Of course my take on things is that poor people are more in touch with reality than your typical Berniebot and are just not buying the bullshit he's peddling.
     
  5. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  6. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    Maybe it already is...:(
     
    nicephoras and crazypete13 repped this.
  7. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    What do you have against women from Illinois? :unsure:
     
    Chicago76 and dapip repped this.
  8. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dr. Wankler repped this.
  9. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The Wal-Mart gamble to attract better workers, decrease turnover and improve efficiency in their labor force.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/10/not-always-low-wages

    The last line describes the new American economy, there are skill sets that are not competitive and are not really wanted, what do we do with them?

    Investing in retraining is something we have to do, but for those that can't or do not want to be retrained, maybe long term welfare is the only way.
     
  10. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Maybe an increase of wages to the point where only 50-60 hours is enough for a decent living? In the long term , probably the solution is to have a universal basic income, in the meanwhile, I think that is a feasible step.

    $1200 is supposed to be 30% of your monthly expenses, so families are supposed to make $3600 per month or $43,000 per year. $43,000 @ $10/hr is about 4300 hours, about 86 hrs per week, meaning 2 full time jobs and then some for a middle class family. If you increase minimum wage to about $18/hr, assuming that costs stay about the same, families will have to work only about 60 hrs, meaning a full time job and a part time. Detaching Healthcare Insurance from work is another step in reducing the need to work.

    Think about all the benefits of having less people in the workforce, less commuting, less pollution, kids being taken care off properly...
     
  11. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    More income more upward pressure on house prices and rents.

    One huge problem is that economic growth is concentrated in ever more expensive cities, in a chart you posted before you could see this, a few bucks more per hour is good enough for multiple States and most rural areas, but in large cities like NYC or SF you need a minimum salary of 25+ per hour to afford to live there with out government assistance.

    As the article I posted claims, the more you pay the more you are going to require out of your workers.
    The reason they claim Ford wage increase worked had nothing to do with the PR BS of paying workers enough to buy their product, it was about cutting cost of retraining new workers and cutting cost on getting new employees, reducing turn over can save money.

    Obviously the problem for Walmart is that if the federal government increases wages to the new Walmart level, then the turn over problems will continue for them.

    Increasing wages to save money from turn over only works if you pay your workforce more than the market rate.
     
  12. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Not necessarily. Read again my post. Off course I'm assuming that all of a sudden the economy will start to aim for less worked hours. But in theory that is where we are headed.

    Or you could live in a nearby place with better transportation network. A big part of our cities' problems is that commuting is difficult and takes a lot of time. Take people out of the roads, improve mass transit. I'm just dreaming here.

    I think it worked both ways, saving money from retraining and having workers happy.

    Walmart is headed where retail goes. Less stores, online sales, automated checkout, eventually a lot of tasks will be automated. They need more capable people because the job profile is changing, they need people that cannot be replaced by automated POS terminals.

    In the short term, probably yes. In the long term, automation seems to be the answer. And if you are a jobless human, a guaranteed income is not a bad thing.
     
  13. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sure lots of the jobs now created are part time jobs, so on average the worked hours per week should drop.

    Or you could make it cheaper with more options for people to go to work. I know subsidizing everything is the answer you love, but it is not the only answer.

    Well yes, more money more happiness, but the point is that it only works if you pay them above the market average, a minimum wage increase does not solve the retraining problem, but it gives workers more money and keeps their options open to jump ship if they want, so it is not a bad thing for workers, just for companies trying to limit turn-over, obviously they can always pay more than the new minimum wage to fix this issue and increase prices when able.

    Correct and High School drop outs won't be able to get those jobs, so less and less work options for them, they will get more angry and be easy pickings for populists like Trump and Sanders.

    I have said this a million times, I am ok with a Tax on the global 1% and to give a minimum income of at least 2 dollars per day to the world poor.

    Obviously this is a ridiculous idea since the global 1 % (34K+ income) would never vote for something like that.
     
  14. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    It's as clear to me as anything ever is that the economy is evolving to being two tiers -- the educated, highly skilled minority that makes a boatload of money, and the less-skilled majority that serves it. Either you're rich, or you work for the rich. That will be it.

    The dissension is just beginning. But the pattern can't be stopped.
     
  15. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also, we can go the way we are going, high minimums in the cities (I would go even higher than 15 per hour), a little bit lower in the surrounding suburbs (12 to 15) and then a federal minimum below that in the rural areas (10-12 per hour).

    This would help slow down the wealth accumulation in mega cities and push manufacturing jobs and other low margin activities away from city centers, then hopefully low income people can move away from expensive cities and go live in cheaper areas where 10-12 bucks per hour can go a much longer way than in city centers.

    Obviously we do a lot of market distortion that traps low skilled workers inside the cities, and yes lack of good transportation outside cities is a big problem.
     
  16. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is why I can get on board with the idea of "free" college.

    The problem is in the details, I do not want to subsidize a 50K per Semester Notra Dame college education, but I can see us starting with say 3 free years in community colleges and/or 3 years of "approved" technical schools.

    Clinton has some good ideas, I do not like her CAP on income above 150 or 250K, it should be available for all (Rich kids are not going to go to a CC or Tech school anyways).

    If that works and it is not way to expensive, then we can move to State Schools, if kids want to go private, limit Government Aid to how much it would cost to go to a State School with in your State.


    One thing I found weird here in BS, is that many here seem to be apposed to School vouchers for education in High School and below, yet many here seem to like Federal grants to send kids to Private colleges. Why? School vouchers are the samething so why oppose a voucher in HS but be ok with it in College?

    Also a big question is how do we pay for this, Education is responsibility of the States, but many States are not going to want to pay for this, so they are going to want the Federal government to pay up for all the costs.

    Maybe some type of Medicare / Highway project type finances. The Feds cover half the cost only of the State matches the money.
     
  17. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    So what is wrong with giving them a decent living wage (for less hours) and/or UGI?

    How do you make things cheaper, other than subsidizing it? Yeah, collapsing demand. Like not having to live so close to the city because less people in the roads and/or mass transit.

    Until you can replace them with robots. UGI.

    You always forget PPP. 34k in NY is not the same as in Mombasa or Kolkata. And the fact that corporations and the 0.01% has trillions of untaxed cash stashed overseas. People barely making it in a big city anywhere in the developed world, probably have little money to use after expenditures.
     
  18. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because it is different in different places, so yes like I said above, I am ok with higher minimum wages in expensive cities and lower minimum wages in the country side, because it is way more expensive to live in the city, I think our current approach is going to work, let blue cities and blue states increase the min wage above the federal minimum.

    More competition, I mean Uber is making transportation cheaper compared to Taxis, Uber types still discriminate against poor people with no bank accounts, but when was the last time you were in Colombia, I am sure they had transportation for the masses (heavily regulated I am sure if it is anything like Mexico).

    Obviously that means giving competition to a perpetual money losing government monopoly, and that is not very popular.

    Sure and 15 bucks per hour are not the same in NYC as in Springfield Maine (if that exits).

    Is not like you are going to give a higher basic salary to someone that lives in the Hamptons compared to some one in a trailer home in Louisiana.
     
  19. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    It can. It requires smart policies. Better education for all, UGI, shorter work hours, early retirement, taxes for robots, tax breaks if you hire people. You can also reduce consumption and focus on other issues, pollution, reforestation, conservation, clean energy, infrastructure. Yeah, I know, I'm a dreamer.
     
  20. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    All fine, but I don't see that changing the pattern. Technology will do much of what is now called work, the elite will do the rest, and then the remaining people will sell services to the elites.
     
  21. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    This I agree. In the long run however, automation is going to make a lot of jobs obsolete. Policy has to address that. Shorter weeks, more vacation, early retirement, UGI. Make this country an Eurosocialist Utopia.

    Actually this is a very bad example. Uber is more expensive than taxis in Colombia but provides better service, hence it is not an alternative for most people. Uber is testing driverless, so there goes another job opportunity.

    Mass transportation in Colombia was a mess, because the government relied on private operators that found ways to put "peseros" everywhere making traffic a mess. They had to go back to private/goverment partnerships in order to make it work. Kinda. It is still very unregulated in the outskirts of big cities and in small towns.

    Hopefully we can give both of them the same UGI and then tax the Hamptons' billionaire to pay for both. ;)
     
  22. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The EU is not an Utopia right now. Germany is doing ok, they just passed a minimum wage a few years ago, so in some ways we can catch up to them, in other they are catching up to us, they also balance their budget.

    I hear the same of Walmart Brazil. Yes less "unskilled work for drivers" more skilled work for programmers, fleet managers, ect. for Uber. Another way on how workers with out college education take it in the chin.

    The complaint of bad peseros tend to be from the upper class and middle class that want the transportation for the poor out of their way so they can drive their private cars.

    In Mexico city they created this thing called the Metro-bus, basically they took out one lane each way from some main roads and made them bus only lanes, At first there was a big outcry from drivers on how they were losing lanes from an already busy avenue.

    One big difference between you and me is that I am more globalist on my wealth re-distribution, you are more nationalistic in yours, politically nationalistic wealth redistribution from the .001% to the 1% of the world is probably the only thing we can really do.
     
  23. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    They are waaaay ahead of us:

    - Universal healthcare
    - 30 days paid vacation
    - 2 years maternity leave
    - sick days
    - cheap/free college
    - functioning public transportation

    I agree, not all the EU members, but at least France, Germany and to a lesser extent Italy and Spain...


    And one programmer and one fleet manager can probably do the work of 100 drivers/mechanics/shift managers, etc, so it is actually a problem for a lot of people, not only unskilled people.

    Not really. I know your Metrobus (I visit DF almost every year), it is a version of our Transmilenio and actually a system that was implemented with success in Coritiba back in the 1990s.

    [​IMG]


    Our peseros (we call them busetas) were actually free faring winner take it all privately owned buses and short buses that ran all over the city with little or no saying from the authorities.

    [​IMG]

    Transmilenio improved traffic a lot but the system is right now falling short because demand is very high.

    There are three main differences:

    1. I acknowledge that we don't have yet a global government, so for now each country has to fix most of their problems first, even if rich countries have to help poor ones.

    2. It seems that you think that poor people in the US have it great, so somehow they have to pay for the rest of the world poor. IMHO you tax the top .01% globally and that is enough to fix the world poor, including the US.

    3. You seem to like the current version of free trade more than I do. I think that corporations have too much control of "free trade" and it hurts working class people in some countries, therefore I think big adjustments are necessary.
     
  24. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    GDP growth, unemployment (actually Germany is better but not the EU), movement of labor, they do have more state rights (compared to EU power), Home ownership (Germany has low levels, but perhaps that is a good thing), their min wage that was passed in 2014 is higher than ours (8.50 Euros, around 11 bucks per hour)

    When you compare some USA states to some EU states, there are some similarities and some differences.

    Germans are good savers, they have similar levels of government debt, but they are balancing their budget, so they are beating us there.

    Sure and one factory workers post industrial revolution can do the same as 100 pre industrial revolution workers, yet people found new jobs.

    Farm workers all over the world move to cities to find new work, people can also move to where the work is, my parents did that, Americans can also do it, but we tend to have become spoiled in many ways, my self included, it happens.

    We have combis in Mexico (Peseros in DF I believe they call them), they are cheap transportation for the poor. Sure the middle class hates it because they get in the way of their private owned vehicles, but the poor need a way to get to work, we can have the chaotic market do it, or waste government revenue that could be used for other programs subsidize it. Mexico does subsidize gasoline prices, I remember reading that more money is spent in gasoline subsidies than in health services, yet take away the fuel subsidy and the middle and upper classed that get most of the benefit will protest.

    Correct, Wealth redistribution among the 1%, it is the reality, protectionism is also a way to say to the poor of the world fvck you, you can not have "our" jobs. keep the wealth among ourselves.

    So now is the top .01? what happen to we are the 99%? I guess since you are part of the global 1%, you do not want to pay taxes to help the poor, so pass on the bill to others, that is a bit selfish, I am ok with paying more taxes if they go to help the poor (the real 99%).

    Sure adjustments to keep the wealth in the rich world and not share with the poor of other countries, deep down I also benefit for this (keeping the wealth to ourselves) do not get me wrong, but I know it is wrong to keep all the wealth with relatively few million people in the world.

    A rebalance is needed between rich (mostly white) countries to the more populated poorer countries (mostly black and yellow).
     
  25. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Ok, so I guess that we kind of agree? I think they have some desirable things, we have some others. Balancing the budget is not a priority by the way, specially when you can borrow at basically negative rates.



    Do post industrial workers still work every day, or Monday through Saturday, or 16 hours per day, or get paid pennies, or.... Conditions change. We are reaching a point where labor will not be needed as intensively as before, hence we need to find ways to maintain certain welfare that is not 100% dependent on having a job.



    Out of curiosity, how much cheaper is a pesero than Metrobus? For all I remember one way ticket is about the same in any form of transportation in Bogota and I was under the impression that it was similar in Mexico. Sure, you probably have some jitneys in the outskirts of the city that will be slightly cheaper, because if you take one it means that you also have to pay regulated transport to get to your final destination...





    Bro, the .0000001% has so much money, really they don't need to tax us the 1%....

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/17/news/economy/oxfam-wealth/

    The world's 62 richest billionaireshave as muchwealth as the bottom half of theworld's population, according to a new report from Oxfam International.

    The wealthiest have seen their net worth soar over the five years ending in 2015. Back in 2010, it took 388 mega-rich people to own as much as half the world.


    And the Top 1% own more than everyone else combined -- a milestone reached in 2015, a year earlier than Oxfam had predicted.
     

Share This Page