another way to look at it...

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

Tell us how rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the gap between them is widest ever?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

Tell us how rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the gap between them is widest ever?

You're right Aunty. Income inequality is the fault of the evil 1 percenters. Cart them off to a concentration camp and gas them, I say.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

you say you like the idea of inflation indexing. what do you think the current minimum wage would be if it was adjusted for inflation starting the very year it was first legislated?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

you say you like the idea of inflation indexing. what do you think the current minimum wage would be if it was adjusted for inflation starting the very year it was first legislated?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, that is the other extreme school of thought. I think the current model is good. Set a floor wage that forces people to aspire for a higher station in life while ensuring they don't starve. one possible refinement: automatic recalibration of this floor every 3 years, indexed to inflation.

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

you say you like the idea of inflation indexing. what do you think the current minimum wage would be if it was adjusted for inflation starting the very year it was first legislated?

I'm for inflation indexing prospectively. Righting historical wrongs is fine but be prepared for the inflationary blowback which will hit the poorest the hardest.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

then i am not sure what we disagree on. not much i suspect. currently it's not pegged to inflation.

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

you say you like the idea of inflation indexing. what do you think the current minimum wage would be if it was adjusted for inflation starting the very year it was first legislated?

I'm for inflation indexing prospectively. Righting historical wrongs is fine but be prepared for the inflationary blowback which will hit the poorest the hardest.

the change in buying power for the poor with a modest upward adjustment to the minimum wage is enormous. it's immediately going to be put back into the economy.

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

The discussion began with the use of food stamps by WMT and McD employees. If you want them to stop doing that, their wages have to rise 50-60%. And that would send other wages spiraling as well. An inflation indexation has no such impact, but on the flip side, WMT employees will continue to use food stamps - which is so irksome to many.

you say you like the idea of inflation indexing. what do you think the current minimum wage would be if it was adjusted for inflation starting the very year it was first legislated?

I'm for inflation indexing prospectively. Righting historical wrongs is fine but be prepared for the inflationary blowback which will hit the poorest the hardest.

the change in buying power for the poor with a modest upward adjustment to the minimum wage is enormous. it's immediately going to be put back into the economy.

Nope. It will lead corporations to cut more jobs and putting more people on unemployment and corporations investing even less in growth.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

you say you like the idea of inflation indexing. what do you think the current minimum wage would be
if it was adjusted for inflation starting the very year it was first legislated?

I'm for inflation indexing prospectively. Righting historical wrongs is fine but be prepared for the inflationary blowback which will hit the poorest the hardest.

the change in buying power for the poor with a modest upward adjustment to the minimum wage is enormous. it's immediately going to be put back into the economy.

Nope. It will lead corporations to cut more jobs and putting more people on unemployment and corporations investing even less in growth.

please at least take a look at the times article petrichor posted with chockfull of references to carefully done studies that directly contradict this notion.

confuzzled dude wrote:-> One can't help but wonder whether these corporations are really helping the economy and employment, looks like they (corporations) are turning into parasites that live off of welfare, both by ensuring their employees avail welfare programs as well as depending on welfare customer base (as mentioned in the article posted by Merlot, about 18% of wal-mart's customers are food stamp users)

"On the upside, Turner now had insurance through Medicaid. On the downside, Pizza Hut had reduced her hours from 30 a week to 24. For Pizza Hut, this meant it was not required to provide her with coverage, which the new law mandates for employees working more than 30 hours a week. For Turner, it meant even less money."

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

I'm for inflation indexing prospectively. Righting historical wrongs is fine but be prepared for the inflationary blowback which will hit the poorest the hardest.

the change in buying power for the poor with a modest upward adjustment to the minimum wage is enormous. it's immediately going to be put back into the economy.

Nope. It will lead corporations to cut more jobs and putting more people on unemployment and corporations investing even less in growth.

please at least take a look at the times article petrichor posted with chockfull of references to carefully done studies that directly contradict this notion.

Here is another link for you:

Unprecedented Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Jobs and the Economy
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/unprecedented-minimum-wage-hike-would-hurt-jobs-and-the-economy

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

the change in buying power for the poor with a modest upward adjustment to the minimum wage is enormous. it's immediately going to be put back into the economy.

Nope. It will lead corporations to cut more jobs and putting more people on unemployment and corporations investing even less in growth.

please at least take a look at the times article petrichor posted with chockfull of references to carefully done studies that directly contradict this notion.

Here is another link for you:

Unprecedented Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Jobs and the Economy
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/unprecedented-minimum-wage-hike-would-hurt-jobs-and-the-economy

Heritage ???  That conservative bastion...what else one can expect from them?  Also, this scary scenario is propagated every time this minimum wage issue comes up.

Extending the heritage argument, will the jobs and the economy improve if the minimum wage is LOWERED?  why not?

confuzzled dude wrote:-> One can't help but wonder whether these corporations are really helping the economy and employment, looks like they (corporations) are turning into parasites that live off of welfare, both by ensuring their employees avail welfare programs as well as depending on welfare customer base (as mentioned in the article posted by Merlot, about 18% of wal-mart's customers are food stamp users)

"On the upside, Turner now had insurance through Medicaid. On the downside, Pizza Hut had reduced her hours from 30 a week to 24. For Pizza Hut, this meant it was not required to provide her with coverage, which the new law mandates for employees working more than 30 hours a week. For Turner, it meant even less money."

Rashmun wrote:

Oh oh Poopwalah is exerting the old cerebellum to try and see if he can pass off as an intellectual.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:-> One can't help but wonder whether these corporations are really helping the economy and employment, looks like they (corporations) are turning into parasites that live off of welfare, both by ensuring their employees avail welfare programs as well as depending on welfare customer base (as mentioned in the article posted by Merlot, about 18% of wal-mart's customers are food stamp users)

"On the upside, Turner now had insurance through Medicaid. On the downside, Pizza Hut had reduced her hours from 30 a week to 24. For Pizza Hut, this meant it was not required to provide her with coverage, which the new law mandates for employees working more than 30 hours a week. For Turner, it meant even less money."

Cd
if corporations are living off govt dole and not helping create new jobs,  what is the future of Usa?

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

truthbetold wrote:Kris,
excellent.

Cd
whoever wrote that comparison between walmart worker retention and google talent retention must be barred from future economic writings for intellectual laziness.

Merlot
"Oh so ethical whole foods."  Good one.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Kris,
excellent.

Cd
whoever wrote that comparison between walmart worker retention and google talent retention must be barred from future economic writings for intellectual laziness.

Merlot
"Oh so ethical whole foods."  Good one.

What about whole foods ethics? I think the point I'm making is about bottom line too i.e. If a corporation is unable to help economy or create decent jobs consistently, may be it's time for the Govt. revisit it's subsidy policies. Isn't that how capitalism supposed to work?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

>>>but the expectations that drive Google's stock prices are very different from what drives Walmart's stock prices. Google's profit potential is not strictly governed by labor costs alone. You can even make the case that the increase results in retention of  high caliber employees who  work on cutting edge technology and development of products that could hit boost their revenues and profits and ergo, the stock bounce. They are not pushing up against relatively static revenues. Walmart on the other hand neither has high skill employees nor operates in a space which leads to revenue boosts because of the nature of the industry.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

>>>but the expectations that drive Google's stock prices are very different from what drives Walmart's stock prices. Google's profit potential is not strictly governed by labor costs alone. You can even make the case that the increase results in retention of  high caliber employees who  work on cutting edge technology and development of products that could hit boost their revenues and profits and ergo, the stock bounce. They are not pushing up against relatively static revenues. Walmart on the other hand neither has high skill employees nor operates in a space which leads to revenue boosts because of the nature of the industry.

Does the Walmart's stock performance over the last decade reflect this theory? Keep in mind that that business that Walmart is in, is relatively low risk compared to Google's line of business. The lamest excuse given by the analysts when comparing Walmart with Costco, was that Walmart offers a lot more products than Costco so their overhead is high, customers get upset if Walmart pulls out some of these products, really? Does America really need Walmart Supercenters? How come Sam's Club which precisely runs the same business model (membership fee based) despite catering to so called low-end customers makes much higher profits than Costco yet pays their employees lot less.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

>>>but the expectations that drive Google's stock prices are very different from what drives Walmart's stock prices. Google's profit potential is not strictly governed by labor costs alone. You can even make the case that the increase results in retention of  high caliber employees who  work on cutting edge technology and development of products that could hit boost their revenues and profits and ergo, the stock bounce. They are not pushing up against relatively static revenues. Walmart on the other hand neither has high skill employees nor operates in a space which leads to revenue boosts because of the nature of the industry.

Does the Walmart's stock performance over the last decade reflect this theory? Keep in mind that that business that Walmart is in, is relatively low risk compared to Google's line of business. The lamest excuse given by the analysts when comparing Walmart with Costco, was that Walmart offers a lot more products than Costco so their overhead is high, customers get upset if Walmart pulls out some of these products, really? Does America really need Walmart Supercenters? How come Sam's Club which precisely runs the same business model (membership fee based) despite catering to so called low-end customers makes much higher profits than Costco yet pays their employees lot less.

Really? Where did you read that? Is that why Sam's club is actually shutting down locations?

truthbetold wrote:Kris,
excellent.

Cd
whoever wrote that comparison between walmart worker retention and google talent retention must be barred from future economic writings for intellectual laziness.

Merlot
"Oh so ethical whole foods."  Good one.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

>>>but the expectations that drive Google's stock prices are very different from what drives Walmart's stock prices. Google's profit potential is not strictly governed by labor costs alone. You can even make the case that the increase results in retention of  high caliber employees who  work on cutting edge technology and development of products that could hit boost their revenues and profits and ergo, the stock bounce. They are not pushing up against relatively static revenues. Walmart on the other hand neither has high skill employees nor operates in a space which leads to revenue boosts because of the nature of the industry.

Does the Walmart's stock performance over the last decade reflect this theory? Keep in mind that that business that Walmart is in, is relatively low risk compared to Google's line of business. The lamest excuse given by the analysts when comparing Walmart with Costco, was that Walmart offers a lot more products than Costco so their overhead is high, customers get upset if Walmart pulls out some of these products, really? Does America really need Walmart Supercenters? How come Sam's Club which precisely runs the same business model (membership fee based) despite catering to so called low-end customers makes much higher profits than Costco yet pays their employees lot less.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

>>>but the expectations that drive Google's stock prices are very different from what drives Walmart's stock prices. Google's profit potential is not strictly governed by labor costs alone. You can even make the case that the increase results in retention of  high caliber employees who  work on cutting edge technology and development of products that could hit boost their revenues and profits and ergo, the stock bounce. They are not pushing up against relatively static revenues. Walmart on the other hand neither has high skill employees nor operates in a space which leads to revenue boosts because of the nature of the industry.

Does the Walmart's stock performance over the last decade reflect this theory? Keep in mind that that business that Walmart is in, is relatively low risk compared to Google's line of business. The lamest excuse given by the analysts when comparing Walmart with Costco, was that Walmart offers a lot more products than Costco so their overhead is high, customers get upset if Walmart pulls out some of these products, really? Does America really need Walmart Supercenters? How come Sam's Club which precisely runs the same business model (membership fee based) despite catering to so called low-end customers makes much higher profits than Costco yet pays their employees lot less.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

>>>but the expectations that drive Google's stock prices are very different from what drives Walmart's stock prices. Google's profit potential is not strictly governed by labor costs alone. You can even make the case that the increase results in retention of  high caliber employees who  work on cutting edge technology and development of products that could hit boost their revenues and profits and ergo, the stock bounce. They are not pushing up against relatively static revenues. Walmart on the other hand neither has high skill employees nor operates in a space which leads to revenue boosts because of the nature of the industry.

Does the Walmart's stock performance over the last decade reflect this theory? Keep in mind that that business that Walmart is in, is relatively low risk compared to Google's line of business. The lamest excuse given by the analysts when comparing Walmart with Costco, was that Walmart offers a lot more products than Costco so their overhead is high, customers get upset if Walmart pulls out some of these products, really? Does America really need Walmart Supercenters? How come Sam's Club which precisely runs the same business model (membership fee based) despite catering to so called low-end customers makes much higher profits than Costco yet pays their employees lot less.

>>Why don't we leave this to the market forces?

Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>Why don't we leave this to the market forces?

but that's not how we do it in russia. are you asking us to go against the politburo, comrade?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>Why don't we leave this to the market forces?

but that's not how we do it in russia. are you asking us to go against the politburo, comrade?

Hahaha! I liked this for a change. FYI I'm also a big fan of collectives

Seriously though, not only by giving a free pass to those corporations that rely & encourage their employees to avail one of the biggest socialist programs called SNAP but also for supporting their practices vehemently, aren't you displaying more socialistic tendencies than I usually do (per you & your neo-conservative friend). If you don't mind we, respectfully, would like to bestow uber-socialist of SuCH, title on you, not that there is anything wrong with that

mainstreet wrote:I get the feeling confuzzled dude is Max.  Horrible logic.  Walmart and Costco target a different demographic.  There are more poor in the world than middle class.  I don't even like to go anywhere near a Walmart.  Cops are just waiting for illegals to break the law and give them a speeding ticket.  Hispanics with ten crying babies all over the place trying to buy their jicama and avocado make me think what a nightmare!  Even the employees there are smoking right by the entrance.  Grossness!  I'd much rather go to Target.  

If my husband and I had kids, I would consider trying out Costco.  Walmart's business model is based on really cheap prices.  They make their profits by volume and not margin.  Their profit may just be a penny or two per item but when you sell a lot of those items, you make lots of profits.  To say that they're in a low-risk business is ridiculous!  No business is ever low-risk.  Okay, maybe academia and even that's changing.

bw wrote:it is interesting that the 'free-market' evangelists have no issues with government bailing out the wall-street thugs.

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:it is interesting that the 'free-market' evangelists have no issues with government bailing out the wall-street thugs.

Lucy, *you* should not be criticizing the bail out of Wall St. banks, especially when they happen to be global IBs.

Hellsangel wrote:[
PS: We all know what happened after Lehmann was allowed to fall.

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:it is interesting that the 'free-market' evangelists have no issues with government bailing out the wall-street thugs.

Lucy, *you* should not be criticizing the bail out of Wall St. banks, especially when they happen to be global IBs.

why not? don't get personal and stick to the point, snoopy.

i will point out the inconsistencies of your and other noble torchbearers of "let poor ppl rot but corporates rule" movement quoting market forces and other such convenient laissez-faire concepts.

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:it is interesting that the 'free-market' evangelists have no issues with government bailing out the wall-street thugs.

Lucy, *you* should not be criticizing the bail out of Wall St. banks, especially when they happen to be global IBs.

why not? don't get personal and stick to the point, snoopy.

i will point out the inconsistencies of your and other noble torchbearers of "let poor ppl rot but corporates rule" movement quoting market forces and other such convenient laissez-faire concepts.

Let us just say that the inequalities you refer to are far worse in some of the true capitalistic first world places than they are in the US.

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:it is interesting that the 'free-market' evangelists have no issues with government bailing out the wall-street thugs.

Lucy, *you* should not be criticizing the bail out of Wall St. banks, especially when they happen to be global IBs.

why not? don't get personal and stick to the point, snoopy.

i will point out the inconsistencies of your and other noble torchbearers of "let poor ppl rot but corporates rule" movement quoting market forces and other such convenient laissez-faire concepts.

Let us just say that the inequalities you refer to are far worse in some of the true capitalistic first world places than they are in the US.

you mean, US is more socialistic and that's what makes it better?   

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Lucy, *you* should not be criticizing the bail out of Wall St. banks, especially when they happen to be global IBs.

why not? don't get personal and stick to the point, snoopy.

i will point out the inconsistencies of your and other noble torchbearers of "let poor ppl rot but corporates rule" movement quoting market forces and other such convenient laissez-faire concepts.

Let us just say that the inequalities you refer to are far worse in some of the true capitalistic first world places than they are in the US.

you mean, US is more socialistic and that's what makes it better?   

Nope. I mean the US has fairly balanced free market than the runaway train of unbridled capitalism that Comrades like to make it out to be.

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

bw wrote:

why not? don't get personal and stick to the point, snoopy.

i will point out the inconsistencies of your and other noble torchbearers of "let poor ppl rot but corporates rule" movement quoting market forces and other such convenient laissez-faire concepts.

Let us just say that the inequalities you refer to are far worse in some of the true capitalistic first world places than they are in the US.

you mean, US is more socialistic and that's what makes it better?   

Nope. I mean the US has fairly balanced free market than the runaway train of unbridled capitalism that Comrades like to make it out to be.

what is "fairly balanced'? govt(tax payers) stepping in when things go horribly wrong after they were allowed to run amok? why is the gini index getting worse by the year? very fair and balanced for the 1% alright!