Re: another way to look at it...

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

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!

Let us see how it is faring in Socialist Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#OECD_countries

i don't think anyone can overlook the income inequality that's plaguing the US. anyway, back to my original point - it is okay if uncle sam steps in in some cases(read: TBTF thugs) but when it comes to bettering the lives of underprivileged masses, we should simply let the market decide, eh?

by Hellsangel Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:37 pm

bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:

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!

Let us see how it is faring in Socialist Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#OECD_countries

i don't think anyone can overlook the income inequality that's plaguing the US. anyway, back to my original point - it is okay if uncle sam steps in in some cases(read: TBTF thugs) but when it comes to bettering the lives of underprivileged masses, we should simply let the market decide, eh?

What happened when Detroit was allowed to fail? It affected the Underprivileged masses more than anyone else. The risk to letting the financial system fail was too great.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:38 pm

you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:54 pm

Hellsangel wrote:

What happened when Detroit was allowed to fail? It affected the Underprivileged masses more than anyone else. The risk to letting the financial system fail was too great.

oh yes, it was purely the love and care for the underprivileged that made the US government bail out the thugs.

in any case, you are saying it is okay for taxpayers to bear the burden in some cases - very socialistic tendencies, dare i say.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:59 pm

bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

What happened when Detroit was allowed to fail? It affected the Underprivileged masses more than anyone else. The risk to letting the financial system fail was too great.

oh yes, it was purely the love and care for the underprivileged that made the US government bail out the thugs.

in any case, you are saying it is okay for taxpayers to bear the burden in some cases - very socialistic tendencies, dare i say.

socialize the costs and privatize the profits. that's not socialism, that's just pure porcine thuggery.

by Hellsangel Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:44 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:51 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

oh, obama was/is another corporate stooge. he got the maximum funding from wall street.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:08 pm

bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

oh, obama was/is another corporate stooge. he got the maximum funding from wall street.

nevertheless, he has done something useful -- healthcare. you lose all credibility with your criticism when you equate obama with the republican blowhards.

by Hellsangel Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:11 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

oh, obama was/is another corporate stooge. he got the maximum funding from wall street.

nevertheless, he has done something useful -- healthcare. you lose all credibility with your criticism when you equate obama with the republican blowhards.

Naturally, no one can criticise the Messiah!

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:13 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

oh, obama was/is another corporate stooge. he got the maximum funding from wall street.

nevertheless, he has done something useful -- healthcare. you lose all credibility with your criticism when you equate obama with the republican blowhards.

where did i "equate" him? he is a corporate stooge, like it or not - a matter of degree. i think credibility is lost more when party loyalty dictates one's judgement.

it is like saying income inequality in the US is not an issue because some socialist countries have it too.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:37 pm

bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you're looking for consistency from a GOP apparatchik? tut tut.

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

oh, obama was/is another corporate stooge. he got the maximum funding from wall street.

nevertheless, he has done something useful -- healthcare. you lose all credibility with your criticism when you equate obama with the republican blowhards.

where did i "equate" him? he is a corporate stooge, like it or not - a matter of degree. i think credibility is lost more when party loyalty dictates one's judgement.

it is like saying income inequality in the US is not an issue because some socialist countries have it too.

i hear what you're saying, but the magnitude of the sins of the two sides are so unequal that your criticism almost sounds like a desperate attempt at forcing yourself to sound unbiased. there is a vast chasm between the absolutist right wing politics of the GOP which is a strange but potent brew of slamming the poor, sucking up to corporate interests, evangelical christianity, and science denial and the centrist politics of obama.

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:45 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

I am afraid apparatchiks aptly describes the cult-worshipping koolaid drinking Obamites. And of course the Democrats are the most consistent not-at-all-hypocritical lot.

oh, obama was/is another corporate stooge. he got the maximum funding from wall street.

nevertheless, he has done something useful -- healthcare. you lose all credibility with your criticism when you equate obama with the republican blowhards.

where did i "equate" him? he is a corporate stooge, like it or not - a matter of degree. i think credibility is lost more when party loyalty dictates one's judgement.

it is like saying income inequality in the US is not an issue because some socialist countries have it too.

i hear what you're saying, but the magnitude of the sins of the two sides are so unequal that your criticism almost sounds like a desperate attempt at forcing yourself to sound unbiased. there is a vast chasm between the absolutist right wing politics of the GOP which is a strange but potent brew of slamming the poor, sucking up to corporate interests, evangelical christianity, and science denial and the centrist politics of obama.

none of that alters the fact that obama is a corporate stooge. where have i defended the republicans and "equated" them? your loyalty to obama makes you see things that don't exist. there is really no need to compare and contrast. you guys are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils. his appointments to the treasury department is proof enough.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:48 pm

bw wrote:there is really no need to compare and contrast. you guys are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.

of course there is such a need! it exists in any other place than utopia. not just "us" guys, but participants in any democracy.

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:54 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
there is really no need to compare and contrast. you guys are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.

of course there is such a need! it exists in any other place than utopia. not just "us" guys, but participants in any democracy.

there is a need but i don't need that to glorify or vilify one side. they can be judged on absolute terms. unfortunately, your side doesn't come out squeaky clean either. it is just a matter of degree and if you are incapable of seeing your choice's flaws, it is blind devotion.

i don't see why i need to discuss the republicans when i am criticizing obama and in particular, his dealings with wall street.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:59 pm

bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
there is really no need to compare and contrast. you guys are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.

of course there is such a need! it exists in any other place than utopia. not just "us" guys, but participants in any democracy.

there is a need but i don't need that to glorify or vilify one side. they can be judged on absolute terms. unfortunately, your side doesn't come out squeaky clean either. it is just a matter of degree and if you are incapable of seeing your choice's flaws, it is blind devotion.

i don't see why i need to discuss the republicans when i am criticizing obama and in particular, his dealings with wall street.

excuse me, this thread is about raising the minimum wage and "my side" is the only one that has proposed raising it. nobody in the world is squeaky clean except maybe a cabbage raised in a sterile environment. that's a truism. nobody needs to state it.

by bw Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:14 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
there is really no need to compare and contrast. you guys are forced to choose the lesser of the two evils.

of course there is such a need! it exists in any other place than utopia. not just "us" guys, but participants in any democracy.

there is a need but i don't need that to glorify or vilify one side. they can be judged on absolute terms. unfortunately, your side doesn't come out squeaky clean either. it is just a matter of degree and if you are incapable of seeing your choice's flaws, it is blind devotion.

i don't see why i need to discuss the republicans when i am criticizing obama and in particular, his dealings with wall street.

excuse me, this thread is about raising the minimum wage and "my side" is the only one that has proposed raising it. nobody in the world is squeaky clean except maybe a cabbage raised in a sterile environment. that's a truism. nobody needs to state it.

err, thank you for that explanation but why did you feel the need to chip in when i said something about obama in a response to HA? Rolling Eyes

i like to state truisms especially about corporate stooges touted as some captain america.

by bw Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:13 am

...another soul yearning for the squeaky clean cabbage.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/31/obama-takes-on-inequality/

i like this

Who knows – or cares – what Obama really wants; the one-percent is calling the shots. How could they not? They own most of what there is to own, the political class most of all.
To their credit, Republicans just are what they are: useful idiots of the super-rich. Guile and dissimulation are beyond their reach. With Democrats, there is more of a gap between appearance and reality.
With Obama, the gap was once exceptionally wide. Those days are long gone. But the man is nothing if not clever, and Netanyahu has taught him well. And so, as he inveighs against inequality, he goes on establishing facts on the ground.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:49 am

Children, stop this brawling. Yes, income inequality is rising. Yes, there is greater dependence on welfare overall. But Walmart and McD are not causing this. Welfare benefits availed by their employees doesn't amount to subsidizing these companies, any more than your kids attending public school is a subsidy to your employer.

Minimum wages, regardless of who the employer is, cannot and are not meant to comfortably support a family. Unless such employees get 50-60% raises, they will have to continue using food stamps, so get used to the idea.

Income inequality is high and growing because hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs have disappeared, made redundant by automation and cost-cutting, pushing ever more individuals onto dole or into burger flipping. At the same time, wages have stagnated for years i.e. shrunk in real terms. In sharp contrast, the S&P 500 recorded 5-yr returns of 110%.

In such a situation, where the poor are severely stressed and desperate for livelihoods and goods and services that their shrinking wages can afford, why would you specifically pick on two companies which are actually serving these two critical needs?? By demonizing them and trying to legislate them out of business, you are only hurting the poor that your hearts bleed for.

PS: If you think you can legislate your way out of this situation, think again. The only reason many more jobs continue to exist today is because it's simply cheaper to hire people, given present-day robo-economics. Make people too expensive and you'll face even more rapid job losses.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:31 am

MD -- you've just repackaged arguments you've made upthread in the latest post. the point is when you made an agreement to legislate a minimum wage, you're already through the looking glass. really the only point being discussed here is when it is appropriate to make an upward adjustment and by what magnitude. the legislation train has already left the station. it's not coming back.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:57 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:MD -- you've just repackaged arguments you've made upthread in the latest post. the point is when you made an agreement to legislate a minimum wage, you're already through the looking glass. really the only point being discussed here is when it is appropriate to make an upward adjustment and by what magnitude. the legislation train has already left the station. it's not coming back.

Haha..true. I wanted to put all of it in one place. In addition, I wanted to link up the growing income disparity to the intrinsic inequality between providers of labor and providers of capital. While the former is being squeezed out by technology and automation, the latter is reaping ever higher benefit. And that is not something legislators have to be wary of. Raising wages indiscriminately (beyond the 2-4% necessary to compensate for inflation) will only accelerate automation and job redundancies.

by Hellsangel Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:12 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:MD -- you've just repackaged arguments you've made upthread in the latest post. the point is when you made an agreement to legislate a minimum wage, you're already through the looking glass. really the only point being discussed here is when it is appropriate to make an upward adjustment and by what magnitude. the legislation train has already left the station. it's not coming back.

Haha..true. I wanted to put all of it in one place. In addition, I wanted to link up the growing income disparity to the intrinsic inequality between providers of labor and providers of capital. While the former is being squeezed out by technology and automation, the latter is reaping ever higher benefit. And that is not something legislators have to be wary of. Raising wages indiscriminately (beyond the 2-4% necessary to compensate for inflation) will only accelerate automation and job redundancies.

Oh, the koolaid drinkers think that the idea of job losses from wage increases is just fear mongering.

by confuzzled dude Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:15 am

Hellsangel wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:MD -- you've just repackaged arguments you've made upthread in the latest post. the point is when you made an agreement to legislate a minimum wage, you're already through the looking glass. really the only point being discussed here is when it is appropriate to make an upward adjustment and by what magnitude. the legislation train has already left the station. it's not coming back.

Haha..true. I wanted to put all of it in one place. In addition, I wanted to link up the growing income disparity to the intrinsic inequality between providers of labor and providers of capital. While the former is being squeezed out by technology and automation, the latter is reaping ever higher benefit. And that is not something legislators have to be wary of. Raising wages indiscriminately (beyond the 2-4% necessary to compensate for inflation) will only accelerate automation and job redundancies.
Oh, the koolaid drinkers think that the idea of job losses from wage increases is just fear mongering.

He meant 2-4% every year not every 20 years.

by Hellsangel Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:30 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:MD -- you've just repackaged arguments you've made upthread in the latest post. the point is when you made an agreement to legislate a minimum wage, you're already through the looking glass. really the only point being discussed here is when it is appropriate to make an upward adjustment and by what magnitude. the legislation train has already left the station. it's not coming back.

Haha..true. I wanted to put all of it in one place. In addition, I wanted to link up the growing income disparity to the intrinsic inequality between providers of labor and providers of capital. While the former is being squeezed out by technology and automation, the latter is reaping ever higher benefit. And that is not something legislators have to be wary of. Raising wages indiscriminately (beyond the 2-4% necessary to compensate for inflation) will only accelerate automation and job redundancies.
Oh, the koolaid drinkers think that the idea of job losses from wage increases is just fear mongering.
He meant 2-4% every year not every 20 years.

Read up. Someone was proposing a 25$ wage.

by confuzzled dude Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:34 am

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:MD -- you've just repackaged arguments you've made upthread in the latest post. the point is when you made an agreement to legislate a minimum wage, you're already through the looking glass. really the only point being discussed here is when it is appropriate to make an upward adjustment and by what magnitude. the legislation train has already left the station. it's not coming back.

Haha..true. I wanted to put all of it in one place. In addition, I wanted to link up the growing income disparity to the intrinsic inequality between providers of labor and providers of capital. While the former is being squeezed out by technology and automation, the latter is reaping ever higher benefit. And that is not something legislators have to be wary of. Raising wages indiscriminately (beyond the 2-4% necessary to compensate for inflation) will only accelerate automation and job redundancies.
Oh, the koolaid drinkers think that the idea of job losses from wage increases is just fear mongering.
He meant 2-4% every year not every 20 years.

Read up. Someone was proposing a 25$ wage.

I don't think they were proposing rather were saying it would've been $25 had they kept up with inflation; even the fast food workers that went on strike were asking for what $14 or $15?

by b_A Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:59 pm

I think this topic has run its course and has become such a bore.
Personally , I think USA has the best system - Capitalistic with the Govt providing a safety net for the people who cannot take care of themselves.
Most of the money for all these schemes are provided by the middle class HENRYs( High Earners but Not Rich Yet). The Rich take care of themselves and get favorable tax treatment with lobbying by special interest groups. The poor get all the benefits and don't have to bother about taxes. Only the HENRYs ( most of the SUCHers fall in this category, I suspect) carry the burden. Of these it is most unfair to the first generation HENRY immigrants because other HENRYs at least have some other family members like grandparents etc getting benefits but the immigrant HENRYs only pay into the system and will only get a fraction back as benefits.

by confuzzled dude Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:16 am

b_A wrote:I think this topic has run its course and has become such a bore.
Personally , I think USA has the best system - Capitalistic with the Govt providing a safety net for the people who cannot take care of themselves.
Most of the money for all these schemes are provided by the middle class HENRYs( High Earners but Not Rich Yet). The Rich take care of themselves and get favorable tax treatment with lobbying by special interest groups. The poor get all the benefits and don't have to bother about taxes. Only the HENRYs ( most of the SUCHers fall in this category, I suspect) carry the burden. Of these it is most unfair to the first generation HENRY immigrants because other HENRYs at least have some other family members like grandparents etc getting benefits but the immigrant HENRYs only pay into the system and will only get a fraction back as benefits.

It doesn't mean it is perfect or doesn't require any correction, which is what I suppose all this discussion is/was about.

by Sponsored content