Democrats are making it worse. Of course, as with racism, unemployment, poverty, education, health care, etc., that’s true about almost everything that they complain about.
17 thoughts on “Income Inequality”
Comments are closed.
Democrats are making it worse. Of course, as with racism, unemployment, poverty, education, health care, etc., that’s true about almost everything that they complain about.
Comments are closed.
complaining about a farm bill passed by a GOP house seems odd.
We know you’re an idiot, but could you elaborate? Why would it be odd?
In order to understand dn-guy’s comment, you have to realize two separate truths:
1) dn-guy is a partisan. My teem is always right, your team is always wrong. He doesn’t believe in principles, just teams.
2) dn-guy has recently switched to the “GOP” team, so nothing done by them could ever be wrong.
dn-guy has recently switched to the “GOP” team, so nothing done by them could ever be wrong.
Heh! So true, so true.
“gesture.” Such thinking gives us minimum-wage increases that do very little for very few. Meanwhile, there are farm bills, like the one Obama signed last month at Michigan State University.
MSU was one of the models for the land-grant colleges created under the 1862 Morrill Act, whose primary purpose was to apply learning to agriculture. Today, we apply crony capitalism to agriculture. The legislation Obama lavishly praised redistributes wealth upward by raising prices consumers pay.”
George Will in his oped was whining about the Farm Bill. That Bill came out of the House,
and was approved by the House GOP leadership.
Now I think the Farm Bill is Crony Capitalism, as Will points out, but, it’s a bipartisan form of
Crony Capitalism.
Of course it is. I can’t imagine why we would be so stupid as to think that simply electing Republicans would end this kind of corruption.
But it would be a start.
Just shows your extreme ignorance on government.
Congress is bicameral, which means two bodies. One is called the Senate. It is controlled by the Democrats.
Then there is the branch of the government called the Executive. It is controlled by a Democrat.
The house cannot make decisions by fiat, unlike the executive.
That is because income inequality does not result from the reasons they think it does. Inequality goes down when workers are in high demand, and competition for them is fierce. A slack economy is the driver of inequality. Or, at least, one of the main drivers.
That’s a good point, but you haven’t mentioned why the economy has been slack for the past 5 years. You can’t improve the economy by punishing businesses and entrepreneurs.
Yes, their theory is that the punishments will continue until morale improves.
A ditch digger is never going to make the same paycheck as an electrical engineer. That EE is never going to make the same paycheck as the CEO of Goldman Sachs (unless the EE becomes the CEO of Goldman Sachs).
There will always – and should always – be income inequality.
Labor has value and all labor not valued the same. Or shouldn’t be.
Income inequality is not a problem, but if someone wants more income, the tools necessary to get it are right there in front of them. All they have to do is execute…..Or as the Big Lebowski (not the Dude) liked to say:
“Achieve”
I agree. The whole “income inequality” argument sounds like something straight from the discredited “labor theory of value” tripe. It’s true that the theory was first proposed by Adam Smith but that was before the Industrial Revolution.
I’m mystified why I am supposed to get exercised about income inequality. And I speak not as a fat cat, or even one of those comfortable suburban-yuppie Republicans, but as someone who is on the lower end of the income spectrum. (As most people in the arts are.) How is someone getting a million dollars a year hurting me, or preventing me from getting wealthy? As long as the wealthy aren’t getting their moolah via force or fraud, their wealth–to use the Jeffersonian phrase–neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Unless of course they’re, say, Darth Soros or a Kennedy, using their wealth to advance the interests of statism.)
All politicians are bad at understanding the law of unintended consequences but Democrats are particularly adept at ignoring the consequences as long as possible. The profusion of labor regulations over the past few decades has increased friction in the job market considerably. And that has the greatest impact at the low end. Consider something simple, like the laws “protecting” workers so that full time employees get benefits and so forth and things like overtime pay. In theory that makes perfect sense, in practice it doesn’t always work out for the best. It means that entry level employees typically can’t get many hours with one job, and also can’t get consistently scheduled hours. Which means that if someone wants to work more to save more money they need a second job, which adds scheduling difficulty, travel costs, work time lost due to travel, etc. There are people who end up working 60 or more hours per week at multiple jobs because they can’t get enough hours at one job.
Who is advantaged and disadvantaged there? The people with the least job experience and the most need for money, the poor, are the most disadvantaged. Because if they could simply work 40, 60, or 80 or perhaps more hours at one job they would end up with more free time (perhaps for education) and more money in their pocket (because of the ease of consistently working so many hours at one place). Whereas folks who have more experience and more skills will be the ones who are allowed to be full time workers and given overtime and so forth. So the law punishes the poor and rewards the middle class and above.
The same thing applies with union regulations. Unions don’t protect the poor, they protect the wealthy, folks with good, highly skilled jobs.
Obviously there are other factors at play and things aren’t quite so simple but I think this illustrates how easy it is to put the poor at a disadvantage without even appreciating it.
I would add to your part about those with the least job experience the following observation.
They also (In my experience) have the worst job-related habits. Where I work (a Virginia Beach oceanfront timeshare/hotel) my boss generally tends to hire people who are just starting out, college students, etc. He pays above the industry standard for every position. We still have an amazing churn, as most of the new hires simply can’t show up on time (20 minutes late is pretty much the norm) and leave early at the first opportunity – thus shooting themselves in the foot pay-wise. They don’t do very much while they’re on the clock and a statistically significant percentage of what they have done has to be re-done (or at least checked) at the end of the day before I can do my work (balancing the books). They then quit when you attempt to point out to them their errors, thus blowing up their job history and any potential references.
Frustrating doesn’t begin to describe it.
“Unions don’t protect the poor, they protect the wealthy, folks with good, highly skilled jobs.”
They mostly seem to protect wealthy government employees these days.
I have a good, highly skilled job. Why would I want to join a union that would tie my pay to the useless dope downstairs, who makes us work harder because we have to redo so much of his work, and the union prevents the company from firing him?
As for ‘income inequality’, the only way to eliminate it is to make everyone equally poor. Since making people poor is what the left do best, we shouldn’t be surprised to see it’s become their new cause.
Income inequality is natural and good. Ten year olds with a lemonade stand do not make as much as nuclear engineers. People are not static. They age. Have Thomas Sowell explain how that works.
77 cents to the dollars is more BS that Marilyn Vos Savant explained 20 or 30 years ago. If true, why ever hire men?
The travesty is these things require explaining more than once.