IBT posts some numbers on executive vs. worker pay in the last 30 years

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So, International Business Times did a study on this. First, the TL; DR:

"In the last 30 years, CEO pay has increased 127 times faster than worker pay; and the CEO pay has jumped 15% just in 2011. The disparity was the worst in 2000, but it's still rather large today, too."

The link:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/337434/20120504/ceo-pay-increased-127-times-faster-worker.htm

And finally the long version for those who want to read it without clicking around:

Captcha: Fair and square.

Yeah, I wonder. Those numbers really don't seem that way that to me...

It wouldn't be so bad, if there was some sense that it was justified, but if we've learned anything since 2009 its that these guys have no more of a clue what's going on than anyone else.

Interesting to note that this all started in the late 70s-80s. Around about the time private sector unions got legislatively hammered (in the UK at any rate).
This bit in particular seems to be a good argument for unionisation.

Workers' wages do not seem to be tied to the success of the companies they work for. As demonstrated by another anaylsis from the EPI, hourly wage and compensation for lower-level employees remained stagnant until 2009, even as worker productivity has risen sharply.

captcha: topsy turvy. Isn't it just captcha, isn't it just.

It's fucked up. Honestly what else can you call it? I strongly believe that nobody should be making more than 400k yearly. You don't even need that much to live your life in great luxury, people who want more than that have grown accustomed to obscene tastes. It's unjustifyed and an advanced society has no place for indulgence like that.

Vegosiux:
snip

Reading the OP make me think of

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

If this is news to you guys, boy do I have some pamphlets, books and newspapers for you!

Some non snarky-communist stuff:

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/4862392C0AC24550852576CD0077FEA7?OpenDocument

image

image

image

image

(More comprehensive version here: http://i53.tinypic.com/34p0yt2.jpg )

image

image

image

image

image

For hilarity, Cain's 999 tax plan effects: http://i.imgur.com/UINgv.jpg

Overhead:
Snip

Well if you ask Seekster or some other right-leaning republican. Tax Inequality isnt a problem! If we just let this run its course all the poor would become rich. Sweeden's economy is like cuba or something isnt it? I mean they are socialists compared to the rightwing of America xD. So why the crap listen to them.

It has to be said that inequality in wages isn't always a bad thing, but I agree OP this is kinda ridiculous, an increase of 127x isn't sustainable. I don't know what to suggest since I don't like the idea of interfering with business affairs, perhaps raising minimum wage a bit? Problem is we don't want to scare off businesses to other countries, these people are tighter than a duck's arse and will happily to move to China if it'll save them a few pence. That said, perhaps it isn't such a big problem after all since I suppose as long as the executives spend their money, it'll get down to the rest of us eventually.

It's obviously because the bottom 20% aren't working hard enough. Kids these days in the ghetto don't know what it's like to show up to work on Monday!

Zero47:
It's fucked up. Honestly what else can you call it? I strongly believe that nobody should be making more than 400k yearly.

So there would be no more billionaires to establish charities and donate millions of dollars every year? What would you propose someone do after they make their 400k in a few months, work for free? How would limiting what someone else makes solve income disparity when there would still be people in relative poverty?

chronobreak:
How would limiting what someone else makes solve income disparity when there would still be people in relative poverty?

Who says anything about "eliminating"? But some people making in a day what others need to work nearly a whole year for is a disparity that needs to be knocked down a notch or three. I don't have a problem with CEO's making more, but that ratio needs to go down an order of magnitude at least.

Vegosiux:

chronobreak:
How would limiting what someone else makes solve income disparity when there would still be people in relative poverty?

Who says anything about "eliminating"? But some people making in a day what others need to work nearly a whole year for is a disparity that needs to be knocked down a notch or three. I don't have a problem with CEO's making more, but that ratio needs to go down at least one order of magnitude.

I said limiting, which was the poster whom I quoted's idea. I don't know where you got eliminating from. I don't see any way putting a cap on how much someone can make in a year would do anything to help income disparity. How would the money (that would no longer be able to be earned) be distributed to people earning less?

I'm not saying the numbers don't suck, they absolutely do. I just don't believe limiting income is the way to bring those numbers closer together.

JoJo:
It has to be said that inequality in wages isn't always a bad thing,

I'm fairly sure its always a bad thing for the person with the lower wages.

I don't know what to suggest since I don't like the idea of interfering with business affairs, perhaps raising minimum wage a bit?

If I were to stay within the capitalist othodoxy, I'd probably suggest social democracy along the nordic lines where there is serious regulation of businesses.

Screw that. Capital will always try and exploit labour. We might get good protection for a few decedes from some left-wing party that manages to change the orthodoxy a bit, but as long as Capital benefits from exploiting Labour and has disproportionate power to effect government policy it is only a matter of time until things go the other way again and people suffer.

Private property needs to be abolished and the proletariat needs to seize control of the means of production.

Problem is we don't want to scare off businesses to other countries, these people are tighter than a duck's arse and will happily to move to China if it'll save them a few pence.

Businesses don't migrate based on tax and the like. If they did, countries with high tax rates wouldn't have any businesses in them because they're all have migrated to somewhere like Singapore where taxes are tiny and some of the labourers are so poor they live in cages smaller than those of some animals I've had. Capital has a nationality and it is a lot harder than you are presuming to change that.

That said, perhaps it isn't such a big problem after all since I suppose as long as the executives spend their money, it'll get down to the rest of us eventually.

That isn't how money or the world financial markets work.

The American Dream has become a cynical joke used to give the poor a hope for vertical mobility and to make them vote against their own interests. Face it, if you want to succeed for your hard work, go to Denmark or Sweden or some other Northern European country. Other European countries, too, albeit to a lesser degree. And don't give me some lame anecdotes of one or two people succeeding against all odds. This stuff is actually statistically measurable and the USA are pretty bad in that department these days. Several decades of trickle down nonsense and not really an ending in sight.

chronobreak:
So there would be no more billionaires to establish charities and donate millions of dollars every year?

The money doesn't disappear from the economy. It can be spent for positive benefits by ordinary people who are now getting paid more, the government, etc.

What would you propose someone do after they make their 400k in a few months, work for free?

Limit people's hourly salary/monthly wage. They can't earn 400 K in a couple of months because although the annual pay limit is 400,000K, the monthly pay limit is 33,333K.

How would limiting what someone else makes solve income disparity when there would still be people in relative poverty?

Because the money isn't eliminated from the economy. It can be directed towards exactly those kind of problems.

Overhead:
The money doesn't disappear from the economy. It can be spent for positive benefits by ordinary people who are now getting paid more, the government, etc.

You assume that the money just goes to people getting paid more, but how do they get paid more? Does the Government step in and dole out the money? Would you trust them to do that? Do you raise minimum wage? It isn't as simple as the money just going from one place to another.

Limit people's hourly salary/monthly wage. They can't earn 400 K in a couple of months because although the annual pay limit is 400,000K, the monthly pay limit is 33,333K.

I know you just threw the 400k number out there, but there are people who are always going to be worth that much and more. How would you police this, anyways? Don't you think most CEO's would just get out of America if they knew they could earn more?

Because the money isn't eliminated from the economy. It can be directed towards exactly those kind of problems.

I just don't see how you think money will somehow go to other people and not the Government, which has shown it doesn't "play fair", especially with other people's money. I'm all for people at least having ideas ya know, but it just can't imagine it working while still maintaining our "free" market and capitalist ideals. Unless you are suggesting those get tossed aside for the most part.

Overhead:

I'm fairly sure its always a bad thing for the person with the lower wages.

Disadvantageous but not terrible as long as everyone has enough to live on. If someone wants higher wages, well they can always work their up the company or improve their academic credentials to find a better job. If everyone got paid the same, well you wouldn't get many people volunteering for the difficult jobs now would you ;-)

If I were to stay within the capitalist othodoxy, I'd probably suggest social democracy along the nordic lines where there is serious regulation of businesses.

Screw that. Capital will always try and exploit labour. We might get good protection for a few decedes from some left-wing party that manages to change the orthodoxy a bit, but as long as Capital benefits from exploiting Labour and has disproportionate power to effect government policy it is only a matter of time until things go the other way again and people suffer.

Private property needs to be abolished and the proletariat needs to seize control of the means of production.

I'm okay with the first part but private property be abolished? Isn't that kinda throwing out the baby with the bath-water, I mean I don't think the solution to social issues in our society is saying that no-one can own anything. Isn't it also kinda stealing to "seize" the means of production (from their owners presumably)?

Businesses don't migrate based on tax and the like. If they did, countries with high tax rates wouldn't have any businesses in them because they're all have migrated to somewhere like Singapore where taxes are tiny and some of the labourers are so poor they live in cages smaller than those of some animals I've had. Capital has a nationality and it is a lot harder than you are presuming to change that.

Look at how many call-centres are in India or factories in China, businesses will do whatever they can to save money. There's obviously cost-advantages to being close to your clients and tariffs between countries can stem the movement of cheap goods so it's not absolute but go too far with tax and it isn't going to be pretty.

That isn't how money or the world financial markets work.

People spend more, economy improves. Billionaire's money doesn't drop off the face of the Earth, they use it for goods and services, which in turn creates jobs and brings greater prosperity to all.

As a Libertarian, it does indeed sicken me that the Poor are screwed and the Rich are screwing. However, I believe the best way to go about it is not through Government hand outs, it should be instead through rising the Minimum Wage, Forcing businesses to not fire people because of the Raised Minimum Wage, and Paying for Businesses to create Shovel Ready Work that pays said Minimum Wage that gives work to the poor. I think that would be better for the poor then simply letting the Rich Get Richer and just paying for the Poor to live.

chronobreak:

Vegosiux:

chronobreak:
How would limiting what someone else makes solve income disparity when there would still be people in relative poverty?

Who says anything about "eliminating"? But some people making in a day what others need to work nearly a whole year for is a disparity that needs to be knocked down a notch or three. I don't have a problem with CEO's making more, but that ratio needs to go down at least one order of magnitude.

I said limiting, which was the poster whom I quoted's idea. I don't know where you got eliminating from. I don't see any way putting a cap on how much someone can make in a year would do anything to help income disparity. How would the money (that would no longer be able to be earned) be distributed to people earning less?

I'm not saying the numbers don't suck, they absolutely do. I just don't believe limiting income is the way to bring those numbers closer together.

My bad, misread that. Am worn out from a rough week myself. However...

chronobreak:
I just don't see how you think money will somehow go to other people and not the Government, which has shown it doesn't "play fair", especially with other people's money.

Well, that's what we have elections for. Don't like what your government is doing? Vote them out, instead of giving your senators and congressmen lifelong terms even on an approval rating as low as 20%.

I'm all for people at least having ideas ya know, but it just can't imagine it working while still maintaining our "free" market and capitalist ideals. Unless you are suggesting those get tossed aside for the most part.

Well yes, the market needs to be regulated. The fabled "invisible hand" got us into the mess we're in in the first place.

Ya know, I heard the most crazed idea on how to 'fix' this a couple days ago from a family member who used to be in politics (not a public figure mind) a decade or so back, something that actually came up as an idea for a bill but never got introduced as nobody could convince any legislator to introduce it. Quite simply, it would have made it law that if you conduct business within this state, than your highest payed employee (read:CEO) cannot make more than twenty times(iirc) that of the lowest payed full time employee in a given year. So if your lowest end fulltime worker is a 20k a year grinder, the CEO is limited to 400k a year. Want more? than you will just have to raise your minimal pay rate as your profits increase. Tho as the system currently is, this would obviously never pass, even if the rate was 100x, hence why it never gained ground outside of the think tank.

Granted, if this somehow passed, it would have to be done wide-scale to really get traction, otherwise companies would likely create shell corps with minimal staffers in said areas with this law, 'sell' their product through them, and route the profits back to the bigwig company.

JoJo:
Disadvantageous but not terrible as long as everyone has enough to live on.

Which they don't.

If someone wants higher wages, well they can always work their up the company

Can they? There are a finite number of better paid positions on a company. If all the lower level grunts try to work their way up, only a small percentage actually do succeed.

or improve their academic credentials to find a better job.

The better jobs do not exist. There are currently a tiny percentage of the jobs needed just for unemployed people, let alone under employed people or people wanting to work upwards.

If everyone got paid the same, well you wouldn't get many people volunteering for the difficult jobs now would you ;-)

This can get solved by greater pay, community service, etc. Unlike now where a miner will get paid less than a senior manager who does office-work.

I'm okay with the first part but private property be abolished? Isn't that kinda throwing out the baby with the bath-water, I mean I don't think the solution to social issues in our society is saying that no-one can own anything.

No, it is the entire point. Also it doesn't mean people don't own things. It means we all own things because private ownership is replaced by communal ownership.

Isn't it also kinda stealing to "seize" the means of production (from their owners presumably)?

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required... Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?" -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?

Look at how many call-centres are in India or factories in China, businesses will do whatever they can to save money.

Look at how many aren't in India or factories

There's obviously cost-advantages to being close to your clients and tariffs between countries can stem the movement of cheap goods so it's not absolute but go too far with tax and it isn't going to be pretty.

That is part of it, but only a basic part. There is also the nationality of senior directors who will tend to be native and obligations (current or historical) to the home country like the money the UK has committed to its financial institutions.

More than this though are economic reasons, which you only touched on. Skilled workers and engineers cannot be relocated to a new country en masse. New foreign departments wouldn't have the routines, institutional memory, and internal company rules that have built up over time. They would also lack the network of related firms like suppliers, financiers, industrial associations, politicians and even old-boys clubs that they will have been built up over time.

There are also start-up costs. Buildings, machines, infrastructure, although compared to the cost of transporting skilled workers this is nothing. Home biases do not exist just because of emotional attachment and historical reasons, they have a good economic base.

There are already countries which tax at levels which are tiny compared to Western countries, especially compared to some of the Socialist Democratic ones. At one point half the US's upper tax bracket took 90% of rich people's income.

Not only are there a lot of reasons to not think this will happen, but just looking at history shows us this.

People spend more, economy improves. Billionaire's money doesn't drop off the face of the Earth, they use it for goods and services, which in turn creates jobs and brings greater prosperity to all.

Horse and sparrow economics falls at the first hurdle. Despite the usual dichtomy of growth-enhancing pro-rich policy, pro-rich policies have failed to accelerate growth in the last three decades. The first part of the argument, that giving rich people a bigger slice of the pie, doesn't mesh with reality.

The second part, the trickling down of wealth does not work either. It will happen, but to a meagre extent that still leaves the average person at a net loss if it is left up to the market.

When the dreaded era of high taxation of the rich happened, it did not destroy capitalism. In fact, it boosted it immesnly. The post war period is called the Golden Age of capitalism and it was in this period that countries saw their highest levels of growth. Despite the pro-rich policies put in place in most nations since then, growth has not reached the same levels since.

One of the big problems is that concentrating hands in the supposed investor does not lead to higher growth if the investor doesn't invest more. When money is given to the government there is at least a guarentee that the concentrated income would be turned into investment. Corporations and the rich have no such mechanism. In fact, despite rising inequality since the 1980s, investment as a ratio of national output has fallen in all G7 and most developed countries.

Even if this rise in growth did happen, nothing says it would trickle down. A theoretical person who did use their extra money to invest could easily only increase income absolutely rather than everyone's relative share. For instance between 1989 and 2006 the top 10% appropriated 91% of income growth, with 59% going to the top 1%. That is not trickling down.

In contrast, in countries with a strong welfare state it is a lot easier to spread the benefits of extra growth that occurs (Not that it occurs from pro-rich policies). Before taxes and transfers, Belgium and Germany are actually MORE unequal than the US while Sweden and the Netherlands are basically the same. It is only because the government redirects the money, forcing it to flow where it is needed that we view these countries as somewhat utopian.

Indeed, it is the poor people we should be distributing money to. Poor people spend a higher proportion of their incomes. It doesn't get invested in a foreign stockmarket, in bonds, in commodities or otherwise used in a way which provides little or no benefit to the economy. If a person goes down the shops and buys some bread, that money goes straight back into the economy. Poor people don't have the benefit of hoarding their money, they need to spend it to live and they have very limited ways of spending it; all of which directly help the economy.

By making sure wages are above subsistence levels, the additional income can encourage workers investment in education and health which are the lifeblood of a countries economy.

Not only that but greater income equality promotes social peace by avoiding the need for industrial strikes and crime, which saves money, helps growth and encourages investment.

chronobreak:
I know you just threw the 400k number out there, but there are people who are always going to be worth that much and more.

Actually Zero47 threw it out there. Personally I'd let workers democratically decide how profits should be spent and how much people should be paid.

How would you police this, anyways? Don't you think most CEO's would just get out of America if they knew they could earn more?

That's cool. There is an emigration tax of 100% of someone's wealth over $30,000 if they want to emigrate to a different country.

I just don't see how you think money will somehow go to other people and not the Government, which has shown it doesn't "play fair", especially with other people's money.

Even a lot of the US government's policies actually add value to the economy, like food vouchers.

Also you will have to elaborate on doesn't play fair, because it is obviously some code for something that I'm supposed to get but really don't.

I'm all for people at least having ideas ya know, but it just can't imagine it working while still maintaining our "free" market and capitalist ideals. Unless you are suggesting those get tossed aside for the most part.

Yeah, capitalism and the free market can go die in a ditch as far as I'm concerned. Card carrying communist right here, even though it's technically got socialist rather than communist in the name of the party.

Grayven:
Ya know, I heard the most crazed idea on how to 'fix' this a couple days ago from a family member who used to be in politics (not a public figure mind) a decade or so back, something that actually came up as an idea for a bill but never got introduced as nobody could convince any legislator to introduce it. Quite simply, it would have made it law that if you conduct business within this state, than your highest payed employee (read:CEO) cannot make more than twenty times(iirc) that of the lowest payed full time employee in a given year. So if your lowest end fulltime worker is a 20k a year grinder, the CEO is limited to 400k a year. Want more? than you will just have to raise your minimal pay rate as your profits increase. Tho as the system currently is, this would obviously never pass, even if the rate was 100x, hence why it never gained ground outside of the think tank.

Granted, if this somehow passed, it would have to be done wide-scale to really get traction, otherwise companies would likely create shell corps with minimal staffers in said areas with this law, 'sell' their product through them, and route the profits back to the bigwig company.

Imagine if such a law passed, and somehow companies were prevented from merely doing business through front companies. Let's take McDonald's for example. Mickey D's is a huge provider of summer and teen jobs in general. I don't actually know what their base pay is, but we'll just assume they pay US Federal Minimum Wage, $7.25/hr, which comes to 15,080 per year.

McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner received a base salary of $1.47 million. (however, after bonuses and other perks, this rises to over eight million, but hey, we're comparing base pay. Even grunts get bonuses once in a blue moon) This comes to roughly 706$/hr (depending on how many hours worked, obviously), or a few bucks under 100x what the cashier makes. Considering the CEO probably works fewer hours, it's probably safe to bump that up to $725/hr and call it an even 100x. (Again, not including bonuses. I don't even wanna see the numbers on those...) So funnily enough, the 100x rate would work for McDonald's at least. XD

To maintain that salary at the 20x rate, this would mean the teenager working the counter would be making $73,500 annually, or over 35$/hr. Or, to continue paying minimum wage, the CEO would have to be paid only $145/hr, ~290-300k annually. Now, I donno about you, and further I'm no economist but I think the former option runs the risk of triggering some serious inflation or massive unemployment. Clearly not a good idea.

The latter option makes me wonder where would the rest of all that money go? Since it's not going to the employees, where would it go? Would McDonald's spend it on more stores? Hell there are already so damn many of them. Would they invest in more cows (and other supply chain items)? Invest in other companies? What would they do with it? Would it just sit in a bank vault somewhere? Would they pile it up and build World Trade Center-sized towers of money?

Job creators! A rising tide lifts all boats! Class warfare!

One question. Why aren't unions getting more of this pie for their workers?

LetalisK:
One question. Why aren't unions getting more of this pie for their workers?

Because many unions have been defanged by decades of corporate lobbying and extortion.

Mr.Mattress:
As a Libertarian, it does indeed sicken me that the Poor are screwed and the Rich are screwing. However, I believe the best way to go about it is not through Government hand outs, it should be instead through rising the Minimum Wage, Forcing businesses to not fire people because of the Raised Minimum Wage, and Paying for Businesses to create Shovel Ready Work that pays said Minimum Wage that gives work to the poor. I think that would be better for the poor then simply letting the Rich Get Richer and just paying for the Poor to live.

...You're not a libertarian. You might think you are, you might self-identify as a libertarian, but you're not. Not if this is your plan for a solution.

Stagnant:

Mr.Mattress:
As a Libertarian, it does indeed sicken me that the Poor are screwed and the Rich are screwing. However, I believe the best way to go about it is not through Government hand outs, it should be instead through rising the Minimum Wage, Forcing businesses to not fire people because of the Raised Minimum Wage, and Paying for Businesses to create Shovel Ready Work that pays said Minimum Wage that gives work to the poor. I think that would be better for the poor then simply letting the Rich Get Richer and just paying for the Poor to live.

...You're not a libertarian. You might think you are, you might self-identify as a libertarian, but you're not. Not if this is your plan for a solution.

I was just gonna say.

The traditional American libertarian stance here would be to completely deregulate everything, abolish the minimum wage and let the Great Free Market Unicorn determine who would be paid what.

Oh, and End the Fed and Ron Paul 2012, just because.

I for one am not for mandating that anyone can only make X amount of money; however, the ever-widening gap is a problem that I'm really not sure how to fix.

evilneko:
Considering the CEO probably works fewer hours

I do so like it when people talk out of their ass. Most CEOs work much more than the traditional 40 hour week. Sometimes more than double, although that's unlikely in a mature company like McD's.

Stagnant:

Mr.Mattress:
As a Libertarian, it does indeed sicken me that the Poor are screwed and the Rich are screwing. However, I believe the best way to go about it is not through Government hand outs, it should be instead through rising the Minimum Wage, Forcing businesses to not fire people because of the Raised Minimum Wage, and Paying for Businesses to create Shovel Ready Work that pays said Minimum Wage that gives work to the poor. I think that would be better for the poor then simply letting the Rich Get Richer and just paying for the Poor to live.

...You're not a libertarian. You might think you are, you might self-identify as a libertarian, but you're not. Not if this is your plan for a solution.

Tyler Perry:

Stagnant:

Mr.Mattress:
As a Libertarian, it does indeed sicken me that the Poor are screwed and the Rich are screwing. However, I believe the best way to go about it is not through Government hand outs, it should be instead through rising the Minimum Wage, Forcing businesses to not fire people because of the Raised Minimum Wage, and Paying for Businesses to create Shovel Ready Work that pays said Minimum Wage that gives work to the poor. I think that would be better for the poor then simply letting the Rich Get Richer and just paying for the Poor to live.

...You're not a libertarian. You might think you are, you might self-identify as a libertarian, but you're not. Not if this is your plan for a solution.

I was just gonna say.

The traditional American libertarian stance here would be to completely deregulate everything, abolish the minimum wage and let the Great Free Market Unicorn determine who would be paid what.

Oh, and End the Fed and Ron Paul 2012, just because.

I for one am not for mandating that anyone can only make X amount of money; however, the ever-widening gap is a problem that I'm really not sure how to fix.

First of all, don't tell me what I am and am not.

I can assure you I am a Libertarian; but I am a realistic One. I do favor cutting Regulations, allowing Businesses to do more, Making Social Security Private, and reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and the overall Welfare System to be more self Reliant. But since I am realistic, I know that the Government is needed here and there, and I know that Too Much Business is bad. There needs to be some regulations to keep work and merchandise safe.

Plus, Ron Paul and End The Fed are Tea Baggers, not Libertarians. Those are the Fake Fiscal Conservatives, not true ones like me (at least to me).

And fixing the gap is easy, you just gotta force the poor to be middle class. Make them get a job, make it so their pay doesn't suck, make it so that they don't rely on the Government like they do. That's how you fix it, and it's easy as 5 laws.

Mr.Mattress:
First of all, don't tell me what I am and am not.

If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck ...

Mr.Mattress:
I can assure you I am a Libertarian; but I am a realistic One. I do favor cutting Regulations, allowing Businesses to do more, Making Social Security Private, and reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and the overall Welfare System to be more self Reliant. But since I am realistic, I know that the Government is needed here and there, and I know that Too Much Business is bad. There needs to be some regulations to keep work and merchandise safe.

That's not according-to-Hoyle American libertarianism. Sorry.

Mr.Mattress:
Plus, Ron Paul and End The Fed are Tea Baggers, not Libertarians. Those are the Fake Fiscal Conservatives, not true ones like me (at least to me).

What's that phrase again?

Mr.Mattress:
And fixing the gap is easy, you just gotta force the poor to be middle class. Make them get a job, make it so their pay doesn't suck, make it so that they don't rely on the Government like they do. That's how you fix it, and it's easy as 5 laws.

And who, pray tell, is going to give the poor these jobs?

Tyler Perry:

Mr.Mattress:
First of all, don't tell me what I am and am not.

1: If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck ...

Mr.Mattress:
I can assure you I am a Libertarian; but I am a realistic One. I do favor cutting Regulations, allowing Businesses to do more, Making Social Security Private, and reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and the overall Welfare System to be more self Reliant. But since I am realistic, I know that the Government is needed here and there, and I know that Too Much Business is bad. There needs to be some regulations to keep work and merchandise safe.

2: That's not according-to-Hoyle American libertarianism. Sorry.

Mr.Mattress:
Plus, Ron Paul and End The Fed are Tea Baggers, not Libertarians. Those are the Fake Fiscal Conservatives, not true ones like me (at least to me).

3: What's that phrase again?

Mr.Mattress:
And fixing the gap is easy, you just gotta force the poor to be middle class. Make them get a job, make it so their pay doesn't suck, make it so that they don't rely on the Government like they do. That's how you fix it, and it's easy as 5 laws.

4: And who, pray tell, is going to give the poor these jobs?

1: Hehehehehehehehehe...

2: So what? Just because I'm not 100% Libertarian doesn't mean I'm not a Libertarian. You have a point on 3, so I will concede on that front. However, I am indeed a Libertarian.

4: I dunno, Businesses? How about, making Businesses have quotas for workers based on their profession, and if they don't meet these Quotas, they get taxed? Or heck, Governments can Provide Shovel Ready Jobs for people who need it, while looking for work for them, and by the 3rd year, the Government gets them into a Business? Or heck, we could reintroduce Terriffs and that would start getting people work here!

Mr.Mattress:
4: I dunno, Businesses? How about, making Businesses have quotas for workers based on their profession, and if they don't meet these Quotas, they get taxed? Or heck, Governments can Provide Shovel Ready Jobs for people who need it, while looking for work for them, and by the 3rd year, the Government gets them into a Business? Or heck, we could reintroduce Terriffs and that would start getting people work here!

It's very difficult to force businesses to hire people, and tarriffs would increase the costs of consumer goods by a large margin. I like the idea of public works projects. American infrastructure is in the shitter and public works projects would be a great way to kill two birds with one stone.

There's a solution out there; I just don't really know what it is.

Mr.Mattress:
2: So what? Just because I'm not 100% Libertarian doesn't mean I'm not a Libertarian. You have a point on 3, so I will concede on that front. However, I am indeed a Libertarian.

The lion's share of self-identified libertarians I have seen seem to worship at the altar of the free market and would find such a mandate for businesses to be anathema.

Tyler Perry:
There's a solution out there; I just don't really know what it is.

State hiring people to get things done. State owned factories. Entire state owned industries. nationalisation of everything that matters.

Overhead:

Tyler Perry:
There's a solution out there; I just don't really know what it is.

State hiring people to get things done. State owned factories. Entire state owned industries. nationalisation of everything that matters.

I ain't even touching this one.

Mr.Mattress:

Stagnant:

Mr.Mattress:
As a Libertarian, it does indeed sicken me that the Poor are screwed and the Rich are screwing. However, I believe the best way to go about it is not through Government hand outs, it should be instead through rising the Minimum Wage, Forcing businesses to not fire people because of the Raised Minimum Wage, and Paying for Businesses to create Shovel Ready Work that pays said Minimum Wage that gives work to the poor. I think that would be better for the poor then simply letting the Rich Get Richer and just paying for the Poor to live.

...You're not a libertarian. You might think you are, you might self-identify as a libertarian, but you're not. Not if this is your plan for a solution.

Tyler Perry:

Stagnant:

...You're not a libertarian. You might think you are, you might self-identify as a libertarian, but you're not. Not if this is your plan for a solution.

I was just gonna say.

The traditional American libertarian stance here would be to completely deregulate everything, abolish the minimum wage and let the Great Free Market Unicorn determine who would be paid what.

Oh, and End the Fed and Ron Paul 2012, just because.

I for one am not for mandating that anyone can only make X amount of money; however, the ever-widening gap is a problem that I'm really not sure how to fix.

First of all, don't tell me what I am and am not.

I can assure you I am a Libertarian; but I am a realistic One. I do favor cutting Regulations, allowing Businesses to do more, Making Social Security Private, and reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and the overall Welfare System to be more self Reliant. But since I am realistic, I know that the Government is needed here and there, and I know that Too Much Business is bad. There needs to be some regulations to keep work and merchandise safe.

Plus, Ron Paul and End The Fed are Tea Baggers, not Libertarians. Those are the Fake Fiscal Conservatives, not true ones like me (at least to me).

And fixing the gap is easy, you just gotta force the poor to be middle class. Make them get a job, make it so their pay doesn't suck, make it so that they don't rely on the Government like they do. That's how you fix it, and it's easy as 5 laws.

Always good to see No True Scotsman brought up!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked