• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | JessFR | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Wealth Distribution: For The Many Or The Few?

Captain.Heroin

Sr. Moderator: H&R, Words, SLR
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
84,196
Location
RIP CH ? - 2020
I respect your opinions CH, I just understand the idea that you think minimum wage should be entirely abolished. Who would that help but the people employing people? That's the oath to creating a wage slave class. Imagine the only place you can get a job is in McDonald's and now you're making so little money it's hopeless. Eben now companies like Walmart actually encourage their employees to go on welfare to be able to support themselves. I think welfare is an important part of a strong, just society, but for those people who, say, got injured and have to not work for a year, so they can still pay their bills. But it's bullshit for Walmart to pass off part of the cost of paying their employees to the state, and ultimately the taxpayer. It's just wrong, when they (who make huge profits) could afford to not put that burden on us. Don't you think that's wrong?
It would help everyone. Products would go down in price. We could start manufacturing things here instead of China again, and we won't have a 25% tax to pay directly to the feds (which they will squander on something totally pointless). You would find a new tier of low-income jobs; almost every American who wants employment could get it, and we would need immigrants to complete jobs that we aren't doing, instead of sending jobs overseas.

People don't have to work jobs that don't pay well enough. I'm not touting getting rid of social welfare programs; this is something America still needs.

Imagine the only place you can get a job is in McDonald's and now you're making so little money it's hopeless.
What world do you think I'm personally living in, one where I'm doctor, lawyer, politician, businessman, stock trader? Or do you think my job options are severely limited, kind of what you just described? That's where we already are, man. I'd like to think changes could move us away from where we are now.

companies like Walmart actually encourage their employees to go on welfare to be able to support themselves.
The alternative is the class of people they use for the lowest-rung work will get double hours and no benefits to supplement, work twice as much. Why be angry a corporation enables people to use welfare programs you support? Should someone have to be totally fucking hopeless, jobless, foodless before they get help? Isn't help supposed to be there for anyone/everyone who needs it?

it's bullshit for Walmart to pass off part of the cost of paying their employees to the state, and ultimately the taxpayer.
Is this why AOC trashed the Amazon deal? Probably. Do you think businesses should have to do better when you don't regulate or legislate them to? Why? If these business practices were regulatable in a way that could garner bipartisan support then we wouldn't be in this mess. There's also a possibility the legislative branch is way more interested in a 1,000th Trump Report/Investigation instead of solving the problems of poverty (DING DING DING, why Congress has historically abysmally low approval ratings!)

If you over-regulate businesses you have to wonder what impact that has on businesses itself. You have to wonder "How far is too far?", how far would be anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-American. There is a "too far", and I can't say we've been there (I am not an expert in this field; we may have been, we may never have been, I care not to speculate on such things). If you try to shift things too much, too quickly, the money will stop circulating and the economy will collapse again.

Don't you think that's wrong?
No, and I don't want to own a walmart, work for one or shop at one (though I have in the past), and that doesn't make me need or want one either. Sometimes it's better to set a new pace in life than to just participate or expect a participation prize. Quite frankly demanding things I'm not owed isn't going to change anything anyways, and it makes a lot more sense to work more, harder, and such. You might hear another person chanting "I need my 40 hours": I've given up on a full-time job. You might hear another person demanding a living wage: I know that isn't in the cards for most of us. I'd rather be rational about dealing with reality than wish for things I know are never coming.
 

Xorkoth

Administrator: PD, TR, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
44,299
Location
In the mountains
Products would go down in price.
I mean... they might but that would rely on the people making policies and controlling the economy to actually do that. Do you really trust that these people would lower the minimum wage and then lower prices so that a lower minimum wage would be worth more in buying power? That seems like wishful thinking to me. As I see it, abolishing minimum wage would lead to a gradual lowering of payment more and more over time. It's not like the price of gas and milk and food and shit is gonna keep lowering even faster than that. It's far more likely we'd end up with a lot more poverty, and that wealth differential going to the people that own companies that are hiring people for less and less and less.

I'd like to think changes could move us away from where we are now.
Me too! That's what I'm proposing, is change.

Why be angry a corporation enables people to use welfare programs you support?
Because the corporation isn't "enabling" them to use welfare I support, it's forcing them to, when it is well within its power to pay them enough to support themselves without using welfare. You think Walmart can't afford to pay its employees a living wage and still be rich and powerful and successful? I support welfare because shit happens. People get laid off, people get sick or wounded, people get into a place where they need help and that's what social safety nets are for. It would be such a lower cost for these programs (and thus to the national debt which I know you care about) if companies paid people enough so that they didn't require government assistance, it would take so much of the burden off of the state and we could use that money to pay down the debt or rebuild our infrastructure or other things. Social safety nets are not supposed to exist to help multinational corporations rake in even more record profits by passing off part of the cost of payroll onto the nations they operate in.

I'd rather be rational about dealing with reality than wish for things I know are never coming.
Well I can understand that. I think it's pretty irrational though to think that abolishing the minimum wage would help us. You tried to explain but I don't follow your logic.

No, and I don't want to own a walmart, work for one or shop at one (though I have in the past), and that doesn't make me need or want one either.
This didn't really address why you don't think it's wrong for wealthy corporations to pass off financial burdens they could easily afford to the state, though. I don't understand, you're SO intensely against the national debt, yet shady practices like this are part of the problem. Why would you support Walmart (or whatever) increasing the financial burden of the United States when they could not do that and still be able to do their thing... their executives would still be rich, they'd still have shitty stores all over the world. I wasn't asking if you wanted to own a Walmart or work at Walmart, that's neither here nor there. I was asking how it makes sense to support this business practice of theirs.
 

Captain.Heroin

Sr. Moderator: H&R, Words, SLR
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
84,196
Location
RIP CH ? - 2020
The free market would demand for it, and if monopolies exist to keep prices high then we need better laws to break them up. This is a recurring nightmare for the United States and it would be better if we saw bipartisan legislation to stand up to monopolies, unfair business practices. Define what they are more thoroughly.

.It's not like the price of gas and milk and food and shit is gonna keep lowering even faster than that.
Increased US domestic production coupled with decreased demand if the New Green Deal moves forward would actually mean just that in the years to come. If the Deal doesn't move forward, most Americans might cut down on consumption. Milk, beef, etc. commodities could be lower but the minimum wage largely doesn't drive these factors; you are right. These are food items and not other consumer goods I had in mind. Keep in mind that many people who harvest food for American families aren't being paid US minimum wage to begin with (illegal farm workers in the US, food imported from other nations, etc).

Amazon is giving Walmart a run for their money and you should read about their workers rights situation. Re-legislating fair labor practices as time progresses IS necessary, it CAN be done instead of a $40 trillion medicare/college-for-all plan, and it needs to happen sooner versus later. Congress largely isn't working on this issue from what I understand; the far left are pushing for medicare/college-for-all, Green New Deal, centrist left are busy with impeachment decisions, investigations, not concerned about the average American family they are supposed to represent (insert links to unhappy AOC constituents...) and if the Democrats took up this mantle they'd be favorable in my work.

The type of working conditions and environment that exists in Walmarts and Amazon factories today is what built this nation. Sad but true fact; many people toiled long and hard oft for nothing.

Because the corporation isn't "enabling" them to use welfare I support, it's forcing them to
Actually, without their jobs, they'd still be on welfare and receiving more benefits so that's actually a moot point. I doubt it's a condition of continued employment which your words seem to imply.

This didn't really address why you don't think it's wrong for wealthy corporations to pass off financial burdens they could easily afford to the state, though.
Because the state easily passes financial burdens off to us they could easily afford as well... like the national deficit. You cannot expect a free economy to shape businesses that are more moral than the nation itself. America has set a low morality bar for action; not just Trump. Some argue all forms of modern American warfare are acts of hostile aggression and what not (you guys know I don't fall into that crowd), just consider that. Think about the moral failings of the United States in the way it has played the world time and time again. Businesses pick up on that. Governments can hold themselves to higher standards. We can demand they do this.

State legislators need to enable and encourage union formation as well. Unions are not perfect but are much better than no in-between for workers now. Perhaps federal legislation to legalize unionization? I don't know. Tathra would probably like that latter idea.

shady practices like this are part of the problem
The shady practices are congress approving budgets that lose money YEAR AFTER YEAR. They are the #1 party at fault here.

The feds, in lieu of more refined approaches as I've mentioned previously, could just up the corporate tax rates. (Cut to Trump memes...) and yes I hate Trump's guts over the budget he's the #2 problem (eclipsed only by a congress that ups its own salaries and fails to balance the budget... implying they only care about their own personal bank accounts and know what balancing "a" budget is, but not "the" budget... wow...) by sliding funds around to build his wall and shit. I can't wait until the Democrats impeach him.
 

Xorkoth

Administrator: PD, TR, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
44,299
Location
In the mountains
I guess what you're saying is that since the tone has been set for corrupt business practices, it's inevitable that they will happen. But it comes across like you're excusing it. it's still inexcusable. Just because the state passes off costs they easily afford doesn't excuse companies from doing it.

Actually, without their jobs, they'd still be on welfare and receiving more benefits so that's actually a moot point. I doubt it's a condition of continued employment which your words seem to imply.
If they didn't have jobs, yeah, they'd be collecting more benefits than if they did have jobs. But that's irrelevant because my point is, since they have jobs, they should not have to collect welfare benefits to make ends meet. Walmart/insert_company_here should be paying them enough that they don't qualify for or need welfare. By having a system where people making the lowest amount of money allowable by law for full-time work still require welfare, we're ensuring that we live in a welfare state. These other factors you mentioned:

"The shady practices are congress approving budgets that lose money YEAR AFTER YEAR. They are the #1 party at fault here. "
"Because the state easily passes financial burdens off to us they could easily afford as well... like the national deficit. "

...these are beside the point. I agree with the statements, but they don't address why you would feel the need to defend a system that doesn't pay its workers enough to survive. It's like you're saying that it's okay for companies to exploit workers and pass the buck off to the taxpayers, because other systems are corrupt too. It's ALL wrong and it's going to be really hard to change and I don't know how we're gonna change it, but I'm just trying to say it's fucked up and if I could choose I would make these exploitative employer practices illegal, not condone them.
 

Captain.Heroin

Sr. Moderator: H&R, Words, SLR
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
84,196
Location
RIP CH ? - 2020
I don't know how we're gonna change it
Alright, well I listed some ideas in the many posts, what did you think about any of them?

Things should change I think most people are on the same page on that, hence the popularity of "change" messages, i.e. Obama/Trump words used in campaigns.
 

✿Dai₷y✿

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
1,893
Location
Under your dad
Didn't you say you were unemployed and never intended on working anyway?


If so then you do not really deserve wealth at all.

So if others do work and all, what's it to you if they are wealthy?
 

Captain.Heroin

Sr. Moderator: H&R, Words, SLR
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
84,196
Location
RIP CH ? - 2020

Captain.Heroin

Sr. Moderator: H&R, Words, SLR
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
84,196
Location
RIP CH ? - 2020
Y'all killed the Romanovs and the whole world is still suffering for hurting innocent people.

Demonstrations/protests were fair. They should have been run out of the country, not murdered.

If you can't get the rich trust fund babies hooked on drugs and dependent and stack up money in your Mexican trafficking safe houses, sucks to be you, I guess.
 

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
5,020
Location
Silicodone Valley
It would be a lengthy tirade to get into and quite frankly it's just something I believe in. Other people shouldn't have to be dragged down to my level of poverty. Poverty exists as a way to encourage others to do more to contribute to society through hard work. The alternative is "benefits", UBI, etc. Which I'm not opposed to either. There's just a reason the profit motive exists.
you can still let poverty exist though as that motivation. While letting people that actually work hard have a decent life instead of busting their ass but get nowhere, and not lett like 3 people have more money than the entire country, while people die like animals in the street.

profit motive has value, but the wealth imbalance in the world is disgusting. Back in ancient times if ppl got that rich a crowd of hungry ppl just showed up and stole their shit.
 

tathra

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 30, 2001
Messages
22,688
Location
some yandere's basement
property rights only exist because government enforces them, without government a person only owns a thing so long as they have the strength to stop others from taking it.

if they really want to go with the whole, "might makes right" thing, then I'm certainly down for earning my "dragon slayer" title and obtaining a hoard of stolen riches
 

Neopunk

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
629
Poverty doesn’t exist so that poor people have a motivation to contribute to society. What a sick and twisted opinion is this?
Poverty doesn’t exist because people thought a profit motive might be a good thing, it exists because rich assholes steal from everyone else.
 

Infernal

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
10,852
Location
Foley, AL
Poverty doesn’t exist so that poor people have a motivation to contribute to society. What a sick and twisted opinion is this?
Poverty doesn’t exist because people thought a profit motive might be a good thing, it exists because rich assholes steal from everyone else.
Damn right. The problem is systemic and anyone who believes that this is not both a feature of capitalism and a bug, then they are fooling themselves. On a long enough time line, it always collapses to true democracy or outright fascism.
 

checktest

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
341
Location
The Aether
Economically, poverty and destitution can be even disincentives to growth rather than motivators, in terms of how many people manage and conceive of risk. Fear of total loss can prevent people from taking economic opportunities that would contribute to society on the whole. E.g. This can be in staying in a particular position or job when they would be economically more efficient in another area. Maintaining a mediocre skill can be priced over learning a new, more productive skill if the cost of loss is too high. Changes are possible to short term and long term economic choice weighting and demands for liquidity. Fear is a sometimes perverse motivator that can have paradoxical consequences. Where the balance lies overall is complex.

Conceptually, the labor market as a whole (not sectors or particular job markets, but the entirety) has too many factors that prevent perfect competition. Geographical inequalities, housing, inertia, education, knowledge gaps, disparities of power all contribute to potential sources of misallocation and areas for potential interventions and possible regulations that can steer better economic conditions overall for people. Central heavy-handidness and "picking winners" / overt control certainly causes significant problems as well.

For this post, I don't know about covering moral and philosophical factors as other posters might, but economically poverty as a motivator is troubling. (Viewing economics independent of morals, politics, and philosophy is equally unviable as humans operate in these realms.)


Exploration of mobility in the US. Income inequality is an associated factor (this is an observational, not causal paper).

Speculation: the balance between a poverty motivational vs. disincentive effect could be weighed in areas of relative poverty. If poverty was a more powerful motivator than disincentive one might expect more movement with greater poverty or inequality functionally overall. Data doesn't quite line up with that view. But poverty ties to poorer educational opportunities and instability could alter this.

An interesting theoretical paper on the complexity of social mobility and the stability of democracy follows. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/133/2/1041/4597989?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Similarly a wealth tax paper with a framework based off of Denmark's wealth tax changes came out not that long ago. What would be the optimal tax on the wealthy if it were distributed, given taxable wealth elasticity and possibilities of evasion, especially by the very wealthy.

Does wealth redistribution effectively tackle cause of inequality?
PDF possible u.s Sources
Of course research != policy and certainly not reality. Easier to fund those who want to keep the funders afloat and in power.
 

Wilson Wilson

Moderator: BDD, OD
Staff member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
2,860
Location
LDN, UK
Indentured servants? Which system of gov't best represents that - socialism or capitalism? I'm asking, because the left agenda puts more onus on the earners to carry others if they want to or not.
Preach it.

I always see left-wing socialist types talk about how they want to "destroy the system" but then vote precisely for increased state control.

It seems they actually want more of their lives to be dictated by the state, just so long as the state happens to agree with their views. They appear to view left-wing governments as somehow benevolent and exempt from concerns about corruption and abuse of power. Because no left-wing government ever abused their power of course, I hear life in the USSR was just peachy.
 

tathra

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 30, 2001
Messages
22,688
Location
some yandere's basement
Indentured servants? Which system of gov't best represents that - socialism or capitalism? I'm asking, because the left agenda puts more onus on the earners to carry others if they want to or not.
capitalism. wage slavery is the best thing for capitalism next to full blown slavery. I'd much prefer a system where one's life and livelihood isn't dependent upon slaving away to enrich others while only receiving a tiny fraction of the wealth produced by their labor as compensation
 
Top