Top 1% 'richer than rest of world'

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

More proof that you are a closet bagger.

When are you going to man up and come out Finn?

There are hundreds of businesses who pay essentially the same as Walmart who go bankrupt every year. There's a lot more to Walmart's profitability than paying low wages. I said I support an increase in the minimum wage, indexed for inflation such that it isn't a big argument every year to have wages keep up with the cost-of-living.

I'm far less of a Bagger than you are an idiot blowhard.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

There are hundreds of businesses who pay essentially the same as Walmart who go bankrupt every year. There's a lot more to Walmart's profitability than paying low wages. I said I support an increase in the minimum wage, indexed for inflation such that it isn't a big argument every year to have wages keep up with the cost-of-living.

I'm far less of a Bagger than you are an idiot blowhard.

The extent of your defensiveness shows that I am hitting pretty close to the mark.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

The extent of your defensiveness shows that I am hitting pretty close to the mark.

No, it shows only that you're an idiotic blowhard, though that's been apparent for months.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

This type of analysis presumes that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the nation/world (i.e., that wealth distribution is a zero-sum game) and that one's ability to make money or acquire wealth automatically inhibits another's capacity to do so. AFAIK, Bill Gates never inhibited my ability to make a good living. Furthermore, Bill Gates employed thousands of people and made a bunch of them wealthy. What's wrong with that?

This is not to say I don't support changes in the tax code aimed at higher effective rates for the wealthy, but I'm not sure it will have any real impact on the wealth distribution described in the OP. In a nutshell, I support taxing earned and unearned income equally, something the GOP (and their wealthy patrons) insist will kill the economy. It never has and never will.

True.........

Unless, of course, the reason why gap continues to expand is because all too many of the "job creaters" have deliberately stopped creating jobs that any but a handful can actually live on, purely for the purpose of further expanding their own personal wealth. That changes everything...........

Does it not?

Dave

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I support a higher minimum wage, indexed to inflation such that we don't have it as a perennial argument. That said, the wages paid to their employees isn't what created Walton's wealth. It has to do with the number of people who shop there, the efficiency of their inventory system, and their ability to pressure suppliers to keep prices down.

A better first step might be to keep the current minimum wage where it is and adjust it upwards based on the cost-of-living where these low pay jobs are. For example, the minimum wage in DC would be higher than in Dallas. Though this would open another can of worms.

[Boreas]

The problem is that keeping the current minimum wage in place the keeps people forced to live on it in poverty. Indexing the current minimum wage to inflation can at best keep those people from falling deeper into poverty but would probably only succeed in slowing the rate at which they fell farther down the economic scale: a down escalator rather than a cliff.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The problem is that keeping the current minimum wage in place keeps people forced to live on it in poverty. Indexing the current minimum wage to inflation can at best keep those people from falling deeper into poverty but would probably only succeed in slowing the rate at which they fell farther down the economic scale: a down escalator rather than a cliff.

John

Yeah, but every little bit helps.

I have always maintained that if you can only do one thing to help the poor then that one thing should be universal single payer health care. And if you can only do two then add free higher education. And don't tell me we can't afford it. If Cuba can, we sure as Hell can.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Yeah, but every little bit helps.

I have always maintained that if you can only do one thing to help the poor then that one thing should be universal single payer health care. And if you can only do two then add free higher education. And don't tell me we can't afford it. If Cuba can, we sure as Hell can.

Tom it has never been a question of affordability we simply have been brainwashed to believe that doing such things is anti American.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Tom it has never been a question of affordability we simply have been brainwashed to believe that doing such things is anti American.

Folks who claim such is so************************m don't understand the definition of the word.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Folks who claim such is so************************m don't understand the definition of the word.

Socia!ism is exactly what it is and there's not a damn thing wrong with it.

John