Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wealth Distribution in the USA
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(6)
Message 227 of 531 (699831)
05-26-2013 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 9:54 PM


Re: Minimum Wage
I think what we can do is examine two companies that are similar, but provide different results to their employees.
Let's compare Walmart and Costco.
Walmart's owners are multi billionaires. The CEO made over 20 Million dollars last year. 80% of the walmart employees qualify for food stamps.
Costco, a similar store, with similar prices.
The CEO of Costco made 500K last year.
The average employee makes 18 dollars an hour. 85% of them have health care.
Does the cosco employee work that much harder than the walmart one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 9:54 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2013 7:47 AM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 237 of 531 (699860)
05-26-2013 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Phat
05-26-2013 10:24 AM


Re: Businesses Are Not Instruments of Economic Engineering
I do not think it would be best through socialism.. per say. I think there should be some more socialistic programs.. but a mixed economy , and financial regulations seem to be the best solution.
I think regulation would be the best to get a healthier distrubition of wealth .. and I do like the idea of divorcing health care from being provided by employers (maybe vouchers , and you chose???)
But I see problems with pure socialism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 05-26-2013 10:24 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(5)
Message 361 of 531 (700505)
06-03-2013 6:45 PM


It seems to me when it comes to jobs in the United States, there are several factors to consider
1) What responsibility does the employer legally have
2) What responsibility does the employer have to their shareholders (i.e. the bottom line and the all mighty buck
3) What responsibility does the employer have to their employees
4) What responsibility does the employer have to society as a whole.
It seems to me, right now, in the U.S... the major corporations to all intents and purposes ONLY think of 'the bottom line'.. and only go beyond that when there are legalities involved. Those legalities are little things like 'quality control' and 'environmental issues' and 'don't poison the customer'. It seems the fiscal conservatives want to get rid of those controls to increase the bottom line.
Some of that 'going for the bottom line' include some things that are not for good for their employees, and not good for society as a whole. It seems that the people with the money have convince the government to mainly be consern with the bottom line, and for the monetary well being of the corporations and the shareholders, and not to concern themselves with the employees. They are the ones with the money and he who has the gold makes the rules.
That is the situation as Percy describes. But.. is that the right thing to do
In my opinion.. no, it is not.
What ever happened to 'an honest days wage for an honest days work'?? It's gone. Many of the people who work hard live at a subsistance wage, while the CEO's of those corporations earn multiple millions.
80% of the people who work at walmart qualify for food stamps... which means the tax payer to subsidizing walmart for their salaries.. and the CEO made 35 MILLION a year. Let's compare that with Cosco, where the owner/ceo made 500K, and the average worker made $16 to 18 dollars , and 85% had health care.
Now, what Walmart did was legal. But , in my opinion it is unethical. The modern wealthy are supremely interested in just getting wealthier... at the expense of exploiting the poor.
It seems that greed rules the day, and Laissez faire economics does not allow for a healthy distribution of wealth. I think the government SHOULD get involved, and put the kind of proper regulation into place to insure that people do get a proper wage for honest work.
There is what is currently legal, and then there is was is ethically and morally correct.
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 6:56 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 363 by Percy, posted 06-03-2013 9:06 PM ramoss has replied
 Message 365 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2013 3:24 AM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 364 of 531 (700520)
06-03-2013 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Percy
06-03-2013 9:06 PM


I was with you right up until the very, very last part. I'd rather see governments implement fair taxation so that the rich pay their fair share, and then make sure that everyone has adequate housing, food and healthcare, independent of their wages.
That is one approach. I can agree with that to some degree, but I think there should be incentives to companies to , well, pay reasonable wages.. .. The idea of 'adequate food/healthcare/housing' can be so flexible, and I want people to have incentives to work. I realize not every one can, but I know some people in the system that need it for healthcare.... they can't earn more than a certain amount or lose the healthcare they need that allows for them to work.
And I know some others that take advantage of the system to be bums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Percy, posted 06-03-2013 9:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 373 of 531 (700634)
06-05-2013 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Tangle
06-05-2013 6:16 AM


Those are good options. Another could be an 'exploitation tax'.. where upper management is taxed at a higher rate if they make more than a certain times more than the hourly wages of the average employee. like an extra 2% if you make more than 10 times the wage of the average employee, and as that 'times' value goes up, so does the amount you get taxed .. (including, of course, stock options). That basically either causes the company to either pay their upper echelon less, or pay the average employee more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2013 6:16 AM Tangle has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 453 of 531 (701328)
06-17-2013 9:10 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Percy, posted 06-18-2013 8:46 AM ramoss has not replied
 Message 455 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-18-2013 3:37 PM ramoss has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 727 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 456 of 531 (701417)
06-18-2013 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by New Cat's Eye
06-18-2013 3:37 PM


For one 'If you give tax cuts to the rich, there are more jobs' is a lie is one big one.
And if you 'If you shrink government, you cause jobs'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-18-2013 3:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-19-2013 11:35 AM ramoss has not replied
 Message 458 by Taq, posted 06-19-2013 9:46 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024