|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 7, 2014 0:07:06 GMT
I really do not know what percentage--even approximately--correctly defines the word, "[m]any," in the above context. But you, yourself, have previously stated that it just does not make good economic sense for some low-skill people to work at low-paying jobs, and pay for daycare for their small children. No, I was not previously aware of just how the federal government issues statistics as regarding welfare recipients. But what, exactly, is your point here? Oh, and I certainly do not deny the existence of those who work very hard--sometimes at as many as three different jobs--yet are still unable to make ends meet. These are the people whom the late Ronald Reagan once referred to as "the truly needy"--for which, he was instantly disparaged by the left. But I believe they are truly needy. And that suggests the aid of private charities--as well as family and friends, whenever the latter is possible. And long-term, acquiring a marketable skillset is the only real solution to the problem.
You're the one that referred to the "many" that simply chose to sit on their asses and collect welfare as opposed to working and I suggest that this is an insignificant number when we address the tens of millions of households that need welfare assistance. It certainly isn't significant enough to base government welfare assistance policies on!!
My point is, on statistics, that the number of long-term welfare recipients isn't based upon the number of months that a person is on welfare but instead it's based upon the first day and the most recent date that they might have received assistance. The numbers are highly deceiving is the point.
And just how are they to acquire this "marketable skill" if they're already working as many hours as they can while also taking care of children? If it isn't acquired through their job then they simply don't have the time to go back to school or take technical courses that could provide these skills. You tell me, for example, where is the waitress or the barista at the local coffee stand going to find any "marketable skills" that pay more money? What happens to those that had marketable skills but lose their jobs because of AI and technology and have to accept two part time minimum wage jobs and don't have the time to go back to college or to a technical school and couldn't afford it anyway. What happens to those that lost their jobs during because of the 2008 Recession and are simply too old to start out on a new career path working their way up from the bottom of the ladder once again?
You think private charities should help and they do but it is extremely limited. I've been a long time supporter of NW Harvests that is the primary food bank in the NW. I've also been down to their distribution centers and they can't meet the needs of those showing up at the door daily and have to ration food. It helps but only a little and comes no where near being able to provide all of the food a family needs on a week to week basis. It supplements a poor persons needs but does not provide enough food for them to live on.
Of course poor people often come from poor families and live in poor communites that can't assist them at all. When everyone in the community is poor there are no community charities to help them.
Private charities and families can't meet the need at all which is why we have government provided welfare assistance. As I'm also noted the problem is getting worse, not better, as more and more middle income jobs are being lost and low-paying jobs that people can't live on are replacing them.
The percentage of jobs that don't provide enough compensation to live on is increasing as AI and technology is replacing the jobs that actually provided enough compensation to live on. Our economy is becoming a bar-bell economy of high income jobs and low income jobs with fewer and fewer jobs in between to act as a bridge between the two. Eventually the bridge between low income to high income will be all but lost and the only way to make that jump will be to win the lottery and you know the odds against that happening.
You insist that being middle class is, essentially, a thing of the past. But I would imagine that you are middle class. And I am certain that I am precisely that. We have had this conversation previously, but it bears repeating: The belief that government assistance simply acts as a supplement to private charities is fundamentally erroneous. There is only X amount of money available to be consumed for charity, either public or private. If taxation is increased, in order to bring into existence (or increase) public assistance, donors are necessarily going to donate less to private charities. That is just common sense. And I would not wish to characterize my view so crudely as to assert that some people "simply [choose] to sit on their asses and collect welfare." Rather, I would say that they have been incentivized--by the government--to eschew low-wage work (especially when it would necessarily entail daycare expenses), in favor of collecting a welfare check. And in the short term, that would appear to be a sensible enough choice; although it is a certain dead end. Often we can find a way to do something, if we really want it badly enough. That "waitress or the barista at the local coffee stand" could possibly take a course after work; or, if there is a conflict of schedule, perhaps she could ask to be reassigned to another shift, so as to make it possible. Or, failing that, even seek employment elsewhere, so as to have a shift that is compatible with her taking a course during other hours. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 7, 2014 11:09:46 GMT
You insist that being middle class is, essentially, a thing of the past. But I would imagine that you are middle class. And I am certain that I am precisely that. We have had this conversation previously, but it bears repeating: The belief that government assistance simply acts as a supplement to private charities is fundamentally erroneous. There is only X amount of money available to be consumed for charity, either public or private. If taxation is increased, in order to bring into existence (or increase) public assistance, donors are necessarily going to donate less to private charities. That is just common sense. And I would not wish to characterize my view so crudely as to assert that some people "simply [choose] to sit on their asses and collect welfare." Rather, I would say that they have been incentivized--by the government--to eschew low-wage work (especially when it would necessarily entail daycare expenses), in favor of collecting a welfare check. And in the short term, that would appear to be a sensible enough choice; although it is a certain dead end. Often we can find a way to do something, if we really want it badly enough. That "waitress or the barista at the local coffee stand" could possibly take a course after work; or, if there is a conflict of schedule, perhaps she could ask to be reassigned to another shift, so as to make it possible. Or, failing that, even seek employment elsewhere, so as to have a shift that is compatible with her taking a course during other hours.
I'm not "working middle class" by any standard. Since the first of the year I have zero earned income.
No, I would claim that charity is a supplement to government welfare assistance because the amount of charity that provides assistance for basic essentials is only a small fraction of what is needed. Northwest Harvest that provides the private food banks for all of Washington (and perhaps Oregon and Idaho as well) only had $43 million of income in 2012 and that wasn't anywhere close to enough funding to provide for the food needs of the people living in or near poverty level. You know who NW Harvest actually benefits? Those that need food but that don't qualify for SNAP.
I've made a suggestion before. For those that want private charity to replace government assistance: 1) First establish how much assistance is actually needed (as opposed to just what Congress authorizie); 2) Fund that need but also establish a trust fund and for every dollar donated to the trust reduce government welfare assistance based upon the "percentage of need" being provided for by the trust every year.
You know what would actually happen? First of all "funding the need" would require a significant increase in the government welfare assistance because the need is not being met today and secondly the amount donated to the trust fund wouldn't be enough to even cover the increase in the government welfare assistance being provided.
It is a mythical Republican and Libertarian belief that private charities can replace government assistance. People simply won't write the checks necessary to meet the needs of the American people that are forced to live in poverty because of undercompensation for labor. No, that waitress or barista can't "normally find a way to do something" because they only have a limited number of hours each week in which to do everything they must already do each week. You act like they can "add hours to their day" but they can't. It isn't a question of "scheduling" but instead it's a question of disposable time. They work as many hours as they can and don't have any "spare hours" left over to do anything else regardless of schedule. Balancing work and raising children simply doesn't provide most with any extra time for school (or training) and they can't afford the schooling to begin with.
Even when they have the "time" they don't have the money. My wife was retrained due to a work injury and while L&I provided the schooling she received zero dollars to live on during the year of training they provided. Had it not been for me she couldn't have afforded to take the training and it was limited to just a single year and not long enough to actually provide an income when she was done. It wasn't like the government would provide for her financial needs plus four years of college so she could have a new profession. She received one year of tuition and no other financial assistance... not even for books and class materials she had to pay for out of pocket.
Finally you still refuse to accept the fact that there are 40 million households collecting SNAP benefits alone but there aren't any middle class jobs for 40 million heads of household. If every income earner for these 40 million households could go to college for four years and receive a BS degree there wouldn't be any higher income jobs for them when they graduated. The jobs don't exist and there would still be 40 million households needing SNAP assistance. It is a zero net game because there's that many jobs that don't provide enough compensation for their employees to buy enough food.
The problem is the lack of middle income jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 7, 2014 22:41:34 GMT
You insist that being middle class is, essentially, a thing of the past. But I would imagine that you are middle class. And I am certain that I am precisely that. We have had this conversation previously, but it bears repeating: The belief that government assistance simply acts as a supplement to private charities is fundamentally erroneous. There is only X amount of money available to be consumed for charity, either public or private. If taxation is increased, in order to bring into existence (or increase) public assistance, donors are necessarily going to donate less to private charities. That is just common sense. And I would not wish to characterize my view so crudely as to assert that some people "simply [choose] to sit on their asses and collect welfare." Rather, I would say that they have been incentivized--by the government--to eschew low-wage work (especially when it would necessarily entail daycare expenses), in favor of collecting a welfare check. And in the short term, that would appear to be a sensible enough choice; although it is a certain dead end. Often we can find a way to do something, if we really want it badly enough. That "waitress or the barista at the local coffee stand" could possibly take a course after work; or, if there is a conflict of schedule, perhaps she could ask to be reassigned to another shift, so as to make it possible. Or, failing that, even seek employment elsewhere, so as to have a shift that is compatible with her taking a course during other hours.
I'm not "working middle class" by any standard. Since the first of the year I have zero earned income.
No, I would claim that charity is a supplement to government welfare assistance because the amount of charity that provides assistance for basic essentials is only a small fraction of what is needed. Northwest Harvest that provides the private food banks for all of Washington (and perhaps Oregon and Idaho as well) only had $43 million of income in 2012 and that wasn't anywhere close to enough funding to provide for the food needs of the people living in or near poverty level. You know who NW Harvest actually benefits? Those that need food but that don't qualify for SNAP.
I've made a suggestion before. For those that want private charity to replace government assistance: 1) First establish how much assistance is actually needed (as opposed to just what Congress authorizie); 2) Fund that need but also establish a trust fund and for every dollar donated to the trust reduce government welfare assistance based upon the "percentage of need" being provided for by the trust every year.
You know what would actually happen? First of all "funding the need" would require a significant increase in the government welfare assistance because the need is not being met today and secondly the amount donated to the trust fund wouldn't be enough to even cover the increase in the government welfare assistance being provided.
It is a mythical Republican and Libertarian belief that private charities can replace government assistance. People simply won't write the checks necessary to meet the needs of the American people that are forced to live in poverty because of undercompensation for labor. No, that waitress or barista can't "normally find a way to do something" because they only have a limited number of hours each week in which to do everything they must already do each week. You act like they can "add hours to their day" but they can't. It isn't a question of "scheduling" but instead it's a question of disposable time. They work as many hours as they can and don't have any "spare hours" left over to do anything else regardless of schedule. Balancing work and raising children simply doesn't provide most with any extra time for school (or training) and they can't afford the schooling to begin with.
Even when they have the "time" they don't have the money. My wife was retrained due to a work injury and while L&I provided the schooling she received zero dollars to live on during the year of training they provided. Had it not been for me she couldn't have afforded to take the training and it was limited to just a single year and not long enough to actually provide an income when she was done. It wasn't like the government would provide for her financial needs plus four years of college so she could have a new profession. She received one year of tuition and no other financial assistance... not even for books and class materials she had to pay for out of pocket.
Finally you still refuse to accept the fact that there are 40 million households collecting SNAP benefits alone but there aren't any middle class jobs for 40 million heads of household. If every income earner for these 40 million households could go to college for four years and receive a BS degree there wouldn't be any higher income jobs for them when they graduated. The jobs don't exist and there would still be 40 million households needing SNAP assistance. It is a zero net game because there's that many jobs that don't provide enough compensation for their employees to buy enough food.
The problem is the lack of middle income jobs.
You may not be "working middle class"--you interploated the word, "working," into the equation--but would you not describe yourself as being middle class? If not, would you describe yourself as upper crust? Or as underclass? Not all economic assistance must necessarily come from food banks--or even from recognized private charities. Many of us give individuals (whom we personally know) money, for this or that. No doubt, this is not included in the statistics. (How could it be?) Needless to say, I do not believe in our establishing a single "trust fund" for charity, as you have suggested. That "waitress or barista" who is (supposedly) rendered unable to improve her lot due to the limited number of hours in each week faces no special hurdle in that regard. Others who have managed to work their way through college, for example, had the exact same 168 hours in every week. I find it interesting that you lament the "lack of midle income jobs." It has not been all that long since I was working; and there did not appear to be any paucity of such jobs at that time, so far as I could see. (Come to think of it, I was a middle-income person, myself.) On a personal level, I am genuinely sorry to learn of your wife's troubles. I am glad, however, that everything apparently worked out okay. In any event, one case--however sad--should probably not be viewed as emblematic of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 8, 2014 12:39:58 GMT
You may not be "working middle class"--you interploated the word, "working," into the equation--but would you not describe yourself as being middle class? If not, would you describe yourself as upper crust? Or as underclass? Not all economic assistance must necessarily come from food banks--or even from recognized private charities. Many of us give individuals (whom we personally know) money, for this or that. No doubt, this is not included in the statistics. (How could it be?) Needless to say, I do not believe in our establishing a single "trust fund" for charity, as you have suggested. That "waitress or barista" who is (supposedly) rendered unable to improve her lot due to the limited number of hours in each week faces no special hurdle in that regard. Others who have managed to work their way through college, for example, had the exact same 168 hours in every week. I find it interesting that you lament the "lack of midle income jobs." It has not been all that long since I was working; and there did not appear to be any paucity of such jobs at that time, so far as I could see. (Come to think of it, I was a middle-income person, myself.) On a personal level, I am genuinely sorry to learn of your wife's troubles. I am glad, however, that everything apparently worked out okay. In any event, one case--however sad--should probably not be viewed as emblematic of anything.
I'm currently a "low income" individual with a total household income of about $600/mo but fortunately I have cash assets left over from previous years of high income. The fact that I have earned money in the past doesn't change the fact that I'm not earning much of an income today. I lost my job in Dec 2012 and with all of my technical knowledge and skills have been unable to find any work. Knowledge and skills don't equate to a job or income and I'm a prime example of that. Don't worry about me though because I also have a considerable amount of assets in a family trust fund but I didn't earn that. That just reflects the "privilege of wealth" that some of us enjoy.
I seriously doubt that you'll find many that are raising a child or children on their own that were able to obtain a college degree. These cases do exist but they almost always rely on financial and personal assistance by the family which isn't available for most people in poverty.
Yes, I've also helped individuals I know financially but realize the "poor" don't generally have many that can help them as everyone they know is also poor. We can also note that the financial obligation imposed on society is greater than all of the goverment welfare, private charities, and personal assistance combined because we're still not meeting the needs of those living in poverty.
I've repeatedly informed you of the fact that poverty is expanding in the US and that reflects a breakdown of "capitalism" in the United States that needs to be addressed because it is driving an ever increasing welfare state. Yesterday I was reading an article that stated if we use 75% to 125% of median household income to define "middle income" (the common definition) the number of those living below this amount has increased from about 23% to 29% since 2008 (a 26% increase in four years) and while overall unemployment is down in the 6% range for those between 18-29 they still have an unemployment rate of almost 10% and is still over 12% for blacks!
More and more people are living in poverty and that is a serious problem you just don't want to address. It's getting worse every year and the increasing poverty is driving an ever increasing welfare state. The cause of the poverty is not that people are lazy, don't want to get ahead, or don't make efforts to do so but instead it's the declining compensation for labor in our economy.
Example: In the last 13 years there has been zero wage growth in the food service industry where the average wage (including tips) has been constant at $10/hr while inflation over that time period has been 34%. They have 1/3rd less income today in real dollars than they had in 2001.
Either we address the problem of ever increasing under compensation for labor or we accept an ever expanding welfare state to provide for those that can't earn enough to live on. What part of that don't you seem to understand? Republican policies are literally creating a larger welfare state as they refuse to address the fact that low (real) wages creates the need for welfare assistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 8, 2014 20:50:23 GMT
You may not be "working middle class"--you interploated the word, "working," into the equation--but would you not describe yourself as being middle class? If not, would you describe yourself as upper crust? Or as underclass? Not all economic assistance must necessarily come from food banks--or even from recognized private charities. Many of us give individuals (whom we personally know) money, for this or that. No doubt, this is not included in the statistics. (How could it be?) Needless to say, I do not believe in our establishing a single "trust fund" for charity, as you have suggested. That "waitress or barista" who is (supposedly) rendered unable to improve her lot due to the limited number of hours in each week faces no special hurdle in that regard. Others who have managed to work their way through college, for example, had the exact same 168 hours in every week. I find it interesting that you lament the "lack of midle income jobs." It has not been all that long since I was working; and there did not appear to be any paucity of such jobs at that time, so far as I could see. (Come to think of it, I was a middle-income person, myself.) On a personal level, I am genuinely sorry to learn of your wife's troubles. I am glad, however, that everything apparently worked out okay. In any event, one case--however sad--should probably not be viewed as emblematic of anything.
I'm currently a "low income" individual with a total household income of about $600/mo but fortunately I have cash assets left over from previous years of high income. The fact that I have earned money in the past doesn't change the fact that I'm not earning much of an income today. I lost my job in Dec 2012 and with all of my technical knowledge and skills have been unable to find any work. Knowledge and skills don't equate to a job or income and I'm a prime example of that. Don't worry about me though because I also have a considerable amount of assets in a family trust fund but I didn't earn that. That just reflects the "privilege of wealth" that some of us enjoy.
I seriously doubt that you'll find many that are raising a child or children on their own that were able to obtain a college degree. These cases do exist but they almost always rely on financial and personal assistance by the family which isn't available for most people in poverty.
Yes, I've also helped individuals I know financially but realize the "poor" don't generally have many that can help them as everyone they know is also poor. We can also note that the financial obligation imposed on society is greater than all of the goverment welfare, private charities, and personal assistance combined because we're still not meeting the needs of those living in poverty.
I've repeatedly informed you of the fact that poverty is expanding in the US and that reflects a breakdown of "capitalism" in the United States that needs to be addressed because it is driving an ever increasing welfare state. Yesterday I was reading an article that stated if we use 75% to 125% of median household income to define "middle income" (the common definition) the number of those living below this amount has increased from about 23% to 29% since 2008 (a 26% increase in four years) and while overall unemployment is down in the 6% range for those between 18-29 they still have an unemployment rate of almost 10% and is still over 12% for blacks!
More and more people are living in poverty and that is a serious problem you just don't want to address. It's getting worse every year and the increasing poverty is driving an ever increasing welfare state. The cause of the poverty is not that people are lazy, don't want to get ahead, or don't make efforts to do so but instead it's the declining compensation for labor in our economy.
Example: In the last 13 years there has been zero wage growth in the food service industry where the average wage (including tips) has been constant at $10/hr while inflation over that time period has been 34%. They have 1/3rd less income today in real dollars than they had in 2001.
Either we address the problem of ever increasing under compensation for labor or we accept an ever expanding welfare state to provide for those that can't earn enough to live on. What part of that don't you seem to understand? Republican policies are literally creating a larger welfare state as they refuse to address the fact that low (real) wages creates the need for welfare assistance.
Although your monthly income, at the moment, is very modest--even more so than my own; and it is very modest--your prospects for the near future are quite good, given that you are about to establish your own business. And I would imagine that the high income you earned in "the past" may be useful to you, in terms of your having established a Rainy Day Fund (a.k.a. an Emergenvy Fund) from which you can now withdraw money. (Note: One does not necessarily have to be a high-income earner to follow this path. I never in my life earned more than $12 an hour--and with far more undertime than overtime--yet my own Rainy Day Fund is close to $54k, and growing.) And I certainly do not resent the fact that you have a rather substantial trust fund on which to rely. Yes, you are certainly correct that you did not "earn" it. But the politics of envy is not very endearing to me--to say the least. Why should there be a "financial obligation" on society to alleviate poverty? (Note: The operative word here is "obligation." It necessarily implies a legal imperative--or, at least, a moral imperative--and I simply do not beilieve that any legal imperative in this regard should exist; and that charity, just by definition, is not really a moral imperative, but a moral good that enriches both the receiver and the giver.) Can you provide proof of your assertion that there has been "zero growth" in the food-service industry, "including tips," over the past 13 years? Preferably, from a neutral source. And your words in the last sentence, above, seem to imply a desire for a so-called "living wage"--even though you have denied, previously, that this is what you prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 9, 2014 11:51:08 GMT
Although your monthly income, at the moment, is very modest--even more so than my own; and it is very modest--your prospects for the near future are quite good, given that you are about to establish your own business. And I would imagine that the high income you earned in "the past" may be useful to you, in terms of your having established a Rainy Day Fund (a.k.a. an Emergenvy Fund) from which you can now withdraw money. (Note: One does not necessarily have to be a high-income earner to follow this path. I never in my life earned more than $12 an hour--and with far more undertime than overtime--yet my own Rainy Day Fund is close to $54k, and growing.) And I certainly do not resent the fact that you have a rather substantial trust fund on which to rely. Yes, you are certainly correct that you did not "earn" it. But the politics of envy is not very endearing to me--to say the least. Why should there be a "financial obligation" on society to alleviate poverty? (Note: The operative word here is "obligation." It necessarily implies a legal imperative--or, at least, a moral imperative--and I simply do not beilieve that any legal imperative in this regard should exist; and that charity, just by definition, is not really a moral imperative, but a moral good that enriches both the receiver and the giver.) Can you provide proof of your assertion that there has been "zero growth" in the food-service industry, "including tips," over the past 13 years? Preferably, from a neutral source. And your words in the last sentence, above, seem to imply a desire for a so-called "living wage"--even though you have denied, previously, that this is what you prefer.
Yes, I have financial assets that allow me to embark on a start-up enteprise that has very good prospects and I have a trust fund I can rely on if the enterprise fails which, of course, a poor person doesn't have. That doesn't change the fact that I'm currently a low income person that hasn't had a job on almost two years (except for a couple of very short term consulting jobs). Based upon 2013 and 2014 I'm a low income household. At 65 years old it would also be pragmatically impossible for me to start a new career.
I was looking for the article that I'd read and cited on the food industry (and saved a link to) but didn't find it yesterday. As I'm sure you're aware the food industry typically pay at or close to minimum wage and while the waiters, waitresses, and bartenders can earn tips most of the staff does not. We should also note that most don't work 40 hours weeks making gross personal income substantially less than for many other forms of employment at the same wages. So I can't find the link (sometimes I add them to the wrong bookmark folder by mistake) I'll keep looking for it as it had much more startling information. You know that I've never lied about information I've read even if you disagree with it.
As a society I believe we have an obligation based upon our general morality and compassion to financially mitigate the effects of poverty. You don't even tend to disagree with this as you've advocated private charities and personal assistance to mitigate the effects of poverty but, unfortunately, we know that private charities and personal assistance cannot provide for the needs of those living in poverty. At best your proposals are a "pie-in-the-sky" belief that this assistance could be provided by voluntary private funding but lack any evidence that private charities and personal assistance have ever come even close to meeting the need.
The "living wage" is an interesting proposition but I'm not behind it at the moment. It has merit because it would dramatically reduce government welfare assistance but my issue is that "compensation" is not based upon wages alone. Compensation relates to wages and benefits so I personally believe that the "living wage" proponents are not correctly addressing the problem of under-compensation (not just under-payment) for employment that exists because of market force coercion in the employment contract. I believe it's a myopic proposal and I have a problem with that.
I'm actually trying to work out what needs to be done based upon the "natural right of property of the person" and that is a huge challenge for me. Basically I know that the problem exists but I'm not willing to jump to support a proposition that is based upon superficial criteria and I think the "living wage" proposition is superficial.
Here's perhaps the difference. I'm looking for a solution to the problem but apparently you're not. Simply creating more poverty level jobs that necessitate more government welfare assistance is not something I'd advocate but you seem to be just fine with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 9, 2014 20:46:38 GMT
Although your monthly income, at the moment, is very modest--even more so than my own; and it is very modest--your prospects for the near future are quite good, given that you are about to establish your own business. And I would imagine that the high income you earned in "the past" may be useful to you, in terms of your having established a Rainy Day Fund (a.k.a. an Emergenvy Fund) from which you can now withdraw money. (Note: One does not necessarily have to be a high-income earner to follow this path. I never in my life earned more than $12 an hour--and with far more undertime than overtime--yet my own Rainy Day Fund is close to $54k, and growing.) And I certainly do not resent the fact that you have a rather substantial trust fund on which to rely. Yes, you are certainly correct that you did not "earn" it. But the politics of envy is not very endearing to me--to say the least. Why should there be a "financial obligation" on society to alleviate poverty? (Note: The operative word here is "obligation." It necessarily implies a legal imperative--or, at least, a moral imperative--and I simply do not beilieve that any legal imperative in this regard should exist; and that charity, just by definition, is not really a moral imperative, but a moral good that enriches both the receiver and the giver.) Can you provide proof of your assertion that there has been "zero growth" in the food-service industry, "including tips," over the past 13 years? Preferably, from a neutral source. And your words in the last sentence, above, seem to imply a desire for a so-called "living wage"--even though you have denied, previously, that this is what you prefer.
Yes, I have financial assets that allow me to embark on a start-up enteprise that has very good prospects and I have a trust fund I can rely on if the enterprise fails which, of course, a poor person doesn't have. That doesn't change the fact that I'm currently a low income person that hasn't had a job on almost two years (except for a couple of very short term consulting jobs). Based upon 2013 and 2014 I'm a low income household. At 65 years old it would also be pragmatically impossible for me to start a new career.
I was looking for the article that I'd read and cited on the food industry (and saved a link to) but didn't find it yesterday. As I'm sure you're aware the food industry typically pay at or close to minimum wage and while the waiters, waitresses, and bartenders can earn tips most of the staff does not. We should also note that most don't work 40 hours weeks making gross personal income substantially less than for many other forms of employment at the same wages. So I can't find the link (sometimes I add them to the wrong bookmark folder by mistake) I'll keep looking for it as it had much more startling information. You know that I've never lied about information I've read even if you disagree with it.
As a society I believe we have an obligation based upon our general morality and compassion to financially mitigate the effects of poverty. You don't even tend to disagree with this as you've advocated private charities and personal assistance to mitigate the effects of poverty but, unfortunately, we know that private charities and personal assistance cannot provide for the needs of those living in poverty. At best your proposals are a "pie-in-the-sky" belief that this assistance could be provided by voluntary private funding but lack any evidence that private charities and personal assistance have ever come even close to meeting the need.
The "living wage" is an interesting proposition but I'm not behind it at the moment. It has merit because it would dramatically reduce government welfare assistance but my issue is that "compensation" is not based upon wages alone. Compensation relates to wages and benefits so I personally believe that the "living wage" proponents are not correctly addressing the problem of under-compensation (not just under-payment) for employment that exists because of market force coercion in the employment contract. I believe it's a myopic proposal and I have a problem with that.
I'm actually trying to work out what needs to be done based upon the "natural right of property of the person" and that is a huge challenge for me. Basically I know that the problem exists but I'm not willing to jump to support a proposition that is based upon superficial criteria and I think the "living wage" proposition is superficial.
Here's perhaps the difference. I'm looking for a solution to the problem but apparently you're not. Simply creating more poverty level jobs that necessitate more government welfare assistance is not something I'd advocate but you seem to be just fine with that.
No, I certainly do not believe that you would "lie" to me; I have much more faith in your character than to suppose that. But I do think that you might just use an article from a source that is, well, a bit less than unbiased. Why should our "society" have "an obligation" to "mitiagate the effects of poverty"? Individuals, certainly, may do precisely that; in that case, it is entirely voluntary. But to c oerce the entire society into doing something--something to atone for that for which it is not collectively responsible--is simply wrong, in my view. I will take you at your word that you do not entirely favor "living-wage" proposals. But your tepidity in this regard seems entirely pragmatic--not really principled: You note (quite correctly) that these proposals typically do not include all types of compensation--just wages. But I do not detect any opposition, on your part, to such proposals as a matter of principle.
And business's "creating more poverty level jobs" means (I believe) that more people should be in a position to enter the work force; albeit on the very first rung. It is your insistence, however, that all the middle rungs have simply disappeared, that makes this appear so bleak to you. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 10, 2014 23:32:39 GMT
No, I certainly do not believe that you would "lie" to me; I have much more faith in your character than to suppose that. But I do think that you might just use an article from a source that is, well, a bit less than unbiased. Why should our "society" have "an obligation" to "mitiagate the effects of poverty"? Individuals, certainly, may do precisely that; in that case, it is entirely voluntary. But to c oerce the entire society into doing something--something to atone for that for which it is not collectively responsible--is simply wrong, in my view. I will take you at your word that you do not entirely favor "living-wage" proposals. But your tepidity in this regard seems entirely pragmatic--not really principled: You note (quite correctly) that these proposals typically do not include all types of compensation--just wages. But I do not detect any opposition, on your part, to such proposals as a matter of principle.
And business's "creating more poverty level jobs" means (I believe) that more people should be in a position to enter the work force; albeit on the very first rung. It is your insistence, however, that all the middle rungs have simply disappeared, that makes this appear so bleak to you.
I don't recall the source of the article I read but it was a highly respected financial publication as I recall.
Our economy is "collective" and not individual and therefore problems with it, such as poverty, must be addressed by the "collective" as opposed to by the individual.
I'm very principled based upon the inalienable rights of the person but we must remember that no one has a "right to screw" someone else and that's what I see happening by those that want someone to work for them but that don't believe that person should received adequate compensation so they can live off of their labor. I have this gut feeling that undercompensation is a violation of the inalienable rights of the person but haven't been able to provide myself with an adequate argument to support my opinion. It's a gut feeling but I tend to believe the argument to support it exists and I just haven't tied together the dots (yet). That's as honest as I can be about it.
I've never claimed that all of the middle income jobs have been lost be every source I've read states they are being lost. For every million middle income jobs that are lost that's one million people that are prevented from working their way up the economic ladder. Based upon the past and knowledge of current AI/technology advancements I see the rate of loss for middle income jobs increasing dramatically in the not-to-distant future so I'm alarmed. What happens when they are virtually all gone and no one can work their way from the bottom to higher levels of income? What happens then?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 11, 2014 0:34:54 GMT
No, I certainly do not believe that you would "lie" to me; I have much more faith in your character than to suppose that. But I do think that you might just use an article from a source that is, well, a bit less than unbiased. Why should our "society" have "an obligation" to "mitiagate the effects of poverty"? Individuals, certainly, may do precisely that; in that case, it is entirely voluntary. But to c oerce the entire society into doing something--something to atone for that for which it is not collectively responsible--is simply wrong, in my view. I will take you at your word that you do not entirely favor "living-wage" proposals. But your tepidity in this regard seems entirely pragmatic--not really principled: You note (quite correctly) that these proposals typically do not include all types of compensation--just wages. But I do not detect any opposition, on your part, to such proposals as a matter of principle.
And business's "creating more poverty level jobs" means (I believe) that more people should be in a position to enter the work force; albeit on the very first rung. It is your insistence, however, that all the middle rungs have simply disappeared, that makes this appear so bleak to you.
I don't recall the source of the article I read but it was a highly respected financial publication as I recall.
Our economy is "collective" and not individual and therefore problems with it, such as poverty, must be addressed by the "collective" as opposed to by the individual.
I'm very principled based upon the inalienable rights of the person but we must remember that no one has a "right to screw" someone else and that's what I see happening by those that want someone to work for them but that don't believe that person should received adequate compensation so they can live off of their labor. I have this gut feeling that undercompensation is a violation of the inalienable rights of the person but haven't been able to provide myself with an adequate argument to support my opinion. It's a gut feeling but I tend to believe the argument to support it exists and I just haven't tied together the dots (yet). That's as honest as I can be about it.
I've never claimed that all of the middle income jobs have been lost be every source I've read states they are being lost. For every million middle income jobs that are lost that's one million people that are prevented from working their way up the economic ladder. Based upon the past and knowledge of current AI/technology advancements I see the rate of loss for middle income jobs increasing dramatically in the not-to-distant future so I'm alarmed. What happens when they are virtually all gone and no one can work their way from the bottom to higher levels of income? What happens then?
Yes, our "economy" is, of course--just by definition--"collective." But that ought not necessarily imply that the failure of some to secure meaningful work--i.e. a job (or career) that provides adequate compensation--is a collective responsibility. Each individual must take personal responsibility for his or her own place in that economy. You seem to be implying that you take a position based upon your own "gut feeling," and then look for an intellectual argument with which to justify it. Does that not strike you as being backwards? (In terms of policymaking, it would be far preferable, I think, for the head to govern the heart--not the other way around.) Your plaintive query--"What happens when [middle-income jobs] are virtually all gone and no one can work their way from the bottom to higher levels of income?"--begs the question, by imagining that we are in complete agreement that this is an inevitability. Well, we are not. And, in any case, it fails to address the matter of jobs in the here and now. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 11, 2014 11:35:53 GMT
Yes, our "economy" is, of course--just by definition--"collective." But that ought not necessarily imply that the failure of some to secure meaningful work--i.e. a job (or career) that provides adequate compensation--is a collective responsibility. Each individual must take personal responsibility for his or her own place in that economy. You seem to be implying that you take a position based upon your own "gut feeling," and then look for an intellectual argument with which to justify it. Does that not strike you as being backwards? (In terms of policymaking, it would be far preferable, I think, for the head to govern the heart--not the other way around.) Your plaintive query--"What happens when [middle-income jobs] are virtually all gone and no one can work their way from the bottom to higher levels of income?"--begs the question, by imagining that we are in complete agreement that this is an inevitability. Well, we are not. And, in any case, it fails to address the matter of jobs in the here and now.
Combining a response for both your first and last paragraph I really do wish I could find what folder I saved the bookmark to that story on the dramatic increase percentage of households living with less than 75% of median household income. It's gone from less than 1/4th of the households to rising towards 1/3rd of households that it should reach in a couple of years. We also know from the dramatic increase in the number of households that now qualify for welfare assistance that this is happening. You want to address the "here and now" and that is the here and now and poverty in the collective sense is expanding. This isn't about one person being able to succeed but instead tens of millions that can't succeed in the "here and now" because of the loss of middle income jobs. That's a "collective" problem for America.
It's a problem with our "economic model" that is creating jobs but more and more of those jobs don't provide adequate compensation.
University of Toronto business professor Roger Martin addressed this recently by defining the current economy as being "talent based" where the few with special "talents" are disproportionately reaping most of the financial rewards and that is creating the income disparity. To sort of paraphase what he says in the following story they are creating personal wealth for themselves but not creating wealth for the economy.
And "a small percentage of that talent is extracting a greater and greater percentage of the value [of those companies], and that's what's driving inequality," says Martin.
But doesn't talent deserve to be rewarded? Yes it does, says Martin, but the question is by how much?
"We have reached a tipping point where talent takes too much," says Martin in the video above. "The median person in the American economy has to be asking: 'When will I start moving ahead again while the top one percent rockets up into space?'"
So who is this talent that Martin says is taking too much for themselves? They're the corporate executives whose compensation is stock-based, which creates incentives for CEOs to cut labor costs; venture capitalists; tech billionaires; and hedge fund managers who create value for themselves rather than the broader economy, he says.
"One trader's gain is simply another trader's loss," Martin writes about hedge fund managers. "It's nothing like building a company that gives the world a better product and generates employment."
Martin says these imbalances need to be corrected.
finance.yahoo.com/news/the--talent-based--economy-is-to-blame-for-increasing-income-inequality--university-of-toronto-professor-183339728.html
I'm not here to advocate his proposals but instead to present that he is providing an explanation of what's happening and why it is causing an ever increasing rise in the collective poverty we're experiencing in the here and now.
On the final issue I've not advocated we do anything yet based upon my "gut feeling" but you must also understand that it is not an uninformed "gut feeling" but instead it's based upon a lot of information where I'm simply been unable to connect all of the dots and reach a conclusion about what to do and how to support that action based upon a compelling argument. I'm working on tying together Locke's arguments that the Right of Property is based upon "sweat equity" with the above issue of "talent" that's based upon "intellectual equity" and the two are not the same. Both need to be rewarded in an economy, as both are vitally important to a robust economy, but as Martin asks above, "By how much?"
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 11, 2014 23:16:18 GMT
Yes, our "economy" is, of course--just by definition--"collective." But that ought not necessarily imply that the failure of some to secure meaningful work--i.e. a job (or career) that provides adequate compensation--is a collective responsibility. Each individual must take personal responsibility for his or her own place in that economy. You seem to be implying that you take a position based upon your own "gut feeling," and then look for an intellectual argument with which to justify it. Does that not strike you as being backwards? (In terms of policymaking, it would be far preferable, I think, for the head to govern the heart--not the other way around.) Your plaintive query--"What happens when [middle-income jobs] are virtually all gone and no one can work their way from the bottom to higher levels of income?"--begs the question, by imagining that we are in complete agreement that this is an inevitability. Well, we are not. And, in any case, it fails to address the matter of jobs in the here and now.
Combining a response for both your first and last paragraph I really do wish I could find what folder I saved the bookmark to that story on the dramatic increase percentage of households living with less than 75% of median household income. It's gone from less than 1/4th of the households to rising towards 1/3rd of households that it should reach in a couple of years. We also know from the dramatic increase in the number of households that now qualify for welfare assistance that this is happening. You want to address the "here and now" and that is the here and now and poverty in the collective sense is expanding. This isn't about one person being able to succeed but instead tens of millions that can't succeed in the "here and now" because of the loss of middle income jobs. That's a "collective" problem for America.
It's a problem with our "economic model" that is creating jobs but more and more of those jobs don't provide adequate compensation.
University of Toronto business professor Roger Martin addressed this recently by defining the current economy as being "talent based" where the few with special "talents" are disproportionately reaping most of the financial rewards and that is creating the income disparity. To sort of paraphase what he says in the following story they are creating personal wealth for themselves but not creating wealth for the economy.
And "a small percentage of that talent is extracting a greater and greater percentage of the value [of those companies], and that's what's driving inequality," says Martin.
But doesn't talent deserve to be rewarded? Yes it does, says Martin, but the question is by how much?
"We have reached a tipping point where talent takes too much," says Martin in the video above. "The median person in the American economy has to be asking: 'When will I start moving ahead again while the top one percent rockets up into space?'"
So who is this talent that Martin says is taking too much for themselves? They're the corporate executives whose compensation is stock-based, which creates incentives for CEOs to cut labor costs; venture capitalists; tech billionaires; and hedge fund managers who create value for themselves rather than the broader economy, he says.
"One trader's gain is simply another trader's loss," Martin writes about hedge fund managers. "It's nothing like building a company that gives the world a better product and generates employment."
Martin says these imbalances need to be corrected.
finance.yahoo.com/news/the--talent-based--economy-is-to-blame-for-increasing-income-inequality--university-of-toronto-professor-183339728.html
I'm not here to advocate his proposals but instead to present that he is providing an explanation of what's happening and why it is causing an ever increasing rise in the collective poverty we're experiencing in the here and now.
On the final issue I've not advocated we do anything yet based upon my "gut feeling" but you must also understand that it is not an uninformed "gut feeling" but instead it's based upon a lot of information where I'm simply been unable to connect all of the dots and reach a conclusion about what to do and how to support that action based upon a compelling argument. I'm working on tying together Locke's arguments that the Right of Property is based upon "sweat equity" with the above issue of "talent" that's based upon "intellectual equity" and the two are not the same. Both need to be rewarded in an economy, as both are vitally important to a robust economy, but as Martin asks above, "By how much?"
I would certainly not wish for the president of the United States--or the Congress or the courts, for that matter--to try to determine just "how much" talent (or even acquired skill) should be rewarded. That is a matter exclusively for the free market to decide. If a major-leage baseball team wishes to pay just one player $27,000,000 per year because he can hit a lot of home runs, or pitch a lot of shutouts, that should be a decision that is not governed by the preferences of othrs. To note that "[o]ne trader's gain is another trader's loss," although true enough, really misses the point. Both should have a perfect right to trade, if they so desire; or, alternatively, to pursue a buy-and-hold strategy (although the latter is really not very common among hedge funds). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 12, 2014 15:42:37 GMT
I would certainly not wish for the president of the United States--or the Congress or the courts, for that matter--to try to determine just "how much" talent (or even acquired skill) should be rewarded. That is a matter exclusively for the free market to decide. If a major-leage baseball team wishes to pay just one player $27,000,000 per year because he can hit a lot of home runs, or pitch a lot of shutouts, that should be a decision that is not governed by the preferences of othrs. To note that "[o]ne trader's gain is another trader's loss," although true enough, really misses the point. Both should have a perfect right to trade, if they so desire; or, alternatively, to pursue a buy-and-hold strategy (although the latter is really not very common among hedge funds).
First we must admit that we don't have a "free market" to begin with and, in fact, it would be hard to define a "free market" where the rights of the person(s) are protected by government. In a true "free market" for example, where 100% of the rights of the people are protected, then no pollution would be acceptable as pollution by one person violates the rights of all other persons.
For example on our other thread we're addressing the fact that government allows limited pollution based upon compelling arguments that the economic benefits from the violations of the rights of the person(s) caused by "dirty coal" pollution is more important than the violations of the rights of the person to clean air, land, and water that is polluted by the coal industry. Government itself imposes limitations and allows limited violations of the inalienable rights of the person virtually by it's very existance.
Like you I wouldn't want government to determine a maximum cap on the "rewards for talent" but that doesn't imply that government regulations cannot influence the market. What those regulations might be can be elusive but there is no doubt whatsoever that government regulations that must exist to protect all individuals in society from the abuses of others.
I will share some of my thoughts for your consideration even though they are incomplete.
First and foremost all wealth originates from the land and natural resources. It can go through numerous processes and changes but if we trace it back to it's origin it all comes from the land and natural resources. John Locke addressed this and Locke also correctly proposed that the land and natural resources belong to the "common" but could become personal property based upon the "sweat equity" of the individual. Locke also proposed that every person had a "right of property" to provide for their survival and comfort. One of my talents is "math" so I placed this in a mathmatical context.
I will assign "L" to represent persentage of labor, "W" to represent percentage of wealth, and "S" to equitable share of the wealth to of the individual. If there was only enough total wealth creation to provide for basic survival and limited comfort the equation would simply read:
W/L=S
The truth is that more wealth is created than what is required to provide for the survival and comfort of all individuals based upon labor so we have a surplus of wealth. So basically we have W1 (basic wealth creation that provides for the survival and comfort of all individuals) plus W2 that is above and beyond what is required. It is the excess wealth, or W2, that is divided by "T" that is talent but "T" is a variable so it would be best represented by "vT". That give us two equations to deal with.
First we have: W1/L1=S But because we produce more than what is necessary we actually have: (W1+W2)/L=S+W2/vT
Putting numbers to this if we have $1000 and 10 people laboring with a basic need for survival and comfort of $100 then each person must receive $100 but that isn't the case in reality. What we really have (using arbitrary numbers) is $1000 (W1) plus $500 (W2) so each of the 10 people still receives the $100 and then the other $500 is divided unequally based upon the variable "talent" of the individuals. Some might receive an additional $100 because of their "talent" while some would receive nothing as they brought nothing except labor to the equation.
I'm still working on this but basically it is based upon Locke's arguments that every person has an "equal right" to acquire wealth from the land and natural resources to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon labor (sweat equity) but because we produce more wealth than is required for everyone to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon "labor" there is enough to distribute the excess to a limited number providing "luxury" based upon their special talents.
Please understand that I'm sharing something that is still in the formulative stage but it is based upon the foundation laid down by Locke that the means of acquiring "wealth" from nature is based upon "sweat equity" were every person has an equal right to "survival and comfort" and that wealth created in excess of this is available to provide even more than simple survival and comfort (i.e. to provide for "luxury") and it is distributed based upon the "talents" of the person that are above and beyond the simple labor of the person.
Of possible interest to you this is different than the proposition put forward by Marx, that also had it's roots in the writings of Locke, where basically Marx proposed that the amount of wealth taken from the land and natural resources should be limited to just what is necessary to provide for the "survival and comfort" of all individuals in society. I will admit that Locke's arguments could be placed in that context but would argue against but would also note that there are caveats in Locke's writings that do limit how much wealth we can take from that land and natural resources. So long as we don't violate the caveats I see no pragmatic reason to limite wealth creation that can provide for "luxury" that is above and beyond "survival and comfort" for the individual.
So I'm still working on this and admit that I don't have a clue about how to address it by society or government at this point in time. I need to hammer out the details and arguments before I can address how it can possibly be addressed by society and government.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 12, 2014 20:36:54 GMT
I would certainly not wish for the president of the United States--or the Congress or the courts, for that matter--to try to determine just "how much" talent (or even acquired skill) should be rewarded. That is a matter exclusively for the free market to decide. If a major-leage baseball team wishes to pay just one player $27,000,000 per year because he can hit a lot of home runs, or pitch a lot of shutouts, that should be a decision that is not governed by the preferences of othrs. To note that "[o]ne trader's gain is another trader's loss," although true enough, really misses the point. Both should have a perfect right to trade, if they so desire; or, alternatively, to pursue a buy-and-hold strategy (although the latter is really not very common among hedge funds).
First we must admit that we don't have a "free market" to begin with and, in fact, it would be hard to define a "free market" where the rights of the person(s) are protected by government. In a true "free market" for example, where 100% of the rights of the people are protected, then no pollution would be acceptable as pollution by one person violates the rights of all other persons.
For example on our other thread we're addressing the fact that government allows limited pollution based upon compelling arguments that the economic benefits from the violations of the rights of the person(s) caused by "dirty coal" pollution is more important than the violations of the rights of the person to clean air, land, and water that is polluted by the coal industry. Government itself imposes limitations and allows limited violations of the inalienable rights of the person virtually by it's very existance.
Like you I wouldn't want government to determine a maximum cap on the "rewards for talent" but that doesn't imply that government regulations cannot influence the market. What those regulations might be can be elusive but there is no doubt whatsoever that government regulations that must exist to protect all individuals in society from the abuses of others.
I will share some of my thoughts for your consideration even though they are incomplete.
First and foremost all wealth originates from the land and natural resources. It can go through numerous processes and changes but if we trace it back to it's origin it all comes from the land and natural resources. John Locke addressed this and Locke also correctly proposed that the land and natural resources belong to the "common" but could become personal property based upon the "sweat equity" of the individual. Locke also proposed that every person had a "right of property" to provide for their survival and comfort. One of my talents is "math" so I placed this in a mathmatical context.
I will assign "L" to represent persentage of labor, "W" to represent percentage of wealth, and "S" to equitable share of the wealth to of the individual. If there was only enough total wealth creation to provide for basic survival and limited comfort the equation would simply read:
W/L=S
The truth is that more wealth is created than what is required to provide for the survival and comfort of all individuals based upon labor so we have a surplus of wealth. So basically we have W1 (basic wealth creation that provides for the survival and comfort of all individuals) plus W2 that is above and beyond what is required. It is the excess wealth, or W2, that is divided by "T" that is talent but "T" is a variable so it would be best represented by "vT". That give us two equations to deal with.
First we have: W1/L1=S But because we produce more than what is necessary we actually have: (W1+W2)/L=S+W2/vT
Putting numbers to this if we have $1000 and 10 people laboring with a basic need for survival and comfort of $100 then each person must receive $100 but that isn't the case in reality. What we really have (using arbitrary numbers) is $1000 (W1) plus $500 (W2) so each of the 10 people still receives the $100 and then the other $500 is divided unequally based upon the variable "talent" of the individuals. Some might receive an additional $100 because of their "talent" while some would receive nothing as they brought nothing except labor to the equation.
I'm still working on this but basically it is based upon Locke's arguments that every person has an "equal right" to acquire wealth from the land and natural resources to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon labor (sweat equity) but because we produce more wealth than is required for everyone to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon "labor" there is enough to distribute the excess to a limited number providing "luxury" based upon their special talents.
Please understand that I'm sharing something that is still in the formulative stage but it is based upon the foundation laid down by Locke that the means of acquiring "wealth" from nature is based upon "sweat equity" were every person has an equal right to "survival and comfort" and that wealth created in excess of this is available to provide even more than simple survival and comfort (i.e. to provide for "luxury") and it is distributed based upon the "talents" of the person that are above and beyond the simple labor of the person.
Of possible interest to you this is different than the proposition put forward by Marx, that also had it's roots in the writings of Locke, where basically Marx proposed that the amount of wealth taken from the land and natural resources should be limited to just what is necessary to provide for the "survival and comfort" of all individuals in society. I will admit that Locke's arguments could be placed in that context but would argue against but would also note that there are caveats in Locke's writings that do limit how much wealth we can take from that land and natural resources. So long as we don't violate the caveats I see no pragmatic reason to limite wealth creation that can provide for "luxury" that is above and beyond "survival and comfort" for the individual.
So I'm still working on this and admit that I don't have a clue about how to address it by society or government at this point in time. I need to hammer out the details and arguments before I can address how it can possibly be addressed by society and government.
First, as for your assertion that we have no such thing as a free market--which you claim that I "must" admit--that is not at all what Wikipedia says, in defining a free market: There is nothing there about "no pollution" being "acceptable," even if there are "compelling arguments" as concerning the "economic benefits" of allowing a minimal amount of pollution. That is entirely interpolated into your own definition of a free market; it is certainly not inherent to the term itself. Note: There is one sort of government intrusion upon the free market that really does exist: It is subsidies (or its first cousin, price floors), which often result in deliberate sabotage: say, the dumping of perfectly good milk in order to keep the supply in line with the demand--and therefore, keep prices high. Granted that your formulation is still in its embryonic stage; still, it appears that you would want society in general (presumably, through government regulation) to seize, and then redistribute, any earnings in excess of what is required for the "survival and comfort" of the individual. And that strikes me as being--well, if not a step precisely in the direction of Marxism (which you have claimed that it is not), then at least a step in the direction of egalitarianism. And I find that concept especially troubling--regardless of the appeal to John Locke. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 13, 2014 11:38:46 GMT
First, as for your assertion that we have no such thing as a free market--which you claim that I "must" admit--that is not at all what Wikipedia says, in defining a free market: There is nothing there about "no pollution" being "acceptable," even if there are "compelling arguments" as concerning the "economic benefits" of allowing a minimal amount of pollution. That is entirely interpolated into your own definition of a free market; it is certainly not inherent to the term itself. Note: There is one sort of government intrusion upon the free market that really does exist: It is subsidies (or its first cousin, price floors), which often result in deliberate sabotage: say, the dumping of perfectly good milk in order to keep the supply in line with the demand--and therefore, keep prices high. Granted that your formulation is still in its embryonic stage; still, it appears that you would want society in general (presumably, through government regulation) to seize, and then redistribute, any earnings in excess of what is required for the "survival and comfort" of the individual. And that strikes me as being--well, if not a step precisely in the direction of Marxism (which you have claimed that it is not), then at least a step in the direction of egalitarianism. And I find that concept especially troubling--regardless of the appeal to John Locke.
Are you so naive as to think we don't have monopolies, both public and private, in the US where the free market doesn't exist? I only have one source of water for my home for example and I must buy it from the city at the price they set. I believe we only have one oil refinery providing gasoline to all of the gas stations in WA and it sets the base price for all of the gasoline sold. There is no competition or market forces when there is monopoly. Our government is also highly interventionist when it comes to prices. One of the most significant interventions is reflected by the "sin taxes" imposed on alcohol and tobacco products. Corporate welfare programs are so corrupt I won't even go into the details on it. We have immigration quotas that restrict the free market in labor.
Surely you can't sit there and honestly state we have a "free market" as defined by Wikipedia.
Additionally I also added the caveat of a "free market where the rights of the person are protected" because historically the rights of the person are not protected in a free market.
Pollution is a fundamental violation of the "Rights of the Common" based upon Locke's arguments for natural (inalienable) rights as the land, water and air belongs to the "common" and the person only has the power to "privatize" that which they require for their own personal survival and comfort through their personal labor. They do not have a right to dispoil the land, water or air that belongs to all other persons (the common).
We allow pollution (that violates the Rights of the Common) based upon pragmatic economic arguments but no one has a right to pollute.
No, I'm not looking at "redistribution of wealth" but instead I'm looking into the "initial distribution of wealth" as it is being created. You've seen me do this before with my privatization plan for Social Security where I proposed ending the "redistribution of wealth" that we have today and replacing it with a program where the individual builds their own wealth so that redistribution is fundamentally unnecessary. I'm not that far along though as I'm still dealing with the fundamental "natural right of property" that is in conflict with the "statutory ownership of property" which we started to address.
I would ask for you comments on how I've addressed both "labor" and "talent" where "labor provides for basic survival and comfort" and "talent provides for the luxuries" in life. As you should have noticed there was no limitation of the individual's ability to earn luxury with their talents so long as others can earn their basic survival and comfort with their labor. It is a rather simple proposition based upon Locke's arguments for personal property.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 13, 2014 22:58:14 GMT
First, as for your assertion that we have no such thing as a free market--which you claim that I "must" admit--that is not at all what Wikipedia says, in defining a free market: There is nothing there about "no pollution" being "acceptable," even if there are "compelling arguments" as concerning the "economic benefits" of allowing a minimal amount of pollution. That is entirely interpolated into your own definition of a free market; it is certainly not inherent to the term itself. Note: There is one sort of government intrusion upon the free market that really does exist: It is subsidies (or its first cousin, price floors), which often result in deliberate sabotage: say, the dumping of perfectly good milk in order to keep the supply in line with the demand--and therefore, keep prices high. Granted that your formulation is still in its embryonic stage; still, it appears that you would want society in general (presumably, through government regulation) to seize, and then redistribute, any earnings in excess of what is required for the "survival and comfort" of the individual. And that strikes me as being--well, if not a step precisely in the direction of Marxism (which you have claimed that it is not), then at least a step in the direction of egalitarianism. And I find that concept especially troubling--regardless of the appeal to John Locke.
Are you so naive as to think we don't have monopolies, both public and private, in the US where the free market doesn't exist? I only have one source of water for my home for example and I must buy it from the city at the price they set. I believe we only have one oil refinery providing gasoline to all of the gas stations in WA and it sets the base price for all of the gasoline sold. There is no competition or market forces when there is monopoly. Our government is also highly interventionist when it comes to prices. One of the most significant interventions is reflected by the "sin taxes" imposed on alcohol and tobacco products. Corporate welfare programs are so corrupt I won't even go into the details on it. We have immigration quotas that restrict the free market in labor.
Surely you can't sit there and honestly state we have a "free market" as defined by Wikipedia.
Additionally I also added the caveat of a "free market where the rights of the person are protected" because historically the rights of the person are not protected in a free market.
Pollution is a fundamental violation of the "Rights of the Common" based upon Locke's arguments for natural (inalienable) rights as the land, water and air belongs to the "common" and the person only has the power to "privatize" that which they require for their own personal survival and comfort through their personal labor. They do not have a right to dispoil the land, water or air that belongs to all other persons (the common).
We allow pollution (that violates the Rights of the Common) based upon pragmatic economic arguments but no one has a right to pollute.
No, I'm not looking at "redistribution of wealth" but instead I'm looking into the "initial distribution of wealth" as it is being created. You've seen me do this before with my privatization plan for Social Security where I proposed ending the "redistribution of wealth" that we have today and replacing it with a program where the individual builds their own wealth so that redistribution is fundamentally unnecessary. I'm not that far along though as I'm still dealing with the fundamental "natural right of property" that is in conflict with the "statutory ownership of property" which we started to address.
I would ask for you comments on how I've addressed both "labor" and "talent" where "labor provides for basic survival and comfort" and "talent provides for the luxuries" in life. As you should have noticed there was no limitation of the individual's ability to earn luxury with their talents so long as others can earn their basic survival and comfort with their labor. It is a rather simple proposition based upon Locke's arguments for personal property.
Yes, we have only a single source of (public) water. But anyone who wishes to have private water is always free to dig a well. And there are lots of different gasoline stations around here. Gasoline sold at the lesser-known distributors (e.g. Murphy Express) sells for less than the same grade of gasoline from a major distributor (e.g. BP or Exxon). And gasoline sold at Kroger--which is actually Shell gasoline; Kroger simply contracts with Shell Oil, to sell its gasoline--may be less expensive still, if one has accumulated the requisite amount of points. Your assertion that, "[H]istorically the rights of the person are not protected in a free market," seems like just another example of your anti-free-market bias. And I do not refer to some (amorphous) concept known as "the 'Rights of the Common'"--irrespective of anything once asserted by John Locke--when determining what is or is not some sort of "violation." Rather, I refer to the US Constitution; the various state constitutions, as applicable; and then to statutory law. Nothing else. If some people--based upon their individual talents and/or skills--were to generate an income far in excess of anything they might need for their "survival and comfort"--in other words, if they were (truly) "filthy rich," as the vernacular has it--would you really not wish to tax them at a very high rate, and then redistribute at least some of the excess? |
|
