Yes, we need strong unions. Lets see.......where is there an example of a major US city with a history of strong union influence that we can look to as a model of what we expect if we were to duplicate that across the nation.......

DETROIT!!!

Unions? Why? Heck,, lets just jack the minimum wage to about $50.00.hr.

Just for the fun of it - unlikely though it is - lets pretend like the rich and powerful actually run this country. And run it to their own benefit.

If so, one might view the last 30 years or so as almost class warfare - with the middle and lower classes losing. There are so many indicators of this - many of which an awful lot of people in this country seem totally unaware of or completely do not understand.

In 1960, CEO pay to average factory worker pay was 42:1.  Now it is about 350:1. By comparison, in Europe this figure is about 25:1.

The top 20% of in the USA own 89% of the wealth. Of even more concern is that the bottom 80% in the last 30 years have lost nearly half of their wealth, dropping from 19% to 11%. Most of the wealth the the bottom 80% own is in their homes. When looking at just "financial" wealth - that is money one can actually spend - the top 1% own 42% of the wealth of this country, the top 20% over 95% and the bottom 80% less than 5%.

Wealth is a resource that is very useful in excercising power. Donations to political parties and candidates, hiring lobbyists,  grants and payments to experts to fund new "studies" that benefit the wealthy. Influence in  corporations (via ownership of stock) and even controlling the general social enviroment by hiring PR firms and downating money to universities and museums.

Armed with all this money and power, the rich have been able to effectively get legislation passed that helps them get richer still. Consider Estate taxes (or death taxes as they would say).  Around 1% of the people that die would have enough of an estate that there would be any taxes to pay. Cuts in inheritance taxes only help the top 1%. Or legislation that has made it easier to "off shore" jobs.

But the worst has been a remarkably effective "divide and conquer" strategy. With the rich  having successfully "soaked up" most of the wealth of this country - the bottom 80% have turned on each other fighting for the scraps (4.7%) that are left. Instead of banding together and demanding a fairer share of the economic pie for everyone, we instead see blue collar vs white collar, private sector vs public sector, union vs non-union, young vs old. All arguing the perception that one of these groups is getting more of the tiny bit the rich have left on the table than they should.

The minimum wage - mentioned here earlier - really needs a more appropriate name. Consider the "living wage", an initiative in over 100 communities and the state of Maryland. Simply put, a living wage law sets the "minimum" hourly wage at what a full time employee would need to make in order to pay for housing, food, transportation, health care and other living costs. Enough money that the wage earner does not need to rely on - or is entitled to - public assistance.

And that is another point - and the last one I'll make:  The average person subsidizes low wages in the retail, food service and housekeeping industries.  Our taxes pay for Foodstamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, freel school lunches and a host of other programs JUST SO Walmart and McDonalds can pay their employees minimum wage

WebsterMark wrote on 09/03/13 at 06:21:19:


1) I'm not entitled to their estate. The government is entitled to tax it, just like they tax any number of other wealth transfers. Because that is where most taxes take place. At the point money is exchanged. Buy a car, get paid at your job, pay your plumber, on the net profit of a business. Estate taxes are just another tax.

2) I worked at what people call the "welfare dept"for 35 years - last 28 as a manager.  (now retired) One of the misconceptions of welfare assistance is that there are substantial welfare benefits or programs for - as you put it - "healthy men and women".  In fact, most welfare programs eligibilty revolve around either poor health or having young children.  Except for Food Stamps (now called Supplemental Nutrion Assistance Program or SNAP), there really isn't anything for healthy adults with no children.

TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) requires children in the home (the assistance is actually for the children) and benefits have a lifetime limit.  Five years federal but most states less than that (Indiana is two years) TANF also has substantial work/job search requirments that have to be met to stay on the assistance, Medicaid is currently only available to Pregnant women, Children, Disabled adults and the elderly (and eligibility is based on income, some programs extremely low) Huge waiting list for subsidized housing for healthy adults without children - most of the time you can't even apply because the waiting list is years. Free lunches at school are obviously for children. Medicaid for the disabled is just for who is says as is Medicaid for the Aged.

65% of the "welfare" dollars in this country are spent on Medicaid.  One half of the Medicaid budget is spent on Nursing home care. It's hard to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you are in a nursing home or still in diapers.

So I know what happens if you get rid of welfare assistance for healthy adults. Exactly what is happening now.

You are correct. I am supporting business' that pay minimum wage when I patronize them. I cannot avoid all of them - I do not believe there is any grocery store in town that pays the non managment staff much better than minimum wage. But I could stop eating at Subway and make my own sandwichs. So a good point on your part.  

If I may play Devil's Advocate, Tony...

Why shouldn't CEO's be paid more?
We pay the top athletes more than the rookie athletes because they are the stars of the show. THEY are the ones who fill the stadium, that people flock to see. THEY generate the revenue are are reimbursed for it with their outlandish wages.
Carrying that metaphor over shouldn't CEO's who generate the most revenue for their companies be paid more?
... the flip side is that what if their short term growth is damaging in the long run?
However if they don't take advantage of an opportunity they are in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to their company.
I think part of the issue is a lack of fore sight.


--Steve

My wife helps pay the bills, house payments, car payments etc. Why should she have to pay taxes on something she's already worked and payed for.She's being double taxed. As far as my kids go I could see it. They're receiving goods and money they didn't work for. Taxing a family in grief is about as low as you as go but I've come to expect that from this country.

You didn't read my post. I said the kids should have to pay. They didn't buy the land, tractors, haybailers etc. I worked my tushy off around my Dads place but I didn't pay none of the bills.