Forum Post: one person = one vote; is this fair ?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 9:26 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA
(610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
we all know voting is a system designed to be fair and equal .. and yet the idea of someone having absolute no knowledge of what they vote on being of equal weight and value as someone who has done extensive research .. some how just doesn't seem equal ..
but when I suggest equal pay.. everyone jumps on me for saying it ?
That sounds like direct democracy. Bad idea. Not fair.
Should everyone try to be as knowledgable as possible. Of course. But a litmus test would be unrealistic and unfair also. Besides, some people might choose to vote based on a gut instinct, or a feeling. Who's to say that is wrong or will have any worse outcome?
I think that this forum has been very educational for the purposes of understanding and talking through issues. Hopefully, that will lead to a better outcome in the next election.
Who's to say that is wrong or will have any worse outcome?"
are you suggesting a toss of a coin would accomplish the same result?
Actually I think GW Bush was elected that way. haha. I would allow the fullness of history decide his success.
Not suggesting coin toss.
I guess what I'm saying is that ideal circumstances would be that all voters are as educated as possible about the issues. Which is totally subjective. How much knowledge is necessary to make an informed decision about world trade policies, for example?? Reading 100 articles on the subject? Reading 5 books on the subject? By what authors?? Is that enough? Isn't there still more to learn about the subject? How much is enough?? It is imposssible to know. Which is one of many good reasons why we have a Representative Republic.
If there are some people who vote on their "feeling" of who is the best candidate, I'm simply saying I would not deny their right to do so. It's their choice. I don't necessarily agree with it. But I could imagine in some cases it might be used as a tie breaker. A person could be an independent/moderate and find themselves split on the issues between candidates.
But about that coin toss thing. I read something somewhere about how form shapes content. A coin toss might not matter that much. Because our form is a Representative Republic. So this is the most important factor in determining the outcome of our policies and legislation I think. Despite the "content" (the particular elected officials). It might not matter that much.
I understand and like the idea of decisions being carefully made and well thought out by those well educated in the subject , but that is what we have today really .. the opolicies are all decided on by the well educated .. and we see such a horrible mess of unfairness and to top that a poorly functioning system .. the idea of equal democracy gives us the ability to at least over throw the the goverment when things get too out of hand .. I believe there is writing about this in the constitution .. where the government is protected from minimal concerns ..
I think there have been bad policies because our Republic has been corrupted by money in the political system. We need to fix the political system by getting the money out. I don't think the people voting are bad. I don't think the politicians are necessarily bad (I think most of them are good). I think the political system that is driven by money and unfair influence is bad.
see there is that ows lobbyist agenda emerging again .. the one you just asked me about..
If I remember right - you implied this was a hidden agenda or false pretense?? I see the "so-called" original idea of ending inequality as one in the same - putting an end to monied influence (as a result of lobbying partly). By reforming campaign finance (ie: having publicly funded elections) people would have more fair and equal representation in government. Rather than what we have now, a government that is beholden to the special interests that fund their campaigns.
I think OWS does operate under false pretenses though. But it has nothing to do with lobbying.
well honestly the only true useful purpose of ows .. that I can see .. and I am grateful for , is opening up this long overdue discussion of inequality andunfairness in the distribution of wealth .. if they want to play around in the lobbyist arena .. they deserve the chance .. they have earned it.
I think the best way to achieve some better income/wealth equality is through fair and equal representation. Then the 99% will better able to enact legislation to address wealth inequality. I do not believe in equal pay or equal wealth, but I do think we need to address the huge discrepency in wealth and income between the top 1% and the rest of us. Probably through tax policy.
I think politicians are more influenced by the results of the next election than by lobby donations. And since the wealthy have strong influence over the media they have power over the politician. Lobby donations are merely a distraction to hide what's really going on. But I don't have a dog in that fight. Just pointing out.
I think lobbying is a problem. google jack abramoff. So are PAC's. Though there was an article that I read, I think it was by Steven Levitt, the guy that wrote Freakonomics. That showed that roll call voting was not impacted so much as one might think. It was a pretty old study though. Lobbyists line up behind politicians with similar views so the voting pattern is mostly coincidental, not causal. I still think money is a problem though. Why can't lobbyists lobby for their cause using debate and arguments, rather than money? Just like plaintiffs and defendants go to court and make their case to a judge. They don't pay the judge. We would find that reprehensible. Same thing with lobbyists. I do think that money clouds the issues and could cause terrible conflicts of interests between the whole of the constituency and the monied interests.
I agree politicians are influenced by the results of the next election. And they spend their time in office getting ready for the next election and lining up donors. Not productive, and again, the conflict of possibly putting money before people.
Just curious. How do you explain the fact that Pres. Obama has not instructed his Justice Dept. to at least! do an investigation into filing charges against the Wall Street banks for their crimes in the financial crisis? I say it was money over people and justice.
When you say lobby donations are a distraction to hide whats going on - hide what?? I'm not sure how donations would hide anything and I have no idea what they might be hiding.
Trust wealth is all gained on secrets. Transparency is totally frowned upon.
I was referring to hiding a bigger influence and power of the government .. The power of the media which is controlled by the wealthy. And yes they put that million dollar donation allowance just to give you people something of a decoy to bark at. While bigger things are going on.
Yes, it would. But apparently you haven't figured that out yet....
"...yet the idea of someone having absolute no knowledge of what they vote on being of equal weight and value as someone who has done extensive research some how just doesn't seem equal..."
Sorry, there's no law that says you have to research a candidate--voting with your gut or with a blindfold on is perfectly permissible. And considering the fact that we actually have ONE completely bought-and-paid-for political party in this country, voting randomly seems like a great strategy....
I am in support of either National Service of some kind to guarantee a voting right, or bringing back a poll test for a voting license. I think it is reasonable to expect a voter to
Letting people who don't fulfil either of these conditions turns the ballot box into a joke.
How do you plan to make sure everyone does research on election candidates.
The idea of the post was to compare the similarity of equal pay vs equal vote.
FORUM POST: Please explain why direct voting--no representatives--is a bad idea.
It is equal. Voting isn't about being informed as many like to claim. Voting is about saying yea or nay to whatever you want. If it were actually important, it wouldn't be a vote. It would be a decision made upon the best information without a vote. Something that could never be allowed would never be put to a vote. Only things that don't matter either way are put to a vote. Thus, informed or uninformed, it ultimately doesn't matter. The nature of a vote is that the decision can go either way and that no matter what that decision may be, it's acceptable.
Get rid of Fox News, you'll have more informed citizens in no time.
Absolutely not. If each person had only one vote, troll MoRichardGates wouldn't have been able to give himself 18 + votes for his trolling post.
I hear the electronic voting system is easily rigged also ...
children don't vote until they turn eighteen. they must first gain some life experience. life experience is the qualifier that makes one vote equal to another vote. therefore, voting is not based on skill, as your question suggests. IMO.
When a politician claims he will lower taxes , the voter should understand the consequences .. outcome.
what are votes based on ? why do people vote differently .. ?
I'm more inclined to worry about corporate votes and corruption drowning out the people's votes right now. we should discuss what to do about that first.
April was just asking me about the ows lobbyist agenda .
never heard of it. what is it?
You and the low lifes worry about taxes. Most of America does not agree.
Corporate Personhood and 'The Lobbyists' : Is THAT Fair ?! ad iudicium ...
Universal suffrage is the only solution. That way those who know nothing are balanced by those who think they know it all.
so are we supposed to test people at the polls to determine political competence?
that's a breeding ground for political shenanigans, like a swamp for mosquitoes.
Well it's a tough question. Are you aware back in the founding days the abolishment of slavery lost out by one vote .. was it the northwest ordinance ??
so does this tell you voting always gets the best results ?
but in some cases .. voting can be considered a peaceful war .. where the one with the most votes wins .. [ there is no fighting invlved] on the other hand is it fair for the majority to rule .. should the budget dbe devided amongst congress as per the percentage of votes they receive ?
the democratic system is the best chance we have of overthrowing tyranny .. although there may be better ideas yet to come..
the problem i have with equal pay is that there will always be people who take advantage of the system, people who will not want to better their lot and people who will abuse other people to get more. these same negatives are seen in the voting game. You have rich people who manipulate poor people, who are strapped for time and money, into voting against their own interests. imagine what would happen if the incentives in life were to work more or take from other workers. I want the minimum wage raised; I don't want every one to make the same no matter their education and commitment to excellence. people way smarter than me have come to this conclusion and their research leaves me happy with their statement. your idea sounds good on the surface, I, in fact, championed it during college, but after reading some of these posts, i am left saying, there are differences in people and money should illustrate those differences. after reading a hundred posts, would you say that all of the posters deserve equal pay?
should food, shelter and health illustrate those differences ?
nope. society does a great job at making those who can't afford those needed necessities you labeled feel inferior. giving the lower classes those things, would just create new stigmatic ways to guilt people into doing better.
lol
nope.
society does a great job at making those who can't afford those needed necessities
you labeled feel inferior.
giving the lower classes those things,
would just create new stigmatic ways to guilt people into doing better.
Are you laughing at my reasoning? If so enlighten me to my faulty reasoning.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/you-troll/#comment-473547
stigmatism isolate people
if a single individual can be successful than also should a collective attain success .
there will be incentive .. and there will be reward .. perhaps not at the monetary level for performance but surely for attendance . there will also be something called a "morale dept." where their responsibilities will be to incite enthusism .. perhaps through avenues of media .. the main concern is the outcome. as you see all those smarter than you , and I am sure there are many ..have created this economic mess we are in .. this is the outcome of their smarts .. we need to change this outcome .
I agree with your statement.
Well let's see. We enjoy (?) discussing politics but most people are too busy trying to earn an honest living so we don't have much time to study the issues. Those earning a not-so-honest living either spend their time on trivial pursuits, or become politicians. Politicians are paid to study the issues so being in government gives their vote more weight than hard-working folks or couch potatoes. But politicians can become 'more knowledgable' to reach a certain conclusion, heck just going out for a fancy-pants dinner or three. So the corrupt politician, whose vote counts for more than all the couch potatoes votes combined, is maybe where this discussion should stay focussed, because that's what OWS is ALL about, YES?
Heated debate about irrelevant issue follows below.
ye ol technocracy conundrum
the experts should be in charge
I don't think humans are as specialized as they would want to believe
systems often are made intentionally esoteric
It depends on the amount of risk and responsibility involved in the position.
we will evenly distribute the workforce [at equal pay] to equalize responsibility and eliminate risk.
[Deleted]
of course .. there will be a need for everyone.. jobs with responsibilities , and jobs without .. but to be fair I think all jobs have a bit of responsibility ..?
effort will achieve satisfaction , a reward only gained by ones efforts .. effort will also achieve reaching ones potential .. another form of satisfaction only attained by effort.. effort will achieve promotion. up the company ladder .." from the floor to the office .. an easier cleaner environment.. effort has rewards .. effort will help achieve individual goals ..
And how would you do that?
well I will leave that up to the experts
You can't just say that. You have a plan for it. That like me saying we should have no presidents and having someone else give you the reasons why. It was my idea I should give you the reasons and the how from my own head not someone else's.
it will take fine tuning .. and each person will be trained , evaluated and given choices based on their abilities ..
there will be aspecial department for this constantly innovating the workforce .. to achieve it's maximum potential.
Who could possibly believe the government could do this right? You need the government from Utopia before you can make a socialistic system work.
This would be the responsibility of an " efficiency dept. By this I mean experts. I think it would be an interesting career.
At least we'll have an official department to address all the complaints to when it's messed up beyond hope.
Lol
So now its like the aGiver up in here.
What if your workforce isn't equal to each other? What if the position requires perfect math skills and you can't do math? Or heavy lifting and you can't lift? Does the guy who wipes down the drinking fountain have "responsibility" equal to the guy who puts the logs through the saw blade? Do they share equal risks?
Simple, we have a basic belief that all men are created equal, as far as their rights are concerned. We never have and probably never will hold that to be the case for occupations.
It's not fair in Russia... or at least they just stuff the ballot box anyway
they are having the same problem in Egypt
First off our voting system is anything but fair. Go look up the electoral collage and you will quickly realize how unfair our system is and why a specific party that i wont mention, Rpublicans, even exist.
As for = pay... It's a pipe dream and any one with the tiniest bit of common sense knows why.
the abolishment of slavery was once .. a pipe dream "
Yes, The abolishment of slavery was once a pipe dream. There is a big difference though. It was a goal that people not only wanted but could accomplish. = Pay is not something people other then zeitgeists want. It's not something the majority of people want... It's a pipe dream.
300 years of slavery; when did it become a goal?
I should have worded my comment differently. Ending slavery was a goal.
I thinks you want a technocracy never to be confuse with any form of democracy. One man one vote is the democratic process.
It's fair because different people have different knowledge. It doesn't matter how smart you are, you'll never be an expert at everything. To say that someone has to pass a test, or have a certain level of education to vote ignores one of the greatest educators - experience.
Experience. We are witnessing the results of uninformed voting. We might have better results with the note in a bottle technique !
Are we witnessing this? Seems to me these "uniformed voters" picked some very good presidents during our history. And they were supposedly less educated than our current populace.
It doesn't matter who you vote for if the only choice is The Devil You Know and The Devil You Don't, or Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Also, if you know anything about marketing, you realize that even an educated person can fall prey to properly used psychological techniques. Can you honestly say that all the potential candidates are given the same amount of coverage by the news, the same amount of advertising? No? Who's supposed to bring you this info - oh, that's right, the news media. Do they? No, it was more important to bring you that "sensational story" than cover someone fairly unknown running for office.
It's like walking into a restaurant and saying you want a chicken sandwich, and having the server reply. "Sorry, you can only have hamburger with ketchup or a hamburger without ketchup."
We are not witnessing the result of uninformed voting. We are witnessing the result of the manipulation of the government with those with the money to do so.
Sorry, as much as I'm behind education, there's a wealth of experience to be had outside of the walls of an institution. And from which people can sometimes learn far greater lessons. The idea that those without a certain level of education have nothing to provide society with is the reasoning of the 1%. These people may not know about international trade, but I bet they're far more aware of what's happening in their own areas - crime, unethical practices, living costs - than someone with a degree living hundreds of miles away. That's why they deserve to have a voice.
My intention of this post was to point out the similarity of equal vote and equal pay.
I apologize if I became offensive. I truly believe in the democratic system and it's ability to teach out to everyone.
With all due respect.
My apologies if I came across harsh.
I occasionally get quite frustrated with the arrogance and ignorance of humanity. Our ability to segregate each other is as amazing as it is crippling. Our ability to find some reason to look down at one another is as ceaseless as it is nauseous.
I've worked in the low-wage work force all my life. I've walked out on jobs due to their ethics, and I've nearly been fired from one for speaking out against it. I have no higher degree for my wall, but through my own industry and on-the-job tutoring of skills have educated myself to a level that most I've met with higher degrees mistake time and again for having had that level of institution.
I once naively believed that hard work and motivation earned you a better life. But time and again all I have witnessed is greed and unethical practices that have somehow become the norm. I've worked alongside parents struggling to provide a good life for their children, retirees who cannot afford to not have at least a partial paycheck, and young adults whose paychecks go to helping their families survive. And I have seen situations grow worse instead of better.
And that is why I support OWS, and truly hope that they can make people aware of what is happening and cause change to be made.
Thanks. Excellent comment. The wealthy people continually point at the bottom and say ," you all have a chance to be rich like me."
Equal pay for equal work IS in fact noble. And yes, one vote is fair because education is not a prerequisite to democracy.
"work harder" = more money is the essence of capitalism - and of greed
does a top CEO deserve 100 times what the secretary makes -
capitalism says yes - morality says no
corporation says yes - America says no
capitalism, corporations, democracy, America can co-exist
only when the people regain control of the corporations and our government
What is wrong with the idea of abolishing publicly owned corporations and all other business entities whose only purpose for existing is to extract wealth while adding zero value to any product?
We do not have true capitalism in the United States. If we did, there would be no such thing as "too big to fail" nor would the whitehouse, or congress, be handing money out, or subsidizing any of it's handpicked winners.
corporations - when properly controlled ( historically - roughly - from TR to LBJ ) - are little different from a partnership. If you and 10 friends want to chip in $100,000 to create and work in a shoe factory - fine. If we do nt have the money, we may be able to inspire others to buy shares in our corporation that would reflect their partial ownership of where we work.
BUT the shoe profits must be restricted to employees and stockholders. True capitalism leads thru greed and mon opolies and grief for the 1%.
Just like controls on what violence we animals are allowed to perpetrate on each other, we must control the greed. Note - koch brothers is PRIVATE.
Well, you haven't answered my question. Would you do so completely?
sorry i missed the precise question- i would NOT eliminate any company or corporation - I would eliminate all financial connections between corporations and politics
So you feel it's sound for a business or entity to operate for the sole purpose of extracting wealth off the backs of those actually producing product? Or entities which operate solely as middlemen for an artificial market, of which they created and perpetuate, which adds no value and instead drives up costs to the producer and consumer?
How about fractional banking techniques? Do you find them objectionable or unsound?
Objectionable and unsound. is my vote. It's like playing with money you don't actually have. It's one thing to promise a friend $200 if you know you'll have that $200 together within the next few paychecks. It's another thing to promise the friend $200 if you'll never have it. So why should a bank be able to loan out money it knows it will never have?
Private business is not a bad thing in itself. Provided it's practices are both sound business and sound ethics. And it's possible to do so. Small business owners do it all the time.
The middlemen and artificial market...mmm...I'm still learning in that area. So I feel I should only put my opinion in this much - it's one thing to gamble with your money. It's another thing to gamble with somebody else's money. It's criminal to gamble with money from somebody who never agreed to be in on the gamble.
i do not know what "fractional banking" is - but
I wont put words in your mouth - if you dont put words in mine
but i know if i came up with a way to build an electric car battery for $100 , and needed to build a $50,000,000 factory and hire 600 people to do it,
I would need to raise private "corporate" money to do it.
If good regulations are in place, this company will pay workers fairly and not pollute and will reward investors - WITHOUT BRIBING OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM
I see that you do not understand these concepts of which I am trying to discuss with you. It's cool. Peace.
It's not about "morality" or "how hard you word" that determines how much you make. It's about how productive you are and part of that is the type of work you do. A CEO is a major part in running a company but a secretary is an assistant. The assistant can be replaced fairly easily but trying to replace a great CEO is a lot harder.
When people mention "moral" decisions, I start to shudder.
Nonsense. CEOs often get tens of millions of dollars when they produce nothing at all. They have "golden parachutes" written into contracts that grant them tens of millions of dollars after running their businesses into the ground.
Most CEOs are completely interchangeable. They play musical chairs. They often simply swap places from one board to another. They don't have to be particularly smart, just particularly connected.
It has been shown pretty definitively that most CEOs these days contribute little, if anything, to productivity. Their assistants, on the other hand always seem to, while making about two or three thousandths of their pay.
right on.
Almost anyone can be a secretary, if a little intelligence is their. Very few can be a CEO. To say a CEO contributes little to productivity may be true in some cases. In many, however, a CEO comes in with new ideas and incentives and can take a company to profitability again, profiting shareholders and workers alike. Remember Steve Jobs return to a mushy Apple corporation? We often had people come to a company I worked for to obtain better benefits and wages, and incentives than the competitor down the street gave. This led to more investment by the company in machinery and other equipment, thus more jobs.
You're full of shit. Officers direct large companies and are responsible for the directions of their companies. Apple wouldn't be what it is today without Steve Jobs.
They don't produce things on the line but it's their direction and vision that matters. Every project needs a manager, someone to oversee everything.
Steve jobs was the exception to most any rule not the typifier of one.
There is NO discernible, measurable reason that makes a typical CEOs contribution to a company worth 2000 to 3000 times (yes, that's thousands of times) more that the average worker in a company. The numbers simply don't add up in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Before the era of the false CEO superstar, company heads made 50-60 times as much as the average worker. They still grew the company, they were just as effective or ineffective as they are today. But they weren't payed millions upon millions of dollars for failure as they typically are today. That compensation has nothing to do with the health and well-being of a company, and certainly not the brilliant effectiveness of a CEO, but the vested interests of networks of people who serve on each other's boards. The conflict of interest is beyond glaring to anyone who has looked at it.
CEOs do to a company what many powerful corporations do to Congress. They exert undue influence in subtle ways (such as having inappropriate relations with the compensation expert who provides the Board with a compensation fairness opinion and study) to ream as much money as possible from the company... Steve Jobs started Apple,,, he's different, he's an innovator and not a rotating CEO.
You're not actually citing any data here. Not every company has a CEO that gets paid "3000" times more than the other workers. Remember your first line about being the exception and not the typifier?
It also shouldn't matter how much the CEO makes as long as individual people are getting richer over time.
But the point is people are NOT getting richer over time. Just the opposite. Real wages have largely stagnated for the last 40 years for everyone BUT those already at the top of the heap. Virtually all the benefits of all economic expansion in this country has gone to the top 10% of earners alone. Although the economic pie has gotten bigger, so has the share of that pie going to the top 1% . Everyone else, especially the middle class, has had to divide up the rest of their much smaller portion.
Take a look around you. The official numbers alone - the real ones are far worse by the millions - tell you that 15 million people have LOST their jobs (and with it their health insurance and homes) while the wealthy have gotten even WEALTHIER, And it is a direct consequence of CEOs abject failures, not their growing of prosperity for everyone. CEOs have been consistently shutting down factories and service operations domestically and shipping them overseas for years. That doesn't increase the numbers of people get richer: just the opposite.
I would agree, and have said so here myself, that what a CEO makes is relatively unimportant if the tide rises for everyone. But the whole point is that it is not. Those CEOs have rigged the system whereby they are the ONLY ones receiving any benefit. And that's just plain wrong.
By also using their advantage to consolidate political power, indeed, co-opting it entirely, it is not simply wrong morally, but represents an undermining of democracy itself. Both the unprecedentedly exaggerated income inequity and the undermining of democracy go against the fundamental ideals of this country, and are doing this nation far, far more harm than good.
This video talks about how "the poor are getting poorer" is actually a myth that has been studied. He cites a study from the University of michigan. It's also only 3 minutes long and definitely not propaganda of any kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
Sorry, this guy is manipulating data on a grand scale. When he talks about income mobility, he is flat-out lying. The data from a great variety of sources including the census, the CBO, the IRS, and labor statistics all show a very different story. There has been a very real increase in rates of poverty. More importantly, there has been a HUGE increase in what economists call near-poverty, in which a family does not fall below the official poverty line (which has not kept up with inflation, for obvious political reasons).
It is not only that the portion of the economic pie the 99% of this country is getting is smaller as a proportion, the absolute value of that share is indeed shrinking.
If you wish, I could find some links for you that give a much fuller picture.
BUt the other, equally important part of increasing the gap between the rich and the poor is the issue of political power. Even if , for the sake of argument, the middle class gained 20% in terms of real income over the last few decades, if the wealthy gained 80%, they still have shut everyone else out of the political process. They simply can't be outspent when lobbying congress, underwriting election campaigns, offering cushy post congress jobs to officials. The coo-opt the democratic process, vetting all candidates (from both sides of the isle) and make elections nothing more that a ratification of their menu of choice for everyone else.
It is anti-American at its most venal.
Ok, "the data is being manipulated" is just a crap argument. You need to back your shit up if you're going to say something like that. GIVE ME EVIDENCE. Go ahead, try to disprove the two studies that showed individual households get richer over time.
It's about individual household growth, not just snapshots of this point in time. People in the "1%" now may have been in the "99%" in the 70s or 80s. Look at the entire picture.
I offered to provide you with links: no need to get abusive.
Do you still want them? All you need do is ask.
Was that not clear? You have to back up your argument with either theory or statistics. Comments that just "hang out" will get hammered.
What was clear was your insulting tone. Ask and I'll provide them. Insult, and I'll ignore you.
At any rate, read virtually anything by Paul Krugman on the NY times.
Go to Robert Reich's site (former Labor Secretary) here:
http://robertreich.org/
Watch this video of a lecture by Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&feature=related&hd=1
There are many more, if this isn't enough. It should provide a good starting point, though.
The guy you posted is a payed shill of a Libertarian PAC and lobby group. Although that fact doesn't automatically discredit him, you should be aware that he has an agenda, and truth is not necessarily it. His cherry picked data leading to false conclusions confirms this in my mind.
I'll look more into Krugman. I only got through about 1/2 of the warren lecture because I'm going through finals. She had some holes in her data when she was talking about spending though. Spending on things like clothes and food has gone down because the cost of producing those goods has fallen, and thus prices.
As for housing, spending has risen because house prices have always risen above inflation rates. Same with cars. The youtube channel had a video about this entitled "Is the cost of living really going up?". Before you disregard that channel because of it's "libertarian connection", it represents the same findings as Warren does but explains them in an economically sound manner that Warren seemed to lack in her first half of the video.
I'm certainly heartened by your going to the Warren lecture. You may find some quibbles on the the causes of rising or falling prices, but I think you'll find her thesis is rock-solid. As I said, her tone is conversational rather than wonkish: she is talking to a general audience.
Keep in mind that her background is that of a bankruptcy attorney, and that she has seen first hand how the loss of purchasing power, stagnation of wages, and other factors have impacted people. Although she is not a professional economist, her grasp of basic economics as they relate to ordinary families is without peer, in my opinion.
(I'll throw you just one little factlet that Warren doesn't cover: When I entered the full time workforce in 1975, the minimum wage,for which I worked, was $2.10 an hour. In adjusted terms, that translates to $16.32 per hour today. Yet Minimum wage is only $7.25/hr, lass than half of what it should be if it had simply stayed flat. Now after nearly 30 years in the workplace, I find myself in a white collar job that pays less than $15.00 an hour - and am grateful for it!. That represents less than the adjusted minimum wage I started out at all those years ago. And I'm not alone by far. The average wage has not increased by more that nearly eight fold in that time either. But the average income for the top one percent has gone up several HUNDRED times. Wages have largely stagnated for those at the median. It has gone down for those in the lowest quintile, and risen dramatically in the top quintile. Income disparity has become obscene, and the ONLY other time in our history it was this large were in the years immediately preceding the Great Depression. I realize my personal story is not anything to hang a scientific paper on, but I am still convinced we are living in dangerous, inequitable times.)
Krugman is an economist and Reich's expertise is political economics. The first is a Professor at Princeton the second is one at Brandeis. Krugman is by far the most technical, producing one chart after another and often links to math that's indecipherable to a non-mathematician like me.
More than anything, though, I appreciate your investigating this stuff in good faith. Too often on fora such as these, one comes with mind made, and only digs in his heels further as his viewpoint is challenged. I find that to be more true of Libertarians and the hard right-wingers than those who fall into other categories, and it is refreshing beyond belief that you are willing to suspend your point of view (not relinquish it) for a while in order to gather other information. That's called humility and intelligence, things all too rare in this world.
Whatever conclusions you come to, whether I agree with them or not, I am likely to respect.
Thanks for making my day!
And good luck in your finals.
Ok, I'll scale back the tone. But general links aren't really good. At the very least, this guy is citing actual studies. If you have a study that shows how individual households are largely getting poorer over time while a select few are getting richer, then I will completely change my mind.
Those links, (and Krugman's blog) contain actual studies, and a whole lot more of them.
I really recommend looking into them.
As I said, they may only serve you as a starting point. But they also contain links to other studies, and if you're not careful, you could wind up getting lost in them for weeks! (It has certainly tempted me.)
The Warren lecture includes her study (and she explains her methodology, too.) It is given in a very conversational tone, but don't be fooled: she uses hard numbers.
Reich also has videos (you might have to search for them), that are less formal (like the one you posted) but also shows hard data. Krugman actually posts some extremely technical studies and analysis from time to time, frankly too opaque for me to understand, but then translates them to human speech. His blog, though more scattershot organizationally and touching on a broad range of economic issues, contain more hard data and studies than does his twice weekly column.
(Note: The NY Times limits the articles you may read for free to 5 per week. If you need more, there are a couple of workarounds. PM me if you need them.)
The bulk of americans are surely poorer every year... through rising taxes (the gov't calls it "inflation") and layoffs due to jobs moving offshore and depressions like the one we're in.
Inflation isn't a tax. It just isn't. There would still be inflation if there was no government.
inflation is the most subtle form of taxation... congress cannot raise taxes due to the 1%, so to pay off the ludicrous debt they are increasing the money supply (M-6), thereby reducing the value of the dollar (that's called inflation)... then they pay back the debt with less valuable dollars. the people who suffer are those who eventually will have to pay $10 for a slice of pizza, but still make the same wage... it's a backdoor way to tax.
Huh? It makes things cost more dollars but how does that turn into tax revenue in real dollars or money adjusted for inflation?
You're making a couple of assumptions here...
Congress is entirely incapable of raising taxes on the richest americans
People's wages automatically stay the same, no matter how much inflation is
True, printing money is how hyperinflation works and is hyperinflation causes people to no longer be able to afford things. (Think Germany pre WWII.).
But taxes earn the government revenue from tax payers. Inflation doesn't really do that. It's not some sort of scheme. The Fed is supposed to control inflation so that things like this don't happen.
1 i am very comfortable assuming that
2 on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages have not increased since 1980--the median, average wages, and wage distribution curves are the same now as then (inflation-adjusted).
printing money (increasing supply) is inflation by definition (hyperinflation is the extreme); one extra dollar dilutes the value of all other dollars. paying debt in less valuable dollars you have printed obviates the need to bring in revenue from taxes, and yet, because peoples' wages are the same they can afford less--hence it operates as a tax without people knowing it.
read "End the Fed" by Ron P aul--he's a master economist and financier--better than bernanke--and he explains this in detail.
You're making a couple of assumptions here.
The first assumption is that prices of goods are either rising or staying the same. With cars and houses, this is true. But goods like food and clothing are becoming cheaper over time.
The second assumption is that "the median and average wages haven't changed". There is truth to this when you look at the median now and the median then. But what you have to realize is that there are different people compromising this income bracket and these median wage earners on the 80s have most likely moved up into higher income brackets.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8
[Deleted]
"salary vs profit
If you want profit, you have take risk.
If you want salary, what should you do?"
This is a false dichotomy. There are two types of profit: normal and economic.
Normal profit means you make enough to cover all costs. Essentially, the company breaks even. Part of this type of profit is the return to the entrepreneur, who gets paid last.
Economic profit is all profit above normal profit.
You get both or neither, in a sense.
It's a different direction. CEOs are in charge of a company while Potus is in charge of ONE SECTION of the US government.
The direction of an individual company has very little to do with the direction of politics. They influence one another at times, but are not the same.
[Deleted]
No, they oversee the whole company. The president is still in charge of only one branch. I don't see where you're going with this.
How would a company's decision to try and export coal to China influence the policy dealings on Gay marriage? They're different directions.
[Deleted]
POTUS is the commander in chief of our armed forces and the head of the executive branch. He doesn't control congress or the courts.
A CEO is chairman of the board. The president of the company sees to the day-to-day operations. He probably doesn't visit every branch in a large company but the chain of command allows him to keep taps on the company as a whole.
I don't see why companies have to wait around for the president in order to make a decision. It totally depends on the company.
[Deleted]
CEO's are Chairpeople of the Board. They are the most powerful but do not have an absolute say.
I don't know what a "companies decision being under law" really means. Do you mean they should be lawful? Depends on the law entirely.
If a CEO breaks a speed limit, that's a law that has been broken.
[Deleted]
"Should CEO's salaries be less than POTUS"
Are you 13? Potus is a government job, not a private one. Government isn't out to make economic profit like companies are.
There's an example of something that proves your point. NOT ALL LAWS DO THIS. Holy shit, it took you this long to get to protectionism.
In an ideal world, however, the wealthiest do not work, they make money off others people's production via inherently dishonest wealth extraction means, which add no value to any tangible product.
Take the family which owns Walmart for a simple example. Weatlhiest family in the United States. The CEO makes nearly $10,000 per hour while the average worker has no benefits and makes $8.91 per hour/
The family spends vulgar millions buying elected servants and puts billions into shady trusts and foundations, which come off the top and before dividends, both shorting the shareholders and workers.
Yet, because the shareholders are getting a little taste of the pie, they don't care how many manufacturing jobs Walmart has forced overseas or how poorly they treat their foot soldiers.
I'm not one to impose my moral beliefs on anyone, however, inequity in favor of the money changers has nearly cost this nation, it's very existence.
But how many jobs did the family that started Wal Mart create? How much wealth was created? How many people benefited?
They did something big; they had an idea. I don't shop there like many other people refuse to but they deserve that money. Believe it or not, they worked for it.
Are you old enough to recall when any person with any job, 40 hours a week or better, even at minimum wage, could squeeze out an actual existence?
These days, 9/hr with no benefits is slavery, not employment.
We see these issues very differently. I despise Walmart, and other corporations like them, for what they have done to this country.
http://www.china-intern.de/page/wirtschaft-hintergrund/1318019478.html
No, I am only 20. I never said that I liked walmart. What I said is that the wealthy are wealthy for a reason.
Well, I suppose that is like saying I don't have the kind of money, that Walmart has, for a reason.
Well, I suppose that is like saying I don't have the kind of money, that Walmart has, for a reason.
If you'd invented Wal Mart you'd be rich too. But you didn't invent it so that's exactly what I'm saying.
What you fail to grasp is that Walmart's success has been largely predicated upon the exploitation of Chinese adult and child slave labor, in a country with no EPA or OSHA regulations, and the nations currency being leveraged against our own at a rate of 10:1 to 40:1. How this happened is well documented in history, albeit, 30 years ago, what Walmart did, was deemed unpatriotic and was not even, in many instances, legal, while also being heavily subjected to significant taxes.
Whereas now, the corporation, and many similar, actually receive tax incentives for the same time of GDP lowering, for the United States, type of wealth extraction enterprises.
The changes in "laws" in the United States required to bring such about happened due to the venality and pure corruption of our elected and self-serving servants.
However, you don't know that I am not rich, nor do you know if I am so due to exploiting highly unethical means or other unpatriotic acts. I certainly only revealed I do not have Walmart's kind of money, and, since they are the Wealthiest family in the United States, you can form no further useful assumptions on my asserted claim.
As long as those laborers are agreeing to work there, it's not exploitation.
What the Chinese are doing to their currency is hurting us but that has little to do with Wal Mart individually.
Please shoot your young self in the head. It's a dictatorial Communist government. If you do not do as the government tells you, they can and will kill you without any hesitation, and accountable to nobody or nothing.
But you don't know the condition of the individual workers. But in all honesty, you probably have little knowledge of economics. And I already said I didn't shop at Wal Mart so go fuck yourself.
Well punk, you're wrong. I do indeed know their conditions. You don't, nor do you have any clue as to why there are fewer and fewer jobs available, in the United States, of which a person can work and even provide oneself with the bare necessities of life. The 8.91/hour Walmart job, with or without benefits doesn't even come close.
CEOs do not contribute as much to the company as you seem to think. Most make 500 times (in the US) what the average worker does--in most other countries that ratio is much much lower. And yet if all those workers walked out one day, what would happen to the company? The many are essential.
Yes, but without direction, the workers don't have a job. They're interdependent but higher ups do work that is more valuable to the company.
the C-level corporate bosses value added is not in the same ballpark as the amounts they loot from companies... not even the same city. their value is equal to the cost of their replacement labor,,, and many people could and would do their job more cheaply. exceptions: steve jobs, bill gates a few others were truly not replaceable.
How do you "loot" from a company you work for while getting caught without getting fired? That would be embezzlement, a felony. Their contracted salary amount and the bonuses that the Board decides to pay them aren't looting, it's what people are willing to pay for their services.
looting= being paid more than replacement value... many are capable and eager to work C-level for far, far less... that's looting.
Not necessarily because the person willing to work for cheap may not be as good. Even though they take a smaller salary, the total earnings of the company could fall and there could be a net loss. Not so simple.
Also, C-Levels are paid based on what the board wants them to pay. If the board feels their work is worth a $10,000,000 bonus, I find it hard to believe they are being overvalued. You think they are overvalued but they aren't working for you.
No CEO is worth the amount of money he makes unless he has some connections to politicians that can change corporate laws in the company's favor and this of couse should be illegal.
That literally makes no sense. There are no caps on CEO salaries so I'm not sure how the law really comes into that.
[Deleted]
Where's the risk in highly compensating CEOs? Risk lies in investing.
I don't know what "excessive" would mean either. And depending on how much you want to cut pay, people might not want the job.
[Deleted]
Sounds like sales. It depends on the job. I don't want to be penalized as in a deduction from my contracted salary for a particular year. If I did poorly a previous year, I guess I might take a lower salary if they refused to pay me higher.
This is really conditional though.
[Deleted]
Fair prices are prices that are agreed upon by the producer and buyer for a certain amount of the good or labor. If it is an agreed price, then yes.
[Deleted]
They always have a choice. That's the most common misconception about monopolies that is prevalent on this forum. Just because you're a monopoly doesn't mean you automatically turn a profit.
If there were only one supplier of bread and they jacked their prices up to $1000 a loaf would you still buy? If you would, good luck being their only customer.
[Deleted]
"If you add good/bad, you would have eight?"
There are multiple choices for every opportunity to make a decision. Not every decision is good or bad believe it or not. This isn't cowboys and Indians like you play during the recess break your supposed to be on right now.
Good and bad are still subjective. There are more than two choices believe it or not and each of them comes with opportunity costs.
In the case of $1000 bread, I can think of at least three things to do.
Probably not. Nothing wrong with that though. But your post still proves my point. You still have choices.
I really have no problem in highly compensation CEOs as long as their money stays far away from politics and they treat their employees in a reasonably proportionate manner. I worked in the corporate world for a while and what I witnessed was exactly the opposite. All I saw was rewards for the most cunning ways to abuse their employees and try to work around the law to do so. Once men and women started crying around me on a daily basis, or were snapping and being sent to psychologists (while the company stepped up security measures), I figured I would leave before someone gunned down the whole mess. Not that I agree with serving yourself up to disrespectful leadership, but these people bought into the propaganda and lies the company served until they had them and their families in deep enough to cut their throats.
Well, this is an example of a company that has been run very poorly. These negative reactions by employees actually cost the company and these costs are called implicit costs.
Implicit costs are hard to measure and aren't booked because they don't have value to them.
Ex. Suzie gets yelled at and makes and forgets a bring something to a sales pitch so the company loses the sale. This isn't measured but it definitely cost the company revenue.
These aren't effective ways of running a company and do cost you.
Agreed. Keep in mind this is a Fortune 100 company.
sadly, too many people get their moral compass from books
morality goes beyond country - beyond law - maybe it is our connection with God
the nazis burned the jews because they put their country ahead of morality
torquemada burned the jews because he put his book ahead of morality
protestants attacked the mormons because they put their book ahead of morality.
yes - its true - we build our own morality inside of ourselves -
and it can be very flawed - as in cheney's war profitering - or scott roeder -
but it can be better than a book's
either way, morality is entirely subjective. The harm principle is sooo much simpler and easier to legislate.
U r an extreme liberal ... Please stop spewing your liberal garbage
Equal pay should mean Equal work.
A full grown man shovels ten tons of coal working ten hours.
A young boy shovels ten tons of coal working 50 hours .
Who worked harder?
They did the same amount of work. Longer time though, the boy should get a lower rate of pay, or be fired is the job was important to finish sooner.
It's about productivity, not hardness of labor. The boy worked longer but he was less efficient at doing the same task.
The full grown man makes you more money so you pay him better. This gives an incentive for the grown man to keep working harder than the boy as well as an incentive for the boy to become more efficient.
the boy works with all his effort for fifty hours and the man works with all his effort for ten hours . the boy will receive 50 coins , the man will receive ten coins.
That's like minimum wage and that doesn't work.
This system will encourage the man to drag out his work, becoming less productive, so he can get paid more. Remember, a country's wealth is entirely dependent on how much it produces.
this is a world system .. so what other options would there be to prevent / encourage the man to not drag his feet ? ..any ideas please ..all ideas welcome on this question ideas or thoughts .. or opinions .. brainstorm here people .
Yup. Capitalism. Actual capitalism that isn't like what we have. Competition is needed. Resources are scarce. This should all be coming back to you about now.
I will attempt to answer my own question.
someone may be encouraged to improve performance to achieve promotion ..?
They worked "harder" the same. One worked faster, getting the job done quicker but both lifted the same amount of weight.
I am not sure if your equal pay idea was a joke. I hope it was. Regarding the vote - Americans have died in wars since our Founding to protect our right to vote. But I say voting is a priviledge, not a right. Pass a basic test in civics and government, and pay taxes, and you will have earned the privelege to vote
Both equal pay and the idea of using the consensus of the people to run the nation are bad ideas.
If not a consensus then what?
Representatives structured using the hierarchic model of a republic.
My God do you lefty morons think before you post? You get dumber and dumber with each passing day. How the eff do you compare voting to salary?
the comparison is in the example of how one persons intelligence does not effect the weight of their vote .. it still only has the value of one count .. and the argument with wage is that many believe skill intelligence and other strengths showed have different weight. but if we can accept voting as equal weight than we should also accept a persons time as equal weight regardless of skill level
Ok, I give up. You morons are beyond help.
I actually believe that we should accept each other's time as of equal weight.
No, it is not fair. Uneducated, illiterate and unreasonable persons should not be allowed any say or voting rights in the running of the people's government.
If you look at the red/blue map that represents voting Americans, you see that the red republican areas are HUGE compared to the blue democrats. The map illustrates that vast amounts of the country are republican. Typically, only the dirty nasty inner-city and urban areas where low life lives are democrats. The TAKERS are the inner city people and the producers are the rural areas. The Electrorial College was set up so one group, the nasty, cant dictate how low they could drag the country down. You have never been offered a job by a poor person that lives in the darkest blue areas. The electorial college makes sure the low lifes dont drag down the country.
If you look at the map you will also see that Republicans typically win states with low populations and those that have the worst education systems. Just because a state is "big" doesn't mean it has more people.
I'm going off memory here so my numbers will be close but not exact... people that identify them self as Republicans make up roughly 30% of all Americans. Democrats are just under 50% and the rest are independent.
Then why are republicans, which reflect America, are in control of congress?
First off Republicans don't reflect America. As for why they control the House, The electoral college allows them to. If we had a system where every vote counted Republicans wouldn't even have a chance at the presidency. They will still most likely win their under educated and low population states though.
The electoral college has nothing to do with who controls the House. The presidential race is decided by the electoral college.
The electoral collage dictates how all elections are "counted". At the state level if you win a district with 4 people in it and you opponent wins a district with 30 million people in it... The candidates are tied.
The issue stated above was the reflection of republicans versus democrats, not congress or the president.
I dont know how EDUCATED YOU are, since under education seems to bother you a lot,, but I'm sure,, I WILL BET,,, that you are aware that the electoral college process was started September 6, 1787. If my un-educated mind can count, it was a "bunch" of years before George Bush was elected. YA THUNK,,, smart guy? But you knew that.
What does Bush have to do with anything i said ?
Also, i am well aware of when the Electoral College created. I'm also aware of the reason why it was created.
The reason I posted Bush was due to the fact that you put two and two together, Republicans and Electoral College. In 1787 there was no republican "party" but MOST will hint about their hated belief in electoral college due to the Bush election. I was making that note based on your apparent hate of the Electoral College and that it MUST be a tool of republicans. Had you used an historic reference to electoral college in its beginnings I probably would not have commented.
The electoral college was only created because it was impossible to count all the votes. It was also a way to ensure that the voice of farm communities with 7 people were not over shadowed by the big cities. It was a flawed system but a necessary one at the time.
With our modern technology it is totally outdated and does more harm then good. It allows the minority to control the majority. It pushes the minorities views far above and beyond that of the majority. Republicans wouldn't exist with out the electoral college because with out it they could never garner the votes to get their politicians into office.
If you believe in the 10th Amendment, states rights should be considered. A state with few population should have the same opportunity to participate in electing a President as does a state with many large urban areas. The populations in or around a New York by far would out weigh any votes in Utah or Montana. The electoral college allows the vastness of America to elect.
But that's not how it works...
Currently if you win the most counties/districts you win the state. Elections should be done on a state level and not a county level. We have the technology for every one to voice their opinion. We have the technology to count all the votes... It's about time we do so.
It has and does work for over 200 years.
montsanto = producer or life taker?
Producer. But monsanto is a great example of a monopoly that is allowed by the government. Everybody who tries to go against monsanto legally, finds that the law is always on monsanto's side. This is no coincidence; it's a result of effective lobbying. The government is the problem, in this case, because it's wrongfully protecting a monopoly and not encouraging competition.