## Income Disparity

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

### Re: Income Disparity

I am NOT going to buy in to a simplistic raise wages to 15.00/hr scenario.

That is way too low...$20.84. You are equating people with decent incomes to be in the same boat as people without decent incomes which IS WRONG minded. I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 6203 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Income Disparity WendyDarling wrote: I am NOT going to buy in to a simplistic raise wages to 15.00/hr scenario. That is way too low...$20.84.

You are equating people with decent incomes to be in the same boat as people without decent incomes which IS WRONG minded.

Define decent. Oh wait, we've beat that horse to death already.

Why do I get the notion that WendyDarling is just looking for a fight?
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.

Posts: 12360
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

### Re: Income Disparity

I have defined decent, why don't you?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Income Disparity

WendyDarling wrote:I have defined decent, why don't you?

I did. Multiple times. Perhaps you need to read a bit more carefully? Everyone should be compensated at a rate that insures that all necessities are covered.

Now: Define necessities. I refuse to throw the simplistic dollar blanket over necessity because it will be different for every person.

One more time: There are no one size fits all answers. I know you want one, but I'm not telling. It's a secret.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.

Posts: 12360
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

### Re: Income Disparity

tentative wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:I have defined decent, why don't you?

I did. Multiple times. Perhaps you need to read a bit more carefully? Everyone should be compensated at a rate that insures that all necessities are covered.

Now: Define necessities. I refuse to throw the simplistic dollar blanket over necessity because it will be different for every person.

One more time: There are no one size fits all answers. I know you want one, but I'm not telling. It's a secret.

My reading comprehension could improve. Write what a decent income is, ballpark figures, once more in a blue font color.

Ever heard of practicality? Why don't you define the necessities in terms of practical living conditions.

A budget would be very helpful too, make it as loosey goosey, as ideal as you'd like to include the huge differences for each and every single individual.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Income Disparity

WendyDarling wrote:
tentative wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:I have defined decent, why don't you?

I did. Multiple times. Perhaps you need to read a bit more carefully? Everyone should be compensated at a rate that insures that all necessities are covered.

Now: Define necessities. I refuse to throw the simplistic dollar blanket over necessity because it will be different for every person.

One more time: There are no one size fits all answers. I know you want one, but I'm not telling. It's a secret.

My reading comprehension could improve. Write what a decent income is, ballpark figures, once more in a blue font color.

Ever heard of practicality? Why don't you define the necessities in terms of practical living conditions.

A budget would be very helpful too, make it as loosey goosey, as ideal as you'd like to include the huge differences for each and every single individual.

I don't think this is a useful argument/exercise, for the reasons tent amd others have already stated. What counts as "practical living conditions" in your mind? I make considerably less than $20.84/hr and am perfectly comfortable. If I made more money, which i have in the past, I would find "necessary" ways to spend it, and so my idea of practical living conditions would change. "Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch Blurry fuck Posts: 4399 Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm ### Re: Income Disparity Blurry wrote I don't think this is a useful argument/exercise, for the reasons tent amd others have already stated. What counts as "practical living conditions" in your mind? I make considerably less than$20.84/hr and am perfectly comfortable. If I made more money, which i have in the past,
I would find "necessary" ways to spend it, and so my idea of practical living conditions would change.

When you have to put quotes around "necessary", it does not equate with practical. I'm simply asking for straight answers from folks who I've been told are liberal elitists, answers that can be circumscribed rationally to alleviate some of the hardships of a majority of overworked, underpaid USA citizens. Why is that so hard to fathom folks?

How's about you describe your income, budget and why you feel comfortable? What type of financial safety net do you have?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Income Disparity

WendyDarling wrote:
tentative wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:I have defined decent, why don't you?

I did. Multiple times. Perhaps you need to read a bit more carefully? Everyone should be compensated at a rate that insures that all necessities are covered.

Now: Define necessities. I refuse to throw the simplistic dollar blanket over necessity because it will be different for every person.

One more time: There are no one size fits all answers. I know you want one, but I'm not telling. It's a secret.

My reading comprehension could improve. Write what a decent income is, ballpark figures, once more in a blue font color.

Ever heard of practicality? Why don't you define the necessities in terms of practical living conditions.

A budget would be very helpful too, make it as loosey goosey, as ideal as you'd like to include the huge differences for each and every single individual.

Nice try, but I'm not about to be boxed in with some simplistic numbers game. But at the risk of repeating myself for the umteenth time, there simply is no way to determine some blanket definition of necessity. THAT is why so many help programs fail. To the extent that they try to please everybody they please no one.

Another example of why blanket definitions don't work: You are a single mother with 2 children. Daycare for those children is a necessity that enables you to hold down a job. Your sister (or brother) is single and has no children. Daycare isn't even in their basket of necessities. Your cousin is also a single mom with 2 children but she is lucky. Grandma will babysit her children so she can work a job. HOWEVER... She lives 30 miles from a job so her necessity is having reliable transportation. Three different situations each with different needs called necessity.

This is why I reject simplistic answers. The problems aren't solved by some unidimensional solution. It just ain't that easy.

Yes. More money for the labors performed. Wouldn't it be great? I see where Target plans on paying 15.00/hr by 2020. It isn't enough, but a step in the right direction. But by 2020, inflation will eat up any gains and we'll be back to existence wages again. If you add my thread on AI and robotics can you see where we are headed?

If there is any blanket solution it will be when we collectively, ALL of us, decide to stop being profligate consumers. Then, and only then, we might begin finding realistic solutions to the issues facing the people who work their asses off just trying to survive and those solutions will address a hell of a lot more than just dollars.

I'm sorry that I can't give you what you want, but it is because the simple answer just isn't there.

Or perhaps it's because I'm a victim of old age cynicism.
Last edited by tentative on Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.

Posts: 12360
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

### Re: Income Disparity

WendyDarling wrote:Blurry wrote
I don't think this is a useful argument/exercise, for the reasons tent amd others have already stated. What counts as "practical living conditions" in your mind? I make considerably less than $20.84/hr and am perfectly comfortable. If I made more money, which i have in the past, I would find "necessary" ways to spend it, and so my idea of practical living conditions would change. When you have to put quotes around "necessary", it does not equate with practical. I'm simply asking for straight answers from folks who I've been told are liberal elitists, answers that can be circumscribed rationally to alleviate some of the hardships of a majority of overworked, underpaid USA citizens. Why is that so hard to fathom folks? How's about you describe your income, budget and why you feel comfortable? What type of financial safety net do you have? I do not feel comfortable divulging personal financial information to complete strangers, but I'll try to answer in loose terms. My income is sufficient to cover the gas I need, food, rent (which includes utilities), and a few creature comforts. Additionally, I home and feed a small, beautiful cat, and so have the additional costs of food, hairball prevention treats, and litter for the cat box. If I lived in another place, the money I make might not be sufficient, as cost of living differs greatly from place to place around the country, but as is, I do just fine. I have some savings set aside for my future, and I also have that money making more money for me while it sits there waiting for me to be old and grey. Putting quotes around the word necessity does not mean those necessities wouldn't be practical. Practicality is a pretty subjective term in this context, which is the point that has been explained to you multiple times, in one way or another. "Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch Blurry fuck Posts: 4399 Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm ### Re: Income Disparity Another example of why blanket definitions don't work: You are a single mother with 2 children. Daycare for those children is a necessity that enables you to hold down a job. Your sister (or brother) is single and has no children. Daycare isn't even in their basket of necessities. Your cousin is also a single mom with 2 children but she is lucky. Grandma will babysit her children so she can work a job. HOWEVER... She lives 30 miles from a job so her necessity is having reliable transportation. Three different situations each with different needs called necessity. Screw them all and their earnings of$8 an hour...not my problems. They'll just have to invest in the stock market with their savings like Mr. Reasonable said, no electricity and rice eats only.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Income Disparity

WendyDarling wrote:
Another example of why blanket definitions don't work: You are a single mother with 2 children. Daycare for those children is a necessity that enables you to hold down a job. Your sister (or brother) is single and has no children. Daycare isn't even in their basket of necessities. Your cousin is also a single mom with 2 children but she is lucky. Grandma will babysit her children so she can work a job. HOWEVER... She lives 30 miles from a job so her necessity is having reliable transportation. Three different situations each with different needs called necessity.

Screw them all and their earnings of $8 an hour...not my problems. They'll just have to invest in the stock market with their savings like Mr. Reasonable said, no electricity and rice eats only. Wendy, I applaud your concerns and desire to find solutions. Don't give up but maybe narrow your focus a little. Remember? I'm the one who said keep it local, small scale and doable. IGAYRCCFYVM Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia I don't take know for an answer. tentative . Posts: 12360 Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm Location: Idaho ### Re: Income Disparity Okay, so why do people have children that they cannot support? Faust Unrequited Lover of Wisdom Posts: 16726 Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm ### Re: Income Disparity Faust wrote:Okay, so why do people have children that they cannot support? You had to go there didn't you? I did my best to avoid that issue but no, YOU hadda drag it out. OK 1. Prolly 90% of all live births are OOPS! Anyone who says different is lieing. 2. The ultra right conservatives are against any kind of birth control. "Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and in the bedroom or kitchen." 3. Various religious groups discourage the use of condoms, and suggest the failed rhythm method to control population. 4. In certain states, the designed lack of facilities to correct unplanned pregnancies contributes to unwanted live births. 5. Supporting a child is an afterthought in the heat of the moment, assuming any afterthought. There are dozens of other reasons but these are the obvious. You do realize that each of these plus others deserve their own thread with numerous pages of back and forth and a year from now.... IGAYRCCFYVM Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia I don't take know for an answer. tentative . Posts: 12360 Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm Location: Idaho ### Re: Income Disparity Faust wrote: WendyDarling wrote: Even if they are living comfortable lives with discretionary income. What is the point of calling people who own a house and can go out to dinner and who own a nice car (etc) poor? Poor people do not own expensive items or have that discretionary income. I've defined poor, you haven't. People who earn less than$30,000 are poor. Yes, people today earn less than their parents did but the cost of living is three times greater.

I get the point perfectly well, that the law of averages does not work well describing people's economic situations, it skews it to look like most people have a decent income. Why admit this in one breath and deny it in another?

Describe a poor person who works full-time and what their existence looks like? Double dare you.

What I am saying is that, assuming we are talking about americans, this is, on its face, a woefully inadequate analysis. Take a retired couple who own their house outright. They have a few bucks in the bank, in a savings account. They each have retirement incomes, which they earned, of $30,000. Are they poor? They are not what I consider poor unless further investigation is done, a looking into the cost of their supplemental health care insurance. You could be describing my retired aunt (76yrs) and uncle (69yrs.) who pay around$1400 a mo. combined for supplemental health care insurance (Co-pays and prescrips not included). That would throw them into the poor having to pay $18,000 a year for health insurance and other medical expenses. Defining poverty by income alone doesn't work.This thread is about income, so this is where the conversation starts...regarding incomes. But also, someone who makes 31k per year in Mississippi is probably not poor by your definition, but in San Francisco? Same could be said for someone making$50,000. Major cities are always more expensive to live in and local wage increases could compensate for those differences.

The reason that this is important is not to deny that there are too many poor people but to be able to get past political rhetoric and look for answers. People are poor for many, many reasons. Forcing factories to pay everyone $32,000 per year (even if they are paying more) is not the answer. A decent income for our nation is required. "It's a vast liberal conspiracy" is the rhetoric of identity politics, which doesn't seem to work very well, especially for conservatives. It does seem like the liberals fight for cheap labor produced by illegals more so than true conservatives. There are poor people and we can do better in a wealthy nation. What are your solutions again? I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 6203 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Income Disparity Blurry wrote: WendyDarling wrote:Blurry wrote I don't think this is a useful argument/exercise, for the reasons tent amd others have already stated. What counts as "practical living conditions" in your mind? I make considerably less than$20.84/hr and am perfectly comfortable. If I made more money, which i have in the past,
I would find "necessary" ways to spend it, and so my idea of practical living conditions would change.

When you have to put quotes around "necessary", it does not equate with practical. I'm simply asking for straight answers from folks who I've been told are liberal elitists, answers that can be circumscribed rationally to alleviate some of the hardships of a majority of overworked, underpaid USA citizens. Why is that so hard to fathom folks?

How's about you describe your income, budget and why you feel comfortable? What type of financial safety net do you have?

I do not feel comfortable divulging personal financial information to complete strangers, but I'll try to answer in loose terms. My income is sufficient to cover the gas I need, food, rent (which includes utilities), and a few creature comforts. Additionally, I home and feed a small, beautiful cat, and so have the additional costs of food, hairball prevention treats, and litter for the cat box. If I lived in another place, the money I make might not be sufficient, as cost of living differs greatly from place to place around the country, but as is, I do just fine. I have some savings set aside for my future, and I also have that money making more money for me while it sits there waiting for me to be old and grey.

Putting quotes around the word necessity does not mean those necessities wouldn't be practical. Practicality is a pretty subjective term in this context, which is the point that has been explained to you multiple times, in one way or another.

I should add health and car insurance, I pay for both of those as well.
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch

Blurry
fuck

Posts: 4399
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm

Wendy - one of the points I am trying to make is that individual median income doesn't define people as poor. Median household income is a better measure. Single income families is a problem. There are causes unique to those families and solutions unique to those families. It's a point about using the stats most supportive to your point. There are solutions other than simply waving a wand and granting everyone a $50,000 income, because there is a price to pay for everything. And this is a conservative position, by the way. What's not so conservative is universal, taxpayer supported health care, which doesn't add to anyone's income but which takes away an expense. Both sides of the lever matter. Faust Unrequited Lover of Wisdom Posts: 16726 Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm ### Re: Income Disparity tentative wrote: Faust wrote:Okay, so why do people have children that they cannot support? You had to go there didn't you? I did my best to avoid that issue but no, YOU hadda drag it out. OK 1. Prolly 90% of all live births are OOPS! Anyone who says different is lieing. 2. The ultra right conservatives are against any kind of birth control. "Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and in the bedroom or kitchen." 3. Various religious groups discourage the use of condoms, and suggest the failed rhythm method to control population. 4. In certain states, the designed lack of facilities to correct unplanned pregnancies contributes to unwanted live births. 5. Supporting a child is an afterthought in the heat of the moment, assuming any afterthought. There are dozens of other reasons but these are the obvious. You do realize that each of these plus others deserve their own thread with numerous pages of back and forth and a year from now.... Okay, but it's worth pointing out that single mom families represent a lot of poverty. Are we doing everything we can to force dads to pay the freight? Are we making it too easy for irresponsible people to have kids? Should people have the right to bear four kids that they cannot support? Or to father them? If they do and should have that right, do we then complain that we have so much poverty or do we just accept it as a result of all those rights? Faust Unrequited Lover of Wisdom Posts: 16726 Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm ### Re: Income Disparity Why would single income families get preferential income treatment to a single individual? Sure, you can throw programs for childcare and food stamps at such situations, but why would they earn a greater income for the same work being performed? I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 6203 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Income Disparity Wendy, if you're question is directed at me, you should know that I don't understand that question. Can you rephrase? Is it a rhetorical question? Faust Unrequited Lover of Wisdom Posts: 16726 Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm ### Re: Income Disparity This thread is about income disparity, right? That's what I am talking about, a person does labor and they are paid such and such for their labor. My concern is not to go delving into every aspect of their personal choices, I just want a working individual to earn a fair wage and whether she or he has kids is another issue. No decent income equals poverty. Kids just make the hole of poverty ever so much deeper. I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 6203 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Income Disparity wendy, surely you must realize that it is much more difficult for many single moms to earn a decent income than for, say, a married couple with kids. Are you saying that whatever job one has - picking cotton or working at the laundromat or whatever, they should be able to make 50 grand a year? How would that be accomplished? Faust Unrequited Lover of Wisdom Posts: 16726 Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm ### Re: Income Disparity Faust wrote: tentative wrote: Faust wrote:Okay, so why do people have children that they cannot support? You had to go there didn't you? I did my best to avoid that issue but no, YOU hadda drag it out. OK 1. Prolly 90% of all live births are OOPS! Anyone who says different is lieing. 2. The ultra right conservatives are against any kind of birth control. "Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and in the bedroom or kitchen." 3. Various religious groups discourage the use of condoms, and suggest the failed rhythm method to control population. 4. In certain states, the designed lack of facilities to correct unplanned pregnancies contributes to unwanted live births. 5. Supporting a child is an afterthought in the heat of the moment, assuming any afterthought. There are dozens of other reasons but these are the obvious. You do realize that each of these plus others deserve their own thread with numerous pages of back and forth and a year from now.... Okay, but it's worth pointing out that single mom families represent a lot of poverty. Are we doing everything we can to force dads to pay the freight? Are we making it too easy for irresponsible people to have kids? Should people have the right to bear four kids that they cannot support? Or to father them? If they do and should have that right, do we then complain that we have so much poverty or do we just accept it as a result of all those rights? The answer to each of your questions is no, but you already knew that. The only solution I can see that actually might work amounts to societal revolution. It would entail personal responsibility at every level, and that isn't a likely scenario. Hold fathers fiscally responsible. Literally, a license to have children. Proof from both parents of the ability to support and raise each child. They have no procreation rights not granted by society. Government must provide the assets and oversight capabilities to enforce all of this. Do we just accept the poverty as a result ? Well, we have so far and it hasn't worked very well. But it isn't hard to see the shitstorm such measures would create. The only other possible solution would be compulsory reversible sterilization at, say, 10 yrs of age. This could be reversed when a couple was able to prove their ability to support and raise a child to adulthood. Either solution has about a 1% chance of ever being put in place. Can you hear the screaming at your place? It's so loud here I'm getting a headache. IGAYRCCFYVM Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia I don't take know for an answer. tentative . Posts: 12360 Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm Location: Idaho ### Re: Income Disparity Faust wrote:wendy, surely you must realize that it is much more difficult for many single moms to earn a decent income than for, say, a married couple with kids. Are you saying that whatever job one has - picking cotton or working at the laundromat or whatever, they should be able to make 50 grand a year? How would that be accomplished? I never said$50,000, but would shoot for $40,000 hoping to end up with$30,000. This wage hike would be accomplished by way of less greed which would equal less profits for company owners, pay cuts for CEO's, upper management, and middle management, and less influence for majority shareholders in companies gone public, simple 1, 2, 3. This would not happen due to acquiescence of the horribly greedy parties at the top who have already been mentioned, but would be doable with labor dept. wage enforcement swat teams. Employees who ratted out their employers greed would be monetarily compensated by company profits which they were denied through their work environment. Trust me, it'd be easy breezy. Repeat offending companies could be seized by the government like they can seize whatever they already want to, just in this case companies would be seized and auctioned off without missing a beat for a good reason.

Companies that only profit themselves more than the people of the country can be replaced, which would also hold them to higher public safety standards, but that's another thread.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Income Disparity

The only other possible solution would be compulsory reversible sterilization at, say, 10 yrs of age. This could be reversed when a couple was able to prove their ability to support and raise a child to adulthood. Either solution has about a 1% chance of ever being put in place.

No, make higher education and job placement help available for all participants free of charge which would solve the problem of them finding work and earning a decent salary and would also automatically qualify them for free family co-parent planning, parenting assistance, and medical maternity costs once they work for 5 years.

Isn't it about helping people onto a track that enriches their lives and the lives of their offspring?
Last edited by WendyDarling on Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 6203
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Income Disparity

Okay, so you're on to me, tent. Again, I am trying to make the point that there isn't just one cause of poverty in america and so there is not just one cure. Raising minimum wage to \$15.00 won't cure poverty, but it will help. Some large companies, such as Target, see the handwriting on the wall. Fast food chains can surely afford it. It can happen.

But here's a story. Friend of mine lost his factory job. Place closed down. He took a job as less pay, also in a factory. His salary is subsidized, so for now, he's making what he used to make. I'm not sure where the money comes from - the state or a manufacturer trust fund. It doesn't matter, because either way, the general public is paying the freight, either in taxes or in higher prices. He was also eligible for job retraining. He chose not to. Felt he was too old to begin again.

That's okay - he's a big boy. Soon enough, the subsidy runs out. do we bemoan his reduced salary? Do we say that there should be no subsidy unless he retrains, so we are not in the same situation when the factory he now works in shuts down?

As a society, we have to make up our minds. Do we subsidize with no strings attached (this is common in my state)? Do we require that you have to be more than a victimized laid-off worker to get the subsidy? Do we skip the subsidy and just offer the training?

The thing is, his salary now contributes to "poverty" stats. Why should we worry? He chose not to try for a better paying job. So he makes about 11 bucks an hour, now. His wife makes 40k. They own a home and they're not in danger of losing it. I think they own it outright.

Stats are stats, but there are stories behind the stats. There are tons of anti-poverty programs. There are countless combinations of family size, social resources, incomes, assets, costs of living. One percent, 20 percent, eighty percent.

Everyone hates the 1% except for their favorite athlete, entertainer or doctor. And Warren Buffet.

Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom

Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

PreviousNext