Is Redistributing Wealth a Bad Thing? You Betcha!

[peejay 327]

..."Actions taken by this administration during the past eight years include:

* Refusal to adjust the minimum wage for inflation for 10 years, driving it in inflation-adjusted terms to the lowest level in half a century. Studies have repeatedly shown that freezing the minimum wage affects not only those working at minimum wages but also those well up the income ladder.

* Refusal to enforce hourly wage violations so that many employers could pay less than the legal minimum and refuse to pay legally required overtime with little concern over being caught or penalized.

* Appointment of a National Labor Relations Board that constantly abridged the right of workers to organize or file just grievances, and provided employers with considerable assurance that union efforts to organize their workplaces would fail regardless of wages and working conditions.

* Use of federal regulatory powers under the Taft-Hartley Act to harass and weaken labor unions.

* Lackluster enforcement of immigration laws allowing unprecedented numbers of undocumented workers to enter the United States and assume paying positions in a wide array of industries.

* Failure to enforce U.S. trade agreements with nations such a China. As the Commerce Department notes on their website, "The Chinese Government makes no secret of its support for state-owned enterprises. Foreign companies should not expect a level playing field." Yet the United States has taken no effective action to force China to abide by our trade agreements as our annual trade deficit with China more than tripled over the past eight years.

From the OP article. Does anyone read the things or just comment on the comments?

So what? Steven has made it clear in literally dozens of prior posts that he believes illegal aliens are justified in breaking our immigration / labor laws. He is also a fervent supporter of even higher levels of immigration than we already have today in the USA. All the while crowing about greater unionization of the workforce. This is a total contradiction to historical reality as I stated previously. Artificially flooding the labor market is incompatable with any sort of bargaining power for labor. There is no bargaining power in that scenario.

Of course immigration isn't the only factor, but it is definitely a huge factor along with sending the work overseas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when jobs are shipped overseas to cheap labor venues and cheap labor is simultaneously imported into the USA to do what can't be shipped overseas that labor has zilch in the way of bargaining power. Unionized labor has fallen from about 35% in the 1950's to about 12% today. Unionized labor has pretty much risen and fallen with the ebb and flow of the chart below. Go figure!

Edited October 23, 2008 by peejay

[akdiver 3]

To the best of my knowledge...

..which is obviously limited....

If you don't like the fact that my generalization includes precisely you ...

Oh, I don't care about your generalization. I was just pointing out that it was not well-founded (:

[Peikko 1,575]

..."Actions taken by this administration during the past eight years include:

* Refusal to adjust the minimum wage for inflation for 10 years, driving it in inflation-adjusted terms to the lowest level in half a century. Studies have repeatedly shown that freezing the minimum wage affects not only those working at minimum wages but also those well up the income ladder.

* Refusal to enforce hourly wage violations so that many employers could pay less than the legal minimum and refuse to pay legally required overtime with little concern over being caught or penalized.

* Appointment of a National Labor Relations Board that constantly abridged the right of workers to organize or file just grievances, and provided employers with considerable assurance that union efforts to organize their workplaces would fail regardless of wages and working conditions.

* Use of federal regulatory powers under the Taft-Hartley Act to harass and weaken labor unions.

* Lackluster enforcement of immigration laws allowing unprecedented numbers of undocumented workers to enter the United States and assume paying positions in a wide array of industries.

* Failure to enforce U.S. trade agreements with nations such a China. As the Commerce Department notes on their website, "The Chinese Government makes no secret of its support for state-owned enterprises. Foreign companies should not expect a level playing field." Yet the United States has taken no effective action to force China to abide by our trade agreements as our annual trade deficit with China more than tripled over the past eight years.

From the OP article. Does anyone read the things or just comment on the comments?

So what? Steven has made it clear in literally dozens of prior posts that he believes illegal aliens are justified in breaking our immigration / labor laws. He is also a fervent supporter of even higher levels of immigration than we already have today in the USA. All the while crowing about greater unionization of the workforce. This is a total contradiction to historical reality as I stated previously. Artificially flooding the labor market is incompatable with any sort of bargaining power for labor. There is no bargaining power in that scenario.

Of course immigration isn't the only factor, but it is definitely a huge factor along with sending the work overseas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when jobs are shipped overseas to cheap labor venues and cheap labor is simultaneously imported into the USA to do what can't be shipped overseas that labor has zilch in the way of bargaining power. Unionized labor has fallen from about 35% in the 1950's to about 12% today. Unionized labor has pretty much risen and fallen with the ebb and flow of the chart below. Go figure!

Ah the graph, nice.

Moving right along though. I haven't read any of the things you have attributed to Steven in his posts. I might of course have missed them, that's entirely possible, but, you also might have imagined he said things that he didn't due to the log that is firmly stuck in your eye. Why do I say this? Because you attribute many things to me, that I have never said or implied. We'll see.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hopefully, Steven can answer with a simple yes or no:

Do you support open borders?

I haven't seen evidence of you doing so. Therefore, my conclusion is that peejay is nuts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

..."Actions taken by this administration during the past eight years include:

* Refusal to adjust the minimum wage for inflation for 10 years, driving it in inflation-adjusted terms to the lowest level in half a century. Studies have repeatedly shown that freezing the minimum wage affects not only those working at minimum wages but also those well up the income ladder.

* Refusal to enforce hourly wage violations so that many employers could pay less than the legal minimum and refuse to pay legally required overtime with little concern over being caught or penalized.

* Appointment of a National Labor Relations Board that constantly abridged the right of workers to organize or file just grievances, and provided employers with considerable assurance that union efforts to organize their workplaces would fail regardless of wages and working conditions.

* Use of federal regulatory powers under the Taft-Hartley Act to harass and weaken labor unions.

* Lackluster enforcement of immigration laws allowing unprecedented numbers of undocumented workers to enter the United States and assume paying positions in a wide array of industries.

* Failure to enforce U.S. trade agreements with nations such a China. As the Commerce Department notes on their website, "The Chinese Government makes no secret of its support for state-owned enterprises. Foreign companies should not expect a level playing field." Yet the United States has taken no effective action to force China to abide by our trade agreements as our annual trade deficit with China more than tripled over the past eight years.

From the OP article. Does anyone read the things or just comment on the comments?

So what? Steven has made it clear in literally dozens of prior posts that he believes illegal aliens are justified in breaking our immigration / labor laws. He is also a fervent supporter of even higher levels of immigration than we already have today in the USA. All the while crowing about greater unionization of the workforce. This is a total contradiction to historical reality as I stated previously. Artificially flooding the labor market is incompatable with any sort of bargaining power for labor. There is no bargaining power in that scenario.

Of course immigration isn't the only factor, but it is definitely a huge factor along with sending the work overseas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when jobs are shipped overseas to cheap labor venues and cheap labor is simultaneously imported into the USA to do what can't be shipped overseas that labor has zilch in the way of bargaining power. Unionized labor has fallen from about 35% in the 1950's to about 12% today. Unionized labor has pretty much risen and fallen with the ebb and flow of the chart below. Go figure!

Nice misrepresentation of my position, peejay. I won't even address your angle of illegal immigration in this thread because that seems to be your only angle. You've got it backwards to blame sagging wages on illegals in this country. It was the weakening of the unions and union busting by companies with the support of government that has helped bring down wages for the workers, while top wage earners saw their salary increase. Unions or employee owned companies are the best vehicles to keep the playing field level so that workers have the power to negotiate for fair wages.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Companies can pay their workers whatever they think is fair. If the workers don't like their wages,they can find a better company to work for. Ultimately the market sets the price.

Exactly. Why would a company increase wages if people are willing to work for the same amount? It doesn't make sense.

Both of you are lost.

You know not of what you seem to think you are experts of.

It astounds me how you both speak with such authority as to what people do and why.

If you have ever been one of the working poor you would understand the abuse and never make light of it.

"Ask for more money!"

"Get a better job!"

Hahahaha!!!

Laughable.

If life was that simple, and everybody got what they deserved, then the hard workers of this planet would all have a Rolls Royce and the current multi-national corporations leaders would be driving it for them.

Ah, me and my sweet idealistic fantasies...

[SpiritAlight 1]

If I go out and earn $100, and the government decides it wants to take half of that money and redistribute it to people who did not go out and earn their own money for whatever reason, my incentive to go out and earn money is much less. Eventually, I may just decide to become one of the people who has someone else's wealth redistributed to me via the government.

You didn't read the OP.

Even if he skimmed it, he didn't get it at all.

Obviously.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One of the problems of the American public is that their attention span has grown far too short -- so that brief, cogent arguments, such as those of OP, are not read by those who feel nonetheless well qualified to comment.

It is a combination of ignorance and a wrong sense of entitlement.

I asked the Right Wingers here a few days ago if by their definition of redistribution of wealth (a progressive tax policy), wouldn't that also include workers' wages that have remained stagnant while the top income earners' wages have increased dramatically over the last decade...and none bothered to answer. It's easier to keep pumping out the rhetoric without actually thinking it through.

You may not have gotten answers from "right wingers" because no one here labels themselves that. I notice that liberals here object to be called liberals or left wingers, too.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I asked the Right Wingers here a few days ago if by their definition of redistribution of wealth (a progressive tax policy), wouldn't that also include workers' wages that have remained stagnant while the top income earners' wages have increased dramatically over the last decade...and none bothered to answer. It's easier to keep pumping out the rhetoric without actually thinking it through.

Companies can pay their workers whatever they think is fair. If the workers don't like their wages,

they can find a better company to work for. Ultimately the market sets the price.

The flip side of that is that employees should be able to organize to use their solidarity for negotiating a fair wage. The government's role is to support both companies and their worker's rights, with the same regard.

Use some of that attention span to read the federal Constitution. Nothing in there givs the government such a role. The problem with the government now is that it's gooten too big. too intrusive, and too involved in things it needs to be out of.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One of the problems of the American public is that their attention span has grown far too short -- so that brief, cogent arguments, such as those of OP, are not read by those who feel nonetheless well qualified to comment.

It is a combination of ignorance and a wrong sense of entitlement.

I asked the Right Wingers here a few days ago if by their definition of redistribution of wealth (a progressive tax policy), wouldn't that also include workers' wages that have remained stagnant while the top income earners' wages have increased dramatically over the last decade...and none bothered to answer. It's easier to keep pumping out the rhetoric without actually thinking it through.

You may not have gotten answers from "right wingers" because no one here labels themselves that. I notice that liberals here object to be called liberals or left wingers, too.

Thanks for not answering the question.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm not a right winger.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I asked the Right Wingers here a few days ago if by their definition of redistribution of wealth (a progressive tax policy), wouldn't that also include workers' wages that have remained stagnant while the top income earners' wages have increased dramatically over the last decade...and none bothered to answer. It's easier to keep pumping out the rhetoric without actually thinking it through.

Companies can pay their workers whatever they think is fair. If the workers don't like their wages,

they can find a better company to work for. Ultimately the market sets the price.

The flip side of that is that employees should be able to organize to use their solidarity for negotiating a fair wage. The government's role is to support both companies and their worker's rights, with the same regard.

Use some of that attention span to read the federal Constitution. Nothing in there givs the government such a role. The problem with the government now is that it's gooten too big. too intrusive, and too involved in things it needs to be out of.

Interesting that you should bring up the Constitution:

The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments do not explicitly mention corporations. Nevertheless, under U.S. law corporations have obtained substantial rights through key court decisions that have established particular legal doctrines and provided corporations some of the same rights as human beings.

Although we believe there are legitimate reasons and instances where corporations and other institutions should be protected from government intrusion, it is also the case that corporations have used their claims to constitutional rights to expand their power, restrict the rights of individual people (esp. employees), trample the public interest (e.g. overturn regulations protective of public health) and undermine democratic decision-making processes, especially at the local level.

....

Perhaps the most important area where corporations are aggressively seeking to expand their rights is in the area of First Amendment speech protections.

http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/constit.htm

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One of the problems of the American public is that their attention span has grown far too short -- so that brief, cogent arguments, such as those of OP, are not read by those who feel nonetheless well qualified to comment.

It is a combination of ignorance and a wrong sense of entitlement.

I asked the Right Wingers here a few days ago if by their definition of redistribution of wealth (a progressive tax policy), wouldn't that also include workers' wages that have remained stagnant while the top income earners' wages have increased dramatically over the last decade...and none bothered to answer. It's easier to keep pumping out the rhetoric without actually thinking it through.

You may not have gotten answers from "right wingers" because no one here labels themselves that. I notice that liberals here object to be called liberals or left wingers, too.

Thanks for not answering the question.

I will say this, the old model depends on widget production, and that doesn't apply across the board anymore. This has become a work culture that is divided more between service workers and people whose work has more to do with intellect. It's not going to work trying to equalize the two. Even between those whose work relies on intellect, there are wide disparities. For example, a neurosurgeon can earm a million and a half dollars a year, but he is not in league with a hedge fund manager whose income may exceed a half billion dollars a year. Both work in specialized fields, but there is no way that you will be able to equate their earnings.

Does this plan to redistribute wealth include redistributing some of the hedge fund managers' wealth to neurosurgeons since their intellectual earnings are clearly at odds?

Edited October 23, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I asked the Right Wingers here a few days ago if by their definition of redistribution of wealth (a progressive tax policy), wouldn't that also include workers' wages that have remained stagnant while the top income earners' wages have increased dramatically over the last decade...and none bothered to answer. It's easier to keep pumping out the rhetoric without actually thinking it through.

Companies can pay their workers whatever they think is fair. If the workers don't like their wages,

they can find a better company to work for. Ultimately the market sets the price.

The flip side of that is that employees should be able to organize to use their solidarity for negotiating a fair wage. The government's role is to support both companies and their worker's rights, with the same regard.

Use some of that attention span to read the federal Constitution. Nothing in there givs the government such a role. The problem with the government now is that it's gooten too big. too intrusive, and too involved in things it needs to be out of.

Interesting that you should bring up the Constitution:

The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments do not explicitly mention corporations. Nevertheless, under U.S. law corporations have obtained substantial rights through key court decisions that have established particular legal doctrines and provided corporations some of the same rights as human beings.

Although we believe there are legitimate reasons and instances where corporations and other institutions should be protected from government intrusion, it is also the case that corporations have used their claims to constitutional rights to expand their power, restrict the rights of individual people (esp. employees), trample the public interest (e.g. overturn regulations protective of public health) and undermine democratic decision-making processes, especially at the local level.

....

Perhaps the most important area where corporations are aggressively seeking to expand their rights is in the area of First Amendment speech protections.

http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/constit.htm

That development is part of the activist judiciary. Just as legislators devise tax plans tend toward social engineering, so has the role of the judicial branch stretched to legislate rather than negotiate. There is not always a good outcome from this.

[natty bumppo 297]

Hopefully, Steven can answer with a simple yes or no:

Do you support open borders?

The jury may still be out on this one ... there again indecision may or may not be an issue ....