Income distribution in America - Quintile breakdowns.

[CableandThanos]

The issue is that CEO salaries go up while workers get cut and do not get pay raises.
and if that doesn't seem like an issue to you then you may not be thinking clearly.

This is why your views are so short sighted.

The dreaded CEO of big companies, say 500 people are making more money while some are making less.

Ok The CEO of starbucks makes $10 million, Tell me How does that effect you getting a raise at work? Go ahead I'll wait.

You are complaining about 500 people in a country of 315 million. 500 people whose salaries means jack all to you me or anyone elses life.

 

[MarcoW]

So you are for the state to have a monopoly on the ownership of productive property or other forms of capital? If not what percentage?

imo states should have ownership over primary sectors (forestry, mining, fishing, energy) because those are the states natural resources and the voter should be able to have a say in what happens to them.
I'm for free business, but I know businesses have to be regulated to a certain degree because businesses will abuse there employees.
And obviously I'm not for the state owning my rake. If I buy a rake its my rake.

 

[MarcoW]

This is why your views are so short sighted.

The dreaded CEO of big companies, say 500 people are making more money while some are making less.

Ok The CEO of starbucks makes $10 million, Tell me How does that effect you getting a raise at work? Go ahead I'll wait.

You are complaining about 500 people in a country of 315 million. 500 people whose salaries means jack all to you me or anyone elses life.

Jobs are only supposed to be cut when they need to be cut to stay as profitable as before. If the company is just as profitable as before, why cut those jobs? Just to put people out on the street just because? Bah humbug

 

[OldGoat]

imo states should have ownership over primary sectors (forestry, mining, fishing, energy) because those are the states natural resources and the voter should be able to have a say in what happens to them.
I'm for free business, but I know businesses have to be regulated to a certain degree because businesses will abuse there employees.
And obviously I'm not for the state owning my rake. If I buy a rake its my rake.

Regulation with the regulators themselves being regulated I agree with. But you honestly think that the state is an inherently benevolent institution?

 

[CableandThanos]

jobs are only supposed to be cut when they need to be cut to stay as profitable as before. If the company is just as profitable as before, why cut those jobs? Just to put people out on the street just because? Bah humbug

man you funny as hell

that bah humbug made me almost spit out my drink. Lol

 

[MarcoW]

Regulation with the regulators themselves being regulated I agree with. But you honestly think that the state is an inherently benevolent institution?

better than a business. States have to cater to voters, businesses only have to cater to shareholders, who are inherently only interested in making money.

 

[panamaican]

You seem to have confused economic growth with social mobility.

Neither, I'm squarely focused on economic mobility as defined by movement across income quintiles.

 

[OldGoat]

better than a business. States have to cater to voters, businesses only have to cater to shareholders, who are inherently only interested in making money.

And what exactly makes the average voter more noble or knowledgable than the average shareholder?

 

[Ruprecht]

Neither, I'm squarely focused on economic mobility as defined by movement across income quintiles.

Well it's either that or you're just constructing a giant straw man.
Who uses income quintiles in that manner to construct an argument?
"economic mobility" between quintiles is simply used for it's correlation with social mobility.
As a relative measure. Not as a means of measuring the absolute changes in economic situation between generations.
As for the increased size of the quintile...
Do you really think that decreasing mobility would disappear if the population was divided into smaller brackets?
It wouldn't matter if one generation was entirely subsistence farmers and the next generation they'd pulled off an industrial revolution, with the bottom quintile including everything from subsistence farming to clerks and factory hands. If there wasn't any intergenerational relative change, there'd be a systemic reason for the lack of social mobility.
Looks to me like you're just trying to make the old argument that economic growth outweighs social mobility in terms of improving lives.
Problem with that is, even if you could demonstrate a degree of trade off, as wealth and the benefits of economic growth become further concentrated, the benefit of that trade off would obviously be declining along with social mobility.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Yup. We're all fucked. Don't even try.

 

[MarcoW]

And what exactly makes the average voter more noble or knowledgable than the average shareholder?

shareholders by nature of being shareholders are inherently greedy.
voters by nature of being the general public will inherently provide an answer on what the public of the state most wants.

 

[OldGoat]

shareholders by nature of being shareholders are inherently greedy.
voters by nature of being the general public will inherently provide an answer on what the public of the state most wants.

:icon_lol: If you say so.

 

[OldGoat]

Well it's either that or you're just constructing a giant straw man.
Who uses income quintiles in that manner to construct an argument?
"economic mobility" between quintiles is simply used for it's correlation with social mobility.
As a relative measure. Not as a means of measuring the absolute changes in economic situation between generations.
As for the increased size of the quintile...
Do you really think that decreasing mobility would disappear if the population was divided into smaller brackets?
It wouldn't matter if one generation was entirely subsistence farmers and the next generation they'd pulled off an industrial revolution, with the bottom quintile including everything from subsistence farming to clerks and factory hands. If there wasn't any intergenerational relative change, there'd be a systemic reason for the lack of social mobility.
Looks to me like you're just trying to make the old argument that economic growth outweighs social mobility in terms of improving lives.
Problem with that is, even if you could demonstrate a degree of trade off, as wealth and the benefits of economic growth become further concentrated, the benefit of that trade off would obviously be declining along with social mobility.

When 20% are always going to be 20% does it matter that there is a 20%? No. It's ridiculous.

 

[Ruprecht]

When 20% are always going to be 20% does it matter that there is a 20%? No. It's ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[MarcoW]

:icon_lol: If you say so.

congrats on making the rich richer and doing nothing for yourself or your country.

 

[CableandThanos]

congrats on making the rich richer and doing nothing for yourself or your country.

So again you just ignored the beginning of the thread where he listed we are all getting richer, and you just take pot shots at the rich.

 

[OldGoat]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Not everyone is going to be above average, by definition. But as long as the average is increasing some progress is being made at least. First world problems man.

 

[Ruprecht]

Not everyone is going to be above average, by definition. But as long as the average is increasing some progress is being made at least. First world problems man.

Not sure how that relates then.
The problem is not related to the arbitrary breakdown into quintiles, but what the figures describe about the social situation and the direction it's going in.
Meritocracy via maximising opportunity versus nepotism, cronyism and political disenfranchisement of the masses.

 

[MarcoW]

So again you just ignored the beginning of the thread where he listed we are all getting richer, and you just take pot shots at the rich.

with all the evidence I see everyday of worker exploitation?
Yes.
And then the cons cry that the unions should be shut down!
I don't even really care about unions, just fair wages.

 

[AznTrojan]

with all the evidence I see everyday of worker exploitation?
Yes.
And then the cons cry that the unions should be shut down!
I don't even really care about unions, just fair wages.

get a job that can't be outsourced or make yourself invaluable to a company.. entry level jobs aren't supposed to be a career