Originally posted by quackquack No, I simply don't advocate constantly taking from one group to give to another.
So what do you think of the transfer of wealth to the 1% from everyone else? Are they working harder these days?
What do you think of the evidence in Piketty's research showing that work does not and never can pay as much as investing unearned (largely inherited) wealth will continue to earn?
You can work as many jobs as you can fit into a week but work itself will never make you rich.
Originally posted by finnegan So what do you think of the transfer of wealth to the 1% from everyone else? Are they working harder these days?
What do you think of the evidence in Piketty's research showing that work does not and never can pay as much as investing unearned (largely inherited) wealth will continue to earn?
You can work as many jobs as you can fit into a week but work itself will never make you rich.
QQ thinks that workers in the US (besides him apparently) should only get paid what the lowest wage is world wide for "equivalent" work. That'll take you a while to get rich.
Originally posted by no1marauder QQ thinks that workers in the US (besides him apparently) should only get paid what the lowest wage is world wide for "equivalent" work. That'll take you a while to get rich.
In a global economy, you should get paid the world rate. It will allow goods to be produced at the cheapest rate and consumers to benefit from cheaper goods.
Originally posted by no1marauder Sure you do; you just want it to be in the opposite direction of what is socially desirable and in accordance with our emphatic nature.
Do you really think it benefits you to have 40,000 people die because they can't afford health insurance?
We have medicaid and other programs for people who are poor. If 40,000 people are really dying then perhaps we should get rid of expensive government programs that don't work. It seems likely that the 40,000 is somewhere between a complete fabrication and a huge exaggeration. It also needs to be offset by all the people who die waiting for care in a system with long waiting periods.
Originally posted by quackquack In a global economy, you should get paid the world rate. It will allow goods to be produced at the cheapest rate and consumers to benefit from cheaper goods.
Originally posted by quackquack In a global economy, you should get paid the world rate. It will allow goods to be produced at the cheapest rate and consumers to benefit from cheaper goods.
Who will these consumers actually be? As you suck demand out of the economy with low and insecure wages, globalisation makes nobody better off. I recognise that the wealthy are prepared to sacrifice the needs of the majority to their own greed, but it escapes me why I or any other intelligent adult would put my vote at their disposal to persist in stealing from me.
Originally posted by quackquack We have medicaid and other programs for people who are poor. If 40,000 people are really dying then perhaps we should get rid of expensive government programs that don't work. It seems likely that the 40,000 is somewhere between a complete fabrication and a huge exaggeration. It also needs to be offset by all the people who die waiting for care in a system with long waiting periods.
The Ostrich Routine is the usual right wing response to unpleasant facts. Unfortunately, medicaid and other programs generally leave out the working poor, who's ranks you wish to swell by forcing their wages down to the levels prevalent in say Cambodia.
Originally posted by no1marauder Consumers making $5 a day don't buy very much.
You have a recipe for global depression there.
$5 is below minimum wage so you don't have to worry about that in the US. But they can buy more if product if we allow the opportunity to purchase cheaper goods even if they are produced elsewhere.
Originally posted by quackquack In a global economy, you should get paid the world rate. It will allow goods to be produced at the cheapest rate and consumers to benefit from cheaper goods.
Of course, I assume that doesn't apply to the rich:
U.S. CEOs earn from 400 to 500 times the median salary for workers. For CEOs in the U.K., the ratio is 22; in France, it's 15; and in Germany it's 12.
Originally posted by quackquack $5 is below minimum wage so you don't have to worry about that in the US. But they can buy more if product if we allow the opportunity to purchase cheaper goods even if they are produced elsewhere.
Canada vs US (healthcare)
19 Aug '15 19:08
Back to Top