Maybe people should actually have listened to the Tea Party?

[Deleted]

This geographic prism also offers some pointers on what influences mobility. The economists found five factors that were correlated with differences in social mobility in different parts of America: residential segregation (whether by income or race); the quality of schooling; family structure (eg, how many children live with only one parent); “social capital” (such as taking part in community groups); and inequality (particularly income gaps among those outside the top 1%). Social mobility is higher in integrated places with good schools, strong families, lots of community spirit and smaller income gaps within the broad middle class. Not a bad agenda for politicians to push, if only they knew how.

www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 15, 2015 10:43:44 GMT -5 oped said:

Sept 15, 2015 10:41:49 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I would say most of those instances were more caste style systems without the ability to move and down; not necessarily in systems such as what we have now.  

Actually, studies show we don't do a lot of moving. Not nearly as much as you think. And the only way it IS possible is because of the social supports you dislike. Without them it gets worse fast.

I don't think you've been reading much of what I've written if you think I dislike social supports.  As for as "not nearly as much" moving happens as I think...it's not how many people move in and out that's as important as how many people have the ability to do so.  More have the ability to do so than actually do for a variety of reasons.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 15, 2015 11:07:04 GMT -5 oped said:

This geographic prism also offers some pointers on what influences mobility. The economists found five factors that were correlated with differences in social mobility in different parts of America: residential segregation (whether by income or race); the quality of schooling; family structure (eg, how many children live with only one parent); “social capital” (such as taking part in community groups); and inequality (particularly income gaps among those outside the top 1%). Social mobility is higher in integrated places with good schools, strong families, lots of community spirit and smaller income gaps within the broad middle class. Not a bad agenda for politicians to push, if only they knew how.

www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

I don't see anybody arguing that those aren't influences in success; but that is different than arguing that people are unable to have mobility.  There is a difference between society not doing enough versus people not taking advantage of the opportunities available to them. Addressing the reason they don't take advantage of the opportunities (to include social programs like helping pay for college) seems like it would be a more worthwhile goal than just to keep trying to add more programs.  So the question is to determine if the reason for lack of mobility is really because of lack of opportunity or is it from a lack of people taking advantage of the opportunities available for some reason?  

Maybe those in the lower socio-economic class are less likely to know about opportunities to pay for job training or college than middle and upper class families.  Maybe there is more people in lower socio-economic areas that don't want others to succeed because if too many people succeed, they have to examine why they are where they are...but if most people fail, it proves it was beyond their control (yes, things like this do happen).  I'm not saying these are the reasons or that they are the only reasons....but I do think they play a factor and until we address some of these underlying issues, adding more programs isn't going to help.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2015 10:42:41 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 15, 2015 10:37:11 GMT -5 oped said:

Actually 1) only localities are talking 15$ ... Federally it's 10 something. 2) I don't look for that to raise living much at all... Just shift who is paying for it from the government to employers.

I said relative to, not percentage of....

Some people seem under the mistaken conclusion that people in the top 10% are the only people who actually work...

And some people are under the mistaken assumption that those in the top 10% don't deserve what they have or that they didn't earn it.

In many cases it's not "mistaken".

Many don't "deserve" it, and many didn't "earn" it. (I'm mostly looking at those that inherited wealth... but there are some that get high paying jobs because of "connections", not because of value that they actually bring to the company)

[fishy999]

Sept 14, 2015 21:26:01 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 12, 2015 11:01:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think CNA is a young person's job and not that well paid. Its $1K or more for training and many start at $10/hr. or lower in CNJ. Not sure about the other, but neither appeal to me. (After quite a few years of experience, a CNA can work privately for $16 to $18/hr., however, in CNJ that qualifies them for mid-level affordable housing.)

Well, in the Democrat's future America they will not have to bother getting that education. They can work in fastfood industry for $15 an hour.

Anyone here willing to go flip burgers if you get to keep your compensation package?

It makes no sense- most people do not pursue careers based on income potential alone- so to say that people would avoid college because all of a sudden flipping the burgers pays someone enough to sustain themselves I think is taking a low view of people.

[Value Buy]

Sept 15, 2015 20:01:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Sept 14, 2015 21:26:01 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Well, in the Democrat's future America they will not have to bother getting that education. They can work in fastfood industry for $15 an hour.

Anyone here willing to go flip burgers if you get to keep your compensation package?

It makes no sense- most people do not pursue careers based on income potential alone- so to say that people would avoid college because all of a sudden flipping the burgers pays someone enough to sustain themselves I think is taking a low view of people.

If nurses are working for $16 to $18 an hour with their cost of education factored in they are better off just going with the $15 an hour in fast food.

[fishy999]

When the boss makes 300X the line worker something is wrong- either the pay at the bottom is too low or the pay at the top is too high- take your pick.

I think there are a lot of folks in the .1% that didn't 'earn it' or at least earn all of it- in fact they call a lot of it unearned income and for some reason they pay less taxes on it that people doing actual work.

[fishy999]

Sept 15, 2015 20:03:00 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 15, 2015 20:01:06 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Anyone here willing to go flip burgers if you get to keep your compensation package?

It makes no sense- most people do not pursue careers based on income potential alone- so to say that people would avoid college because all of a sudden flipping the burgers pays someone enough to sustain themselves I think is taking a low view of people.

If nurses are working for $16 to $18 an hour with their cost of education factored in they are better off just going with the $15 an hour in fast food.

No way- I know some nurses- and they make plenty- that student loan goes away in short order.  

[Deleted]

Was at the parade tonight and heard a woman excitedly exclaiming that she got a job! And it pays 8.85$ and hour! She was very excited.

[Value Buy]

Sept 15, 2015 20:05:29 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

When the boss makes 300X the line worker something is wrong- either the pay at the bottom is too low or the pay at the top is too high- take your pick.

I think there are a lot of folks in the .1% that didn't 'earn it' or at least earn all of it- in fact they call a lot of it unearned income and for some reason they pay less taxes on it that people doing actual work.

Using "I think" in your argument proves absolutly nothing.
I think you are wrong.
Prove me wrong.

We are now in a world market fight on wages, and our lower tier workers are competing with third world countries making the same product. Do not blame the 1%ters for this. Blame the offending countries for permitting their workers to produce product for $5 a day in wages.

[fishy999]

It's an opinion- but it is a fact that the a lot of the .1% do not 'earn' their money as per the IRS and they do pay less taxes on it.

I do not equate someone that is wealthy enough to purchase income producing assets with someone that 'works'.  They do not earn their money, they just collect it.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2015 18:13:25 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 15, 2015 10:42:41 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

And some people are under the mistaken assumption that those in the top 10% don't deserve what they have or that they didn't earn it.

In many cases it's not "mistaken".

Many don't "deserve" it, and many didn't "earn" it. (I'm mostly looking at those that inherited wealth... but there are some that get high paying jobs because of "connections", not because of value that they actually bring to the company)

I was going to "ETA" this, but decided to add it after quoting instead.

Also... no one is "worth" or "deserves" 300 (& up) times what the lowest paid worker gets. Without those "lower paid workers" the company wouldn't exist in the first place.

The pay gap between chief executives of major U.S. firms and their median workers is massive, according to a recent report from career review site Glassdoor, which looked at data from 2014. The average pay ratio of CEO to median worker was 204-to-1, the report found. At the top of the list, four CEOs earn more than 1,000 times the salary of their median worker.


Source

Note that the mentioned "204-to-1" ratio is against the MEDIAN (or "average") salary. It's not compared to the lowest paid broom pusher. There's just simply no legitimate/reasonable justification for that difference... much less the 1,000-to-1 (or higher) ones.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 15, 2015 20:56:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 15, 2015 18:13:25 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

In many cases it's not "mistaken".

Many don't "deserve" it, and many didn't "earn" it. (I'm mostly looking at those that inherited wealth... but there are some that get high paying jobs because of "connections", not because of value that they actually bring to the company)

I was going to "ETA" this, but decided to add it after quoting instead.

Also... no one is "worth" or "deserves" 300 (& up) times what the lowest paid worker gets. Without those "lower paid workers" the company wouldn't exist in the first place.

The pay gap between chief executives of major U.S. firms and their median workers is massive, according to a recent report from career review site Glassdoor, which looked at data from 2014. The average pay ratio of CEO to median worker was 204-to-1, the report found. At the top of the list, four CEOs earn more than 1,000 times the salary of their median worker.


Source

Note that the mentioned "204-to-1" ratio is against the MEDIAN (or "average") salary. It's not compared to the lowest paid broom pusher. There's just simply no legitimate/reasonable justification for that difference... much less the 1,000-to-1 (or higher) ones.

The market says otherwise.  Those on the lower level are easier to replace than those on the higher end.  I never really understood the argument of comparing the top level CEO of a fortune 500 company with the lowest paid employee to show there is to much of a difference.  Are some hires bad hired....absolutely, but that is 20/20 hindsight are what the company feels is worth the cost to get that person.  What's next, are we going to start comparing what the commissioner of the NFL makes, or the players, with the person who passes out food and drinks on game day and complain there is too big of a difference>

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2015 21:12:50 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 15, 2015 20:56:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I was going to "ETA" this, but decided to add it after quoting instead.

Also... no one is "worth" or "deserves" 300 (& up) times what the lowest paid worker gets. Without those "lower paid workers" the company wouldn't exist in the first place.
Note that the mentioned "204-to-1" ratio is against the MEDIAN (or "average") salary. It's not compared to the lowest paid broom pusher. There's just simply no legitimate/reasonable justification for that difference... much less the 1,000-to-1 (or higher) ones.

The market says otherwise.  Those on the lower level are easier to replace than those on the higher end.  I never really understood the argument of comparing the top level CEO of a fortune 500 company with the lowest paid employee to show there is to much of a difference.  Are some hires bad hired....absolutely, but that is 20/20 hindsight are what the company feels is worth the cost to get that person.  What's next, are we going to start comparing what the commissioner of the NFL makes, or the players, with the person who passes out food and drinks on game day and complain there is too big of a difference>

What "the market" says is irrelevant. "The market" has never had anything to do with fair or reasonable... all it's ever been concerned with is "can it be supported financially?"

And I'd happily compare the NFL employees that you want to compare. "Professional Athletes" (not JUST football players) get paid too much for what they do. They are paid to play a freaking game for crying out loud!

[tallguy]

Should have just left the top marginal rate at 70%+.  Far less incentive to exploit the system if you don't get to keep it all....  

[fishy999]

We should.

But 'the market' doesn't work at the top.  I never really understood the pay for failure scheme either.  So what is the explanation of how these companies went from 30-1 to 300-1?  Do they work 10 times harder than they did 40 years ago?  Or is it more likely that the people in these jobs who sit on each others boards drove the pay up themselves and the positions are waaaay over compensated.  Pretty obvious what happened.