I guess we need a working definition of income equality. How about everyone is paid what they're worth for their labor. How much should the CEO of McDonald's get paid versus a franchise owner versus counter help?

Discuss.

I agree adios. So let's abolish the minimum wage and let people determine their own worth, in negotiation with prospective employers, in the free market.

And what sort of distribution do you think this will result in?

Not sure. This question has thrown me a curve. Let me think about it, and maybe something will ring a bell.

You sure about that? Because right now it looks like this:



How does eliminating an income floor for the people least able to negotiate well for themselves shift that curve to the right?

Also, does the new curve have a low or high standard deviation?

Yup, currently truncated by the minimum wage and social supports, it looks like.

Hint: I said nothing about eliminating social support networks. That's a separate matter.

I don't know how many posts you've made railing against income inequality and you have nothing to offer in fixing that? You're confused about the concept of paying people for labor what it is worth? Even in this thread your stating that the distribution of income is screwed but you offer nada to fix it. Methinks you're just someone who likes to whine and complain.

Income inequality is the wrong way to look at the wrong problem.

Wealth matters far, far more than income, if you want to say there's a problem there.

And it's not even really a given that it's a problem.

Well, the "fix" offered by you and Neil and the rest of the right wing seems to rely on making more people poor, and poor people even more poor. Meanwhile, you ignore what's happening on the other side of the curve.

For the past 40 years the US has increasingly become an oligarchy, mainly plutocratic. I don't mean that as hyperbole at all. It's literally what's happening.

The mainstream left has mostly focused on placing a floor on the low end in order to maintain a stable oligarchy. This is bad, but at least it aims for stability in lieu of a solution. The right is willing to sacrifice all stability in the name of growth, while completely ignoring that the foot soldiers in this class war (meaning you and Neil) aren't going to see any of the benefits of it. You don't even realize which side you're on.

So no adios, I don't have a solution for a massive societal problem affecting 100's of millions of people. But at least I know where I stand, and I'm not going to pretend that the solution to my problems (small) is to **** over people who are much worse off than me. I'm looking at where the money and power are, and it sure as **** isn't on the sales floor of Wal-Mart.

The problem is big government corruption, cronyism, and corporate socialism.

ah, the old "wacky conservatives take a real world problem and suggest something insane and ass backwards to fix it," how i've missed these threads. Thank god PU was invented so adios could start a new one of these every day.

But yeah, let's get rid of the minimum wage, that'll set us on the right track! And after that, we also need to get rid of worker protection laws, those just prevent employees from seeking high paying, wildly dangerous jobs that could maim them and ruin any chances of earning wages later in life. That's a plus!

Next, we need to get rid of those pesky affirmative action laws, nothing prevents income equality like affirmative action! Heck, Clarence Thomas said so, and he's black, so he's probably got this all figured out. After that, maybe we can finally chip away at the thirteenth amendment. That thing has got to go! Nothing prevents income equality and stops a just, fair world quite like banning slavery.

Once we do all these things, then uh, somehow, income inequality will be solved forever!

One of these three doesn't do any labor at all, so they get zero... correct?

Of the other two... how do we determine what their labor is really worth? Surely it isn't like FBB, where we would use cost above replacement... now is it?

The best answer is let the people who actually do the work decide among themselves. That's how it works at Mondragon... the CEO gets paid more than the counter help, and that ratio is determined by consensus.

why would the counter help be ok with the ceo receiving anything since he didn't "do"any labor at all?

Lol.

Who is 'doing' zero labor?

LOL, who says a CEO doesn't do any labor, are you insane ?? There's only three people listed here... and only two job descriptions. Process of elimination... how does it work ??

im not insane, but i didn't read adios' post very carefully, now did i

Hmm. So if a person works for 20 years, saves his money, and invests in a franchise, he deserves zero proceeds from this business?

FYP.
If you don't like the OPs hypothetical you can always start your own thread.

Maybe we could pay everyone in beans.

"They'd rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich." - Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher is not someone you want to quote to refute anyone. Good person to quote to get chuckles going though.

Here's my solution to trying to bring about any kind of equality: stop dreaming. Through genetics, and pure variance, equality is completely impossible.

I just thought it logically follows that if there is income inequality then some are not being compensated appropriately for their labor.