Income inequality

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Wosbald wrote: That is, unless one sees government as alien to people, alien to humanity -- an oppressive force inhibiting human flourishing.
That is exactly how I see government--large, centralized governments have never been anything but the means through which career politicians have abused their own citizens or engaged in wars against other nations.
That seems a surprisingly mythological position coming from you. One might wonder as to the origin of this oppressive miasma -- this alien, antihuman force -- if government is not to be considered an integrally human enterprise. If it is not a normative sphere of human activity.


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Wosbald wrote:That seems a surprisingly mythological position coming from you. One might wonder as to the origin of this oppressive miasma -- this alien, antihuman force -- if government is not to be considered an integrally human enterprise. If it is not a normative sphere of human activity.
Feel free to choose any large government from any part of the world in any time frame of human civilization and I will point out some atrocity that government undertook, either against its own citizens or against its neighbors. That is not "mythological thinking" but cold, hard reality.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Yeah, I pretty much agree. And not just large centralised governments either, although they are certainly the worst offenders.

--A
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Catholicism is about freeing people from sin .. and government is comprised of people ie human construct .. therefore Catholicism is about saving all people, in this case ie government per the people that constitute the government.

Hashi, Ive often wondered about your view of government equals enemy of the people. I dont view government in that way. I see government as the mechanism for maintaining order, facilitating social growth and economic stability etc.

But I totally agree that government has become a haven for career politicians.. so very true. How do you address that? Wholesale change of the political system? How and what would that involve from a realistic and practicable perspective.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Skyweir wrote:Hashi, Ive often wondered about your view of government equals enemy of the people. I dont view government in that way. I see government as the mechanism for maintaining order, facilitating social growth and economic stability etc.

But I totally agree that government has become a haven for career politicians.. so very true. How do you address that? Wholesale change of the political system? How and what would that involve from a realistic and practicable perspective.
Government is a mechanism for maintaining order and promoting both social growth and economic stability if that government is limited in its scope. Once a large centralized government is allowed to grow beyond a reasonable limit, though, it becomes a tool of economic stagnation (or at least economic stability only for deep-pocketed donors who own politicians) and social malaise as the lives of ordinary people stagnate. That kind of government does still maintain order, though, but usually with the threat of jack-booted thugs.

There is no easy way to get rid of the thousands of career politicians--I don't mean the people elected to office but, rather, the people who get appointed to some mid-level management job in a government agency then spend the next 35 years slowly climbing the ranks in a job from which they cannot be fired (except for certain specific circumstances). I suppose that the laws could be changed so that the POTUS (or some Member of the Cabinet) could fire these people at any time, but I am uncertain how much instability that might cause in the agency. On the other hand, I would like to see various government agencies thrown in to chaos and be unable to function.....
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

My guess would be that that would cause significant instability within the executive branch .. and thats the branch you have issue with, no?

I personally dont agree though .. yet I see your point and do partly agree with it. However, I think the executive branch should be as stable and consistent as possible .. to keep the work of government going through changes of government etc. And that might indeed mean career public servants. But to my mind that is no different to career CEOs in any corporate structure.

I have more issue with our career pollies and the benefits they automatically acquire from their getting into government regardless of how short a time they remain in government. Its truly disgusting.

Anyhoo .. maybe its similar there, I dont know.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

When most people complain about the size of the government they do mean the Executive Branch, even if they agree with the person who is occupying the Oval Office. The Supreme Court is pretty small, in an of itself--the 9 Justices with their staff members; Congress is large but not excessively so--535 Members, each of whom have a staff of probably a dozen people. The Executive Branch, though....*whew* hundreds of agencies employing tens of thousands of people, not including the military. For all their talk of "reducing the size of government" notwithstanding, conservatives will never actually reduce the size of the government--it's just a talking point used to scrounge up votes.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6637
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...

Post by Orlion »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:When most people complain about the size of the government they do mean the Executive Branch, even if they agree with the person who is occupying the Oval Office. The Supreme Court is pretty small, in an of itself--the 9 Justices with their staff members; Congress is large but not excessively so--535 Members, each of whom have a staff of probably a dozen people. The Executive Branch, though....*whew* hundreds of agencies employing tens of thousands of people, not including the military. For all their talk of "reducing the size of government" notwithstanding, conservatives will never actually reduce the size of the government--it's just a talking point used to scrounge up votes.
That's a pretty astute observation. It's like the populace and Republicans have two different ideas of "limiting government." For the populace, it usually means they don't want the government involved in their lives. For Republicans, it's slashing spending and taxes but ignore the government being involved in Joe the Plumber's life, they will still legislate their morals into law!
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Pope invites young people to pledge to build a new economy
Image
The Basilica of St. Francis is seen in Assisi, Italy, Sept. 6, 2011. Pope Francis has invited young economists and entrepreneurs to take part in an initiative to be launched in Assisi March 26-28, 2020. The initiative seeks to find new ways to do business, promote human dignity and protect the environment. (Credit: Paul Haring/CNS)


ROME -- Pope Francis has invited young economists and entrepreneurs around the world to help create a "new and courageous culture" that finds new ways to do business, promote human dignity and protect the environment.

"We need to correct models of growth incapable of guaranteeing respect for the environment, openness to life, concern for the family, social equality, the dignity of workers and the rights of future generations," the pope said in a letter inviting young people to take part in a new initiative.

The initiative, to be launched at an event in Assisi March 26-28, 2020, invites young men and women studying or working in the field of economics or business to join the pope and "enter into a 'covenant' to change today's economy and to give a soul to the economy of tomorrow."

The aim is to build and promote a different kind of economy: "one that brings life not death, one that is inclusive and not exclusive, humane and not dehumanizing, one that cares for the environment and does not despoil it," the pope said in the letter, released by the Vatican May 11.

The letter, addressed to "young economists and entrepreneurs," said that given "a need to 're-animate' the economy," there was no better place to launch the initiative than in Assisi, "which has for centuries eloquently symbolized a humanism of fraternity" and peace, and would be "a fitting place to inspire a new economy."

St. Francis of Assisi is the church's "outstanding example of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology," the pope said, which is why the event in Assisi is titled "The Economy of Francis."

[...]

"Your universities, your businesses and your organizations are workshops of hope for creating new ways of understanding the economy and progress, for combating the culture of waste, for giving voice to those who have none and for proposing new styles of life," he wrote.

"Only when our economic and social system no longer produces even a single victim, a single person cast aside, will we be able to celebrate the feast of universal fraternity," Pope Francis said.


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

"The economy" is not the problem. Rather, the problem is "individual people who do not respect others" and that problem is not going to be fixed with any easy solution.

Capitalism, when properly implemented, already values life and respects the dignity of workers. In and of itself, though, capitalism is not concerned with social equality or "concern for the family"--those are up to individual people.

This is the real world, Francis, not a giant kindergarten classroom.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

You can't have it both ways.

"Properly implemented" is a value judgement. Capitalism is not concerned with life or dignity either. Only the people implementing it...

--A
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6637
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...

Post by Orlion »

Capitalism being implemented properly is capitalism with regulations. Which, of course, I am all for. The prices of pharmaceuticals can only be brought down with regulations and/or government interference. Without that, you have amoral monsters like Martin Shkreli engaging in obviously inhumane practices like buying a drug patent and raising the price of said drug by a ridiculous factor because he sees a way to game the system.

Regulations can close those avenues of abuse and can keep those amoral douchebags in check (it was violations of securities regulation that led to Shkreli to be convicted, fined and imprisoned)
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Go check the Big Pharma thread--the problem with Big Pharma is that the doctors who sit on the regulatory board of the FDA are often also moonlighting (either at present on the near past) as consultants for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Like socialism and communism, the problem with capitalism isn't the theory. It's the people practising it. :D

--A
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Top Vatican official says Americans misunderstand pope's social agenda
Image
Cardinal Peter Turkson, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. (Credit: Paul Haring/CNS)


Calling Pope Francis a communist is flat out wrong, according to one of his top advisors.

Cardinal Peter Turkson, tapped by the pontiff to head the Vatican's super-dicastery on integral human develop, said Tuesday that every time he goes to the United States, the pope's social agenda is misinterpreted as adopting either a socialist or communist approach to the economy.

Speaking to journalists present at a May 14 briefing on the upcoming "Economy of Francesco" event set to take place in Assisi in March 2020, Turkson recalled how after receiving the Charlemagne prize in 2016, Francis was asked what type of economy he preferred.

In response, the pope said he was in favor of "the social economy" -- an answer Turkson said was misinterpreted from the beginning, and which continues to be.

A social economy "is not to be confused with the socialist economy," he said, explaining that "this is a problem we often find in the United States when we go to present the message of the Holy Father. Many accuse him of being socialist or communist."

Speaking to Crux, Turkson said the concept of the social economy is based on the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, which he said can be a taboo in certain places.

"When you go to certain environments and speak of the social doctrine of the Church, they immediately say, 'don't bring your communist agenda here!' Using the word 'social' for some cultures implies socialism, or communism."

"But this is an intolerable reductionism," he said, since each person is a member of society, meaning the concept of the Church's social doctrine "already existed without implying any communism," and nor does it refer to totalitarian regimes which have arisen throughout history.

"This is not the meaning of the social economy," Turkson said, stressing what Francis is advocating "is not Adam Smith's 'invisible hand,'" invoking the Scottish economist's image illustrating the unintended social benefits of the self-interested actions of the individual.

Rather, what the pope is promoting is "the very visible hand of fraternity, solidarity and the common good," he said, adding, "These principles become the visible hand of an economy which is able to serve all members of the community well."

Turkson spoke at the presentation Tuesday of the March 26-28, 2020, "Economy of Francesco" event, which will be held in Assisi and which will draw young economists and entrepreneurs from all over the world.

In addition to young people, some of the world's top economists and entrepreneurs are expected to attend the event.

[...]


Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

The House of Representatives is set to vote on the Raise the Wage Act this week, which will seek to set the Federal Minimum Wage to $15, that magical number which people have been quoting for about 5 or 6 years now. It won't pass the Senate, of course, so there is no chance of it becoming law, but get ready for a new round of "Republicans hate poor people" talking points for the next month or so. I thought they would have waited until closer to Election Day next November but maybe they wanted to stir up some economic class envy now. *shrug*

If you work at Wal-Mart as a floor-level employee and you think you are going to get $15 per hour you might want to go get a reality check, because you won't get that kind of check from Wal-Mart.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

They should just legislate it and see what happens. :D

--A
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

This did not take as long as I initially anticipated: Rashida Talib is now calling for a $20 minimum wage. All other Democrats must now fall into line with her number or risk looking like they are not a champion of the working poor.

Why do Democrats not understand this simple concept? The minimum wage is not supposed to be "the minimum wage necessary to pay the bills for an average family of 4 people"; rather, minimum wage jobs are for high school students, older people who are semi-retired, or working adults who need a second job to pad their budget.

By promoting $20 per hour, Ms. Talib simply want to make the lives of working poor worse by causing employers to cuts jobs and hours even more than they are already doing because of $15. When your solution is not working, the answer to the problem is not "more of what isn't working already".
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Because of USD15? Are you saying US minimum wage is USD5?

Jeezeus thats just incredibly fucked up. So you are ok with that?

Here minimum wage increased from AUD719.20 to AUD740.78 ... an increase of AUD21.60 per week or AUD19.49 an hour.

Now the award applies on a relative scale to minors, junior staff, apprentices and other trainee staff.

It isnt about a system that applies solely to student after school work. It is about ensuring that humans are not exploited in the labour market. At least that is its purpose here and from my experience.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour but many States have a higher minimum wage rate. I am perfectly acceptable with that because you are not supposed to want to earn the minimum wage for your entire adult life. Proponents of raising the minimum wage want us to think that "minimum wage" should mean "you can raise a family of four (the default average) at this rate of pay" and that is simply not feasible. For a while, we were a single-income household--my paycheck was more than enough to pay the bills for a family of four, something that generally has not been true here since the 1960s (except for senior management or corporate executives). Ideally, though, people should want to earn more than that, through job training and/or post-secondary education but the people who fight for a higher minimum wage want people to aspire to the lowest common denominator--their views on pay actually keep people poor because the first thing that happens when the minimum wage goes up is that floor-level employees see positions eliminated and hours cut (Wal-Mart typically hires people these days for 31 hours per week, which is 1 hour short of the amount at which they have to pay benefits).

We went to Target last Sunday. 25 lanes available, only 3 people manning registers, then one person in each cube of 4 self-checkout booths. They could cover the entire front of the store with only 6 people (they have 1 walking manager available in case of some difficulty). This is true in other retail and grocery stores and is indicative of the conflux of raising the minimum wage and increasing automation.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”