Wealth Distribution in the USA

Wow, you believe that do you?

quote:

---

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010
General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News

---

No, I am arguing about collective rights and responsibilities that we all share. You believe that do you? . . .

quote:

---

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

​

In reality, the deal has almost nothing to do with trade: actual trade barriers between these countries are already very low. The TPP is an effort to use the holy grail of free trade to impose conditions and override domestic laws in a way that would be almost impossible if the proposed measures had to go through the normal legislative process.
The Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free | Dean Baker | The Guardian

---

Yeah, I guess that's what you would see.

Yes, of course. But that says nothing about the job's value to the company in terms of the balance sheet. It isn't a million dollars. It is, to quote you again: Yes, it is, but you seem to be forgetting you're making a business case. You're saying that if we do such and so then we'll make this much money. More explicitly you're saying that if we create this new job we'll make a million dollars. But that doesn't make the new job worth a million dollars or some proportion of a million dollars. The new hire is just another employee helping the company carry out its business.Look at it another way. Say it wasn't a new person you needed but a new truck, and you argued, "If we buy this truck then we'll make a million dollars." That doesn't make the new truck worth a million dollars or some proportion of a million dollars. It's just another piece of capital equipment helping the company carry out its business.This is why you're wrong when you go on to say things like this: You have no idea of the magnitude of those "discrepancies" because the number you'd need to calculate them does not exist. You can't make claims based on a fictional number. For all you know the "discrepancies" are in the other direction.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

To expand on my point.How else should we decide on the merits of this or that economic system? "Starving children" is in fact a bad outcome. So is "dead babies". That's bad stuff. That seems self-evident to me. But perhaps you think that that is merely subjective.If you insist on me being "objective", then maybe there is a sense in which I can't prove that that's "objectively" bad stuff, but then again I would find myself unable to prove that in the same sense it would be "objectively" wrong for the global economy to collapse, for us all to revert to cannibalism, and for the poor to eat the rich. Where is the "objective" criterion that you would wish me to apply?Where, please show me, is the objectivity of preferring untrammeled free-market economics over preferring fewer dead babies? These are both personal subjective preferences. I prefer the latter. Can you come up with an argument that it would be objectively right to prefer the former, if we had to choose, such that it is objectively the case that such a preference is preferable?No? Then shut up about what is "objectively" true, or try to argue us into an objective preference for "starving children", or try to argue us into a subjective preference for "starving children", and admit that this preference is indeed subjective.

You're being very strange. So sometimes corporations pay no taxes and now you don't believe corporations pay taxes? I guess since some people get away with murder that means you don't believe people follow the laws against murder.Do you have an actual argument? Are you talking about this in principle? Sure, I agree, no problem, but then this isn't a response to anything I said. If you're arguing that something trumps the principle of ownership then you're wrong. Stockholders own companies. Employees do not own companies or any part thereof, except to the extent that they are stockholders. You're being very strange again. So if there's an ill-conceived trade agreement out there somewhere then governments don't serve the interests of the people? But you don't explain the real reason you posted that picture, do you. Will it remain as inexplicable as everything else you've said? If you're not really a self-righteous moralistic poser who constructs arguments around single data points and who relies upon emotional appeals then I suggest you try another tack.--Percy

The argument is that wages aren't as high as they should be because some wages do not provide income enough to live off of.

Oh, please, like that's been the only argument all along. It's not like old messages are hidden.Yes, that justification has also come up, and there are strong social and economic justifications for it. There are also downsides.--Percy

Network engineers provide considerable economic benefit to businesses and (in London at least) are generally paid a decent wage at market rate for doing so. There is no great anomaly or discrepancy to be addressed. I have used network engineers as an example not because I am suggesting that they are underpaid but because I know a bit about assessing the economic benefits of employing network engineers.It is at the very top and bottom that the anomalies under discussion tend to occur. The minimum wage workforce whose labour is of enormous economic benefit to businesses but whose wages are so low that they have to be subsidised by government at huge public expense. The heads of business who continue to receive stratospheric salaries, fat pensions and vast payoffs no matter how economically disastrous the decisions they make may be. These are the anomalies being talked about when it is suggested that reward in the form of wage should reflect the economic benefit of one’s labour at least to some degree.Nobody but Percy (and now you?) is pursuing this fuckwitted notion that there must be some formula which proves exactly how much each individual position within a business contributes to the profit and loss position. This is entirely a fiction of Percy’s own construction.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler,When you argue that some wages are so low that they are not a living wage then we agree because you are making statements supported by evidence, but when you go on to argue like this then you no longer have any factual basis: The reason this has no factual basis is because you do not know the economic benefit of any person's labor once it is buried within a large company. Tangle understands this, too.The adjectives you used more properly apply to your own arguments. Some of us know what we don't know. Others of us claim what we feel in our hearts is true must actually be true, and this can lead to some expressions of grand and generous sentiment, but it can't overcome facts, and it causes some people (not you, but obviously I'm still bothered by it) to post pictures of buildings where over a 1000 people lost their lives when responding to the simple factual statement that stockholders, not employees or anyone else, own companies.I hope my last reply in our exchange, Message 287, helps makes things more clear to you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix message link.

And you think this is important in terms of estimating the economic benefit a given position brings to a business because......? In the specific case of network engineers it's more a case of pointing out the massive losses that can be incurred if appropriate upkeep of the network is not undertaken. Look at the sort of losses Blackberry incurred when it had it's 3 day total network outage a year or two ago. Link. But being "just another employee helping the company carry out it's business" has economic benefit to the business which can, and indeed indisputably is, able to be estimated. You have previously agreed to this. Message 267If the economic benefits of filling particular positions cannot be estimated how can economic arguments be made for hiring and firing people for specific positions? This is not a rhetorical question.Will you answer it? Network engineers provide considerable economic benefit to businesses and (in London at least) are generally paid a decent wage at market rate for doing so. There is no great anomaly or discrepancy to be addressed.It is at the very top and bottom that the anomalies under discussion tend to occur. The minimum wage workforce whose labour is of enormous economic benefit to businesses but whose wages are so low that they have to be subsidised by government at huge public expense. The heads of business who continue to receive stratospheric salaries, fat pensions and vast payoffs no matter how economically disastrous the decisions they make may be. These are the anomalies being talked about when it is suggested that reward in the form of wage should reflect the economic benefit of one’s labour at least to some degree.Nobody but you is pursuing this fuckwitted notion that there must be some formula which proves exactly how much each individual position within a business contributes to the profit and loss position. This is entirely a fiction of your own construction. Estmating the economic benefits to businesses of work undertaken by employees is NOT fictional. It actually happens in real companies hiring real people. Why do you keep contradicting yourself by agreeing that such things can be estimated and then denying the exact same thing?

If the economic benefits of filling particular positions cannot be estimated how can economic arguments be made for hiring and firing people for specific positions? This is not a rhetorical question. Message 267Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself by one minute agreeing that the economic benefits can be estimated for purposes of cost-benefit analysis whilst the next minute denying that any such estimate is remotely possible?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Stick with the examples as I composed them and answer one simple question: Is the truck worth a million dollars?--Percy

If I was writing the business case I'd say (in so many words with specific estimations included) that the truck purchase provides economic benefit that is a couple of orders of magnitude above the cost of the truck.Now will you answer my questions?If the economic benefits of filling particular positions cannot be estimated how can economic arguments be made for hiring and firing people for specific positions?Do you agree that the economic benefits of filling particular positions can indeed be estimated and that this is in fact common business practise?

You didn't answer the question. What's the value of the truck?--Percy

That's rich given that you repeatedly refuse to answer my question regarding our ability to estimate the economic benefits of filling individula positions. I see you want to play with the word "value" again. Are we defining value in terms of utility? Or something else? If so how are you defining "value"...?But let's make your truck example more relevant to the actual issue at hand.If, despite the massive benefit-compared-to-cost trucks bring to the business, that business were only willing to purchase trucks at a price that requires truck manufacturers to go bankrupt unless subsidised by government, whilst simultaneously being willing to pay several times as much as the cost of a truck for Rolls Royce cars which provide little economic benefit to the business — Then I would suggest that the company in question should definitely consider paying more for it’s trucks and less for it's Rolls Royces.What do you think?

A lot of the "wage/value" argument seems to revolve around a belief that there is only one correct answer. Of course, with each instance, each case, there are multiple correct answers that depend on who is setting the value.