Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[Jon Miller]

I use to be a communist. Threads like this make me inclined to become one again.

The state protects capital, the state acts in the way to protect assets and the capital class. This empowers the capitalists, and weakens the position of labour. If the wealthy won't agree to pay their fair share (in whatever mechanism it takes, for a capitalist society this might be consumption tax + transfer payments), then the poor will end up revolting.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

Obviously what they do isn't as valuable as what my dad does or they'd be making as much as he does.

Police are more valuable than actuaries. Firefighters, as well, yet most communities don't even pay firefighters! Must be a very valueless job!

It's not about value. There's other factors that affect pay beyond how 'valuable' or necessary the job done is. For example, how many people could and are willing to do the job. Shifts towards higher-paying professions are not instantaneous, especially when they require a certain educational background and certification.

[Hauldren Collider]

Police are more valuable than actuaries. Firefighters, as well, yet most communities don't even pay firefighters! Must be a very valueless job!

It's not about value. There's other factors that affect pay beyond how 'valuable' or necessary the job done is. For example, how many people could and are willing to do the job.

I am factoring that into my definition of "value". Sorry if that was unclear.

[Jon Miller]

Obviously what they do isn't as valuable as what my dad does or they'd be making as much as he does.

This is not true.

Especially for the highest paid people, btw.

There is an inverse correlation between CEO pay and CEO performance, for example.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

I use to be a communist. Threads like this make me inclined to become one again.

The state protects capital, the state acts in the way to protect assets and the capital class. This empowers the capitalists, and weakens the position of labour. If the wealthy won't agree to pay their fair share (in whatever mechanism it takes, for a capitalist society this might be consumption tax + transfer payments), then the poor will end up revolting.

JM

Oh yes, because the American poor are starving wrecks, aren't they. Stand by for American October Revolution.

You do realize that most (if not all) marxist revolts have actually been peasant revolts and not actual labor revolts, right? And peasants actually usually owned their land, if I recall correctly.

[Al B. Sure!]

I am factoring that into my definition of "value". Sorry if that was unclear.

I DanSed you.

Shifts towards higher-paying professions are not instantaneous, especially when they require a certain educational background and certification.

And explain how firefighting is a valueless job. It must be if most fire departments are volunteer.

[Hauldren Collider]

This is not true.

Especially for the highest paid people, btw.

There is an inverse correlation between CEO pay and CEO performance, for example.

JM

I'll give you CEO pay because they tend to set their own pay, but those are pretty much a corner case. There aren't very many CEOs and the cost of paying them is usually not significant to the operating expenses of the business.

[Jon Miller]

Oh yes, because the American poor are starving wrecks, aren't they. Stand by for American October Revolution.

There are plenty of americans who are starving or facing malnutrition.

17.2 million households (so probably 2-3x as many people)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/24/375776/food-insecurity-by-the-numbers/?mobile=nc

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

then the poor will end up revolting.

JM

It's possible if this rhetoric from the Democrats keeps going but nah if we didn't turn commie in the 1920's and 30's, we're not going to turn commie now.

More like the population will use the ballot to support a European-style welfare state.

[Hauldren Collider]

There are plenty of americans who are starving or facing malnutrition.

17.2 million households (so probably 2-3x as many people)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/24/375776/food-insecurity-by-the-numbers/?mobile=nc

JM

That's horse****. 10% of the population is not starving to death, Jon. The poor are facing an obesity epidemic, not starvation. Think about those numbers for a minute. Do they make any sense at all?

You can go to mcdonald's and get enough calories for a day for like ten dollars. Or less. There's no ****ing way that 30 million people (or 17 million households) live on less than say 30 dollars a day. Plus food stamps. Plus welfare.

[Al B. Sure!]

There are plenty of americans who are starving or facing malnutrition.

17.2 million households (so probably 2-3x as many people)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/24/375776/food-insecurity-by-the-numbers/?mobile=nc

JM

The same demographic that tends to be obese.

I can't speak on rural poor. From my understanding, they do have it pretty bad. I can only speak on urban poor and if kids are starving, it's because of ****ing terrible parents, not because the food isn't there. With WIC, food stamps, cash assistance, an abundance of food banks, free and reduced price school lunch, free summer lunch, and on and on, there's no reason why the urban poor should be going hungry.

Except ****ed up parents.

[Jon Miller]

So I am middle class (above the median income), but I had expenses the last year (my girlfriend was unemployed, sick, and at a long distance from me).

I didn't find a job for a long time (despite promising interviews/etc), when I finally found one (after I had become unemployed!), I couldn't start for ~3 months and my moving expenses were high.

If I did not have friends/family to help me survive, I would have been been homeless/starving.

That is the situation for many of the middle class, and all of the poor.

You often times can't wait to make the financially best choice, because otherwise your starve/are homeless/go bankrupt.

I had been looking for jobs in the US. It isn't 'supply/demand' and that jobs in europe are worse than jobs in the US, it is that the right job wasn't available when I was looking (or enough right jobs). (( salary in the US is 15-100% higher than in europe))

JM

[Jon Miller]

That's horse****. 10% of the population is not starving to death, Jon. The poor are facing an obesity epidemic, not starvation. Think about those numbers for a minute. Do they make any sense at all?

You can go to mcdonald's and get enough calories for a day for like ten dollars. Or less. There's no ****ing way that 30 million people (or 17 million households) live on less than say 30 dollars a day. Plus food stamps. Plus welfare.

Are you familiar with malnutrition?

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

And peasants actually usually owned their land, if I recall correctly.

Nope. Russian peasants following their emancipation in 1861 were essentially share-croppers and the portion of aristocratic land given to the peasants was distributed by a commune. There were the Stolypin land reforms taken by the Czar's government just before the revolution but the reforms were not effective in getting peasants land.

[Al B. Sure!]

There's no ****ing way that 30 million people (or 17 million households) live on less than say 30 dollars a day.

$30 a day is just under $11K/year.

8.64% of households make under $12.5K/year household income.

There are ~114M households in the US.

So around 9.8M households live on less than 34 dollars a day.

Average household size looks to be 2.74 but we don't know if lower income households are smaller or larger.

Still, that would come to ~27M people living on less than 34 dollars a day HOUSEHOLD income.

No ****ing way? Looks very plausible!