Bernie Sanders on Income Inequality, Disappearing Middle Class..

[TitanTiger 21,682]

Great more free stuff from the govt. Just what we need. Bernie's proposals will drive the already out of control debt into orbit. You start raising taxes on the "rich" and they'll do what these people always do. They'll put their money into non taxable municipal bonds and just stop doing things that will get tsxed. It happens every time.

Oh well then, let's just do whatever the nice rich people tell us and hope they let enough scraps trickle down to us regular folk. Since all the generated wealth is accruing to them, we'll just have to wait until our lords tell us what percent they'll let slip through to the peasants.

[aujeff11 6,243]

My McDonalds post was a big hit. I have more comin.

[autigeremt 7,289]

You want to know what screwed the middle class? The exporting of middle class jobs and wages. NAFTA, among others. Red herring my ass!

Let's just give everybody everything they want! I'll take a new truck, boat and an acre on the bay. :)/>

Why jump to extremes as if the only choices are the status quo and some exaggerated strawman scenario where we're cribbing pages from Ayn Rand's hallucinations and giving people free trucks and boats?

Glad you liked it.

[channonc 466]

What do yall think about him wanting to raise the minimum wage?

Do it.

If the minimum wage was a good idea to begin with, why not sustain it by adjusting for inflation?

I remember that less than two weeks after crowds of Mcdonalds workers were protesting because they were wanting to earn higher wages, that Mcdonalds had bought over 1000 kiosks and were prepared to roll them out to test them. And to me that shows if the government pushes the living wage for profit firms to abide by, businesses will start to push back with measures of their own. And that danger seems to make the push for 15 dollar wages counter-productive. For, there is no better way to get around the wage than to create kiosks; machines that will allow businesses to save money in the long run, while also avoiding tardiness, sick leave, and all the employee personal problems bull crap.

There is a tipping point to that theory. If you believe in supply and demand, there will be a point at which you have machines to do the work of people, but no people who work to pay for your product. Your consumers disappear along with your workers.

Look, there's only so much a few rich people can buy. At some point, they don't get haircuts more frequently or eat more frequently or buy cars more frequently. The rich simply cannot makeup for the consumer spend of the lower and middle classes. If everyone is either ultra rich or working poor, you will find that there will be far less businesses at all.

Watch the documentary "Inequality", it really explains all this even better than I could. It's on Netflix.

[autigeremt 7,289]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

[autigeremt 7,289]

What do yall think about him wanting to raise the minimum wage?

Do it.

If the minimum wage was a good idea to begin with, why not sustain it by adjusting for inflation?

I remember that less than two weeks after crowds of Mcdonalds workers were protesting because they were wanting to earn higher wages, that Mcdonalds had bought over 1000 kiosks and were prepared to roll them out to test them. And to me that shows if the government pushes the living wage for profit firms to abide by, businesses will start to push back with measures of their own. And that danger seems to make the push for 15 dollar wages counter-productive. For, there is no better way to get around the wage than to create kiosks; machines that will allow businesses to save money in the long run, while also avoiding tardiness, sick leave, and all the employee personal problems bull crap.

There is a tipping point to that theory. If you believe in supply and demand, there will be a point at which you have machines to do the work of people, but no people who work to pay for your product. Your consumers disappear along with your workers.

Look, there's only so much a few rich people can buy. At some point, they don't get haircuts more frequently or eat more frequently or buy cars more frequently. The rich simply cannot makeup for the consumer spend of the lower and middle classes. If everyone is either ultra rich or working poor, you will find that there will be far less businesses at all.

Watch the documentary "Inequality", it really explains all this even better than I could. It's on Netflix.

Well stated.

[DKW 86 7,977]

What do yall think about him wanting to raise the minimum wage?

Do it.

If the minimum wage was a good idea to begin with, why not sustain it by adjusting for inflation?

I remember that less than two weeks after crowds of Mcdonalds workers were protesting because they were wanting to earn higher wages, that Mcdonalds had bought over 1000 kiosks and were prepared to roll them out to test them. And to me that shows if the government pushes the living wage for profit firms to abide by, businesses will start to push back with measures of their own. And that danger seems to make the push for 15 dollar wages counter-productive. For, there is no better way to get around the wage than to create kiosks; machines that will allow businesses to save money in the long run, while also avoiding tardiness, sick leave, and all the employee personal problems bull crap.

There is a tipping point to that theory. If you believe in supply and demand, there will be a point at which you have machines to do the work of people, but no people who work to pay for your product. Your consumers disappear along with your workers.

Look, there's only so much a few rich people can buy. At some point, they don't get haircuts more frequently or eat more frequently or buy cars more frequently. The rich simply cannot makeup for the consumer spend of the lower and middle classes. If everyone is either ultra rich or working poor, you will find that there will be far less businesses at all.

Watch the documentary "Inequality", it really explains all this even better than I could. It's on Netflix.

Well stated.

Still think the $5/Day wage Ford offered decades ago would show you the benefit of higher wages, retaining your best people, and selling more of your product.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

[TitanTiger 21,682]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

This goes back to the contention that I have raised numerous times: we need a culture shift in this country as to the worth and value of a man's labor. We have imbibed an ethic that the spoils of success (profits) wholly belong to rich business owners to dole out to the little people as they see fit. Labor is just one more item on the expense side of the ledger, same as the cost of raw materials, the power bill and other costs of doing business. We treat human beings (our labor force) just like we do inanimate objects like buildings, materials and so on - with the sole object being to minimize and cut that cost as much as we can get away with. We've bought the notion that a company has no moral obligations - just a fiscal one to return maximum value back to shareholders.

This is wrong morally and as people are trying to point out regarding the loss of consumer buying power in the middle and lower class, it is unsustainable. An economy where virtually all the extra dollars go to a small subset of already rich individuals will eventually collapse like a house of cards.

[cptau 169]

I wonder what would happen if Bernie Sanders were pro-life? How many Republicans would cross over to vote for him? And how many Democrats, that love to pejoratively dismiss social conservatives as single-issue voters, would abandon him?

He would not even be in office right now. Written off and voted out of office.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

IMO, the most glaring problem is an hypocrisy that will not allow American companies to exploit American workers and rape our environment but, will allow them to go to Asia and do both. Should we open our markets to goods produced in this manner? Is that sustainable? Have we gambled on the hopes that growth in China will eventually lead to growth in the U.S.?

Should trade be based on the ability to exploit humans and the environment or, should trade be based on natural resources and innovation? Do our trade policies ensure that America's largest multinational companies will prosper but, most of our citizens and, our government will eventually be bankrupt?

Is relative equality essential for the relationship of production and consumption and, economic growth? Can we, should we, practically influence, through policy, a relative equality that fosters economic growth or, are we simply at the mercy of a global free market economy? Are we economically influencing the world or, is the world economically influencing us.

If we allow extreme concentration of wealth, are we not inviting the inevitable extreme concentration of power? Are we opening the door to all of the "isms" that undermine democracy and capitalism? Think about the Great Depression in a global sense. Think about the concentrations of wealth and power. Think about the disruption in societies. Think about the resulting rise of movements that fed off of the turbulence and desperation.

IMHO, the hallmark of American prosperity is about the rise of the worker/consumer class. It facilitated/promoted the creation of the world's largest and most diverse economy. We should, we must, protect that class and, promote the growth of such a class in other parts of the world. We cannot simply put in place mandates like minimum wage. We must remove the fundamental hypocrisy from our trade policies. I believe it is fundamental to our ethical and moral standards. It is vital to our vision of economic prosperity and, it promotes our view of democracy and freedom.

This country still possess immense wealth and economic power but, we are wielding that power with no understanding of the past or, vision of the future. We are wielding it like a corporate CEO who's only concern is the quarterly P&L and, his performance bonus.

We need to stop thinking in terms of, policy that is good for American business is good for Americans. We need to think in terms of, policies good for Americans will be good for American business. This does not mean more "giveaway" programs. It means, policy enacted for the benefit of all of society, not just a single sector/aspect of society.

The world is at a critical juncture and, our ability to influence it has been mitigated by irrational fear, rhetoric, greed, short-term thinking, and hypocrisy. IMO, most seem to be overly concerned with our ability to exert our will, force, militarily. I am more concerned with our lack of desire and ability to influence the world economically and politically. A middle class is not just important economically, it also means, more people who are genuinely invested in society and government. A middle class is fundamental to peace, prosperity, democracy, and freedom.

In my opinion, the rise of the worker/consumer class is the culmination of, the result of, the best of our beliefs in economic policy, political ideology, and social conscience coming together. If we allow the middle class to be destroyed, we are taking everything this country has ever worked for, fought for, and we are throwing it away.

We should not be willing to import consumer products from a country who is not willing to import our view of what a middle class means to a society, their economy, their government. We are fools if we allow another country to undermine our middle class because, along with the cheap goods, we are importing an influence that undermines our way of life.

[Guest NC1406]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

This goes back to the contention that I have raised numerous times: we need a culture shift in this country as to the worth and value of a man's labor. We have imbibed an ethic that the spoils of success (profits) wholly belong to rich business owners to dole out to the little people as they see fit. Labor is just one more item on the expense side of the ledger, same as the cost of raw materials, the power bill and other costs of doing business. We treat human beings (our labor force) just like we do inanimate objects like buildings, materials and so on - with the sole object being to minimize and cut that cost as much as we can get away with. We've bought the notion that a company has no moral obligations - just a fiscal one to return maximum value back to shareholders.

This is wrong morally and as people are trying to point out regarding the loss of consumer buying power in the middle and lower class, it is unsustainable. An economy where virtually all the extra dollars go to a small subset of already rich individuals will eventually collapse like a house of cards.

This shift needs to occur from a couple of angles. You point out the need for change with the business owner's perspective and it is a valid point. Workers need to change as well. I oversee a business that employees 70 truck drivers. These drivers make 50k to 80k per year, have subsidized group health insurance, retirement and profit sharing. The drivers are home and sleep in their own beds every day or night (wish I had that luxury). My biggest problem with this business is finding another 15 drivers to fill out this fleet. We offer signing bonuses for new drivers (up to 5k) along with safety bonuses every 6 months. Where are these workers that are being locked out of the middle class? Do they not want to drive a truck? We sure could use them to grow this business.

BTW, if we fill my 15 openings I can certainly place any other job/career seekers across the street at any of my competitors' businesses. They are facing the same challenge.

Also, if these people are looking to be part of the "rich/elite" class of business owners, then I can sell them a very profitable small business at a very fair price. Of course they need to take on the work load, the liability and service the debt that go along with it.

[80Tiger 909]

I know economics are more complicated than my limited view, but we have to stop the trade imbalance of both goods and services. Our US economy needs to take money/wealth from other economies (Asia, Europe, South America wherever). We have to have import/export tariffs that are fair to both parties. The steel industry in this country is just about gone. Good paying mostly union jobs that are gone. These jobs have been exported. There are many industries that are like this. These jobs that leave the US are middle class jobs, that push people to the cheaper service industry that used to be the training ground for first time job teens and young adults.

We have to produce goods and services and stop the trade imbalance.

[japantiger 4,211]

Income inequality is merely an outcome of bad policy. It is not evil, it is not unfair, it is not caused by the evil 1%; it is an outcome as sure as death...as long as we pursue current policies. The only solution to income inequality is jobs growth and the growth of the skills of the labor pool to demand wage growth. No amount of taking from one group to give to another will lift wage growth. It will only create more waste and further dependence on the gov't. You will actually have an accelerated level of inequality propped up by taking from one group to give to an ever marginalized middle class.

Successive gov't; both Dem and Repub have created policies that created the current situation. NAFTA, Permanent China Trade agreement, etc., and the most recently completed TPP are leading culprits. When we create incentives for businesses to move overseas; no one should be surprised when businesses do that and jobs go away and wages stagnate (well, domestic wages stagnate; foreign wages in China, India, MX, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc., have exploded during this period).

I have a very simple point of view on how to deal with income inequality....two very simple principles:

• Job growth in the US supported by an industrial policy targeted at the growth industries/technologies of the next 200 years.
  
• Train US workers to lead the world in these areas...starting in elementary schools...
  

Look at our past...whether it was roads, rails, air travel, ships, electricity, nuclear, medicine...for the last 200 years we have lead these growth industries/technologies...and if we weren't the leader to begin with, we figured it out and became the fast follower winner....with our government fully behind developing these industries and technologies and ensuring we had a labor pool to support them. We abandoned this about 30 years ago. We had a great chance to renew this approach 7 years ago...we even had a president who said we were going to $1T (that's trillion with a T) and apply it to "shovel ready jobs". What a load of horse***t. We didn't build anything...we pissed away $1T in potential stimulus on nothing.

We need the Jobs Growth Marshall plan for ourselves. We need to use the same approach we did with Interstates or NASA, etc., and choose to go all in with our $$. I am not opposed to stimulus spending...or Keynesian approaches aimed at specific national goals...I am opposed to lying sacks of s*** saying it and then doing something else with the $$.

To more specifics:

Job Growth:

• Pick 3-5 major national goals (something like "building 50k miles of high speed rail to crisscross the nation in the next 50 years") and then support our industries in developing the best tech (or stealing the best tech from the Chinese) and start it. Creat an agency (like NASA) with only this goal. Allocate the $$ from the existing pool of wasted $$ being spent by Commerce and go do it. Some of the items to choose from:
  
  • NASA already exist...give it a real extra-terrestrial space mission and focus on that...exclusively...if it's going back to the moon; or mars or whatever...but put all the $$ in things that support that one goal..."Send astronauts to Mars and safely return them by 2025" for example...no one can say what NASA's mission is is now...that was not the case when it was created.
    
  • Electricity grid...expand it...make it more robust...crashproof and terrorproof by 2030...decentralize it...use every source of energy that is exploitable today and commit to developing completely renewable sources by the end of the century.
    
  • Medicine, "we will cure cancer by 2050"...
    
  • you get the point by now I assume...three to 5 priorities only...you can't do more anyway...clear national priorities will spur job growth...
    

Education:

• Set the national goals in the areas that align to the above priorities...but just set the goal...a document like the Constitution...not thousands of pages of regulation...no more than one or two page goals for each priority...the Constitution is only 4 handwritten pages...
  
• and then get the hell out of the State's ways to go do it ...
  
• Re-institute vocational training...repurpose a large portion of the JUCO's for this...train and create apprenticeships..
  
• Four year colleges get funding for degrees that support these programs...no other programs get Fed $$...e.g., Gene technology, Basic engineering that supports building out a new more resilient electrical grid, etc....No Fed $$ to anything else.
  
• Take the $80b a year we now spend on the Dept of Ed and give it all to the states...simple formula...if you have 10% of the students...you get 10% of the $$ for these goals only....
  
• If folks want to be liberal arts majors...that's just great...but, the countries $$ will go to creating engineers, rail engineering technicians, rail construction workers, composite rail car builders, composites research, etc...medical tech's, gene splicers, etc...
  

Most of this I have previously published... the only solution to this is jobs growth. Wages won't go up until we have more sustainable jobs growth... worker skills have to match the market...if not, no one will pay more for a liberal arts major that thinks they should get $15/hour for just showing up...that's the workforce version of the "participation trophy". Our policies for the last 30-40 years have created this inevitable situation. We have one party in denial and other that is so wracked with jealousy and envy it can only think about how to punish the winners. Neither has proposed any solution that will change anything. Once again this past month, our Federal gov't stabbed the US worker in the back...not sure if you saw this or not...our federal gov't came to an agreement to let a Chinese company lead the high speed rail effort on the LA to Vegas high speed rail route. Really? And now TPP...more of the same successes of NAFTA, etc....nothing establishment Dem's or Repub's are proposing anything that will change this. We need people that understand incentives to create jobs and grow wages...domestic jobs and domestic wages...we've made the Chinese rich by global standards with our policies.

[autigeremt 7,289]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

This goes back to the contention that I have raised numerous times: we need a culture shift in this country as to the worth and value of a man's labor. We have imbibed an ethic that the spoils of success (profits) wholly belong to rich business owners to dole out to the little people as they see fit. Labor is just one more item on the expense side of the ledger, same as the cost of raw materials, the power bill and other costs of doing business. We treat human beings (our labor force) just like we do inanimate objects like buildings, materials and so on - with the sole object being to minimize and cut that cost as much as we can get away with. We've bought the notion that a company has no moral obligations - just a fiscal one to return maximum value back to shareholders.

This is wrong morally and as people are trying to point out regarding the loss of consumer buying power in the middle and lower class, it is unsustainable. An economy where virtually all the extra dollars go to a small subset of already rich individuals will eventually collapse like a house of cards.

I'm bringing up the stock market because in the video Bernie wants to tax speculation to pay for college tuition programs. I believe in strong middle class sustainability as the driver for economic stability. Bernie used the speculation tax as a way to pay for his plan.

[autigeremt 7,289]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

This goes back to the contention that I have raised numerous times: we need a culture shift in this country as to the worth and value of a man's labor. We have imbibed an ethic that the spoils of success (profits) wholly belong to rich business owners to dole out to the little people as they see fit. Labor is just one more item on the expense side of the ledger, same as the cost of raw materials, the power bill and other costs of doing business. We treat human beings (our labor force) just like we do inanimate objects like buildings, materials and so on - with the sole object being to minimize and cut that cost as much as we can get away with. We've bought the notion that a company has no moral obligations - just a fiscal one to return maximum value back to shareholders.

This is wrong morally and as people are trying to point out regarding the loss of consumer buying power in the middle and lower class, it is unsustainable. An economy where virtually all the extra dollars go to a small subset of already rich individuals will eventually collapse like a house of cards.

This shift needs to occur from a couple of angles. You point out the need for change with the business owner's perspective and it is a valid point. Workers need to change as well. I oversee a business that employees 70 truck drivers. These drivers make 50k to 80k per year, have subsidized group health insurance, retirement and profit sharing. The drivers are home and sleep in their own beds every day or night (wish I had that luxury). My biggest problem with this business is finding another 15 drivers to fill out this fleet. We offer signing bonuses for new drivers (up to 5k) along with safety bonuses every 6 months. Where are these workers that are being locked out of the middle class? Do they not want to drive a truck? We sure could use them to grow this business.

BTW, if we fill my 15 openings I can certainly place any other job/career seekers across the street at any of my competitors' businesses. They are facing the same challenge.

Also, if these people are looking to be part of the "rich/elite" class of business owners, then I can sell them a very profitable small business at a very fair price. Of course they need to take on the work load, the liability and service the debt that go along with it.

Good example of small business and the challenges that go with it. Thank you for stepping up!

[autigeremt 7,289]

I know economics are more complicated than my limited view, but we have to stop the trade imbalance of both goods and services. Our US economy needs to take money/wealth from other economies (Asia, Europe, South America wherever). We have to have import/export tariffs that are fair to both parties. The steel industry in this country is just about gone. Good paying mostly union jobs that are gone. These jobs have been exported. There are many industries that are like this. These jobs that leave the US are middle class jobs, that push people to the cheaper service industry that used to be the training ground for first time job teens and young adults.

We have to produce goods and services and stop the trade imbalance.

Cheers around!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

This goes back to the contention that I have raised numerous times: we need a culture shift in this country as to the worth and value of a man's labor. We have imbibed an ethic that the spoils of success (profits) wholly belong to rich business owners to dole out to the little people as they see fit. Labor is just one more item on the expense side of the ledger, same as the cost of raw materials, the power bill and other costs of doing business. We treat human beings (our labor force) just like we do inanimate objects like buildings, materials and so on - with the sole object being to minimize and cut that cost as much as we can get away with. We've bought the notion that a company has no moral obligations - just a fiscal one to return maximum value back to shareholders.

This is wrong morally and as people are trying to point out regarding the loss of consumer buying power in the middle and lower class, it is unsustainable. An economy where virtually all the extra dollars go to a small subset of already rich individuals will eventually collapse like a house of cards.

This shift needs to occur from a couple of angles. You point out the need for change with the business owner's perspective and it is a valid point. Workers need to change as well. I oversee a business that employees 70 truck drivers. These drivers make 50k to 80k per year, have subsidized group health insurance, retirement and profit sharing. The drivers are home and sleep in their own beds every day or night (wish I had that luxury). My biggest problem with this business is finding another 15 drivers to fill out this fleet. We offer signing bonuses for new drivers (up to 5k) along with safety bonuses every 6 months. Where are these workers that are being locked out of the middle class? Do they not want to drive a truck? We sure could use them to grow this business.

BTW, if we fill my 15 openings I can certainly place any other job/career seekers across the street at any of my competitors' businesses. They are facing the same challenge.

Also, if these people are looking to be part of the "rich/elite" class of business owners, then I can sell them a very profitable small business at a very fair price. Of course they need to take on the work load, the liability and service the debt that go along with it.

Good example of small business and the challenges that go with it. Thank you for stepping up!

So, the American people have become inherently lazy and, will not work? I am not so sure. Are there any other factors that could explain this specific situation?

[DKW 86 7,977]

Income inequality is merely an outcome of bad policy. It is not evil, it is not unfair, it is not caused by the evil 1%; it is an outcome as sure as death...as long as we pursue current policies. The only solution to income inequality is jobs growth and the growth of the skills of the labor pool to demand wage growth. No amount of taking from one group to give to another will lift wage growth. It will only create more waste and further dependence on the gov't. You will actually have an accelerated level of inequality propped up by taking from one group to give to an ever marginalized middle class.

Successive gov't; both Dem and Repub have created policies that created the current situation. NAFTA, Permanent China Trade agreement, etc., and the most recently completed TPP are leading culprits. When we create incentives for businesses to move overseas; no one should be surprised when businesses do that and jobs go away and wages stagnate (well, domestic wages stagnate; foreign wages in China, India, MX, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc., have exploded during this period).

I have a very simple point of view on how to deal with income inequality....two very simple principles:

• Job growth in the US supported by an industrial policy targeted at the growth industries/technologies of the next 200 years.
  
• Train US workers to lead the world in these areas...starting in elementary schools...
  

Look at our past...whether it was roads, rails, air travel, ships, electricity, nuclear, medicine...for the last 200 years we have lead these growth industries/technologies...and if we weren't the leader to begin with, we figured it out and became the fast follower winner....with our government fully behind developing these industries and technologies and ensuring we had a labor pool to support them. We abandoned this about 30 years ago. We had a great chance to renew this approach 7 years ago...we even had a president who said we were going to $1T (that's trillion with a T) and apply it to "shovel ready jobs". What a load of horse***t. We didn't build anything...we pissed away $1T in potential stimulus on nothing.

We need the Jobs Growth Marshall plan for ourselves. We need to use the same approach we did with Interstates or NASA, etc., and choose to go all in with our $$. I am not opposed to stimulus spending...or Keynesian approaches aimed at specific national goals...I am opposed to lying sacks of s*** saying it and then doing something else with the $$.

To more specifics:

Job Growth:

• Pick 3-5 major national goals (something like "building 50k miles of high speed rail to crisscross the nation in the next 50 years") and then support our industries in developing the best tech (or stealing the best tech from the Chinese) and start it. Creat an agency (like NASA) with only this goal. Allocate the $$ from the existing pool of wasted $$ being spent by Commerce and go do it. Some of the items to choose from:
  
  • NASA already exist...give it a real extra-terrestrial space mission and focus on that...exclusively...if it's going back to the moon; or mars or whatever...but put all the $$ in things that support that one goal..."Send astronauts to Mars and safely return them by 2025" for example...no one can say what NASA's mission is is now...that was not the case when it was created.
    
  • Electricity grid...expand it...make it more robust...crashproof and terrorproof by 2030...decentralize it...use every source of energy that is exploitable today and commit to developing completely renewable sources by the end of the century.
    
  • Medicine, "we will cure cancer by 2050"...
    
  • you get the point by now I assume...three to 5 priorities only...you can't do more anyway...clear national priorities will spur job growth...
    

Education:

• Set the national goals in the areas that align to the above priorities...but just set the goal...a document like the Constitution...not thousands of pages of regulation...no more than one or two page goals for each priority...the Constitution is only 4 handwritten pages...
  
• and then get the hell out of the State's ways to go do it ...
  
• Re-institute vocational training...repurpose a large portion of the JUCO's for this...train and create apprenticeships..
  
• Four year colleges get funding for degrees that support these programs...no other programs get Fed $$...e.g., Gene technology, Basic engineering that supports building out a new more resilient electrical grid, etc....No Fed $$ to anything else.
  
• Take the $80b a year we now spend on the Dept of Ed and give it all to the states...simple formula...if you have 10% of the students...you get 10% of the $$ for these goals only....
  
• If folks want to be liberal arts majors...that's just great...but, the countries $$ will go to creating engineers, rail engineering technicians, rail construction workers, composite rail car builders, composites research, etc...medical tech's, gene splicers, etc...
  

Most of this I have previously published... the only solution to this is jobs growth. Wages won't go up until we have more sustainable jobs growth... worker skills have to match the market...if not, no one will pay more for a liberal arts major that thinks they should get $15/hour for just showing up...that's the workforce version of the "participation trophy". Our policies for the last 30-40 years have created this inevitable situation. We have one party in denial and other that is so wracked with jealousy and envy it can only think about how to punish the winners. Neither has proposed any solution that will change anything. Once again this past month, our Federal gov't stabbed the US worker in the back...not sure if you saw this or not...our federal gov't came to an agreement to let a Chinese company lead the high speed rail effort on the LA to Vegas high speed rail route. Really? And now TPP...more of the same successes of NAFTA, etc....nothing establishment Dem's or Repub's are proposing anything that will change this. We need people that understand incentives to create jobs and grow wages...domestic jobs and domestic wages...we've made the Chinese rich by global standards with our policies.

Dont agree with everything, but It was awesome to just see real live goals and points.

[Guest NC1406]

Seriously.....where do we get the money from 10 years out? What happens when there's a dive in the stock market and the well runs dry? Do we raise taxes again and again? Strawmen and extremes aside (some of you need to understand that I am going to make wild comments to stir the pot) how in world would we be able to afford this kind of social state? It looks great from a campaign standpoint (if you believe in social justice) but how long could we even do something like this and sustain it? I don't see it happening.....

Rather than think about the stock market, think about the economy. Think about the relationship between production and consumption. You cannot have one without the other. Relative equality makes the consumption/production relationship more likely, more possible. Relative equality is essential for growth. Relative equality is essential for creating a broad, diverse economy. If consumerism is limited to necessity items, there are sectors of the economy that disappear. Think about the tax implications.

Is the stock market a reflection of the economy or, is the economy a reflection of the stock market (without QE)?

Is our real problem policies and programs or, is the real problem a lack of broad economic growth?

This goes back to the contention that I have raised numerous times: we need a culture shift in this country as to the worth and value of a man's labor. We have imbibed an ethic that the spoils of success (profits) wholly belong to rich business owners to dole out to the little people as they see fit. Labor is just one more item on the expense side of the ledger, same as the cost of raw materials, the power bill and other costs of doing business. We treat human beings (our labor force) just like we do inanimate objects like buildings, materials and so on - with the sole object being to minimize and cut that cost as much as we can get away with. We've bought the notion that a company has no moral obligations - just a fiscal one to return maximum value back to shareholders.

This is wrong morally and as people are trying to point out regarding the loss of consumer buying power in the middle and lower class, it is unsustainable. An economy where virtually all the extra dollars go to a small subset of already rich individuals will eventually collapse like a house of cards.

This shift needs to occur from a couple of angles. You point out the need for change with the business owner's perspective and it is a valid point. Workers need to change as well. I oversee a business that employees 70 truck drivers. These drivers make 50k to 80k per year, have subsidized group health insurance, retirement and profit sharing. The drivers are home and sleep in their own beds every day or night (wish I had that luxury). My biggest problem with this business is finding another 15 drivers to fill out this fleet. We offer signing bonuses for new drivers (up to 5k) along with safety bonuses every 6 months. Where are these workers that are being locked out of the middle class? Do they not want to drive a truck? We sure could use them to grow this business.

BTW, if we fill my 15 openings I can certainly place any other job/career seekers across the street at any of my competitors' businesses. They are facing the same challenge.

Also, if these people are looking to be part of the "rich/elite" class of business owners, then I can sell them a very profitable small business at a very fair price. Of course they need to take on the work load, the liability and service the debt that go along with it.

Good example of small business and the challenges that go with it. Thank you for stepping up!

So, the American people have become inherently lazy and, will not work? I am not so sure. Are there any other factors that could explain this specific situation?

Two good questions. I struggle with the answers (otherwise we would not be short on employees). If the American people were lazy then we would not have 70 hard working loyal drivers. It is hard work and every penny of salary is earned. We are toying with funding driving school tuition to cover any short term financial barriers from entering the profession. It is just surprising to hear about all the unemployment and the death of the middle class when I witness an industry that struggles to staff to the required levels daily.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Income inequality is merely an outcome of bad policy. It is not evil, it is not unfair, it is not caused by the evil 1%; it is an outcome as sure as death...as long as we pursue current policies. The only solution to income inequality is jobs growth and the growth of the skills of the labor pool to demand wage growth. No amount of taking from one group to give to another will lift wage growth. It will only create more waste and further dependence on the gov't. You will actually have an accelerated level of inequality propped up by taking from one group to give to an ever marginalized middle class.

Successive gov't; both Dem and Repub have created policies that created the current situation. NAFTA, Permanent China Trade agreement, etc., and the most recently completed TPP are leading culprits. When we create incentives for businesses to move overseas; no one should be surprised when businesses do that and jobs go away and wages stagnate (well, domestic wages stagnate; foreign wages in China, India, MX, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc., have exploded during this period).

I have a very simple point of view on how to deal with income inequality....two very simple principles:

• Job growth in the US supported by an industrial policy targeted at the growth industries/technologies of the next 200 years.
  
• Train US workers to lead the world in these areas...starting in elementary schools...
  

Look at our past...whether it was roads, rails, air travel, ships, electricity, nuclear, medicine...for the last 200 years we have lead these growth industries/technologies...and if we weren't the leader to begin with, we figured it out and became the fast follower winner....with our government fully behind developing these industries and technologies and ensuring we had a labor pool to support them. We abandoned this about 30 years ago. We had a great chance to renew this approach 7 years ago...we even had a president who said we were going to $1T (that's trillion with a T) and apply it to "shovel ready jobs". What a load of horse***t. We didn't build anything...we pissed away $1T in potential stimulus on nothing.

We need the Jobs Growth Marshall plan for ourselves. We need to use the same approach we did with Interstates or NASA, etc., and choose to go all in with our $$. I am not opposed to stimulus spending...or Keynesian approaches aimed at specific national goals...I am opposed to lying sacks of s*** saying it and then doing something else with the $$.

To more specifics:

Job Growth:

• Pick 3-5 major national goals (something like "building 50k miles of high speed rail to crisscross the nation in the next 50 years") and then support our industries in developing the best tech (or stealing the best tech from the Chinese) and start it. Creat an agency (like NASA) with only this goal. Allocate the $$ from the existing pool of wasted $$ being spent by Commerce and go do it. Some of the items to choose from:
  
  • NASA already exist...give it a real extra-terrestrial space mission and focus on that...exclusively...if it's going back to the moon; or mars or whatever...but put all the $$ in things that support that one goal..."Send astronauts to Mars and safely return them by 2025" for example...no one can say what NASA's mission is is now...that was not the case when it was created.
    
  • Electricity grid...expand it...make it more robust...crashproof and terrorproof by 2030...decentralize it...use every source of energy that is exploitable today and commit to developing completely renewable sources by the end of the century.
    
  • Medicine, "we will cure cancer by 2050"...
    
  • you get the point by now I assume...three to 5 priorities only...you can't do more anyway...clear national priorities will spur job growth...
    

Education:

• Set the national goals in the areas that align to the above priorities...but just set the goal...a document like the Constitution...not thousands of pages of regulation...no more than one or two page goals for each priority...the Constitution is only 4 handwritten pages...
  
• and then get the hell out of the State's ways to go do it ...
  
• Re-institute vocational training...repurpose a large portion of the JUCO's for this...train and create apprenticeships..
  
• Four year colleges get funding for degrees that support these programs...no other programs get Fed $$...e.g., Gene technology, Basic engineering that supports building out a new more resilient electrical grid, etc....No Fed $$ to anything else.
  
• Take the $80b a year we now spend on the Dept of Ed and give it all to the states...simple formula...if you have 10% of the students...you get 10% of the $$ for these goals only....
  
• If folks want to be liberal arts majors...that's just great...but, the countries $$ will go to creating engineers, rail engineering technicians, rail construction workers, composite rail car builders, composites research, etc...medical tech's, gene splicers, etc...
  

Most of this I have previously published... the only solution to this is jobs growth. Wages won't go up until we have more sustainable jobs growth... worker skills have to match the market...if not, no one will pay more for a liberal arts major that thinks they should get $15/hour for just showing up...that's the workforce version of the "participation trophy". Our policies for the last 30-40 years have created this inevitable situation. We have one party in denial and other that is so wracked with jealousy and envy it can only think about how to punish the winners. Neither has proposed any solution that will change anything. Once again this past month, our Federal gov't stabbed the US worker in the back...not sure if you saw this or not...our federal gov't came to an agreement to let a Chinese company lead the high speed rail effort on the LA to Vegas high speed rail route. Really? And now TPP...more of the same successes of NAFTA, etc....nothing establishment Dem's or Repub's are proposing anything that will change this. We need people that understand incentives to create jobs and grow wages...domestic jobs and domestic wages...we've made the Chinese rich by global standards with our policies.

Dont agree with everything, but It was awesome to just see real live goals and points.

I absolutely agree with the sentiment. Stop mindlessly spending. Start thoughtfully investing.

I can appreciate the short-term policy that stemmed the systemic nature of the 2008 crisis but, we forgot to adapt that policy to something more productive and effective over the long-term.

I have to wonder how much the political divide contributes to undermining effective policy? And, while I do not blame the 1%, I have to wonder if the wealthiest .01% have figured out how to bend our government to their will. There is certainly plenty of money being thrown at lobbying and political campaigns. Given what is traceable, is that a reasonable assumption?

[TitanTiger 21,682]

Two good questions. I struggle with the answers (otherwise we would not be short on employees). If the American people were lazy then we would not have 70 hard working loyal drivers. It is hard work and every penny of salary is earned. We are toying with funding driving school tuition to cover any short term financial barriers from entering the profession. It is just surprising to hear about all the unemployment and the death of the middle class when I witness an industry that struggles to staff to the required levels daily.

You probably also suffer from a stigma of that industry. People don't read the details and see that you aren't killing your drivers the way a lot of trucking companies do where you spend a substantial part of every week or month out of town, sleeping in the cab or a hotel.

[japantiger 4,211]

Income inequality is merely an outcome of bad policy. It is not evil, it is not unfair, it is not caused by the evil 1%; it is an outcome as sure as death...as long as we pursue current policies. The only solution to income inequality is jobs growth and the growth of the skills of the labor pool to demand wage growth. No amount of taking from one group to give to another will lift wage growth. It will only create more waste and further dependence on the gov't. You will actually have an accelerated level of inequality propped up by taking from one group to give to an ever marginalized middle class.

Successive gov't; both Dem and Repub have created policies that created the current situation. NAFTA, Permanent China Trade agreement, etc., and the most recently completed TPP are leading culprits. When we create incentives for businesses to move overseas; no one should be surprised when businesses do that and jobs go away and wages stagnate (well, domestic wages stagnate; foreign wages in China, India, MX, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc., have exploded during this period).

I have a very simple point of view on how to deal with income inequality....two very simple principles:

• Job growth in the US supported by an industrial policy targeted at the growth industries/technologies of the next 200 years.
  
• Train US workers to lead the world in these areas...starting in elementary schools...
  

Look at our past...whether it was roads, rails, air travel, ships, electricity, nuclear, medicine...for the last 200 years we have lead these growth industries/technologies...and if we weren't the leader to begin with, we figured it out and became the fast follower winner....with our government fully behind developing these industries and technologies and ensuring we had a labor pool to support them. We abandoned this about 30 years ago. We had a great chance to renew this approach 7 years ago...we even had a president who said we were going to $1T (that's trillion with a T) and apply it to "shovel ready jobs". What a load of horse***t. We didn't build anything...we pissed away $1T in potential stimulus on nothing.

We need the Jobs Growth Marshall plan for ourselves. We need to use the same approach we did with Interstates or NASA, etc., and choose to go all in with our $$. I am not opposed to stimulus spending...or Keynesian approaches aimed at specific national goals...I am opposed to lying sacks of s*** saying it and then doing something else with the $$.

To more specifics:

Job Growth:

• Pick 3-5 major national goals (something like "building 50k miles of high speed rail to crisscross the nation in the next 50 years") and then support our industries in developing the best tech (or stealing the best tech from the Chinese) and start it. Creat an agency (like NASA) with only this goal. Allocate the $$ from the existing pool of wasted $$ being spent by Commerce and go do it. Some of the items to choose from:
  
  • NASA already exist...give it a real extra-terrestrial space mission and focus on that...exclusively...if it's going back to the moon; or mars or whatever...but put all the $$ in things that support that one goal..."Send astronauts to Mars and safely return them by 2025" for example...no one can say what NASA's mission is is now...that was not the case when it was created.
    
  • Electricity grid...expand it...make it more robust...crashproof and terrorproof by 2030...decentralize it...use every source of energy that is exploitable today and commit to developing completely renewable sources by the end of the century.
    
  • Medicine, "we will cure cancer by 2050"...
    
  • you get the point by now I assume...three to 5 priorities only...you can't do more anyway...clear national priorities will spur job growth...
    

Education:

• Set the national goals in the areas that align to the above priorities...but just set the goal...a document like the Constitution...not thousands of pages of regulation...no more than one or two page goals for each priority...the Constitution is only 4 handwritten pages...
  
• and then get the hell out of the State's ways to go do it ...
  
• Re-institute vocational training...repurpose a large portion of the JUCO's for this...train and create apprenticeships..
  
• Four year colleges get funding for degrees that support these programs...no other programs get Fed $$...e.g., Gene technology, Basic engineering that supports building out a new more resilient electrical grid, etc....No Fed $$ to anything else.
  
• Take the $80b a year we now spend on the Dept of Ed and give it all to the states...simple formula...if you have 10% of the students...you get 10% of the $$ for these goals only....
  
• If folks want to be liberal arts majors...that's just great...but, the countries $$ will go to creating engineers, rail engineering technicians, rail construction workers, composite rail car builders, composites research, etc...medical tech's, gene splicers, etc...
  

Most of this I have previously published... the only solution to this is jobs growth. Wages won't go up until we have more sustainable jobs growth... worker skills have to match the market...if not, no one will pay more for a liberal arts major that thinks they should get $15/hour for just showing up...that's the workforce version of the "participation trophy". Our policies for the last 30-40 years have created this inevitable situation. We have one party in denial and other that is so wracked with jealousy and envy it can only think about how to punish the winners. Neither has proposed any solution that will change anything. Once again this past month, our Federal gov't stabbed the US worker in the back...not sure if you saw this or not...our federal gov't came to an agreement to let a Chinese company lead the high speed rail effort on the LA to Vegas high speed rail route. Really? And now TPP...more of the same successes of NAFTA, etc....nothing establishment Dem's or Repub's are proposing anything that will change this. We need people that understand incentives to create jobs and grow wages...domestic jobs and domestic wages...we've made the Chinese rich by global standards with our policies.

Dont agree with everything, but It was awesome to just see real live goals and points.

So let's have a discussion the merits...what do you disagree with? agree with? proposed alternatives?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Two good questions. I struggle with the answers (otherwise we would not be short on employees). If the American people were lazy then we would not have 70 hard working loyal drivers. It is hard work and every penny of salary is earned. We are toying with funding driving school tuition to cover any short term financial barriers from entering the profession. It is just surprising to hear about all the unemployment and the death of the middle class when I witness an industry that struggles to staff to the required levels daily.

You probably also suffer from a stigma of that industry. People don't read the details and see that you aren't killing your drivers the way a lot of trucking companies do where you spend a substantial part of every week or month out of town, sleeping in the cab or a hotel.

I think that is true. I also wonder about the effects of drug testing. I do not know the industry very well. I wonder if there are constant random screens that deter many people from applying? I am not implying that is a bad thing, especially considering the possible consequences and associated liability but, is it a factor?

[Guest NC1406]

Two good questions. I struggle with the answers (otherwise we would not be short on employees). If the American people were lazy then we would not have 70 hard working loyal drivers. It is hard work and every penny of salary is earned. We are toying with funding driving school tuition to cover any short term financial barriers from entering the profession. It is just surprising to hear about all the unemployment and the death of the middle class when I witness an industry that struggles to staff to the required levels daily.

You probably also suffer from a stigma of that industry. People don't read the details and see that you aren't killing your drivers the way a lot of trucking companies do where you spend a substantial part of every week or month out of town, sleeping in the cab or a hotel.

I think that is true. I also wonder about the effects of drug testing. I do not know the industry very well. I wonder if there are constant random screens that deter many people from applying? I am not implying that is a bad thing, especially considering the possible consequences and associated liability but, is it a factor?

We are hiring some drivers from the over the road companies. The appeal of a family life is a great incentive. Our guys will make 2 to 5 deliveries per day with some light manual work at each delivery. Some drivers do shy away from our business because they are pulling up to 9000 gallons of flammable material behind them Safety is our number one goal due to the nature of our business.

Background and drug tests limit the selection pool. If we find a qualified applicant and get them through training, our losses from random drug testing has been almost nonexistent.. The professionals know that random drug testing is a company and a DOT requirement.