Study Finds Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing. What a surprise.

[bugeyed]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

To him, the manual laborer with a shovel should get paid the same rate as a backhoe operator. .

Why not?

[Keith_J]

Originally Posted by bugeyed

Why not?

See Dr. Walter Williams. You need help too.

[bugeyed]

Why do you need to rely on others to form your opinion, just make an argument. Let's say you got some laborers building a house. You have the backhoe operator who digs out the basement and sets out the ground for the foundation. Then you have the laborers who start laying out the cement, setting up the frame and building the house. The end result is a house. The only thing a backhoe operator does is speed up the process by using a machine. However, the house cannot and will not be built with a backhoe operator alone. It takes that manual laborer to do the job and they can do it without a backhoe operator with shovels if they have to.

There is some argument that skilled labor deserves more pay, specifically because the pay reflects the time invested in learning those skills. Some of these people produce things that are needed in society, I personally consider a farmer a skilled laborer, it takes a great deal of knowledge to grow food well. However, some of the least skilled and least productive members of society make the most money, and they produce nothing of human value.

Take GW Bush as an example. Probably one the most singularly stupid and least skilled individuals ever to walk the halls of the white house, yet he makes half million a year as pay, not including the bribe money.

The bottom line is that most things are built, and most services are rendered because of that unskilled laborer. All your most important basic needs are provided because of the unskilled laborer. You get food because that grocery kid unloads the trucks and puts it on the shelves. You get shelter from elements because someone picked up a hammer. So I find the argument that these people deserve considerably less pay than people who are skilled in trades which may not even produce something of value murky at best.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

Lay off of Jim, he is beyond comprehension since its obivious he thinks with his heart and feels with his head. Not to mention he has no sound economic basis for his positions.

To him, the manual laborer with a shovel should get paid the same rate as a backhoe operator. A little study under a certain professor of economics from George Mason University might do him good.

You're fast becoming the king of the strawman, aren't you?

This discussion is about whether the poor are poor because they are lazy.

Truck, being a proponent of this idea is ironic, since he has: a bottom income job, a paid-for college education, and a lazy attitude about fact-checking his own opinions.

However, feel free to make up anything else you like if it gives you the opportunity to throw in a jab. I've taken better punches from my two-year old, though.

As to exxagerating one's own value, it seems to be a Texas thing. Something in the water maybe, or simply inbreeding, I'd guess.

[hanglowejohnson]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Your lack of interest in education is remarkable. All you need to know can be learned in an evening of Googling. I get the impression you really don't want to know.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...er+demographic

Community college as a resident is nearly free...

I dont understand where all this talk of how EXPENSIVE education is, is coming from?

UCF as a resident is VERY inexpensive as well, as is every other state university in every state in the country. And EVERYONE can receive loans to pay for it.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by hanglowejohnson

Community college as a resident is nearly free...

I dont understand where all this talk of how EXPENSIVE education is, is coming from?

UCF as a resident is VERY inexpensive as well, as is every other state university in every state in the country. And EVERYONE can receive loans to pay for it.

Are you (did you) pay(ing) for yours? What years?

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by bugeyed

The only thing a backhoe operator does is speed up the process by using a machine.

And time=money. If someone can do the job equally as well in less time then they should get more money. As a builder that means I can build more houses and make more money and employ more people. If it took 50 guys with shovels to dig the same foundation (in the same amount of time) how does it make sense to pay them each the same as the backhoe operator?

IMO, the job is worth a certain amount if completed in X amount of time. I don't care how it gets done. If it takes twice the amount of time, it's worth less to me. If it is completed faster, it is worth more. Simple logic really. It has nothing to do with me compensating the guy for the time invested in learning his skill. Frankly, I don't care how long it took to learn it. It has everything to do with his ability to do the job quickly and keeping the project on schedule.

[Keith_J]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

You're fast becoming the king of the strawman, aren't you?

This discussion is about whether the poor are poor because they are lazy.

Truck, being a proponent of this idea is ironic, since he has: a bottom income job, a paid-for college education, and a lazy attitude about fact-checking his own opinions.

However, feel free to make up anything else you like if it gives you the opportunity to throw in a jab. I've taken better punches from my two-year old, though.

As to exxagerating one's own value, it seems to be a Texas thing. Something in the water maybe, or simply inbreeding, I'd guess.

The poor are that way because they do not feel enough pain to cause them to change their lot in life. Why do you suppose the lowest class of Mexican society decides to migrate el norte, facing hundreds of miles of desert that is downright lethal? Western Diamondback rattlesnakes, Horse-Crippler cacti, acres of Lechuguilla, Cat Claw acacia and Mountain Lions are just a touch of the hazards...Not to mention USBP agents, DEA and INS and the local law enforcement, where applicable. Because for the poorest in Mexico, LIFE IS MISERABLE and these risks are slight compared to certain misery in Mexico. And for the most part, these immigrants, illegal or not, work hard AND succeed!

Here in the fat USA, even the poorest can afford food to excess, hence the obesity problems rampant over all classes of life. Pain? There is not enough for the state will take care of all. Cannot afford medical care? Just wait at any ER for free care. Food? Likewise, the state will provide.

Sure, there are those who due to metal illness choose to walk the streets, living off the spot charity of strangers and those NGOs who serve the homeless. But for the chronically poor, they either have no desire to advance or are completely comfortable in their lives.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

The poor are that way because they do not feel enough pain to cause them to change their lot in life.

What's the logical basis of that little economic theory? So let me ask you this: Why are the rich, rich?

And given that people are born rich or poor, how does suffering relate to success?

No son, the intergenerational transfer of wealth is the most likely indicator of prosperity, not suffering.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by BigBadBoom

....and in the ghettos and slums there was much dancing and celebrating. Praises to the rich were repeated throughout the streets, "oh thank you, thank you for the generous social programs."

Do you live in NY? no you dont. You would be surprised but the people in the ghettos and the slums, as you call it, live better then the middle income families. My parents together total make like 45 grand. We arent rich enough to have everything we want and we arent poor enough to get aid from the govt. Being middle class is probably the hardest place to be.

and btw, there are no ghettos or the slums. Come down to NY sometime and go look around, whatever stereotypes you have have been gone for a very very long time.

[Keith_J]

Look at the recent immigrants, illegal or otherwise. They succeed.

Sure, Ted Kennedy inherited his wealth. So did John Jr...but his "brains" couldn't keep him out of danger when he took his minimal IFR experience into IMC and went into a 1g death spiral...those that inherit wealth do not generally keep it long.

But Sam Walton and Bill Gates are proof one can make it.

And Jim, you do not have any sense of reality. Pain is the universal motivator. Without pain, motivation to change is unlikely.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Napalm

If it took 50 guys with shovels to dig the same foundation (in the same amount of time) how does it make sense to pay them each the same as the backhoe operator?

Depends really! Is the backhoe operator making 50X what the folks with shovels are making? How much of the money for backhoe operator is going toward the owner of the machine?

At least you're presenting an argument supporting your position. I agree with you TO A POINT. In this case the point would obviously be time versus money, as you clearly spelled out. Since I have not taken estimates on either backhoe operators nor manual diggers with shovels, I am left to surmise that were we to chart the expense versus time on a graph of the two chores, there would be some decision point of the graph where you had to weigh in favor of one over the other.

However, thankfully you are NOT making the point, at least I don't think you are, the people doing the manual digging are lazy while the backhoe operator is "working hard" that others appear to be making.

IMO, the job is worth a certain amount if completed in X amount of time. I don't care how it gets done. If it takes twice the amount of time, it's worth less to me. If it is completed faster, it is worth more. Simple logic really.

There is some price point where the value you receive in time savings exceeds what you can pass along to the buyer or absorb for the sake of production.

It has nothing to do with me compensating the guy for the time invested in learning his skill. Frankly, I don't care how long it took to learn it. It has everything to do with his ability to do the job quickly and keeping the project on schedule.

Nonsense! The price charged by the backhoe operator has everything to do with the payments on the backhoe (and insurance), his skill in getting the job done, and the associated risk in the original investment. You are paying him more for his ability to work smarter and faster up to the point where the cost exceeds the perceived value and he is going to set his price accordingly. He knows approximately what you would have to pay for the manual labor and will price accordingly to that and the perceived value of the time saved.

[bugeyed]

Originally Posted by Napalm

And time=money. If someone can do the job equally as well in less time then they should get more money. As a builder that means I can build more houses and make more money and employ more people. If it took 50 guys with shovels to dig the same foundation (in the same amount of time) how does it make sense to pay them each the same as the backhoe operator?

IMO, the job is worth a certain amount if completed in X amount of time. I don't care how it gets done. If it takes twice the amount of time, it's worth less to me. If it is completed faster, it is worth more. Simple logic really. It has nothing to do with me compensating the guy for the time invested in learning his skill. Frankly, I don't care how long it took to learn it. It has everything to do with his ability to do the job quickly and keeping the project on schedule.

Time is equal to money because of the time value of money. Ultimately this is traced back to interest on money which is itself an output of the fiat money system (where money is created out of thin air, loaned out, and then demanded back with interest which is not created). So the backhoe operator really wouldn't get paid that much more in earlier times prior to creation of central banking and fiat money systems, since back then time value of money didn't exist. Back then time would not have been such a big deal, because there was no real costs associated with it.

You can argue that skilled labor that saves time is valuable under current model, but your case isn't really supported under systems of different financial arrangements and concepts towards time.

[Keith_J]

Oh, this is getting stupid. Using these concepts, a Shetland Pony has the same value as a Belgian Draft horse...NOT! Sure, that Shetland can fit into a mine and bring forth a small load of coal but hitch it to a wagon loaded with 3 tons of coal and it goes nowhere.

Money is just a means of uniform barter, nothing more. The banking system evolved to handle money. Sure, having a secure valuation via precious metals was a good idea back when communications were less than reliable.

Using twisted logic, all bikes should cost the same. Where is my $2995 Ducati?