Or better yet, strengthen unions again so we can do something about the fact that the discrepancy between median worker pay and executive pay is probably larger than it was in fucking feudal times.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of CEO pay, but it's not relevant. How does that thinking go? Take the money CEO's are making and give it to the impoverished? And what shall they do for that money? Pump gas? There arn't enough gas stations, there's not enough menial labor, and there's more than enough machines.
As cruel as it sounds, are workers not a commodity? Is their rarity of skills not a prize with a price tag? What do you say to the companies looking for people in very high supply? You have to buy at high prices? response: "OK, Then never mind"
I don't know what the solution is, but what is there to do that is worth the money right now?
Part of the problem with this is the perennial problem that rich people, compared with ordinary people, don't spend their money. Presumably that's part of how they became rich; by holding onto money. From personal experience, I've had months in which my own pile of money makes more money than my full-time job. I expect if you're rich enough that this can happen every month, the temptation to not spend it becomes immense.
One of the benefits of unions is, as you suggest, getting a decent wage. This wage comes out of the company, and one way to do it is reducing the ridiculous CEO salary and other such big salaries at the top.
So now we have a lot of ordinary people with money. What do ordinary people do with money? They spend it. This is exactly what we want to happen. They go out and they create demand for consumer goods and services. In effect, they create jobs. A thousand ordinary people spending all their money creates a lot more demand than one rich person dumping it into an offshore tax haven.
Sometimes you hear the rich describing themselves as job creators; they're wealth sinks. Money comes to them, and stops (or at least radically slows down). What creates jobs is demand for goods and services, and the ability to pay for it; unions ensuring decent wages directly create this effect.
As cruel as it sounds, are workers not a commodity? This, to me, is something of a moral issue; I accept that you can take a strict economic view of people just as one part of the economic machine, and the point of all creation is to create and run an economic machine. I take a different view; that this idea is repugnant and grotesque.
Paint me a disgusting inhuman monster all you want. I am not swayed by this position. For rather obvious reasons.
No. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. Here's a quick refresher that might make it clear that you've completely misunderstood. I said:
One of the problems we seem to have is that there is still belief in the "trickle down" effect
problems; I clearly indicated that this is a BAD idea that DOESN'T work.
I said a number of other things along these lines. Essentially, what I said is the exact opposite of what you seem to think I said. I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but you've got completely, absolutely the reverse understanding of what I said. You could not have missed the point more.
Illuminati -> Bankers -> CEO's -> Multimillionaires -> ordinary folk -> Lowerclass -> Homeless
You want money to go to the ordinary folk right? They will create more jobs, because they spend the money, the create the cash flow and...
Ok that still sounds like the lower class are hosed.
My friend, you can call me incompetent all you want. I believe you have spent much time mulling over your ideas, like anyone who gives a damn about politics. However the conclusions you reached, that you feel are obvious, may be flawed in some rather significant ways. You may be making Logical jumps I am unwilling to make. It is not obvious how this strategy of pooling money into an arbitrary bracket of our respective cultures will improve the lives of anyone but that arbitrary bracket. You have failed to convince me.
Two options then, try again as I remain receptive to these ideas. Or not.