Kobal2 claimed
His graph showed that both statements are incorrect - average wages in constant dollars have increased overall, and the fact that the measurement was in constant dollars means that the purchasing power has also increased - not decreased as he claimed.
Keeping also in mind that the same cite says -
So, what he claimed was “factual data” wasn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
This is rich. Amazon requires all employees to sign a non-compete agreement to not work for any company that competes in any business Amazon is involved in anywhere Amazon has interests (IOW, everywhere in the world more or less.)
This applies not only to permanent workers but also seasonal temporary workers. Get a warehouse job at Amazon during the Christmas season and forget about most warehouse jobs for the rest of the year. Actually, for 18 months after leaving Amazon!
Unlikely to be enforceable for hourly workers. And the bad press Amazon would get if it actually went after a warehouse worker?
Still, that’s a pretty scummy thing to do, and as the article notes, they are probably just hoping to limit the number of people who quit to go elsewhere because they are intimidated by that clause.
What would war accomplish? Waging war against the wealthy won’t make the poor richer. Much wealth today exists in digital form. You can’t just storm the castle with torches and pitchforks and seize gold bars or something.
I still think it’s best to look at the US state by state. Many US states are larger than typical European countries. And the US averages are dragged down mostly by the poor, southern states. The conclusion is that the poor, southern states are doing badly, not that the US is doing badly. We don’t have federalized systems like most countries do, and so you are going to naturally see considerable difference between the several states.
War wouldn’t make the poor any richer. It would, however, make the rich very poor.
Thus, the threat of war could be used as a way to force a compromise.
Top interest groups spending money on congress:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php
It looks like the corporations spread their bets…
You have a point. The Gini coefficient, in particular, would figure to be higher in a large heterogeneous country; this is a point I don’t recall seeing mentioned in the many articles that invoke Gini. And you’re correct that poor, southern states (aka the states that vote against the interests of the poor, southern states :smack: ) are doing worse than the U.S. average.
Nevertheless, your overall conclusion happens to be incorrect.
Michigan, California, Colorado all have average (NOT below-average) incarceration rates. And infant mortality is high in many “blue” states. (I did NOT research multiple criteria and cherry-pick. I did two Google searches total, one click each.)
Yes. Again, the right-wing whine “You libtards have rich corporate donors too” misses the point. Big money has moved both parties to the right.
If a house painter made $100 for painting a house and the value of a fresh coat of paint went from $200 to $2,000, you would think that the cost of painting a house would increase. That’s not what has been happening. The value a fresh coat of paint creates has been increasing while the amount paid to the painter has remained static.
So what? It’s not his house.
Regards,
Shodan
As soon as I posted that, I knew I should have said that it didn’t apply to incarceration rates. 
Yes, indeed, that is something where the whole country, state-by-state, is way out of whack with the rest of the world. I was thinking of life expectancy, which was the first metric brought up in your cite. If we look at that indicator in my state, CA, we find that it’s about 81 years vs 75 years in Mississippi. Compare that to large European countries: 82 In France, 81 in Germany and 81 in the UK.
So, yeah, the life expectancy in the US is lower than many European countries, but only in certain states.
Disproportionate ownership of wealth is, by definition, economic imbalance.
“I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”
Jay Gould
That site states “production and non-supervisory employees on private non-farm payrolls”
Does that mean government workers (including the military), self-employed persons, persons on farm payrolls, and supervisory employees are not counted in the graph? Is there any place to get data for ALL workers?
You know more about economics than I. However, I submit that the jump from $200 to $2000 had more to do with a hot real estate market or maybe my skills as a salesman than his painting job. If he says the price is now $1500 or if he and his painter buddies get together and form a union (actually, since they are probably independent companies, I think they would really be forming a monopoly) and say the price is now $1500, why wouldn’t I just paint it myself, or not do it at all?
Personally, with respect to income inequality, are we really facing a situation like 18th century France where you could make a pretty good case that the nobles were taxing the peasants to death? IOW, while I think it sucks that I haven’t gotten richer adjusted for inflation, I don’t think it’s because the 1% are stealing from me. That said, they could probably kick in a little more to fund public goods like education and healthcare and national security.
FWIW,
Rob
The 1% aren’t literally stealing from you. But think of it this way. By what mechanism would you “become rich” and who decides whether you can or cannot actually do this?
Not to sound all Libertarian or anything, but the way to join the 1% is bring an idea to fruition through a combination of luck and hard work, i.e. start a very successful business. The closer you are to 1% when you start, the easier it will be, of course. As far as who decides whether to fund your business, well, that’s the people with the money who may very well be 1%ers themselves, but I expect their litmus test will be whether or not they think your idea will make money, rather than if they want to have you as a member of their club.
You could strike oil or win the lottery or something, too, I suppose.
“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Well, I heard a discussion on NPR last week about how American government policy after WWII created residential racial segregation even in places it had been absent before. Blacks, even black veterans, could not get those new government-subsidized homeowner loans, and it was official policy to keep them out of new neighborhoods like Levittown. Many were in effect forced into new monoracial public-housing projects, built on the sites of razed mixed-race neighborhoods. One result of this being that while a lot of working-class whites became basic-homeowners and later leveraged that equity into middle-class propertied status, blacks were barred from the bottom rung of that ladder and were stuck with the status of rental-tenants generation after generation – so that now, 70 years later, the wealth differential between white and black Americans is far wider than the income differential.