In your opinion, is the income disparity in the USA, and the world, a big deal or no big deal? The answer to the question depends somewhat, I believe, on whether or not one believes opportunities for advancement are fair. In other words, does honesty and hard work lead to success and prosperity or are the odds stacked against people even if they work hard and study hard, etc.
A similar question relates to what you believe the minimum wage should be. Business owners want it as low as possible and labor wants it as high as possible. What is the right answer? Should it be tied to the cost of renting an apartment in th local community one lives in … and costs of living … a true living wage or should it be allowed to float based on free market conditions?
Min wage should be a true living wage. The more lower income workers make the more they can spend - helping businesses. I find it appalling that the min. wage in most places in the US is pathetically low. We should be ashamed.
I believe that hard work and diligence (honesty seems to be optional) will lead to advancement for people who are in the middle of the workforce. However, I find the absolutely bloated numbers at the tippy-top and the desperate struggle at the bottom appalling.
We have people getting minimum wage right now who aren’t even worth that and folks want to bump it up more.
That’s fine, but all it does is make the problem the responsibility of business which leads to more unemployment via automation at the lower levels.
What does the cost of renting apartments have to do with it? Minimum wage should be for trainees or people who want to do the minimum. If you do the minimum, shouldn’t you live like it, too?
Having your own apartment is certainly not “the minimum”.
I agree that the present Min Wage is too low; however, I disagree that the min wage should be raised to the amt that cd support a family on one income.
A reasonable benchmark of where min wage could be set is an amt which wd permit 2 min wage earners to live as roommates, or perhaps a wage equivalent to half the median household income.
Poverty and unemployment are very big deals. But if the poor and unemployed have plenty, then what the fabulously wealthy have is of absolutely no consequence.
How about dormitory style living as setting a benchmark for minimum wage? With that standard, people could be better assured of having good food, balanced diets, access to health care, leisure time, etc., etc. After all, it’s a “minimum”.
If people wanted to live “on their own”, they would have an incentive to educate or train themselves for jobs higher on the scale.
Big Deal if it pushes middle class to upper or lower end. It changes the culture. I doubt democracy is possible if middle class dwindles. Ideally, minimum wage should be low but most people make far more than minimum wage except high school students working part time. Life of people relying on minimum wage can’t be hopeful.
Big deal. Plenty of research has found high levels of income disparity are related with more civil violence, lower economic growth, increase risk of violent crime, and more corruption.
When there is a high disparity of income, it leads to more crime and social unrest. I observed it down in Mexico. Many Mexicans were paid only few thousand pesos a month, that included law enforcement agents, while cost of electronic goods (iphone, TV, computer) were the same as in the US. When monthly cost of phone is 700+ pesos and your monthly income is few thousand, cell phone becomes not very affordable unless there is additional income (robbery, kidnapping, bribery). People commit crimes when they can’t have what others have. I used to have discussions with my driver (when stuck in traffic) about Mexico’s economy, drug and crimes. He used to tell me it was hard to keep teens away from drugs when the only way for them to get what they wanted was by selling drugs. People are also more willing to take risk when they have less to lose (no job, no house, no food).
Countries like US have less crime (for now) because most people have minimum living standard. If too many people were living below poverty, we would need bodyguards to ensure our daily safety, and I don’t think most of us would want to live like that.
Aside from crimes and violence the economy will be skewed to cater to the wealthy. Not an interseting prospect. Innovation will be limited, diversity dwindles.
In the US, we catered a lot more to the middle class. Just look at all of those malls around the country, they have the same stores selling the same thing. There are a lot less high end stores.
While I believe it has become more difficult in recent years to get ahead, I still think it’s possible. Education, hard work and good decision making (absent health issues and catastrophic events) remain the tickets to a decent lifestyle.
I wish the people in charge would spend more energy and effort to grow the economy instead of spending effort to stir up the difference in the wealthy and the poor. They are not helping the poor. They are inflaming the situation and hiding behind the fact that their policies are NOT create jobs and their inability to create economic growth.
That’s said I rarely if ever frequent stores or shops that are known to pay minimum wage, so the more the minimum wage is going higher, the less likely there will be jobs. Even then, both of my kids didnt get paid minimum wage for their first job, I mean they didn’t have high end skill. I also want to add that one of my kid, the one that does the hiring rarely pays minimum wage. She pays at a minimum $25 to $30.
I seem to recall that in involuntarily economically equalized societies like the Soviet Union, apart from miltary innovation (the Soviets were compelled to keep up w the Americans in the arms race), there was little capital allocated for innovation. Happy, singing, marching factory workers in an egalitarian workers’ paradise turned out the same widget over and over and over again. (I have an awesome photo of myself in East Berlin, posing next to a Trabi).
The modern “equal” societies which are successful , more often than not rely on a golden goose to lay golden eggs: oil. The reason the Soviet workers’ paradise collapsed in 1989 is because of the collapse in oil prices. I’m enjoying watching the implosion of the Venezuelan Bolivarian paradise, and watching the implosion of Russia, the sequel.
It would not be a big deal if opportunity to improve one’s personal economic situation through honest and legal work (not criminal activity as described in replies #10 and #11) were high. However, economic opportunity and mobility tend to be inversely correlated to inequality (i.e. more unequal economies tend to have lower economics opportunity and mobility), and the US is not an exception to the general trend.
In many of the highest inequality countries, the concentration of wealth and power means that the political and economic system is set up to protect the incumbent elites, rather than encourage overall economic growth and innovation that will offer opportunity for the rest (indeed, innovation is often threatening to the incumbent economics elite, so it is often suppressed). Fortunately, the US is nowhere near that point (though there are certainly political lobbyists for incumbent elites who try to sway the political processes in their favor), but it can be something to be concerned about in the longer term future.