Obama running campaign ads saying McCain is "disconnected from the economic struggles of the middle class." That sounds more like "straight talk" than negative campaigning to me. Keep in mind that McCain's economic advisor was Phil Gramm, an out of touch right wing former economics professor/former congressman/now banking exec who called america a "nation of whiners." Look at McCain's tax policies, does he do anything to address the widening pay disparity? We tried it bush's way and the result is that if you're making less than $200k, you lost ground. If you're not a major corporation or hedge fund, you lost ground. And if you're not a member of the bush administration, you lost rights. McCain basically offers 4 more years continuation of the worst policy decisions in US history since vietnam. He has to be insane to think american wants that or can afford that type of thinking.

Pay disparity as in giving the middle class a tax break preference rather than the destitute millionaires who had to forgo the second beach house because of taxes. Sorry. 3 am post and all that..

"Look at McCain's tax policies, does he do anything to address the widening pay disparity? We tried it bush's way and the result is that if you're making less than $200k, you lost ground. If you're not a major corporation or hedge fund, you lost ground."

Damn. That IS awful.

Ok, being most of us "lost ground", I assume there is some "standard", some "benchmark" so to speak, some economic indicator with which we can tell if we are doing better or worse, correct?

What is it?

What is it that we look at to tell if we are doing better, worse or average? What is THE optimum pay disparity we SHOULD have? Why that? According to whom?

Exactly.

It is YOU who is out of touch. You and everyone else who suffers from this perverted illusion that YOUR opinions should somehow just "be" for all. Would YOU accept the defined version of a "fair" pay disparity from one who was on the high end? Of course you would not, so why do you feel your version should be accepted?

Because it "justifies" your lust for what others have and there will ALWAYS, get this now, ALWAYS, be a majority who earn less than someone else, so you can ALWAYS bitch.

But then again, I suspect you also subscribe to the popular commie mantra, "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities", huh? You probably feel "fair" taxiation is based upon how much each person earns, not upon how much each person uses, right? Not a bad thing mind you, but damned sure hard to define as "fair".

Personally, I don't understand why CEOmore taxes for food than us poor people. God knows they can afford it more, right? Its like how they pay more for local, state or federal taxes. Of course, some might argue that they receive far less from the government than those who pay nothing, but, hey, "fair" is fair, huh?

Get over yourself. You and all the others who feel entitled to have whatever YOU "feel" is close to whatever some others have, get over it. Life ain't fair.

Boo-Fuckin'-HOO.

I mean, every single argument coming from you is laced with this epiphany you had somewhere along the line that opinion is somehow wrong and having an opinion means you are biased and therefore not capable of expression.

This is an opinion page.

Nobody here (OK, there are a few exceptions) think this is anything but an opinion page.

If you have a valid reason why you think someone is wrong, then you should express it as your opinion and leave it at that.

The rest of us get that. It's time you step up to the plate and get it too.

In fact, almost every time you've responded to a post. It sometimes works, but seldom.

What is YOUR opinion?

Ok. Fair enough.

It is my opinion that pay disparity is nothing more than a feeble attempt by some to try to justify their lust for what others have and they want.

With NO standard to work from, measuring pay disparity is nothing more than a tool used by some to keep a base fired up and supporting them as they claim to be for "the little guy".

Its like a misery index. Some folks may feel alright about themselves so we need to let them know how misrable they REALLY are.

As for whats "fair", I keep my opinions to myself because everyone has their own view and presenting mine will never change theirs. That is also why I question others who claim something is not fair. To try to show that just because they feel one way doesn't mean everyone will. Or should.

I try to get them to see the error in that train of thought by using extremes.

Now, for nestor, do I think all this is the best way to go? No. However, I know of no better way, so this will have to do until something else comes along. I DO know that you can not just pay workers more and expect better. We have done it and guess what? Yep, they STILL want what others get.

Do I think all this is the best way to go? No.

However, I know of no better way, so this will have to do until something else comes along. I DO know that you can not just pay workers more and expect better. We have done it and guess what? Yep, they STILL want what others get.

Also, I use this arguement a lot because it NEVER gets addressed.

If we want to piss, moan, bitch and gripe about something being so damned unfair, it stands to reason we must have some notion of what IS fair, correct? Otherwise we are saying that everyone should accept our personal feelings as their own, and thats just silly.

Which is the point I am usually trying to get across.

Yes, but I've never heard your thoughts of what is fair, only some argument about the invalidity of others "feelings."

And that is what you will continue to see.

I do not ever try to define "fair", as it is too subjective and NOT objective. We may as well attempt to set one defination of "pretty".

And the only time I try to argue about the invalidity of others "feelings" is when they act as if that should be accepted by all.

Take the pay disparity thing. If you feel CEOs make "too much", is it not reasonable for me to suspect that by doing so, you have some idea of what is acceptable?

No one ever presents what is acceptable. Why?

Taxes. I read lots about how some do not pay "their fair share". According to whom? I never argued that I pay too much, too little or just enough, but if I did, it would be fair for you to question me as to how I came to that conclusion.

IF, and I do mean IF, we did value these people's opinions of what is a "fair share" to pay in taxes or to earn, should we not then allow the CEO to dictate, in his opinion, what would be fair for others to earn or to pay in taxes?

If we are to use the feelings of the poor and middle class to define "the rich", to be fair, shouldn't we then use the feelings of "the rich" to define who is "poor" and qualifies for aid?

Or, are the feelings of only the poor of value?

You see, there is no end to how vague this all can get.

All of you are wrong. You should actually read Adam Smith!

Look around you at everything you see...there is no way to put a value on ANY of it except through the labor time put into it.

Ask yourself what is there in common between silver and a wooden desk, flowers and the paint on the wall? NOTHING but the labor time it takes to create it.

As to supply, that a commodity is in short supply only means it takes less labor time to produce it, thus its cost goes up (or vice versa).

Owners actually take the surplus labor that the market provides (and I have no problem with that in principle, better a selfish little capitalist than a government bureaucrat) and use it for personal luxuries and investment.

Therefore, what they use for the vast luxuries they now indulge in, especially those like face lifts that are not socially productive at all (building a mansion at least employs a lot of workers) is not for investment, therefore it is a drain on the economy when an elite becomes so decadent (like Romans did) as this.

Morally, I don't give a flying hoot how much money someone else makes, but when I, a productive human being capable of producing vast amounts of added value, am priced out of the market, that is a problem no? Should I starve or live in the rain?

And what you see in the world is exactly that..people are now starving, or cannot afford to both have shelter and food, they say a billion people right now.

The economics of all this, these Reagun economics, are totally insane, guaranteed to destroy this nation as such things have destroyed so many other nations. CEO pay is but one tiney part of the problem but it certainly is a problem.

I don't agree with you, but at least you are giving me your opiniion rather than trying to leverage the doubt that is inherent with anyone's personal perspective. It makes for better dialogue even if it does not give you the false feeling of a slam dunk.

As for pay disparity, you are only half right. There is historical evidence - not definitive evidence, but evidence just the same - that the greater the pay disparity, more likely that the economy as a whole will suffer. If you don't have a strong majority of the population in a strong median income, you generally have a poor performing economy. When the bell curve of incomes is steep to the median and narrow and flat on the extremes, the result is a very healthy economy.

At the same time, the evidence is also there that this lowering of the pay disparity helps the economy only if it is a natural lowering of economic gaps. Attempts at raising the curve on median incomes artificially has been fairly discouraging.

If America wants to be great again, it has to realize that a strong middle class is what will make it great and work to that goal. You can pay workers more and expect better, but only if everyone realizes that is what the goal is.

Very well. Sounds as acceptable, more acceptable than anything I have to offer.

I was looking for an argument....

I agree with your last post. Perhaps our reasoning is a bit different is all.

Very little pay differences amongt the masses. If you had a party job you were an elitist with special prividges, maybe a paid vacation in the Crimea..

Education was good but no chance to capitalize on what you knew or could do---very frustrating to those who wanted to advance.

Most people were limited to about 900 sq ft living areas for their families and their life was really like an extension of their childhool.

If that is what you want in America, you are in the wrong place. We are unique and I think that we will stay that way as long as you live. BO does not have a chance with his redistribution of wealth plan. He is moving backward instead of forward in his thinking.