It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# How Every American Seeking Work Can be Employed: Redistribution of Wealth from the 1%

page: 1
24
share:
+3 more
posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:56 PM
I just finished watching a movie called "In Time" with Justin Timberlake. The trailer is below, but basically the gist of it is that in a near future, time is literally money and there's a gross wealth inequality, with the super rich having hundreds or thousands of years to live or spend and the average person living from minute to minute. If a person runs out of time, they die instantaneously. Well, Justin Timberlake pulls a Robin Hood, he steals time from the rich and gives to the poor.

Anyway, it got me thinking about how to fix our own gross wealth inequality divide. So, I did some research and found this.

Yes, you read that right. In 2010, the top 1% earned \$1.6 trillion! Well, then I did some simple math. I wondered what would happen if that number was cut in half, or if \$800 billion was redistributed. The average salary of a US citizen is about \$40,000 a year. So, what I did was divide 800 billion by 40,000. This equaled 20 million. What this means is that by cutting in half the income of the top 1% and redistributing the money, 20 million Americans Americans could be employed at the average American income.

So how many people are currently unemployed? Well, I looked up some recent unemployment data

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.8 million, was essentially unchanged in
February. The unemployment rate held at 8.3 percent, 0.8 percentage point below
the August 2011 rate.

This is probably a conservative number because it doesn't account for people who have been out of work for a long amount of time or simply stopped looking, so 20 million seems like a reasonable figure. What this means is that by splitting the amount of money the top 1% has in income, pretty much anyone who wants to work would be able to be employed for the average US salary. It's not perfect, but it's better than being unemployed.

Imagine what \$800 billion a year would do if it was pumped directly into the economy. It could help solve much of our unemployment problem.

So here's what I suggest we do:
Create a maximum wage. Make it 15 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. I know some people say to make it 100x, but that's \$15,000 compared to \$1,500,000. Nobody needs that amount of money, especially when others are suffering. With \$15,000 at minimum wage, \$225,000 seems like a good maximum salary. That salary could be increased with need, like if the money is legitimately needed for feeding the family.

And just for proof that wealth redistribution does work, look at the NFL:

The NFL has a salary cap in place, meaning there is a maximum amount that a team can spend. Now there are obvious large market teams like the New York Giants and the Washington Redskins, and small market teams like the Green Bay Packers, but the beauty of this is that a small market team like the Green Bay Packers can win the Super Bowl. Another big reason why this can happen is that wealth is redistributed throughout the teams. Meaning, the profit of large market teams, part of it is redistributed to help smaller market teams.

Look at something like the MLB that is run very capitalistically, meaning no salary cap and spending like crazy from large market teams.

The New York Yankees, a large market team, are winners every year with 28 championships in the last 100 years. In comparison, the Pittsburgh Pirates, a small market team, have 4.

Granted, I realize the analogy might not be apparent at first, so let me explain. The NFL creates a situation where the environment is better for all. Any team can have a realistic shot to beat any other team on any Sunday. Whereas the MLB is a lot less competitive with an elite group of teams (Red Sox and Yankees being among that group.) We need to confront the issue of massive unemployment and wealth divide. As some say "the rich become richer and the poor become poorer." But it doesn't have to be this way. We can do something about it. Wealth redistribution is a good way to do it.
edit on 16-3-2012 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)

+23 more
posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:07 PM

Sooo if you're rich.. we take your money and give it to poor people because well .. they have no money.

So me, being in the middle, I'm far, far, far from rich but I'm not "poor" either. Why should I continue to work? Why shouldn't I just chill on my couch playing my xbox smoking pot all day? I mean, I'd get paid either way? Work and have people take my money.. or play xbox and get money with no work?

I see no incentive to work. Certainly no incentive to make a business, create products, innovate.... people will just profit from my work while I make the same as them? F that.. I'll sit on my couch.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:18 PM

Then don't complain if you're out of a job.

Just trying to think of a way to help the people out of work...

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:19 PM

Originally posted by mossme89
What this means is that by splitting the amount of money the top 1% has in income, pretty much anyone who wants to work would be able to be employed for the average US salary. It's not perfect, but it's better than being unemployed.

Just because the money would exist to pay a position, doesn't mean the position would be needed.

Imagine what \$800 billion a year would do if it was pumped directly into the economy. It could help solve much of our unemployment problem.

Do you honestly trust the government to pump that money into the economy effectively? They already tried that, more than once and about the same amount. It was almost entirely fraud, waste and abuse and the economy was no better for it.

So here's what I suggest we do:
Create a maximum wage. Make it 15 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. I know some people say to make it 100x, but that's \$15,000 compared to \$1,500,000. Nobody needs that amount of money, especially when others are suffering. With \$15,000 at minimum wage, \$225,000 seems like a good maximum salary. That salary could be increased with need, like if the money is legitimately needed for feeding the family.

And who are you to say what somebody needs or should need? You don't think many suffer because of their own choices?

There are plenty of other nations with rulers willing to take your freedom. Feel free to relocate and leave everyone else's alone.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:20 PM
That or you could lobby your government to stop funding wars to make that top 1% so much money, and in turn spend all that war money on employing said 20 million people

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:21 PM

Maybe this isn't the right way. Just trying to think of a creative way to solve our job crisis. How would you suggest we solve it? -___-

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:29 PM

The problems facing the nation now are irreversible. The root of the problems are in social immorality. Corrupt politicians and corrupt CEO's choose to do things immorally and it leads to bad business decisions, bad laws.

We ship jobs and production overseas, the government takes away money from those who produce and makes it harder to be a producer. We as a people don't emphasize the important things in life, but want our fast food and reality tv, instead of educating in maths and sciences.

The house of cards will collapse soon.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:33 PM

What do you think will happen when the house of cards come tumbling down?

I don't know too much about it because I wasn't even born yet or very young (born in 93), but I heard the late 70's, 80's, and early 90's were a good time for innovation, business, and getting a good job. What was different then than now, Is it just jobs being shipped overseas and less corruption?
edit on 16-3-2012 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM

In those times America still had more manufacturing, respect in the world, and less regulation. People had hope and believed in the American Dream. That spirit is gone. Granted, the corruption was probably the same. The corruptible and immoral nature of man is not going to change.

We will not be getting jobs, manufacturing or other, back in the US. Unions and federal regulation ensure that once a job ships overseas, it stays. Any jobs that develop will have to be home grown, and the nature of things prohibits that.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Wolf321

We will not be getting jobs, manufacturing or other, back in the US. Unions and federal regulation ensure that once a job ships overseas, it stays. Any jobs that develop will have to be home grown, and the nature of things prohibits that.

Incorrect.

Manufacturing jobs that went over to China ARE coming back. Several manufacturers are already moving back claiming that it is cheaper and wiser to relocate back to America.

Wages in china are rising (guess the Chinese are realizing just how BADLY they are being paid and exploited by U.S. manufacturers, and I mean paid and exploited BADLY!!) and with American workers being 4 times as productive, many manufacturers have decided to come back

At one time these manufacturers (TRAITORS to Americans), saw China as huge profits. But NOW its a different story.

And THANK GOODNESS because I have yet to own ANYTHING made in china that was worth a CRAP and that I didnt have to buy THREE or FOUR times over and over again until giving up and just buying American. Now I buy American from the START and only have to buy it ONCE.
edit on 16-3-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:02 PM
Well they could allow 60+ year olds to retire with social security benifits for a short period of time to get some of the old timers out of the job market. Would drain the SS fund but would open some jobs for younger people. Once they get a set amount of jobs open they can move retirement age back up.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:05 PM
There is little point trying to convince those who don't see wealth redistribution as a good thing, at least in threads like this.

However, it should be noted that human nature is such that it won't admit of vast inequality for long. Human beings have the capacity to suffer privation together, but something innate and primitive in us knows when things that are not fair are taking place. No boss is worth 700, 400, 300, 100, 50 or even 10 times as much as the lowest-paid worker.

If you can't bring yourself to see wealth redistribution as the absolute good it so clearly is, at least have the common sense and lack of denial to acknowledge that the stability of society is threatened when inequality reaches a certain level.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:05 PM

Very few are coming back. An insignificant amount are returning. While the cost to produce in China is rising, many are just moving production into other developing nations.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Leftist
No boss is worth 700, 400, 300, 100, 50 or even 10 times as much as the lowest-paid worker.

This is a self-made problem. As long as investors think that the job being done by a CEO is worth that much AND as long as people are wiling to work for an agreed upon wage AND people are willing to buy the products and services of companies who do those things then no wrong is done.

Those are three levels of checks and balances in capitalism that allow for freedom, choice and responsibility.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by Leftist
No boss is worth 700, 400, 300, 100, 50 or even 10 times as much as the lowest-paid worker.

This is a self-made problem. As long as investors think that the job being done by a CEO is worth that much AND as long as people are wiling to work for an agreed upon wage AND people are willing to buy the products and services of companies who do those things then no wrong is done.

Those are three levels of checks and balances in capitalism that allow for freedom, choice and responsibility.

Hey, with that logic, why not bring back slavery for the blacks? Or some other group? As long as investors think that the job being done by a CEO is worth that much AND as long as people are wiling to work for an agreed upon wage AND people are willing to buy the products and services of companies who do those things then no wrong is done, right?

Morality comes before profit, not vice-versa.

edit on 16-3-2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM

Slavery isn't freedom.

A person that is working in the US has agreed to work for the amount of compensation they receive.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:21 PM
I do not support any kind of maximum wage or maximum salary, there are much better ways to create jobs.

I support penalizing outsourcing and overseas manufacturing with taxes and tax breaks for those that keep jobs here.

The problem with the idea of a maximum wage is that it will stop a lot of people from starting businesses or going into certain fields. A doctor is not going to invest in medical school if their prospect is a maximum salary of \$250,000. A business owner is not going to expand their business because once they reach the cap of 250,000...there is no more incentive for them to expand, work harder and provide more jobs.

So I would argue that with your plan there is a possibility of an even higher unemployement due to large corporations and even larger small businesses cutting their workforce because there is no longer a need to try to maximize their profits...they only need to maximize their profits up to the owner making \$250,000.

Salary caps are a bad idea.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Wolf321

Slavery isn't freedom.

A person that is working in the US has agreed to work for the amount of compensation they receive.

Only because they have a lack of other viable choices. Yes, on paper they can "sit and starve." But real life doesn't work that way.

It is the same "freedom" as the "freedom" of the slave consents to slavery "freely" by his work. After all, he could always choose freely to be lashed and whipped instead, right?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:32 PM

Only because they have a lack of other viable choices. Yes, on paper they can "sit and starve." But real life doesn't work that way.

It is the same "freedom" as the "freedom" of the slave consents to slavery "freely" by his work. After all, he could always choose freely to be lashed and whipped instead, right?

So in your opinion...what is "freedom"?

Is the only way to only be "free" is to choose not to work and still get paid?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:34 PM

Create a maximum wage. Make it 15 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. I know some people say to make it 100x, but that's \$15,000 compared to \$1,500,000. Nobody needs that amount of money, especially when others are suffering.

I have a question? What in the hell gives you or anybody else the right to decide what an individual American should or should not earn?

Wealth redistribution is unconstitutional.

The utopian schemes of leveling [wealth redistribution] and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional. - Samuel Adams

edit on 16-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

top topics

24