I see... So the issue is that of the definition of correlation. Here's the thing. Correlations means that there is a relation between one statistical data set to another statistical data set. E.G. there is a correlation between gender and height of people. Does this mean there aren't mitigating factors involved like race or age? No. All a correlation states that there is a trend weather positive, negative, or neutral.

In this specific situation there could be correlation between increase in population and lower wages, increase in technology and lower wages, or even increase in medical costs and lower wages. As I haven't seen the data my self I can't say that there is or isn't. However, correlations between other factors doesn't decrease the validity of a previous set correlation. What would decrease the validity is the actual statistical data taken, how it was taken, the randomness of the data for the sample pool (less randomness reduces validity), and objectivity of the people writing the conclusions.

Furthermore, your issue seems like you feel that we are purporting causation (as in wealthier earning less "causes" lower unemployment rates). While I can't say for who wrote the original quote, I can say that interpreting the words in that way would cause even me to have issues with the statement. I still read it as a correlation, and since correlation doesn't prove causation due to uncontrolled factors. Then you would be right is saying that you can't prove causation until you deal with those factors and experiment.

I hope that helps clear up the issue.

How exactly does this relate? What correlation do you speak of? Between what to wages exactly? How can you say that there is no correlation? Can you give me the metadata? What information are you using that shows no correlation?

Are you saying that there is no relation to the 70's versus now because of new technology and because of a difference in population?

if capping income limits createivity and 'job creation',, why is it back in the seventies when the wealthy earned LESS of the money, we had LOWER unemployment

<b>and since the seventies , while their share grew,, unemployment also got larger</b>


lets try paying people decent wages,, that is the difference between the 'taxpayer' and the 'non'.. not morals or productivity, but WAGES, as the tax system is based upon income brackets


lets try creating those jobs that these wealthy allegedly can create more of while their income exponentially grows

lets evolve from our slave worker system that tells people take what we offer you and don't complain and don't be upset that you cant participate and don't matter because you are in the wrong income bracket,,

create the environment where people can earn the income necessary to pay taxes, and the gap wouldn't be so large


as to the sexists who continue to blame women having babies ,, women have been having babies since time began,,, it really cant continue to be the scapegoat for all social problems,,,and BY THE WAY,, none of them have managed to do it without an all too willing man,,,,

You missed the point... There Exists married spouses that don't work and yet have smart phones. There Exists children that don't work and yet have smart phones. There Exists retired individuals that never worked a day in their life because They are living off of their families inheritance, and yet have cellphones and billions of cash.

As all of these people are considered apart of the populace, and as such treated a part of the non labor stats. By the way did you know that it is required to have a phone number to have a job? Especially a job that is low income? If your employer has no way of contacting you, how is it that they will be able to let you know you have the job?

What I am saying is that if you define contribution to society by solely making bank. That definition is flawed, as there are people who contribute to society that don't make money (example: Mother Teresa), AND there are people who make bank without even lifting a finger (example: Lottery winners).

Also trying to distinguish between those who "contribute" and those who don't isn't a viable option either. This goes back to the issue of "any law like this that is passed will be struck down by the supreme court".

Now can we continue with a discussion where "Exclusion" is off the table, because it can't go any where.

Sorry I wouldn't know. Oh got a question for you. Do Spouses of millionares
work? do spouses in general work and "contribute" as you define it?

I don't know this may be a reason as to why. but who knows except them.


Dodo he is right that there are people in the civilian population that don't work because they choose not to. Examples: Married spouses with children, Children in general, the retired community, debutantes(yes they still exist), ex presidents, priests, nuns, the list continues...

But you are right that there are a vast ammount of people that are unemployed that can't find work. I believe that I already mentioned the statistics on this in a previous post so I won't reiterate unless I have to.

I personally believe this war on the wealthy mentality would do more harm than good. Problem is that "wealthy" is defined as those making $250k+ annually. Unfortunately 250k is not all that much when taking into consideration, say, a doctor paying $3000 a month on student loans, $1,000 a month in malpractice insurance (and this is cheap insurance), and also paying the additional income tax.

There is also a myth about wealthy individuals only paying 15% of their income on taxes. This is actually just dividends. If we raise this, we raise taxes average folks pay on selling their houses for a profit, or 401k (or the majority of retirement plans by that matter), which hurts the middle class.

Raising minimum wage, again, hurts the middle class despite helping the poor. I personally don't believe minimum wage should be a living wage. It's supposed to be for those jobs you get in high school or early college years for a little extra spending cash.

That being said, IF ANY cap is placed on administrative salaries, it should be a percentage not a limit, therefore still encouraging innovation and advancement. Maybe no one in a company should be making more than 75 times what the lowest paid employee makes. Or better yet, start small. For instance, ceo's/administrative personnel cannot get a raise unless everyone in the company gets the same percentage pay raise. But maybe this regulation is not the answer.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to lower American corporate tax rates to roughly 25%, and slap an import tax on products coming in from overseas. Instead of encouraging businesses to bring work elsewhere we should focus on getting those middle income producing jobs back over here. Maybe if fewer people were making minimum wage, the income gap would even itself out a bit.

yeah, you really have to appreciate these so called 'small government folks" they're all over that when the corporations want to be rid of regulations, but if you are poor, female, minority, gay, well then they want to rule them with a Draconian, Fascist hammer, ie, small government is for a very select group.

Yes, its a bad idea. Not surprising though. Cable companies do already monopolize most areas. Where I live I can only get timewarner. Some of my friends can only get comcast.