[Mpls] Bus Strike

[Chris Johnson]

Bill Cullen wrote:
 
  [snip]

>Regards, Bill.
>Whittier Landlord
>
>P.S. Jennifer Pedersen wrote "I'm amazed how many people look at the bus
>drivers' wages as if they are taking something away from the rest of us."
>How can we increase anyone's wages/benefits without taking money from
>someone else?  There must be an economic model I am unaware of....
>
>  
>
Bill, I am no economic expert, and I am probably less capable of 
explaining economic theories I barely understand.  But I do believe that 
it is generally agreed by economists that not only is it possible to 
raise everyone's wages (or standard of living), without making someone 
else suffer a loss, but that this has actually occurred continuously 
except for brief recession periods since World War II.

One explanation is that those people with more wage money spend much of 
it, putting it back into circulation to be available to raise others' 
wages.  If everybody put every additional cent they earned under their 
mattresses, maybe there would be a problem.

I think you are suffering a commonly held misconception that an economy 
or market must always be a zero sum game.

If you really want to know how this can happen, I honestly recommend 
trying to find a middle of the road (in theory, not quality of writing!) 
book on economics.  As I said, I barely grasp how it can work, but I do 
believe it is a well accepted concept.

One could also argue that the ever increasing gap between the average 
executive pay and the average worker pay is a place to find that money.  
One might argue that it is bad for society to concentrate wealth in the 
hands of so few.  One could arge having $500 million instead of $20 
million in personal wealth from executive compensation is unneccesary 
greed, and that it is detrimental to society.  A lot of "small boats" 
can be raised quite a bit by spreading one executives huge salary around 
a bit wider.

Or, on the contrary, one could argue the old system of feudalism with a 
few incredibly wealthy over-lords scattered here and there, and everyone 
else as hand to mouth peasants worked just fine.

Not that I advocate forcibly taking money from the wealthy, but there 
seems to be something wrong with a system where the wealthiest 1% get 
vastly wealthier, while  the poorest 50%* become poorer.   (*50% is not 
the real number; I don't have it at hand.)

Chris Johnson
Fulton