Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

 

[fantome profane]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

It is not as simple as "good or bad". The question is how much income inequality is good. If the income inequality is too high that is bad.

 

[Kfox]

It is not as simple as "good or bad". The question is how much income inequality is good. If the income inequality is too high that is bad.

Why is it bad if it's too high?

 

[Koldo]

Why is it bad if it's too high?

Because money grants power over people. Here's a simple example: Politicians want money to support their campaigns, and big donators are going to get something in return which may or may not be in the best interests of the voters. In other words, people with more money have a bigger power to shape society according to their will.

And since poverty has pretty much always been a thing, we get to see people subjecting themselves to do things that they wouldn't have otherwise, such as prostitution, just because of money. Or crappy work conditions, or abuse, or... because they need to make their ends meet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Gee, I don't know. What could ever be wrong with a society whwre many are employed full time but still poor anywaya?
Higher rates of crime and drug abuse are two issues and concerns to help get started.

 

[Stevicus]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

It depends. A lot of people in America come from a culture of hard work, where everyone is expected to do their share, and if someone excels and righteously earns a higher salary, then most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

Like if someone is a brain surgeon - that's something that most people wouldn't be able to do, so they earn a higher salary for that. They provide a valued service to society, so I don't think too many people would begrudge a brain surgeon a high salary. Or if someone is a scientist or inventor, if they create something truly momentous and beneficial, then by all means, let them have their reward. I don't think very many people would object to that.

What people may object to is when they see income inequality which they see as unearned or not through any personal merit or even that much hard work. Or if it looks like a bunch of crooks. Some people in this country don't like crooks who take more than they contribute. Some people think it's bad.

 

[F1fan]

Hourly workers are paid $12 an hour and have few benefits, no heathcare (due to costs) by the CEO is paid $21 million a year, and stock options if profit targets are hit. The profit can be increased by demanding more productivity, and reduce costs, and this impacts workers.

This is not any specific corporation but it is a common model for them. The emphasis is to maximize profit and if workers are impacted negatively it is just how it goes. Their attitude is that workers can quit and some other worker will be hired. The question could be: do businesses have a moral obligation to pay a living wage? The current legal minimum wage is well under a living wage.

 

[Kfox]

Because money grants power over people.

Money isn’t the only thing that grants power; so does influence. You have some guy with a pod cast, or some social media influencer, l would argue he would have more power than some billionaire who doesn’t use his money to influence.

Here's a simple example: Politicians want money to support their campaigns, and big donators are going to get something in return which may or may not be in the best interests of the voters. In other words, people with more money have a bigger power to shape society according to their will.

But they use their money to shape society in different directions because rich people don’t agree on political issues; sorta like Pod casters, or those with thousands of followers on twitter.

And since poverty has pretty much always been a thing, we get to see people subjecting themselves to do things that they wouldn't have otherwise, such as prostitution, just because of money. Or crappy work conditions, or abuse, or... because they need to make their ends meet.

How do rich people turn people into prostitutes?

 

[Kfox]

Gee, I don't know. What could ever be wrong with a society whwre many are employed full time but still poor anywaya?
Higher rates of crime and drug abuse are two issues and concerns to help get started.

What on Earth does any of this have to do with anything I've said?

 

[Kfox]

It depends. A lot of people in America come from a culture of hard work, where everyone is expected to do their share, and if someone excels and righteously earns a higher salary, then most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

Like if someone is a brain surgeon - that's something that most people wouldn't be able to do, so they earn a higher salary for that. They provide a valued service to society, so I don't think too many people would begrudge a brain surgeon a high salary. Or if someone is a scientist or inventor, if they create something truly momentous and beneficial, then by all means, let them have their reward. I don't think very many people would object to that.

What people may object to is when they see income inequality which they see as unearned or not through any personal merit or even that much hard work. Or if it looks like a bunch of crooks. Some people in this country don't like crooks who take more than they contribute. Some people think it's bad.

What kinda people are doing this stuff?

 

[Kfox]

Hourly workers are paid $12 an hour and have few benefits, no heathcare (due to costs) by the CEO is paid $21 million a year, and stock options if profit targets are hit.

Managers determine workers wages, and though they may make more money than the average worker, they aren’t usually rich.

The profit can be increased by demanding more productivity, and reduce costs, and this impacts workers.

Increased productivity is usually accomplished via new technology or employing a different work strategy; rarely is increased productivity done by just telling them to work harder.

This is not any specific corporation but it is a common model for them. The emphasis is to maximize profit and if workers are impacted negatively it is just how it goes. Their attitude is that workers can quit and some other worker will be hired. The question could be: do businesses have a moral obligation to pay a living wage? The current legal minimum wage is well under a living wage.

I don’t think any business is morally obligated to pay a living wage according to your chosen lifestyle.

 

[sayak83]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

If income inequality is balanced by institutions that ensure that everyone has access to enough food, water, shelter, healthcare and education for kids so as make a reasonable living possible, then I have no problem.
The argument is as follows.
Suppose I am a criminal in jail. There I have food, shelter, medical facilities if I get sick etc. Yet a law abiding citizen who say, is unemployed and cannot make in income does not have access to any of these. Then why should a law abiding citizen not commit crime in order to go to jail where he can at least get meals and a roof...even if it's a jail cell?

 

[fantome profane]

But they use their money to shape society in different directions because rich people don’t agree on political issues

There is one thing that most if not all rich people seem to agree on. They all agree that it is good to be rich. And they will use that influence that their wealth allows them to protect their wealth, and become richer.

 

[Stevicus]

What kinda people are doing this stuff?

I've noticed it as a common perception that many people hold regarding income inequality. If people earn it and deserve it, then people are mostly okay with it, but people might have a problem with those who don't appear to deserve it. It looks shady and dishonest, even if it might be technically legal. If people don't like it, they're not going to like it. They can't really do anything about it, except maybe support a government which might implement reforms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What on Earth does any of this have to do with anything I've said?

You're topic. Large gaps in income inequality means there is an excessive amount if poor people, and poor people often struggle to afford needs, amd when people can't afford needs then they become primed to conduct crime to make up the difference and/or drug abuse to escape their reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

Speaking for myself, I'm more interested in which direction it's trending. If, as a society, we have a widening gap, it's somewhat informative.

My assumption broadly is that the differences between 'smart' and 'less smart', or between 'hard working' and 'lazy' are pretty timeless. So if things are changing in ANY direction, it's informative. If we have a relatively wealthy person now, vs a relatively wealthy person 50 years ago, how disconnected are they from a 'regular Joe'? What is their relative control over the means of production, what is their ability to throttle the political process?

If you're an absolutist in terms of capitalism and free market principles, you might think it's beneficial in and of itself to have more money and power in the hands of the 'best and brightest'. But even then, I think it's reasonable to measure the trends of just how much more money and power that represents as compared to the hypothetical average person.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you're an absolutist in terms of capitalism and free market principles, you might think it's beneficial in and of itself to have more money and power in the hands of the 'best and brightest'.

More like the greediest and most corrupt and abusive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What kinda people are doing this stuff?

Bill Gates
Jeff Bezos
Elon Musk

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

Surely, it is not the actual inequality that you consider to be “a good thing” (unless you genuinely enjoy knowing that some lack food, water, shelter and medical assistance), but rather the idea that there should be no limit to what you materially can achieve?

I think that most people are for social mobility (the idea that you can be born into poverty and work your way out of it) and that many hold our few cultural “wonder-stories” as proof of it not only being possible to get yourself out of poverty, but also to become “proper rich”.

Albeit, there are about as many who truly have gone from real rags to proper riches as there are people who have won the lottery and of course, you could be[come] one of them. If so; congratulations!

Yet, most of those born into poverty will never be rich and many may not make it out of their initial predicament; not for lack of ambition or of hard work, but because of complete lack of opportunity. And equal opportunity exists as an ideal, but not in fact as a reality.

Both ambition and greed used to be considered vices within certain cultures and beliefs and, it is only through further reflection and insight that we realise why: when we (through ambition and hard work) acquire more than we really need, we indirectly deprive others of their bare necessities.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Heyo]

I've always considered it as practiced in the United States to be a good thing. But I know a lot of people seem to think it is bad; why?

K

Depends on your moral core values. Equality has always been one of three for me (together with well being and liberty).
So, for me, inequality is axiomatically immoral.