Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

Weren't we talking about the cases where the rich lose money and the poor gain more money?

What does that have to do with making riches richer?

No; we were talking about how during economic down turn, the rich lose more money than the poor, thus the gap between the rich and the poor lessens. Economic down turns are not good for the poor; so just because there is economic inequality does not mean it is bad.

 

[Heyo]

If the Government takes over your business the minute you retire, you have less incentive to do what it takes to start a business; resulting in far less wealth being created.

The government doesn't take your business the minute you retire, it takes your business the moment you die. You are dead anyway, the business is still there, someone has to manage it, so why not the government? And remember what you gain for it: no income taxes for your whole life, you pay at the end.
And society gets an instant equality of opportunity. (Well, it would be still better to get born to rich parents.) Everyone starts with the same. A true meritocracy.
I think the opposition to that proposal is because people don't like equal opportunity. People like privileges. Some even think they are entitled to privileges, especially the aristocracy and that includes the money aristocracy. Gods chosen people, those who are rich.

No. You said 700 people in the US have enough MONEY to give everybody in the country $13,000 a piece. The allowance created by their dividends are not enough to give everybody $13,000 each.

I didn't say that. But you said that wealthy people don't have much money - which is patently false.

 

[Heyo]

The rich don't determine wages, managers do.

The rich hire the managers (and pay them insane bonuses if they keep the salaries low).

 

[Heyo]

I work in professional consulting services,

Ah, you are a slave trader.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry but I just don't have time to go digging up the numbers and percentages; I've got too many people to respond to. What did I say that you disagree with?

Okay, I get that.
So here is what I found:

 

[PureX]

I think at least some of this has to do with the variance over time of smaller, familial groups being replaced by ever increasing group sizes, and the matching loss of cohesion and shared responsibility this engenders.

Yes, but it's kind of a 'chicken or egg' situation. A problem that feeds itself. The more 'stuff' we have, the more we fear not having it, and the more of it we want or think we need to feel safe. And everyone else presents a threat to that end because under capitalism, they ARE a threat to that end, as we are all competing for our economic survival. And the system is rigged to inspire and reward the most ruthless and greedy (which increases everyone's fear of everyone else). It is this economic fear that is dividing us all to turn against each other. And the "winners" think this is great, of course, because they are winning the competition. But everyone else just becomes more and more insecure, and hopeless, while the rich pile up more and more undeserved wealth, and then misuse it. The whole thing is a system designed to fail. And anyone with an honest eye can see it. And along the way it destroys families, and communities, and national and even global cohesion.

Capitalism is a kind of moral/ethical poison, and until we finally accept this and take steps to eliminate it, it will continue to turn us all against each other in fear and greed and selfishness until our societies collapse. Because that is the only possible result that can come of it.

 

[PureX]

I suspect in cases where it wasn't, you would still say it is.

You are very clearly biased. So that doesn't surprise me.

 

[Koldo]

Not necessarily true.
Henry Ford decided to double the wages of his employees in 1914.
In doing so he reduced his employee turn-over rate from 370% to 16%. Saving a lot of recruiting costs.
Also by paying his employees they were able to afford to buy the product they were producing.
So by paying his employees more he was also increasing the size of the market for his product.

Greed is actually bad for capitalism. Capitalism benefits from having a healthy market.

Fair point.

 

[Stevicus]

The opposite has been true in today's economy.

Today's economy has been a disaster for the past 30-40 years, in terms of trade deficit, national debt, the country's credit rating, our manufacturing base, crumbling infrastructure, availability of affordable housing, real wages, our education system as compared with other industrialized countries, a substandard healthcare system, a weaker position in the world, weaker military/increased tensions, rising crime, gross inability to handle crises like the pandemic. If we look solely at the results of what actually exists in today's economy, then you'll see that I'm right.

 

[Koldo]

No; we were talking about how during economic down turn, the rich lose more money than the poor, thus the gap between the rich and the poor lessens. Economic down turns are not good for the poor; so just because there is economic inequality does not mean it is bad.

You have lost track of the conversation.

You asked me this: "Can you provide a real life example where if the rich had less wealth, the poor would have more?"

To which I replied: "Any time they increase the wages of the poor working for them."

Directly taking money from the rich and placing it in the pocket of their poor employees both reduces income inequality and benefits the poor employees.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

…..

Directly taking money from the rich and placing it in the pocket of their poor employees both reduces income inequality and benefits the poor employees.

Plus, every time you do that the economy improves overall.

What many people are forgetting to note is the real question should be about disposable income. The poor have zero disposable income as they struggle to obtain a simple living income. The rich already have a living income, and then have scads of money for their disposable income.
When hard times arrive, the poor suffered terribly as they choose between food or medicine or housing, While the rich lose some percentage of their disposable income, which, in anyone’s imagination, still leaves from extremely comfortably rich. ** BooHooHoo **
Also, their disposable income in good times or bad is simply hoarded away, and doing nothing for the general economy or state of the nation (Other than possibly driving housing prices up). Every time the poor get some kind of “bonus” to their wages the nation improves everywhere, because the poor go out and spend every last bit that they can get, in order to live.

And while we’re at it, the rich in no way ”create“ jobs or money.
Everyone on the right seems to have forgotten that it’s all about ‘supply and demand’. Somewhere in the 1980s (the decade of greed) they created the Lewis Powell/Ronald Reagan delusion of ”Supply Side Economics”. That of course, is a fool’s errand and leads to constant bubbles bursting, along with massive income inequality as middle-class investors lose everything they had been saving for, while the rich get a minor tap on the wrist. Not to mention the Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump tax cuts which UTTERLY FAVORED the rich alone.
Reality is as follows……If the poor don’t have money, there can be no demand. It is demand that allows an inventor to create something to solve that demand of the many. This allows investors and salesman and CEO types to create a business which produces a lot of what the inventor created to meet the demand. It is the general populous, who create wealth for everyone, because when they have a demand , some lucky CEO and his hirelings can at last create a business to meet that demand. When the poor have enough to buy a lot of that thing, then the lucky CEO can not only make a living wage for himself, but can acquire a huge disposable income solely for himself, which he then uselessly hoards away.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, but it's kind of a 'chicken or egg' situation. A problem that feeds itself. The more 'stuff' we have, the more we fear not having it, and the more of it we want or think we need to feel safe. And everyone else presents a threat to that end because under capitalism, they ARE a threat to that end, as we are all competing for our economic survival. And the system is rigged to inspire and reward the most ruthless and greedy (which increases everyone's fear of everyone else). It is this economic fear that is dividing us all to turn against each other. And the "winners" think this is great, of course, because they are winning the competition. But everyone else just becomes more and more insecure, and hopeless, while the rich pile up more and more undeserved wealth, and then misuse it. The whole thing is a system designed to fail. And anyone with an honest eye can see it. And along the way it destroys families, and communities, and national and even global cohesion.

Capitalism is a kind of moral/ethical poison, and until we finally accept this and take steps to eliminate it, it will continue to turn us all against each other in fear and greed and selfishness until our societies collapse. Because that is the only possible result that can come of it.

Thats certainly one lens to look at it through. It's not what I meant though.
Take a hypothetical community of 50. Imagine it under whatever political system you prefer, and whatever form of economic controls you prefer.

You can probably imagine it functioning pretty well. Personal and familial relationships do a lot of heavy lifting, regardless of the formal structures.

Bump it to 500, and imagine it.
5,000
50,000
500,000
5 million

I'm not defending capitalism, neither am I attacking it in this post. I'm suggesting that one thing commonly not discussed in ideologically charged discussions is scale, and the impact of large, less connected populations.

Capitalism without control is problematic. I favour guardrails. And because of our larger, less connected communities, those guardrails need to be more active, and formal, rather than informal and societal, as might have worked in the past.

 

[Kfox]

I'm really not interested in the raw percentage, though. Is 80% good? Bad? Who knows, and how would you measure?
I'm interested in the trends.

80% is extremely high compared to yesteryear. It’s an indication that the rich are not just people who inherit wealth from their parents, the vast majority are just regular folks like you and I who moved from lower or middle class to rich. Old money is not as common as it used to be. But it’s also an indication that there are a larger percentage of the population that are rich; old money has not gone away, it’s just that there is now a lot of new money among the rich..

 

[Kfox]

The government doesn't take your business the minute you retire, it takes your business the moment you die. You are dead anyway, the business is still there, someone has to manage it, so why not the government? And remember what you gain for it: no income taxes for your whole life, you pay at the end.

So tell me how this works exactly. Take Elon Musk. He starts Tesla. Because the company he started is now incorporated, he owns more shares of the company than anybody else, but he doesn’t own the entire company, he only owns 85%; the rest is owned by shareholders. When Musk dies, does the entire company go to the Government? What about the people who invested their money to buy the 85% of the shares Elon does not own? Does the Government have to cash them out?

I didn't say that. But you said that wealthy people don't have much money - which is patently false.

Compared to the wealth they own, they don’t own much money. Why would a rich person have a lot of their wealth tied up in money getting eaten up by inflation? I doubt the average billionaire has a million actual dollars

The rich hire the managers (and pay them insane bonuses if they keep the salaries low).

No they pay them to make a profit. If the manager could raise wages by 25% while cutting workers by 50%, this would result in less labor costs and the manager would likely get a bonus for such a wise business move

 

[lewisnotmiller]

80% is extremely high compared to yesteryear. It’s an indication that the rich are not just people who inherit wealth from their parents, the vast majority are just regular folks like you and I who moved from lower or middle class to rich. Old money is not as common as it used to be. But it’s also an indication that there are a larger percentage of the population that are rich; old money has not gone away, it’s just that there is now a lot of new money among the rich..

Hmm...if you have a source, I'd be interested. I didn't find that when I googled earlier. Had trouble finding much info on trends in that area.

I did appreciate the stuff you linked to earlier though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ah, you are a slave trader.

Nah, we have to pay them. And quite well, too.

I'm kinda like a high-end Madame.

 

[Kfox]

Okay, I get that.
So here is what I found:

So explain why this is bad.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The rich hire the managers (and pay them insane bonuses if they keep the salaries low).

Well...in the interests of fairness, that doesn't happen where I am either.
I'm judged pretty harshly if staff turnover increases. In hard economic terms, hiring and training new people is very costly, and it's more economic to pay fair wages.

I do get a bonus, but I'm not sure what you'd consider 'insane'...lol

 

[Kfox]

Today's economy has been a disaster for the past 30-40 years, in terms of trade deficit, national debt, the country's credit rating, our manufacturing base, crumbling infrastructure, availability of affordable housing, real wages, our education system as compared with other industrialized countries, a substandard healthcare system, a weaker position in the world, weaker military/increased tensions, rising crime, gross inability to handle crises like the pandemic. If we look solely at the results of what actually exists in today's economy, then you'll see that I'm right.

Assuming everything you said is true, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

 

[Kfox]

You have lost track of the conversation.

You asked me this: "Can you provide a real life example where if the rich had less wealth, the poor would have more?"

To which I replied: "Any time they increase the wages of the poor working for them."

Directly taking money from the rich and placing it in the pocket of their poor employees both reduces income inequality and benefits the poor employees.

Can you provide real life examples of this actually happening?