Income Inequality.

[lewisnotmiller]

People with those kinda skills will often step out on their own and start their own business. They then teach others their skill when hiring them to work for him. Often business owners start out as regular working stiffs like the rest of us.

I was a regular working stiff, then a business owner, now back to being a regular working stiff.

It's good, actually, gives you a rounded perspective of this stuff.

 

[sayak83]

Oh stop acting like wealth is the only type of power that exist! Academia is power, social media is power, cancel culture is power; there are countless ways people exhibit power; not just through wealth.

No. Wealth is 99% of the power. All those other things are just noise. They can affect policy only if they get the backing of the wealthy or do not affect their interests. Issues like gender controversy, abortion etc do not affect the wealthy, so they do not care.

No amount of outrage or academic writing made it so that the bankers were held criminally accountable for the 2008 crash did it?

Tyrannical Political power is the other form of power, and it may come from the millitary (dictatorship), populism or ideology (theocracy, communism) . But they are also tied with wealth. All the dictators may have used brute force initially, but they use wealth to keep themselves in power.

 

[Heyo]

Wait! So the Government fires the current board of directors and hires a new one? How does the Government do this with only 15% of the stock? The other 85% of shareholders will not go along with it. And when the Government tries to sell the 15% of Tesla stock that will likely destroy the company, causing the share price to drop through the floor!

What do you mean change it into a corporation? Tesla is already a corporation! Am I missing something? Or are you not making sense here. Please explain.

Do you even realize how stupid your indoctrination has made you? (I think that it is the indoctrination but maybe you are really as stupid as you show yourself to be.) You have a psychological, dogmatic block that makes you not understand any anti-capitalistic concept by totally erasing you thinking, or in this case, reading skills.
I laid out what would happen to Tesla in the first sentence.
In the second sentence I was talking about civil law associations, not about corporations. What do you think made you miss that? Are you generally so bad at reading comprehension or only when comprehending what was said threatens your worldview or the view of yourself?

 

[Heyo]

Sure, easy.

There have been a number of cases in the United States where for-profit prisons have been accused of paying kickbacks to magistrates in order to increase sentences. In one particularly well-known case, two Pennsylvania judges, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, were convicted of accepting $2.8 million in kickbacks from the builder and co-owner of two for-profit lockups. In exchange for the kickbacks, Ciavarella and Conahan shut down a county-run juvenile detention center and sent hundreds of children to the for-profit facilities. Many of the children were sent to the facilities for minor offenses, such as truancy and smoking on school grounds.

The case of Ciavarella and Conahan is not the only example of for-profit prisons paying kickbacks to magistrates. In 2015, a federal judge in Texas sentenced a former magistrate to 12 years in prison for accepting kickbacks from a for-profit prison company. The judge, Abel Limas, was accused of accepting $100,000 in kickbacks in exchange for sending defendants to the for-profit prison company.

Source

In 2015, Martin Shkreli, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of Daraprim, a life-saving drug, from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

I don't need to source this I hope.

The Sackler family, the owners of Purdue Pharma, have been accused of misleading doctors and patients about the addictiveness of OxyContin, a painkiller that has been linked to the opioid epidemic. The Sacklers have made billions of dollars from OxyContin, while millions of Americans have become addicted to the drug. And who suffered the most at the hands of the Sakler family? Ding, Ding, Ding......The poor.

Oh, and let's not forget the payday lending industry. Just doing their civic duty ensuring that poor people have money in a pinch, right?
Wealthy individuals and organizations can donate to political campaigns, which gives them a significant advantage in elections. This means that politicians are more likely to listen to the concerns of wealthy donors than the concerns of the poor.

• In 2014, a study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 80% of payday loan borrowers rolled over their loans at least once, and 20% rolled over their loans six or more times. This means that many borrowers were trapped in a cycle of debt, and they were paying much more than they borrowed.
• A 2012 study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that payday loan borrowers were more likely to experience financial hardship than borrowers of other types of loans. The study also found that payday loan borrowers were more likely to have trouble paying their rent or mortgage, and they were more likely to have their utilities shut off.
• A 2017 study by the National Consumer Law Center found that payday loans can have a negative impact on borrowers' mental health. The study found that payday loan borrowers were more likely to experience anxiety and depression than borrowers of other types of loans.

Wealthy individuals and organizations can lobby politicians to support policies that benefit them, even if these policies harm the poor. For example, wealthy individuals and organizations have lobbied for tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of businesses, and cuts to social programs. Republicans are openly touting plans to cut SS, Medicaid and increasing the SS retirement age.

Then there's Clarence Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have all been connected to wealthy billionaire doners and law firms, ALL of which had business before the court. And while I won't cite any specific case that harms the poor, it's not hard to use your imagination to think that what Harlan Crow isn't fighting for is higher pay, training and education for the poor...lol

Oh, one of my faves....

A hedge fund called Alden Global Capital has been buying up mobile home parks across the United States in recent years. The company has a plan to drive up rents until people can't pay and take over homes many of which are owned but are too expensive to move and are purchased for pennies on the dollar. Then they rent them out. Not only do they do this, but they give their investors tours of the properties they own and have taken over in order to attract more investment.

Alden Global Capital is a private equity firm that specializes in buying distressed assets. The company has a reputation for being a "vulture capitalist," meaning that it buys companies that are struggling and then cuts costs and sells off assets in order to make a profit.

In the case of mobile home parks, Alden Global Capital is buying up parks that are often owned by small, family-owned businesses. The company then raises rents and cuts maintenance, making it difficult for residents to afford to stay. In some cases, Alden Global Capital has even tried to evict residents in order to take over their homes and rent them out for a profit.

This practice has been criticized by consumer advocates and mobile home park residents. They argue that Alden Global Capital is taking advantage of low-income people who are already struggling to make ends meet. They also argue that the company's practices are driving up the cost of mobile home living and making it harder for people to afford to own their own homes.

In 2022, a group of mobile home park residents in Michigan filed a lawsuit against Alden Global Capital, alleging that the company had violated state law by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices. The lawsuit is still pending.

The case of Alden Global Capital and mobile home parks is a reminder of the power of wealth and the need for regulation. When wealthy investors are able to buy up essential assets, such as housing, they have the power to drive up prices and make it harder for people to afford to live. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and it is one that is likely to become more urgent in the years to come.

Source


Economically, higher levels of income disparity mean that the wealthy have a higher share of resources, like buying up real estate around lakes and making them private. Using higher levels of income to speculate on homes drive up costs. Same for energy prices.

It would be pretty easy to fill a book with examples of how income disparity harm the poor.

:winner:

 

[Heyo]

Because during economic hardships, inequality is less, and during times of economic growth, inequality is at it's greatest.

You have repeated that several times but you haven't shown how inequality causes economic growth and not that economic growth causes inequality.

 

[Heyo]

Only way it happens is if it's
somehow a zero sum game.

It is a zero sum game.

Rich and poor are relative concepts. "Poor" is defined as owning X percent of the average in a given time and space. I.e. almost any wealth above zero in the US would make you rich in Somalia while you'd be poor in the US.
Your status wouldn't change if your wealth doubled when everybody else's wealth would also double.
So, if the rich raise their part of the wealth, everybody else gets poorer, even if they have absolutely more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure. Therefore... ?
What does this have to do with income inequality?

The 12 oclock bell ringing makes the 12 oclock bus show up, doncha know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh stop acting like wealth is the only type of power that exist! Academia is power, social media is power, cancel culture is power; there are countless ways people exhibit power; not just through wealth.

Do you think that wealth may play a teensy weensy part in all of those things?

 

[Audie]

It is a zero sum game.

Rich and poor are relative concepts. "Poor" is defined as owning X percent of the average in a given time and space. I.e. almost any wealth above zero in the US would make you rich in Somalia while you'd be poor in the US.
Your status wouldn't change if your wealth doubled when everybody else's wealth would also double.
So, if the rich raise their part of the wealth, everybody else gets poorer, even if they have absolutely more.

Pretty weird concept.
Where did you get those ideas?

 

[Audie]

I was a regular working stiff, then a business owner, now back to being a regular working stiff.

It's good, actually, gives you a rounded perspective of this stuff.

I've never actually had a job.

 

[Audie]

Well, if income inequality was actually good for the economy, then we would see actual tangible results, wouldn't we? Do we have anything to show for it that's good?

Like that people with money are able to.
create jobs and wealth?
At a guess, you never have.

 

[PureX]

I'll run with a five point plan, to try to avoid boredom;

1) drop any thought that we can 'solve' income equality. What we can do is move it a baby step in the right direction.
2) implement an actual minimum wage that means SOMETHING, as opposed to current joke levels. This wouldn't be $50, but should be more than the price of a cheeseburger at McDonalds.
3) cap CEO wages. It can be an extravagent cap, I don't much mind. But unfettered growth of CEO (and other director position wages) doesn't help anyone. Apart from the CEO. He's helped.
4) focus less on fixing the short term and more on social mobility. Ultimately I care less if some people are rich, and some poor, if I feel like things are an actual meritocracy. That would include better education and health access. In US terms, that would include revisiting school funding models, and having charter schools (with some limitations).
5) wear 'tax the rich' dresses to the Met Gala. Okay, so the last one doesn't really help, but you'll get some clicks...

The problem is that these are all just "emergency measures" that don't address the real problem. Leaving the real problem to fester and seek 'workarounds', which has already happened, and is why none of the measures you suggest are ever going to be implemented. The capitalist greedsters have now amassed so much excess wealth, and have so fully convinced the public that greed is necessary and acceptable, that they have totally corrupted government and knuckled under the general population, to the point that none of your suggested measures will ever be implemented. And even when they were implemented in the past, the greedsters just erased them.

You're response is too little and too late.

 

[PureX]

Then why do companies pay for managers?
If the idea is to make the most profit then the owners of the company are failing in their mission by hiring managers.

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the value a manager adds to the company.

Or perhaps you aren't grasping the difference between CREATING value, and exploiting it for the benefit of the capital investors. Because THAT"S what the "upper" management is about. The lower managers are just for keeping production flowing.

 

[Audie]

Or perhaps you aren't grasping the difference between CREATING value, and exploiting it for the benefit of the capital investors. Because THAT"S what the "upper" management is about. The lower managers are just for keeping production flowing.

In your fantasy world only

 

[PureX]

What about doing it?
The rich only got richer since the '80s because they didn't pay taxes. The difference had to be picked up by the middle class - which then ended up poor.
The widening of the wealth and income gap could have been avoided with a fair tax scheme.

But this happened because the rich had amassed enough wealth and power to buy the government, and reverse the meager limitations to their greed. These weak stop-gap measures like taxing the rich don't work because they are always too little and too late. And the rich will simple find ways to have them removed, or rendered ineffective.

Nothing is going to change until the people, themselves, finally stop pandering to the capitalist BS, and set up new more socialist methods of conducting commercial enterprise. The problem is capitalism, not rich people.

 

[Koldo]

Because during economic hardships, inequality is less, and during times of economic growth, inequality is at it's greatest.

Ok. But inequality doesn't have to be great to have economic growth.

 

[Koldo]

No; it was the result of tax cuts. But my point was, just because the line worker gets a raise does not mean share holders lose money.

They did lose money. You are not taking into consideration they would have, at least in principle, gained even more money if they didn't have to raise the wages.

 

[Koldo]

But this happened because the rich had amassed enough wealth and power to buy the government, and reverse the meager limitations to their greed. These weak stop-gap measures like taxing the rich don't work because they are always too little and too late. And the rich will simple find ways to have them removed, or rendered ineffective.

Nothing is going to change until the people, themselves, finally stop pandering to the capitalist BS, and set up new more socialist methods of conducting commercial enterprise. The problem is capitalism, not rich people.

But the rich wouldn't have so much power if the poor and the middle class weren't buying into their propaganda in the first place.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

My point is, in today's economy when income inequality is at its greatest, things have been better for the poor.

Sorry. I don’t know what to say to that except for what I’ve already said.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure I agree, though I'm open to counter arguments.

My parents had a small business, about as small as it could be. It was a shop that sold fruit and vegetables. Their approach to the customers was, basically, that they, the shopkeepers, had a right to make money from the customers. If someone tried to return a substandard piece of fruit, they strongly resisted refunding their money. As far as I could see, they were too close to the customers, and each transaction was seen individually as either a financial gain or loss. Another example, if a customer wanted to select which potatoes they wanted from the bin, they resisted it. They would say "Someone has to have the ones with flaws". Basically, they didn't want to be left with unsalable goods that had to be thrown out at the end of the day. After all, they had paid the wholesaler for them and they had the right, they felt, to pass that cost on to the customer. It helped them to be in a small town with only a couple of competing shops, so the idea that happy customers are better in the long run didn't carry as much weight as it should have, as the customers' main power, to shop elsewhere, was very limited.

I'll add something that no longer applies, so what I observed then may no longer apply. This was following WW2 (in England) when many things were strictly rationed. That didn't apply to fruit and vegetables which were mostly produced locally, but the customers were used to a "take it or leave it" attitude from shopkeepers.

Now lets move to the other end of the scale and look at present day Amazon. I wouldn't want to work there but from a customer's point of view they are excellent. Easy shopping online. Short delivery times. Free returns. It seems that their sheer size has allowed them to make losses on individual items which results in happy customers, while profiting from a huge volume of sales.

Sadly, your parents did not understand the actual purpose of engaging in commercial trade: to serve the well being of all those involved in the trade. They were only looking to serve their own well-being at the expense of the other person.

If all Amazon does is provide buyers access to lots of sellers and sellers access to lots of buyers, for a minimal fee, it would be a positive service for all. But unfortunately, we live under a capitalist system, so Amazon's behavior is being controlled by it's endless desire to maximize it's profit, and so is using the service it provides to collect data and sell it to anyone for any reason for the highest price. Then it uses the massive wealth that it generates doing that to bribe and corrupt the government officials to keep them from stopping this data-mining of everyone for profit. The result being that everyone's security is undermined, the government is corrupted and becomes useless, while the capital investors amass so much wealth that they can pervert the course of human history, and cause the real suffering of millions and millions of people.

Your parents might have behaved just like Bezos if they had managed to create a business that big. As they clearly were not concerned for the well-being of anyone but themselves when they were engaging in commercial trade. But a lot of people living under capitalism think like this. They think that trade is always and only an act of selfish aggression. That the object is to exploit the other guy for as much as one can get because the other guy is trying to do the same. And when we treat people like that, we force them to respond in kind, proving to ourselves that we were right.

But we weren't right. That's not what trading goods and services is for, or about. Commerce is not exploitation. And exploitation is not fair trade. But hardly anyone who has lived under capitalism understands this, because capitalism is a system based on promoting and rewarding greed, and selfishness, and exploitation, instead of fair trade for all our mutual benefit and well-being.