Income Inequality.

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

On paper, that works.
In reality though, it's also about "popularity" of the goods or service provided.

Take professional soccer players as an example.
What are their contributions to society? I'ld say virtually nihil (when compared to the contribution of say a brain surgeon, to stick to your example).

The money that base players in the premier league earn is ridiculous. Some of them earn more in an hour while receiving a massage then most of us will earn in a full year of hard work. But market forces are at play here.

Vincent Kompany, back when he was captain of Manchester City, was asked that question once if soccer players earned too much money.
His answer (paraphrasing):

"Simply, no... Look, consider a typical matchday at the Etihad stadium. It will be a full house. That's some 53.000 seats. Prices for tickets average at around 100 euro per ticket. So that's already 5.300.000 euro income just from sale of tickets for a single match. Then there's TV distribution rights. A typical man city match is actually viewed live globally by around 20 million people. Then there's also all the income from merchandise like shirts in fan shops, sponsor deals, etc. All that revenue ONLY exists because soccer players like us are on that pitch. WE are the drivers of that revenue. Why wouldn't we get a fair share of that? When Bruce Springsteen does a concert in front of 100.000 people, does he then get only 1000 bucks for the gig?"


When looking at just the numbers, I too consider it ridiculous the amount of money soccer players get to play the game and train. But it's just the sheer numbers. It's people paying for it. It happens to bring in loads of cash. So naturally, they earn a lot also.

I also know guys who jumped early on the band wagon when the first iphone came out. They created ridiculous games and apps, none of which actually took more then a day to make. Some of them were so simple that it literally took no more then 45 minutes of programming. MILLIONS of downloads, all paying a dollar.
In a matter of weeks / months, these guys went from "just out of school working class" to multi-millionaires. What was their contribution? Fart apps and cheap "snake" knock offs.



So, to conclude, it's easy at first glance to complain about "income inequality" and how it makes sense for people with "high contribution" to make more money then people with "low contribution". But the reality of market forces and sheer volumes make that a lot more complex.

 

[PureX]

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.

I agree. But when every commercial trade becomes an act of attempted exploitation for maximum profit, everyone involved is forced to respond in kind, just to protect themselves. And then all of commerce becomes a battleground. And many of these attempts at exploitation succeed, creating "winners" and "losers" in this giant battle of selfishness and exploitation.

Greed poisons everything and everyone it touches. And capitalism is systematized greed. It promotes and rewards greed by giving anyone with excess wealth near complete control over any commercial enterprise that they choose to invest it in. And so of course they use that control to maximize the profit being returned to them from their investment. And doing that, even at everyone else's expense, is rewarded with yet more wealth.

And that is systematized greed.

 

[Audie]

On paper, that works.
In reality though, it's also about "popularity" of the goods or service provided.

Take professional soccer players as an example.
What are their contributions to society? I'ld say virtually nihil (when compared to the contribution of say a brain surgeon, to stick to your example).

The money that base players in the premier league earn is ridiculous. Some of them earn more in an hour while receiving a massage then most of us will earn in a full year of hard work. But market forces are at play here.

Vincent Kompany, back when he was captain of Manchester City, was asked that question once if soccer players earned too much money.
His answer (paraphrasing):

"Simply, no... Look, consider a typical matchday at the Etihad stadium. It will be a full house. That's some 53.000 seats. Prices for tickets average at around 100 euro per ticket. So that's already 5.300.000 euro income just from sale of tickets for a single match. Then there's TV distribution rights. A typical man city match is actually viewed live globally by around 20 million people. Then there's also all the income from merchandise like shirts in fan shops, sponsor deals, etc. All that revenue ONLY exists because soccer players like us are on that pitch. WE are the drivers of that revenue. Why wouldn't we get a fair share of that? When Bruce Springsteen does a concert in front of 100.000 people, does he then get only 1000 bucks for the gig?"


When looking at just the numbers, I too consider it ridiculous the amount of money soccer players get to play the game and train. But it's just the sheer numbers. It's people paying for it. It happens to bring in loads of cash. So naturally, they earn a lot also.

I also know guys who jumped early on the band wagon when the first iphone came out. They created ridiculous games and apps, none of which actually took more then a day to make. Some of them were so simple that it literally took no more then 45 minutes of programming. MILLIONS of downloads, all paying a dollar.
In a matter of weeks / months, these guys went from "just out of school working class" to multi-millionaires. What was their contribution? Fart apps and cheap "snake" knock offs.



So, to conclude, it's easy at first glance to complain about "income inequality" and how it makes sense for people with "high contribution" to make more money then people with "low contribution". But the reality of market forces and sheer volumes make that a lot more complex.

Our social engineer types equipped with
extremist ideology and facile notions about
economics won't ever accept any of that.

 

[Audie]

I agree. But when every commercial trade becomes an act of attempted exploitation for maximum profit, everyone involved is forced to respond in kind, just to protect themselves. And then all of commerce becomes a battleground. And many of these attempts at exploitation succeed, creating "winners" and "losers" in this giant battle of selfishness and exploitation.

Greed poisons everything and everyone it touches. And capitalism is systematized greed. It promotes and rewards greed by giving anyone with excess wealth near complete control over any commercial enterprise that they choose to invest it in. And so of course they use that control to maximize the profit being returned to them from their investment.

And that is systematized greed.

Greed and scientism, the twin evil towers.

 

[Stevicus]

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

Your hubris is cute, but don't you have any original material? You're becoming very boring, like the sound a monotonous cicada.

 

[Heyo]

Pretty weird concept.
Where did you get those ideas?

How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

*shrugs*

You're a revolutionary. I get it.
There's a cost to all approaches.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Our social engineer types equipped with
extremist ideology and facile notions about
economics won't ever accept any of that.

I'm seeing a lot of interesting perspectives here. Most of the contributions in this thread don't seem to me indicative of any extremism; I just see different people having different goals and approaches to the issue.

I think it's perfectly fine and even necessary for people to criticize income inequality when it is caused or amplified by factors unrelated to merit, hard work, etc. I definitely wouldn't attribute such criticism to extremism without knowing their background and why they have the views that they do.

 

[PureX]

*shrugs*

You're a revolutionary. I get it.
There's a cost to all approaches.

I'm not anything. Just a realist. The current capitalist system is doing well by you, so naturally you just want to "tweek" it a little to make it a bit less greedy and ruthless. But that strategy has been failing for a very long time. We need a sea change, and we need it soon, because where this is all going is not going to be good for anyone. Not even the well off.

 

[metis]

The reason your pie chart argument doesn't work is because pie charts remain the same size, never getting smaller or larger. The economic system is constantly getting larger and smaller on a regular basis, so trying to make a point using a pie chart doesn't work; only gives a false impression.

The pie chart shows distribution at any given point in time, thus is 100% valid if done correctly. Thus, I never stated nor implied that any given pie chart would be fixed for all years.

So, to repeat, in any given year, if the pie chart shows distribution at any given point that is heavily slanted towards the wealthy, less of the "pie" is available for the rest of us peons.

 

[Debater Slayer]

On paper, that works.
In reality though, it's also about "popularity" of the goods or service provided.

Take professional soccer players as an example.
What are their contributions to society? I'ld say virtually nihil (when compared to the contribution of say a brain surgeon, to stick to your example).

The money that base players in the premier league earn is ridiculous. Some of them earn more in an hour while receiving a massage then most of us will earn in a full year of hard work. But market forces are at play here.

Vincent Kompany, back when he was captain of Manchester City, was asked that question once if soccer players earned too much money.
His answer (paraphrasing):

"Simply, no... Look, consider a typical matchday at the Etihad stadium. It will be a full house. That's some 53.000 seats. Prices for tickets average at around 100 euro per ticket. So that's already 5.300.000 euro income just from sale of tickets for a single match. Then there's TV distribution rights. A typical man city match is actually viewed live globally by around 20 million people. Then there's also all the income from merchandise like shirts in fan shops, sponsor deals, etc. All that revenue ONLY exists because soccer players like us are on that pitch. WE are the drivers of that revenue. Why wouldn't we get a fair share of that? When Bruce Springsteen does a concert in front of 100.000 people, does he then get only 1000 bucks for the gig?"


When looking at just the numbers, I too consider it ridiculous the amount of money soccer players get to play the game and train. But it's just the sheer numbers. It's people paying for it. It happens to bring in loads of cash. So naturally, they earn a lot also.

I also know guys who jumped early on the band wagon when the first iphone came out. They created ridiculous games and apps, none of which actually took more then a day to make. Some of them were so simple that it literally took no more then 45 minutes of programming. MILLIONS of downloads, all paying a dollar.
In a matter of weeks / months, these guys went from "just out of school working class" to multi-millionaires. What was their contribution? Fart apps and cheap "snake" knock offs.



So, to conclude, it's easy at first glance to complain about "income inequality" and how it makes sense for people with "high contribution" to make more money then people with "low contribution". But the reality of market forces and sheer volumes make that a lot more complex.

I think you raise good points, but I also believe that fair taxing schemes are a good way to take supply and demand into account. A soccer player has every right to earn a lot due to demand, sure, but they and everyone else should also be taxed proportionally to their income. I think one of the problems the US has is that its tax rates on multimillionaires and billionaires are far too low relative to that group's income, and this is before we touch on other issues like corporate subsidies, lobbying, and insufficient environmental regulations.

 

[Stevicus]

I didn't say inequality was good for the economy, I said when inequality is at it's greatest, the poor are better off, and when it is at it's least, the poor are worse off.

This is simply not true. If what you're saying had any merit to it, then countries like Mexico and Namibia would be world powers today, since they have wealthy people and wealth inequality existing in those countries. The poor are not better off in those countries. As I noted earlier, the income inequality in the U.S. was lowest at the time of LBJ's Great Society, which was the last era when the living standards of the poor and working classes in the U.S. were significantly raised. Since then, it's been mostly stagnation and malaise.

Granted, many of the New Deal and Great Society programs are still in place, so the poor are still being sustained to a degree, but that's no credit to the wealthy or wealth inequality (and many in that class want to eliminate/curtail those programs). That's only a holdover of an earlier era, where, once upon a time, the ruling classes actually cared about the overall well-being of the country. But those generations are long gone, and most of what's left now are the dregs and leeches - people who got rich from inheritance, con artistry, and/or organized crime, while patting themselves on the back for all their "hard work."

 

[metis]

This is simply not true. If what you're saying had any merit to it, then countries like Mexico and Namibia would be world powers today, since they have wealthy people and wealth inequality existing in those countries. The poor are not better off in those countries. As I noted earlier, the income inequality in the U.S. was lowest at the time of LBJ's Great Society, which was the last era when the living standards of the poor and working classes in the U.S. were significantly raised. Since then, it's been mostly stagnation and malaise.

Granted, many of the New Deal and Great Society programs are still in place, so the poor are still being sustained to a degree, but that's no credit to the wealthy or wealth inequality (and many in that class want to eliminate/curtail those programs). That's only a holdover of an earlier era, where, once upon a time, the ruling classes actually cared about the overall well-being of the country. But those generations are long gone, and most of what's left now are the dregs and leeches - people who got rich from inheritance, con artistry, and/or organized crime, while patting themselves on the back for all their "hard work."

And the stats bear out that you are correct, and in more ways than one.

 

[Audie]

I'm seeing a lot of interesting perspectives here. Most of the contributions in this thread don't seem to me indicative of any extremism; I just see different people having different goals and approaches to the issue.

I think it's perfectly fine and even necessary for people to criticize income inequality when it is caused or amplified by factors unrelated to merit, hard work, etc. I definitely wouldn't attribute such criticism to extremism without knowing their background and why they have the views that they do.

You see no extremism in saying capitalism
is all about greed, and that communism is the
answer.

 

[Audie]

Your hubris is cute, but don't you have any original material? You're becoming very boring, like the sound a monotonous cicada.

Your attempted calumny is better applied
to yourself.

 

[Stevicus]

So, to conclude, it's easy at first glance to complain about "income inequality" and how it makes sense for people with "high contribution" to make more money then people with "low contribution". But the reality of market forces and sheer volumes make that a lot more complex.

Well, as I also said, most people would not object to rewarding those who build or create something truly momentous or beneficial, so that's not really the issue. Even soccer players and rock stars provide some benefit - after all, man does not live by bread alone. In fact, this brings up a significant reform, since it used to be that entertainers and athletes were highly exploited, while others in the financial sphere collected most of the profits. A lot of them ended up dying broke, at least back in the old days. Now, they seem to be doing better overall, since some changes have occurred. After all, as you say, they're the attraction, they're the ones bringing in the crowds.

Of course, that's not the whole story of what goes on, and there's always been a seedy and shady underside associated with professional sports and the entertainment industry. It also uses a lot of hype which suckers in a lot of people, as P.T. Barnum observed.

Another example is televangelism, which also quite a money-making enterprise. They're always these big elaborate shows, with a lot of singing and faith-healing dramatics. They seem to drive a lot of profits as well, and they even create jobs. I put it in the realm of con artistry, which is how a lot of people made their money, just like those who once purchased Manhattan Island for $24.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You see no extremism in saying capitalism
is all about greed, and that communism is the
answer.

That's not what I said; I said that most of the arguments I've seen in this thread don't seem to me indicative of extremism and that criticizing income inequality, when it results from unfair factors, is perfectly fine.

Many people support capitalism but still denounce the status quo of the US, since the US goes well beyond most other developed countries in terms of corporate exploitation and lobbying, among other issues.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you raise good points, but I also believe that fair taxing schemes are a good way to take supply and demand into account. A soccer player has every right to earn a lot due to demand, sure, but they and everyone else should also be taxed proportionally to their income. I think one of the problems the US has is that its tax rates on multimillionaires and billionaires are far too low relative to that group's income, and this is before we touch on other issues like corporate subsidies, lobbying, and insufficient environmental regulations.

I agree on the tax thing.

I'm a firm proponent of taxing in %
Everyone should pay, for example, 25% income tax.
If you earn 1000, you pay 250.
If you earn 1.000.000, you pay 250.000
If you earn 1.000.000.000, you pay 250.000.000

Fair, clear and easy.



In fact.... I'm even somewhat a proponent of a sort of "max personal wealth" type thing. But that is a tricky subject and very thin ice.
Some sort of line drawn at for example 100 billion. If your personal wealth goes over that line, it automatically goes into tax or you are "forced" to spend it on some type of charity or investing in infrastructure or some other thing that somehow benefits society.
I have no answers there and I realize it's extremely shady...

But it never felt "right" to me that a single person is capable of amassing so much wealth that they could in theory buy the entire country they live in. I have no issues with being "super rich". But I do feel like there is some kind of line somewhere beyond which it just seems retarded...

 

[Stevicus]

Your attempted calumny is better applied
to yourself.

"I know you are but what am I?" Is that the best you can do?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree on the tax thing.

I'm a firm proponent of taxing in %
Everyone should pay, for example, 25% income tax.
If you earn 1000, you pay 250.
If you earn 1.000.000, you pay 250.000
If you earn 1.000.000.000, you pay 250.000.000

Fair, clear and easy.

I think adjusting the percentage based on the tax bracket is generally a good approach, since the person earning a million will be left with $750,000 of income after tax, while the one earning $2,000 will be left with $1,500. The percentage is the same, but the impact is significantly harder on the lower-income bracket.