Income Inequality.

[RestlessSoul]

I think a strong historical case could be made to support the argument that societies with extreme levels of wealth inequality are inherently unstable. The French and Russian revolutions happened for precisely those reasons.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

More like the greediest and most corrupt and abusive.

Well...it was a comment taking into account a hypothetical viewpoint other than my own. Not my view.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think a strong historical case could be made to support the argument that societies with extreme levels of wealth inequality are inherently unstable. The French and Russian revolutions happened for precisely those reasons.

Exceedingly true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Do you realize just how much a difference there is?

CEO pay went up an astounding 1000% + since 2019.

Worker pay went up a measly 12%

CEO compensation is up 1,000% from what it used to be. Worker pay? Not so much.

CEO compensation has increased by 1,008% over the past three decades while workers have seen their pay rise by about 12%, according to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

finance.yahoo.com

When was the last time worker pay went up 1000%?

 

[Lyndon]

Do you realize just how much a difference there is?

CEO pay went up an astounding 1000% + since 2019.

Worker pay went up a measly 12%

CEO compensation is up 1,000% from what it used to be. Worker pay? Not so much.

CEO compensation has increased by 1,008% over the past three decades while workers have seen their pay rise by about 12%, according to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

finance.yahoo.com

When was the last time worker pay went up 1000%?

The Bolshevik revolution

 

[PureX]

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

I guess because it's not based of honesty, wisdom, intelligence, effort, fair trade, or collective well being. And is instead based on greed, selfishness, exploitation, and contempt for others. Not to mention that it can only lead to economic collapse.

 

[Balthazzar]

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

Per capitalism, effort, education, ability, and position/opportunity I'll suggest it's a great thing, but privilege and special treatment is much less championed by a guy like myself. I'm poor, but not uneducated. I'm talented, capable, yet limited. It's not due to lack of effort, but rather lack of opportunity and not being as privileged as others who have been afforded greater opportunity than myself. At the end of the day, I'm where I need to be, so I don't ***** about the placement, I ***** about the special privilege of others and limitations placed on people in my position. It's a struggle. I have less debt than my asset value, so I'm not doing bad. I live poor, so this affords me greater opportunity to live with less debt.

 

[wellwisher]

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

In the free market, goods and service are sold based on supply and demand. Supply requires a large number of people, working together with various skills; innovators, investors, managers, workers, etc. People earn based on how they contribute, with some jobs paying more.

Higher pay often has to do with the degree of difficulty and time commitment of your job and/or how your job can get more out of those below you, in the chain of command. Labor, itself is also connected to supply and demand, with different people supplying different ranges of skill and commitment. I never wanted to work so hard, so I settled for less. That was my choice balancing work and play.

The problem with the political Left is they like big government, with the current Big Government giving the tax payer a negative 15% rate of return due to the debt. This tells me the best people are not in charge, since who in business can survive, year after year, being so incompetent. This is not free market based but more based on politics. Politics substitute bull crap, bootlicking and back stabbing for skill and hard work. You should not assume your idol; Big Government, works like the free market. It would be better if it did, since they would turn a profit and give taxes back. Instead they wrecked the economy. The inflation has given most worker a pay decrease all due to free market tampering by morons with power.

The Left often thinks the free market is rigged; politics, but there is competition to deal with that. Budweiser decided to play Lefty politics and the free market corrected this. Government has no competition and it ignores the will of the people, so government monopoly behavior is more common. This creates the injustice which then flows into the free market that you complain about. They killed oil in favor of green energy. This was not free market. In the free market both oil and green have a place, both create jobs, both compete, and both add to the GNP. Government is not free market but wasteful due to political posturing and backstabbing. The Left needs to think deeper.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

High income inequality isn't really practiced in the US (or anywhere else) as such, it is a consequence of how policies and societies operate, and generally not an intended consequence.

The basic reason that it is a problem is that the prices of our basic needs are influenced by average wealth of the population. If there are people who have a lot less than that average, they will struggle to afford those basic needs which has knock-on effects on society as a whole.

 

[Lyndon]

In the free market, goods and service are sold based on supply and demand. Supply requires a large number of people, working together with various skills; innovators, investors, managers, workers, etc. People earn based on how they contribute, with some jobs paying more.

Higher pay often has to do with the degree of difficulty and time commitment of your job and/or how your job can get more out of those below you, in the chain of command. Labor, itself is also connected to supply and demand, with different people supplying different ranges of skill and commitment. I never wanted to work so hard, so I settled for less. That was my choice balancing work and play.

The problem with the political Left is they like big government, with the current Big Government giving the tax payer a negative 15% rate of return due to the debt. This tells me the best people are not in charge, since who in business can survive, year after year, being so incompetent. This is not free market based but more based on politics. Politics substitute bull crap, bootlicking and back stabbing for skill and hard work. You should not assume your idol; Big Government, works like the free market. It would be better if it did, since they would turn a profit and give taxes back. Instead they wrecked the economy. The inflation has given most worker a pay decrease all due to free market tampering by morons with power.

The Left often thinks the free market is rigged; politics, but there is competition to deal with that. Budweiser decided to play Lefty politics and the free market corrected this. Government has no competition and it ignores the will of the people, so government monopoly behavior is more common. This creates the injustice which then flows into the free market that you complain about. They killed oil in favor of green energy. This was not free market. In the free market both oil and green have a place, both create jobs, both compete, and both add to the GNP. Government is not free market but wasteful due to political posturing and backstabbing. The Left needs to think deeper.

This is just the stupidest load of poppycock I have read

 

[Koldo]

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.

Social media is a very recent development. But I don't disagree there are other things that grant power over people. However, with money one can also pay influencers to speak in their favor.

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.

Doesn't matter.

How do rich people turn people into prostitutes?

If there wasn't so much inequality, the poorer would have more money and thus less need to turn to prostitution to make their ends meet, for example.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

The lack of economic mobility, the cost of living rapidly outpacing wages and salaries, the widening gap between the rich and poor, etc. are bad things.

 

[Kfox]

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.

If that is true, why do we always see all of those "Massachusetts millionaires" and billionaires of California and New York constantly using their money and power to elect tax and spend liberals and politicians who vow to tax the rich and make it harder for them to do business, then we see all of those blue collar workers of the Mid west voting for all of those conservative republicans in office who make it easier for business and cut taxes for the rich? People vote their values, not their pocket book.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Give me your opinion on the following scenario.
You have a small country with a million people of mostly middle to lower income with many of the poor not having adequate housing, education, and healthcare. The total wealth of the entire country is $10 billion. 10 rich people immigrate to the country, each worth a billion dollars each. So with those 10 billionaires the total wealth of the country has doubled from $10 billion to $20 billion but half of the wealth of the country is in the hands of just 10 people, and the poor still does not have adequate housing, education, or health care. Is that country better off with those billionaires or without them?

 

[Kfox]

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.

Are you under the impression that if we had less rich people, we would have less poor?

 

[Kfox]

Bill Gates
Jeff Bezos
Elon Musk

You said

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.

Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos have all invented something truly momentous and beneficial; so according to what you said, by all means let them have their reward, and nobody should object to that!
Lots of comments; I will try to get to the rest later

 

[Nakosis]

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 you feel you have greater control over your finances it is good.
If you feel you have less control over your finances it is bad.

Money equals power which equals freedom. The more money you make the more freedom you can have.
I suppose some folks see it as necessary to limit the freedom other people can achieve so they don't feel so bad about the limited freedom they can achieve.

Myself, I believe anyone can achieve enough freedom through financial opportunity. You may not be Elon Musk but you don't need to be to achieve a sufficient level of freedom. If one is moderately responsible with their finances one can be happy.
If however they constantly envy the financial freedom of Musk, they can never be happy.

First step is to stop envying the Elon Musks of the world.
Second step is to improve your own ability to create wealth.

Unfortunately a lot of people have been taught that in their current circumstances it is impossible for them to create their own wealth so they are going to have to rely on the wealth created by others.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If you feel you have greater control over your finances it is good.
If you feel you have less control over your finances it is bad.

Money equals power which equals freedom. The more money you make the more freedom you can have.
I suppose some folks see it as necessary to limit the freedom other people can achieve so they don't feel so bad about the limited freedom they can achieve.

Myself, I believe anyone can achieve enough freedom through financial opportunity. You may not be Elon Musk but you don't need to be to achieve a sufficient level of freedom. If one is moderately responsible with their finances one can be happy.
If however they constantly envy the financial freedom of Musk, they can never be happy.

First step is to stop envying the Elon Musks of the world.
Second step is to improve your own ability to create wealth.

Unfortunately a lot of people have been taught that in their current circumstances it is impossible for them to create their own wealth so they are going to have to rely on the wealth created by others.

I love getting to post this image.

The reason I love this image is that whether or not you agree with it, it illustrates a fundamental difference on what people call 'generated wealth' and 'freedom' vs immoral practices of theft and living through the labor of others, otherwise known as exploitation.

And so saying that people hate what Elon Musk represents as someone who lives through not creating wealth but benefiting from unchecked exploitation, 'just envious of Elon Musk,' just sound like people who are also ******** who want the 'freedom' to exploite people to death.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This video is now over a decade old and wealth inequality has only gotten more stark since then, but it still illustrates the vast distance between percieved inequality and actual inequality in this country, and how severely, extremely, poor the US is, so that some few can live like kings.

 

[Koldo]

Give me your opinion on the following scenario.
You have a small country with a million people of mostly middle to lower income with many of the poor not having adequate housing, education, and healthcare. The total wealth of the entire country is $10 billion. 10 rich people immigrate to the country, each worth a billion dollars each. So with those 10 billionaires the total wealth of the country has doubled from $10 billion to $20 billion but half of the wealth of the country is in the hands of just 10 people, and the poor still does not have adequate housing, education, or health care. Is that country better off with those billionaires or without them?

The mere presence of the billionaires makes no difference one way or another to that country.