Income Inequality.

[Heyo]

Perhaps their lives? Far more poor people call the police for help than rich people.

Well, when you don't have money, life becomes precious. Rich people don't fear for their lives because it means nothing to them - compared to their wealth.

 

[Audie]

I wasn't sure but now I know. I have stopped to try and educate @Revoltingest and @Audie. I know they will never understand because they have a monetary incentive not to. Answering them is answering the audience, not them personally. You are in the same situation, obviously. What is your annual tax rate? In the US it may be as low as about 10%. 10% of all you earn every year through your working life. Could be a nice sum to retire from. Does that mean you can keep the 90% and transform it into wealth? Of course not, you have to live from that. Only a small fraction is going to form wealth. Well, depending on your income it could be a bigger fraction. And it must be a big fraction in your case to be more than your tax rate. Without exact numbers I can only say that you are not poor, probably not even middle class, and probably born into wealth. Am I right?

They'd at least try. As I said the idea of equality seems offending to those who are privileged. Everybody thinks they are special and so are their children. The question "Do you mean equality of outcome or equality of opportunity" is almost always a red herring as for the questioner it doesn't make a difference, they hate them both equally.

The capitalist mantra: wealth must be accumulated.

And the capitalist god: The Economy.

People and well being mean nothing to you. Right?

Understanding, and agreeing with you
are related but maybe not how you think.

 

[EconGuy]

Well the point that was originally being defended was the idea that every time we get a raise, we take from the rich. That is what I was disagreeing with.

And generally speaking, when workers demand higher wages that cuts into the profits of companies. Using terms like "the rich" is vague. I agreed there are examples of how paying people more can reduce the true cost of higher wages and conceded it was a good point, however, I don't think there's any evidence that what your saying is true, generally speaking, in fact I think it's quite the opposite as Cosco and how it pays it's workers is the exception, not the rule.

True IF all things were equal. I just don’t think all things are equal

Respectfully, for someone who enjoys debating as much as you, you need to take a little time to understand the purpose of using these kinds of conditional phrases.

The phrase "all other things being equal" is commonly used in various fields, including economics, statistics, and decision-making, to isolate the effect of a specific factor or variable by assuming that all other relevant factors remain constant or unchanged. It allows us to analyze the impact of a single variable while holding everything else constant, making it easier to understand the relationship between variables and draw conclusions.

By stating "all other things being equal," we acknowledge that in real-world scenarios, numerous factors can influence the outcome or result of a situation. However, for the purpose of analysis or discussion, we assume that those other factors do not change, so we can focus solely on the variable under consideration.

Here's an example to illustrate the use of the phrase:

Suppose you are conducting a study to examine the impact of education on income levels. You want to determine how much income increases for individuals with higher levels of education. To isolate the effect of education, you would assume that "all other things being equal," such as age, work experience, location, and other socio-economic factors, remain constant across the individuals in your study.

By making this assumption, you can compare the income levels of individuals with different education levels, like high school graduates versus college graduates, and attribute any differences in income primarily to the disparity in education. This allows you to analyze the specific influence of education on income without the interference of other factors that could also affect income.

It is important to note that in reality, it can be challenging to hold all other factors constant, as the real world is complex and interconnected. However, using the phrase "all other things being equal" helps to simplify the analysis and understand the relationship between variables in a controlled manner.

Name a corporation or hedge fund that has done more to change the things in this country than what BLM did.

Your conflating two different things. BLM is a social movement, and while I'll agree, as an idea it has has effected deep seeded change in the country, but it's not power wielded as wealthy individuals and companies wield power. Thus, I think you're comparing apples and oranges, especially in the context of this conversation.

Even the Maga movement, while started by Trump, isn't controlled by Trump. It's grown well beyond his control, but unlike BLM, which was the result of Derick Chauvin (sp?) kneeling on George Floyd's neck (perhaps we should give Mr. Chauvin the credit for starting BLM?), Trump is well recognized for starting MAGA, and therefore has a LOT more influence on the movement, but if Trump dies tomorrow the movement will go on without him. In the case of BLM, I bet only a handful of people could tell you, without looking it up who started BLM. It has power, sure, but it's not wielded by any one person or group of people like a company or a wealthy person or group of people.

Further, the MAGA example proves how a single wealthy individual can start a movement more so that the average person.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[Kfox]

Because there are more of them?

Or....... because there is a lot more to a cop's job than protecting the money of rich people!

 

[Kfox]

The police is fairly ineffective when it comes down to preventing homicides. If knowing that killing someone can get you killed in return (by a family member of that person, for example) is not sufficient to prevent an homicide, the police definitely won't be either.

The police is far more effective at dealing with property crimes. And since the rich have far more property than the poor...

Then why are there far more people in prison for homicide than there is for property crimes?

 

[Kfox]

I am advocating for a sea change in the way we view and engage in commerce. How that happens is not in my control. But it doesn't have to require a bloody revolution. And those rarely result in a positive outcome, anyway. What it requires is a change in the way we think. For example:

Let's say I am a used car dealer. I look to buy used cars that are still viable, cheap, so I can fix them up, clean them up, and sell them to people for a profit. Currently, I would pay as little as I possibly could pay for the car, invest as little as I can get away with, in it, and sell it for as much as I can possibly get for it. Because I have no intention of leaving any value for anyone else in any of these transactions. And if this results in someone else ending up paying too much for a crappy car, then too bad for them, and good for me.

This is the poison of greed that gets promoted and rewarded under a capitalist economic system. And we have all become so infected by it and used to it that it doesn't even occur to us that this is not a good way for humans to engage in commerce, or to live together in a successful human community.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We could have bought that used car for a little bit more, and invested a little bit more in it to make sure it's in good running condition, and then sold it for a little bit less than top dollar, leaving everyone else involved in the enterprise a little better off for having engaged in it. We still would make a profit, but we would also leave a little bit of value in the deal for the other people to profit from it, as well.

What happens if leaving a little bit of value in the deal for other people results in you going out of business because you can't afford to live on the profits from doing business according to your standard? Now poor people who cannot afford a new car do not have the option of buying used at a cheaper price due to your standards. This will result in further hardships for the poor.
How about if we allow people to do business in the most efficient way possible, and if some people sell crappy cars, they will get a reputation of selling crappy cars, by potential customers who look up the Carfax information on the cars they sell, or look up the Yelp and other type of reviews people are constantly doing to such businesses to see if it is worth buying from them?

 

[Alien826]

Well, when you don't have money, life becomes precious. Rich people don't fear for their lives because it means nothing to them - compared to their wealth.

Is that why they live in gated communities and employ guards to keep the "bad" people out? I would say they don't think too much about their personal safety (if that's so) because they don't feel threatened to the extent that someone living in a poor crime ridden community does.

 

[icehorse]

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.

I think this successful capitalist supports your claim very well:

 

[Kfox]

The "problem" is not mine-- it's yours, as you're choosing to accept only that which you want to accept.

I haven’t accepted anything, I read the links you posted, and I explained why I disagree with them.

I posted several links to help explain & justify my point, whereas you provided not one link from any source on economics to establish yours.

Links aren’t gospel, they can be biased, or wrong just like you or I. That’s why I offered my critique of your link. Now if you disagree with my critique, by all means express your disagreement

BTW, maybe check out the Nordic Model: Nordic model - Wikipedia

Just because something works in Northern Europe does not mean it will work here; the gun issue has proven that time and time again.

 

[Alien826]

It is important to note that in reality, it can be challenging to hold all other factors constant, as the real world is complex and interconnected. However, using the phrase "all other things being equal" helps to simplify the analysis and understand the relationship between variables in a controlled manner.

Yes, a good summary of the use of that phrase. What concerns me though is that the assumption (that other things don't remain unchanged) tends to be quietly dropped and at the end of the discussion the conclusion is presented as being most likely accurate. That's not to say that isolating one factor has no value, but that the influence of that factor can be greatly over emphasized and lead to very inaccurate conclusions.

I do note that in economics, though there are simple rules, it does seem that what I say is generally recognized and extremely complicated algorithms emerge.

 

[Kfox]

I think this successful capitalist supports your claim very well:

This guy gets it wrong in so many different ways. He says people do not create jobs, that jobs are a result of customers and business relationship. This is proven false everyday. If I start a business, and hire someone to work for me, by definition; that is job creation; you have been given a job regardless of whether customers come or not. Now granted your continued employment may be dependent on customers coming or not, but still in the beginning, your job was created and provided to you before customers even came into the picture. He got a bunch of other stuff wrong also, but I won’t get into that right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't sure but now I know. I have stopped to try and educate @Revoltingest and @Audie. I know they will never understand....

Bless your big socialist heart!

 

[Kfox]

Greed is actually bad for capitalism.

Let me guess..... you have never run a business before have you. Let me putt it this way; if greed was bad for capitalism, we would not have so many greedy capitalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me guess..... you have never run a business before have you. Let me putt it this way; if greed was bad for capitalism, we would not have so many greedy capitalists.

Greed is useful.
But it's best when tempered with
proper caution & ethics.

Altruism is useful too.
It should be tempered with wisdom, rational
analysis, & respecting the rights of others.

 

[Nakosis]

Let me guess..... you have never run a business before have you. Let me putt it this way; if greed was bad for capitalism, we would not have so many greedy capitalists.

Greed means a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.

Capitalism is based on self interest, not greed. There is room for pluralism in capitalism. One can still make a profit without being greedy. There exist several companies which include charity as part of their business model. There are companies which share a portion of their profits with their workers. Greed will slowly erode your own market out from under you.

Let me guess, you've never ran a business or if you did, you did so badly.

 

[Heyo]

Let me guess..... you have never run a business before have you. Let me putt it this way; if greed was bad for capitalism, we would not have so many greedy capitalists.

Let me guess, you are running so many businesses that you can easily dismiss Nick Hanauer who has started, help start and run dozens of businesses?

 

[Revoltingest]

Greed means a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.

Capitalism is based on self interest, not greed. There is room for pluralism in capitalism. One can still make a profit without being greedy. There exist several companies which include charity as part of their business model. There are companies which share a portion of their profits with their workers. Greed will slowly erode your own market out from under you.

Let me guess, you've never ran a business or if you did, you did so badly.

Let's consider a simplistic comparison....
Capitalism is based upon rational self interest.
Socialism is based upon altruism.
Communism is based upon altruism & hive mindedness.
Piracy is based on greed.

All have their dangers of descending into wrongful acts.
(Piracy is unique with the expressed intent.)
But some systems have one system has historically
offered some (not always) positive results.

 

[Heyo]

Greed is useful.

- Capitalist Manifesto

 

[Nakosis]

I think this successful capitalist supports your claim very well:

He has a point except that there is no guarantee that the money that comes from taxing the rich is going to be used to benefit the middle class.

 

[Revoltingest]

- Capitalist Manifesto

A movie made to dis capitalism is a poor source to learn about it.
Would you teach about socialism using Atlas Shrugged?