Income Inequality.

[Mock Turtle]

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

As others have mentioned, it is probably more about the levels of income inequality that concern many, given that such will probably always exist as the variability in human abilities, ambitions, and opportunities will tend to increase the wealth of some over others. And this will be so unless we somehow see cloned humans in the future, and as to which no doubt many of us would be rather alarmed. But wealth inequality has been tied to higher levels of crime - and not so difficult to see why this might be. Having great wealth tends to afford one more privileges too, whether deserved or not, and it's not hard to see such in action - whether as to self-promotion (in politics, for example), controlling the media (by owning such), as to evading justice (even if the latter might just be evading taxes), or as to establishing dominance or monopoly in any particular area, amongst so many other benefits.

Personally, I have an issue with wealth going to individuals rather than the workforce that mostly produces such wealth, and where the luxury lifestyle often coming from such wealth is more a waste of resources when such wealth could be spread more evenly and more wisely. One could cite the trickle-down effect but I think that is mainly a red herring, as it is in general a bad economics argument.

So I'm not against income inequality in general, just the effects of such being too high as costs to society, and where the notion 'because I'm worth it or I deserve this' just seems so fallacious - especially when wealth is inherited. However they get to the top of the wealth pile most of these individuals are definitely not that much better than so many others, and it is often circumstances as to why they have such wealth. And the jealously or envy of the rich thrown at the more socially minded is usually just ludicrous, given that so many of us just don't want such rich lifestyles - when it degrades so many others in the process - that is, that we have a reasonably worked out morality system.

The inequality effect might be typified in the last several decades as to why so many 'celebrities' (and gaining wealth simply from this) have been virtually created mainly due to their exposure on any media, and as to so many having little merit at all in reality.

Lastly, I am suspicious of the notion that we should own every thing or even any thing. It's pretty obvious that we all (me too) subscribe to this, but in earlier times when we lived in much smaller groupings, this tended not to happen, mostly because there wasn't much to own and secondly because the group survival was the most important thing - so everything was shared. Over time we seem to have lost the sharing aspect in favour of owning virtually everything. Perhaps we are due for changes in the future - if we make it through the current morass of squabbling nationalities, incompatible beliefs, and enormous wealth differences that tend to divide us. But such won't happen if greater wealth inequality increases as the trends indicate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

I've not heard of any of the wealthiest and richest among us getting there without cheating others, stealing ideas of others, abusing and underpaying workers, and cutting corners where they shouldn't.
And we overlook all of that, downplay it all, and ignore that they widely and mostly came from wealth to call them a rags to riches story. But no, Bill Gates was went from wealth to riches ripping off others and not paying his first employees.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or a belief in their own ability to create wealth.
Look, I am not the greatest at creating wealth but I did ok.
I've seen people with much less in far worse circumstances than myself creating much, much more. So I know it is possible for anyone.

However, taking it from a possibility to a reality takes a belief. A belief in themselves and a system that most aren't able to muster.

Is that why thise with autism, despite being cery able and capable and good workers are extremely underemployed and unemployed?

 

[Quintessence]

Just to add this to the pile of why income inequality is a bad thing:

Remember, if you aren't born the favored sex you get paid 80% for the same damned job. Because sexism. And idiot legislators refusing to get the blasted ERA on the books. Which probably also would've spared the disfavored sex from becoming second class citizens as of last summer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Bill Gates stole the ideas from others ans didn't pay his workers.
Elon Musk has done very little other than lie a lot, get propped up by us tax payers and abuse his workers and endangering the public and forcing us to participate in product testing without our knowledge or consent.
Bezos invented something that has hurt a lot people and established a very unethical business modeld that tends to eschew public amd worker safety.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I love getting to post this image.
View attachment 78821
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.

I find it disfugusting the idea that money equals freedom and is a measurement of freedom.
No, verily I say unto them those who don't dedicate their lives to acquiring material items and working and instead focus getting enough and prioritize living are more free.

 

[Nakosis]

Is that why thise with autism, despite being cery able and capable and good workers are extremely underemployed and unemployed?

That is why we need a support system to enable people to support the economic system as best that they can. I think most people are happier when they can contribute as best they are capable of and people should not assume they are unable to contribute because of some disability they have.

 

[F1fan]

Managers determine workers wages, and though they may make more money than the average worker, they aren’t usually rich.

Managers are lucky not to be their underlings. Some might be sympathetic to the needs of the workers, others may not be. When I was 20 I got a job at Conan's pizza in Austin, TX because that is where my bike racing friends had worked, all you can eat for free. I was almost fired on my first day for eating a whole medium pizza myself. The manager said the employees usually split a medium. But I pointed out the company's actual policy is "all you can eat" and I can eat a whole medium. So i wasn't fired, but he was pissed off.

Increased productivity is usually accomplished via new technology or employing a different work strategy; rarely is increased productivity done by just telling them to work harder.

A friend of mine is a project manager at AMC movies. Her job is managing promotional the development of products, events, promotional materials, etc. There were 4-5 of these managers for the whole company and they were assigned the projects. It took 2-6 months for any one project. As a single mother of two she was working about 50 hours a week, which meant evenings and weekends. Back in 2017 or so one of the project managers left for maternity and soon after another quit. So the company reassigned the jobs, and expected the deadlines to be met. Suddenly she was working 70+ hours a week, working late into the night, not sleeping enough, and highly stressed. The other pm were in the same boat and one of the others was thinking about quitting too. The company thought they could save the salary of replacements and expected the work to get done, no extra pay mind you. My friend couldn't quit but she started looking for a new job. When the higher ups found out they faced a mass walkout they agreed to hire more managers.

I was stunned that the higher ups couldn't understand that demanding 3 people do the work of 5 was reasonable.

I don’t think any business is morally obligated to pay a living wage according to your chosen lifestyle.

Sure, if a guy chooses to live a millionaire lifestlye his job at McDonalds shouldn't be obligated to pay that level of money.

But that's not what we are talking about. No one chooses to live in poverty when the few opportunities for work pay minimum wage, and doesn't allow them any ability to save and improve their lives. The morality of paying slave wages, as it's called, is what I am talking about. You much feel some guilt about your position or otherwise you wouldn't have written the misleading phrase "according to your chosen lifestyle". Do you really think poverty is something people choose?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've not heard of any of the wealthiest and richest among us getting there without cheating others, stealing ideas of others, abusing and underpaying workers, and cutting corners where they shouldn't.
And we overlook all of that, downplay it all, and ignore that they widely and mostly came from wealth to call them a rags to riches story. But no, Bill Gates was went from wealth to riches ripping off others and not paying his first employees.

Again...my comment was rhetorical in nature. I wasn't stating anything about my own thoughts or position, but instead positing to someone else that EVEN IF they were a free market absolutist, understanding trends in wealth inequality is useful and informative.
I would say that I think any straight binary position suggesting that 'rich are bad' is as flawed and unhelpful as one that suggests 'rich are good'. If either of those are true, they ultimately just point to systemic issues that should be addressed. And I'd always tend to think things are a little more nuanced than a binary view like that.

If you want to know my thoughts on the matter, I'd put social mobility at a premium. That would include prioritizing things like accessible health care, education and housing, so that people actually do have a chance to make something of themselves. I'd also regulate industries including banking and big pharma in ways that wouldn't be popular with a free market absolutist.

 

[Heyo]

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?

The "Massachusetts millionaires" have an education in economics, the "blue collar workers of the Mid west" don't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is why we need a support system to enable people to support the economic system as best that they can. I think most people are happier when they can contribute as best they are capable of and people should not assume they are unable to contribute because of some disability they have.

We should we support a system that has kicked us to the side and left us in the ditch? Yes, people want to contribute as it is a basic psychological drive and it helps us feel better and ideally form better communities. But the system we have has decided we have little value and worth. Never mind the fact we tend to excell and dominate when we're givin a chance (like Dan Aykroyd and Eminem), but chances for those who are profoundly different tend to be rare and few amd far between.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The "Massachusetts millionaires" have an education in economics, the "blue collar workers of the Mid west" don't.

Reminds me of a Yes, Prime Minister joke.
"I'm afraid he's at more of a disadvantage to understand the economy, you see. He's an economist."
Wouldn't have believed it unless I started learning about the stock market, studied and took notes but found they are hardly doimg better than casting rune sticks and chicken bones to get a glimpse of the future.
And the MidWest has crappy and abysmal job prospects. Indiana, for example, loses about half of all it's college grads (with it being an exodus of engineers fleeing the state more than anyone) because so many other places have more jobs, better jobs amd better pay.

 

[Nakosis]

I find it disfugusting the idea that money equals freedom and is a measurement of freedom.

Perhaps it is disgusting that the more resources you have available to you the more freedom you have. However that is how it works whether I like it or not.

No, verily I say unto them those who don't dedicate their lives to acquiring material items and working and instead focus getting enough and prioritize living are more free.

If that makes them happy, to acquire material stuff why does that bother you? What happen to "to each their own".

If people feel acquiring stuff makes them happy, why do you got to go sour grapes on them? Why can't you go about doing what makes you happy and let them go about doing what makes them happy? Do you want their stuff? If not, can't you find ways to be happy without it?

Why not worry about your own happiness and let other folks worry about theirs.

 

[Nakosis]

We should we support a system that has kicked us to the side and left us in the ditch?

No one should.

Yes, people want to contribute as it is a basic psychological drive and it helps us feel better and ideally form better communities. But the system we have has decided we have little value and worth. Never mind the fact we tend to excell and dominate when we're givin a chance (like Dan Aykroyd and Eminem), but chances for those who are profoundly different tend to be rare and few amd far between.

Whatever we can do to change that, I am all for.

 

[Heyo]

This comes from a very odd understanding of economics. An understanding taught by college professor who never had to run a business themselves but relied on taxes to support their economic welfare.

However neat graphic to illustrate the thinking regardless of it's lack of experiential awareness.

Wish I had such a graph to illustrate in a simple way the actual reality.

The problem is, the entrepreneur or business provides the working space, tools and equipment necessary to produce the product. This all comes at a cost to them. Now if you only paid for this direct cost to them, they get nothing for their labor which went into acquiring all of the means necessary to produce the produce. You want them to expend their labor and get nothing in return for it because you consider their labor cost as being surplus.

The thing is there is nothing stopping you from getting the work place for yourself, acquiring all the tools and materials yourself to produce the product except for the cost in labor and materials necessary which the owner pays for themselves out of their own pocket. You want the owner to do all of this and get nothing for it. Somehow this is fair in your view.

Not only is the owner providing all of the resources you need to produce the product but they are also taking all of the risks. If the company fails, if the company gets sued for the product you created, the owner has to pay the costs, not you, the person who created the product.

Yes, you and these college professors see this as surplus because they don't understand the actual costs involved in running a company.

I don't have to look at the intricacies of which costs go into a product, I just have to see the bottom line.
And the bottom line is that the "entrepreneur" gets a multiple of what the workers get, sometime hundreds or thousands of times more which can't be justified by any ingenuity, risk or work they put in to it.
And those are people who do work for their product. Others just "let their money work". ROI and interest is money that is earned by money, no work involved.

And when we look at the recent history and the whole economy we see that money begets more money while work gets you less and less money. Following the trend some day in the near future 0.1% of all US citizens will own all of the wealth and the rest will own nothing more than the shirt on their back.
If this trend doesn't give you pause to think, you are ideologically blinded.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps it is disgusting that the more resources you have available to you the more freedom you have. However that is how it works whether I like it or not.

That doesn't actually make you more free. Good health contributes vastly more to things you can do, but it still doesn't make you more free.
I'd evem argue they are slaves to their roles as master and the only ones who glimpse freedom are those who eschew the slave mentality while scoffing at the routines of the master.
And, indeed, the hungry artist is more free than someone like Musk as her days are free, her time is her own, no boss, no meetings, minimal scheduling obligations, amd doing work that is for her amd work she isn't alienated from. No employees, no shareholders, may not be able to afford much but she gets to sleep in and wake up whenever she feels like it.

 

[metis]

I was stunned that the higher ups couldn't understand that demanding 3 people do the work of 5 was reasonable.

Here's just another area whereas competition can be destructive to some. If they hired two more workers, then that may hinder them at competing against other companies. Or they can make cuts in what they make, such as removing the gas-tank liner in Ford Pintos so as to save less than $1, thus making it more dangerous if it's rear ended so as to more likely catch fire.

 

[Heyo]

As others have mentioned, it is probably more about the levels of income inequality that concern many, given that such will probably always exist as the variability in human abilities, ambitions, and opportunities will tend to increase the wealth of some over others. And this will be so unless we somehow see cloned humans in the future, and as to which no doubt many of us would be rather alarmed. But wealth inequality has been tied to higher levels of crime - and not so difficult to see why this might be. Having great wealth tends to afford one more privileges too, whether deserved or not, and it's not hard to see such in action - whether as to self-promotion (in politics, for example), controlling the media (by owning such), as to evading justice (even if the latter might just be evading taxes), or as to establishing dominance or monopoly in any particular area, amongst so many other benefits.

Personally, I have an issue with wealth going to individuals rather than the workforce that mostly produces such wealth, and where the luxury lifestyle often coming from such wealth is more a waste of resources when such wealth could be spread more evenly and more wisely. One could cite the trickle-down effect but I think that is mainly a red herring, as it is in general a bad economics argument.

So I'm not against income inequality in general, just the effects of such being too high as costs to society, and where the notion 'because I'm worth it or I deserve this' just seems so fallacious - especially when wealth is inherited. However they get to the top of the wealth pile most of these individuals are definitely not that much better than so many others, and it is often circumstances as to why they have such wealth. And the jealously or envy of the rich thrown at the more socially minded is usually just ludicrous, given that so many of us just don't want such rich lifestyles - when it degrades so many others in the process - that is, that we have a reasonably worked out morality system.

The inequality effect might be typified in the last several decades as to why so many 'celebrities' (and gaining wealth simply from this) have been virtually created mainly due to their exposure on any media, and as to so many having little merit at all in reality.

Lastly, I am suspicious of the notion that we should own every thing or even any thing. It's pretty obvious that we all (me too) subscribe to this, but in earlier times when we lived in much smaller groupings, this tended not to happen, mostly because there wasn't much to own and secondly because the group survival was the most important thing - so everything was shared. Over time we seem to have lost the sharing aspect in favour of owning virtually everything. Perhaps we are due for changes in the future - if we make it through the current morass of squabbling nationalities, incompatible beliefs, and enormous wealth differences that tend to divide us. But such won't happen if greater wealth inequality increases as the trends indicate.

:winner:

 

[sayak83]

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?

Without them.
The presence of these billionaires mean that the country's wealth has appeared to double without actually changing the wealth level of the people.
Further since you stated that the situation with housing etc are no better with the billionaires...it means that their wealth has contributed nothing to the society at all.

 

[Shaul]

There should be income inequality based on meritocracy.