Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

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.

George Foreman didn't invent the George Forman grill, someone else did but if it wasn't for Forman, the Grill wouldn't be the success it is today. Ray Crock didn't invent McDonalds; the McDonalds brothers did; but if it wasn't for Ray Crock, McDonalds wouldn't be what it is today. If it weren't for Gates, Musk, Bezos and others, the products they established wouldn't be what it is today. Just because you are good at inventing, doesn't mean you are good at getting the product sold. Don't cha think the guy responsible for getting the product to market is just as important as the guy who invented the product? After all; what good is inventing something if nobody notices it? Does this make sense? If not explain why.

 

[Kfox]

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%?

Are you under the impression the more the CEO gets paid, the less everyone else gets paid?

 

[Kfox]

Surely, it is not the actual inequality that you consider to be “a good thing” (unless you genuinely enjoy knowing that some lack food, water, shelter and medical assistance), but rather the idea that there should be no limit to what you materially can achieve?

I'm not saying actual inequality is a good thing, it just seems in the US when income inequality is at it's greatest, that is when the poor are better off; and when the gap between the rich and poor lessens, that is when the poor are worse off. I don't care about the rich, I care about the poor and if the poor are better off when the income gap widens, I think that is good regardless of what the rich have.

 

[Kfox]

Depends on your moral core values. Equality has always been one of three for me (together with well being and liberty).
So, for me, inequality is axiomatically immoral.

When you say equality, do you actually mean equality of outcome? Or equality of opportunity.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not saying actual inequality is a good thing, it just seems in the US when income inequality is at it's greatest, that is when the poor are better off; and when the gap between the rich and poor lessens, that is when the poor are worse off. I don't care about the rich, I care about the poor and if the poor are better off when the income gap widens, I think that is good regardless of what the rich have.

Interesting, because you are bringing up an historical perspective then. What are you basing it on? Data, research, personal history...?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not saying actual inequality is a good thing, it just seems in the US when income inequality is at it's greatest, that is when the poor are better off; and when the gap between the rich and poor lessens, that is when the poor are worse off. I don't care about the rich, I care about the poor and if the poor are better off when the income gap widens, I think that is good regardless of what the rich have.

Okay, I am willing to learn. Can you back that up with an actual link to the numbers?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are you under the impression the more the CEO gets paid, the less everyone else gets paid?

Actually yes. Without workers , the CEO is nothing.

I feel if a CEO increases his or her pay, the workers get the same exact percentage.

 

[Heyo]

Don't cha think the guy responsible for getting the product to market is just as important as the guy who invented the product?

Don't cha think that if the guy responsible for getting the product to market is just as important as the guy who invented the product that they both should get paid the same?

 

[Heyo]

When you say equality, do you actually mean equality of outcome? Or equality of opportunity.

With income inequality and wealth inequality the question of opportunity or outcome is meaningless.
It is mostly a case of outcome inequality when a CEO gets paid hundreds of times more than a worker. You could argue that the worker had the opportunity to become a CEO. But that doesn't take into account that a corporation only needs one CEO and thousands of workers, that the CEO most probably had rich parents who paid his way through college and that you most probably don't become CEO without connections.
The real question is whether the work of the CEO is worth so much more, i.e. if it is a fair pay.

 

[Heyo]

When you say equality, do you actually mean equality of outcome? Or equality of opportunity.

To the question of equal opportunity I have made an OP 3 years ago. Tax the Dead!
Are you for equal opportunity?

 

[icehorse]

Why is it bad if it's too high?

- Well if you're a moral relativist, than no reason at all.
- But if you have any values or morals, I would think you could easily come up with a list of problems with excessive income inequality.

That said, I believe humans would not flourish if invention and innovation were not rewarded. So I think there IS a healthy amount of income and wealth and income inequality. But that at some point it gets excessive and unhealthy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually yes. Without workers , the CEO is nothing.

I feel if a CEO increases his or her pay, the workers get the same exact percentage.

No wonder this summer is unusually cold. We've agreed on a few things as of late. Someone should go make sure Hell hasn't frozen over, lmao.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No wonder this summer is unusually cold. We've agreed on a few things as of late. Someone should go make sure Hell hasn't frozen over, lmao.

Lol. That's the joy of debate!

One day an evil nemesis, other day the tag team champions of the world!

That and a couple of beers!

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I can't really speak for what anyone else values.
However for myself, I don't disagree with you.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

when the gap between the rich and poor lessens, that is when the poor are worse off.

What do you base this claim on? I don’t recall you saying.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Suppose it were not based on greed, selfishness, and contempt for others? Would you still have a problem with it?

 

[Kfox]

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.

Good for you!

 

[Kfox]

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.

Yeah; but that is the case regardless of income inequality; the extreme rich are not raising the prices of basic stuff.

 

[Kfox]

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 when that happens, the influencer usually agree on what they are saying; they are just getting paid for it.

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.

Are you under the impression if the rich had less wealth, the poor would have more?

 

[Kfox]

The lack of economic mobility,

An argument can be made that economic mobility is greater today than ever before due to current technology.

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

Why is the widening gap between the rich and poor bad?