Income Inequality.

[Kfox]

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.

Let's say you are super rich. How does me being poor allow you to live like a king?

 

[Kfox]

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

If they aren't hurting the country, why do you have a problem with them?

 

[Kfox]

If the money was distributed from the rich towards the poor, yes, definitely.

But it isn't; wealth is created by the rich, and they keep the lions share of the wealth they create. Do you think we would be better off if they did not create the wealth?

 

[We Never Know]

If the money was distributed from the rich towards the poor, yes, definitely.

Just 735 people in the US have enough money to give every person in the US(331.9 million people) over $13,000 each.


The US has 735 billionaires.

Billionaires by Country 2023 - Wisevoter

According to data from Forbes, the United States has the highest number of billionaires in the world with a total of 724 billionaires. This is followed by China with 698 billionaires and India with 237 billionaires. Germany and Russia complete the top five countries with 136 and 117 billionaires...

wisevoter.com

Combined value of billionaire wealth in the United States 2020-2022. As of November 2022, a combined value of 4.48 trillion U.S. dollars was held by billionaires living in the United States.

Combined billionaire wealth U.S. 2022 | Statista

As of November 2022, a combined value of 4.48 trillion U.S.

www.statista.com

 

[lewisnotmiller]

- 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.

Ooh...I disagree. I think even a moral relativist should have an issue with excessive income inequality.
At some point, the system itself becomes unsustainable, in a practical sense. So the arguments are less moralistic and more pragmatic.

Yeah, sorry...I'm being a little pedantic there. I suspect we agree.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But it isn't; wealth is created by the rich, and they keep the lions share of the wealth they create. Do you think we would be better off if they did not create the wealth?

Wealth is created by the rich?
Hmm...that's true in some cases I guess. Why do you think it's true in any holistic sense?

 

[Kfox]

None of them invented anything. They took ideas by actual developers and used angel investors amd seed money from rich parent connections to profit from those developer's work. And in some cases sued the company so they could have a founding credit. Lol

Bill Gates did not create MS DOS, literally the micro systems Microsoft became, it was an acquired product. Popularizing an invention is not inventing.

Jeff Bezos recognized the branding of garage success stories and so got his parent's wealthy investment firm to raise 1 million for him to build a "garage" where Shel Kaphan and Paul Davis did the actual inventing.

Elon Musk didn't invent anything. All his major successes were acquired businesses. He did not invent PayPal and he did not invent Tesla, he bought them with daddy's emerald mine seed money.

This notion that we reward inventors is a story made up by the businessmen profiting on their work. And don't get me wrong, advertisement and networking are important skills, but we idolize charming door to door salesmen who reaped the reward of being the public darling, not the workers who made the things we use.

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.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Okay...make the argument then...

 

[Kfox]

It's a matter of degrees, imo. Some competition is good, but some can be quite destructive.

As with anything.

 

[Kfox]

You must have quite some wealth to believe such a ridiculous thing.

You don't need to be rich to see the obvious.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You don't need to be rich to see the obvious.

What is obvious?

 

[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

I suppose the gap is not a good thing, it is more a non-issue. It is a distraction that allows politicians to deflect blame from the lack of prosperity away from themselves and towards the rich.

What actually matters is bringing the poor up out of poverty. Not how much Elon Musk makes.
I think politicians could come up with ways to reduce poverty, or maybe not. Maybe they aren't smart enough. Whatever the reason, with our leadership failing to reduce poverty and homelessness, it is easier for them to hold up this wealth gap so everyone blames the wealthy and not the government.

Perhaps the reason the government doesn't actually go after the rich is because then politician would lose their scapegoat. The politician would actually have to be accountable for the poverty and homelessness in their district. Getting everyone to buy into this wealth gap creates the perfect alibi to deflect accountability from the political leaders.

Sure lets blame the rich and not the people actually running the country.

 

[Kfox]

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.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Yeah; there are always cases where management makes unreasonable demands.

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?

When I worked at McDonalds, I didn’t make enough money to afford an apartment, so I rented a room in someones basement, and eventually got a room mate for an apartment. Eventually I got another job at another Taco restaurant and between the 2 jobs; working well over 40 hrs per week, I was able to afford a cheap studio of my own. Eventually the skills I learned from the 2 jobs allowed me to get a higher paying job. Now granted; I was able to get out of my impoverish situation because I was only responsible for myself; had I a kid it would have been much more difficult to move out of poverty. ALL of the people I know living in poverty are living that way because they got a kid before they could afford a kid. Choosing to start a family before you can afford a family is a lifestyle choice that a job like McDonalds should not be required to pay for.

 

[Kfox]

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

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Kfox]

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.

No I didn’t say any of that. A progressive tax system means if the 10 Billionaires own half the country’s wealth, they also pay more than half the taxes; not to mention the jobs created by billionaires. I never said their presence didn’t make a difference, I only said the poor still existed.

 

[Kfox]

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

Remember the economic crash of 2006? During that time the super rich lost billions, the rich lost millions, the middle income lost thousands, and the poor lost a trickle (because they didn’t really have anything to lose). During that time the gap between the rich and the poor lessened. then a half dozen years later when the economy rebounded, the super rich got their billions back, the rich got their millions back, the middle income got their thousands back, the the poor got their trickle back. At this point the gap between the rich and the poor went back to record levels again. This has been the case with every economic rise and fall as of late. Now I couldn’t care less the rich, my concern is with the poor so the question becomes when were the poor better off; with their trickle? Or without it. I think the poor were better off with their trickle even if it means the super rich makes billions in the process.

 

[Kfox]

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

Remember the economic crash of 2006? During that time the super rich lost billions, the rich lost millions, the middle income lost thousands, and the poor lost a trickle (because they didn’t really have anything to lose). During that time the gap between the rich and the poor lessened. then a half dozen years later when the economy rebounded, the super rich got their billions back, the rich got their millions back, the middle income got their thousands back, the the poor got their trickle back. At this point the gap between the rich and the poor went back to record levels again. This has been the case with every economic rise and fall as of late. Now I couldn’t care less the rich, my concern is with the poor so the question becomes when were the poor better off; with their trickle? Or without it. I think the poor were better off with their trickle even if it means the super rich makes billions in the process.

 

[Kfox]

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.

CEO pay and the details there of are negotiated when he is hired by the Board of Directors.

 

[Kfox]

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?

No; it depends on the circumstances. Under some conditions the guy that invented the product should get more pay, other conditions the guy who got it to market should.