Wealth inequality in USA - perception, ideal and reality

[DEATHETERNAL]

you're refusing to address the counter argument. A person or even several people does not show that your fortunes are in your hands. Its an illogical conclusion.

No there isn't. Again wealth equality has waxed and waned, in this country alone over the last 100 years. You have no correlation to back up these claims, let alone causation.

So because something is true (that people can go from nothingness to prosperity due to their own effort) is somehow not a valid reason to state that it is true?

Yes there is. If you actually looked at history you could see that. The ability for fewer people to run larger and more complicated operations assists in the concentration of greater profit in fewer hands. Basic logic is on my side on this one Wells, and you have so far presented no counter beyond the typical "your just wrong" that you use so often.

People should stop crying and start working harder.

I wish more people would tell that to those who think working hard has absolutely nothing to do with success.

Then you ask yourself the question, where are these new millionaires saving money getting their millions, and you realize it is from other middle class and the poor, and generally not from people who already have millions and billions. This further increases the gap because the people saving money are saving it from the poor and the rich are keeping their money tipping the scales even further.

There are 2 things that happen in todays society as far as economic gain. First you get a lot of money from the poor->middle class and join the rich, or second you make a lot of money at once from the rich by selling them rights to the only way you had to join the rich giving them yet another way to siphon money off the poor.

How is that not how it has always been? You hire people to make something so that you can sell it for as high a price as is viable in the market and get back more than you pay your employees to make it. That is and has been the essence of how you make money apart from investment and your own production.

(I can't see the second image you posted here for some reason)

Technological advancement in action. Also the second image shows wealth concentration remaining about the same for the past decade and decreasing slightly or remaining the same over the past two decades.

[Underverse]

I wish more people would tell that to those who think working hard has absolutely nothing to do with success.

Well, it has a good amount to do with success, but initial social standing and the help you get from others has more

[Wells]

So because something is true (that people can go from nothingness to prosperity due to their own effort) is somehow not a valid reason to state that it is true?

How is this not clear to you?

An example of a single person or even a group of people becoming wealthy while working hard for it doesn't prove that that's what gets you there. There are other factors that aren't accounted for. Might as well say that car accidents are caused or not caused by the presence of rabbits feet on key chains.

Yes there is. If you actually looked at history you could see that. The ability for fewer people to run larger and more complicated operations assists in the concentration of greater profit in fewer hands. Basic logic is on my side on this one Wells, and you have so far presented no counter beyond the typical "your just wrong" that you use so often.

I'll stop laughing at you for this when you actually explain why wealth inequality in the US hasn't correlated with technology increases then.

I wish more people would tell that to those who think working hard has absolutely nothing to do with success.

"working hard" has nothing to do with success because markets don't reward people based on effort. They reward them based on (perceived) value created.

Technological advancement in action. What is the second image?

Its showing wealth inequality in america over time. In other words our workers are more productive than ever and wealth keeps getting more unevenly distributed. Which kind of blows his nonsense out of the water.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Well, it has a good amount to do with success, but initial social standing and the help you get from others has more

Help from others willfully given is not something I think anyone wants to go against or attack. Do you believe that initial social standing is a larger factor on average than how much effort you put into your pursuit of success?

[Akylios]

And those like you who choose to better themselves to prosperity from relative poverty are the downfall of the redistributionist argument.

He could have done everything he did in my country as well, except he would never have earned as little as $500 a month to begin with. Not unless he was only working like 2 days a week. He would also have earned enough to go to a good college on the side. With his ambition, he could easily finish a degree in computer science over here, without accumulating any significant student loans. This would pretty much guarantee him a minimum of $4000 dollars a month right at graduation. If he's good at what he does, he'd earn much more. Over here, his only barrier to the life I described would be his own ambition.

In my country all you need to set yourself up for a good career is ambition. If you want to become something over here, generally speaking the only thing stopping you is your own ambition. A large part of this is due to the tools which help with the distribution of wealth in my country. This is not the case over in the US. To get a good degree, you either have to be an exceptional student, or you have to be in a very solid financial situation. This poses a massive barrier to a huge chunk of the nation.

I don't believe in full equality. It is a silly notion. But the disparity in the US is way beyond anything I'd consider healthy for society.

[Goatfish]

How is that not how it has always been? You hire people to make something so that you can sell it for as high a price as is viable in the market and get back more than you pay your employees to make it. That is and has been the essence of how you make money apart from investment and your own production.

My point is taking more and more money from the poor and middle class and widening that gap reduces the spending power and chance for economic growth for the poor. The fact that the money gap is as large as it is now compared to the past is living proof that the rich are not spending as much as they should to keep economic mobility and pay at a healthy level. The easiest and best way to do this is to merely pay their employees more, which isn't happening. Better wealth distribution is good for the majority of the population of the world including the rich.

[larrakeyah]

Productivity increases over time? colour me shocked lol. Technology has nothing to do i bet. Work harder. Stop crying.

If you want to be richer than the rest you have to work harder than the rest.

[Wells]

Also DEATH,

The ability for fewer people to run larger and more complicated operations assists in the concentration of greater profit in fewer hands.

is based in a common and fairly dumb economic misunderstanding that has cropped up over and over for centuries that has people thinking that increasing technological levels means fewer jobs over all.

It was a major driver behind Luddites

---------- Post added 2013-05-27 at 01:46 AM ----------

Productivity increases over time? colour me shocked lol. Technology has nothing to do i bet. Work harder. Stop crying.

If you want to be richer than the rest you have to work harder than the rest.

I just provided you with data showing worker productivity is going on up and wealth equality is going down. Care to actually modify your argument in the face of numerical reality?

---------- Post added 2013-05-27 at 01:49 AM ----------

Honestly anyone who starts using phrases like "work harder" in an economic discussion just needs to be disconnected from the internet.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Well, it has a good amount to do with success, but initial social standing and the help you get from others has more

Help from others willfully given is not something I think anyone wants to go against or attack. Do you believe that initial social standing is a larger factor on average than how much effort you put into your pursuit of success?

"working hard" has nothing to do with success because markets don't reward people based on effort. They reward them based on (perceived) value created.

And I think that blows any and all possibly credibility that you could have had in this argument to pieces. To claim working harder has no impact on success is objectively false.

Its showing wealth inequality in america over time. In other words our workers are more productive than ever and wealth keeps getting more unevenly distributed. Which kind of blows his nonsense out of the water.

I’m not sure what system of math you are operating under. If the average productivity/income increases, then the amount of profit that the wealthy can derive also increases similarly. That percentage wealth concentration is not directly related to average productivity/income should be obvious. If you make more, more can be made off of you.

Also DEATH, is based in a common and fairly dumb economic misunderstanding that has cropped up over and over for centuries that has people thinking that increasing technological levels means fewer jobs over all.

I never claimed that. The ability for fewer people to run an operation does not automatically mean there are fewer jobs overall as there are likely more operations overall due to the increased level of technology. The misunderstanding here is in your interpretation of what I state and inserting of things that I have not said simply to give yourself something to argue against.

I just provided you with data showing worker productivity is going on up and wealth equality is going down. Care to actually modify your argument in the face of numerical reality?

You have shown me no such thing. Your graph shows wealth concentration to be fairly stable in the past couple decades. Care to actually look at your own graph?

"working hard" has nothing to do with success because markets don't reward people based on effort.

I'd also just like to keep posting the end of your credibility.

[Kraenen]

Help from others willfully given is not something I think anyone wants to go against or attack. Do you believe that initial social standing is a larger factor on average than how much effort you put into your pursuit of success?

It's a fact. The way you're raised will have the largest effect on how you develop later in life, and how you work/learn. Kids with well off parents will do better not because of some magical, transcendent "will" or "effort" but because they were trained that way.

[Wells]

And I think that blows any and all possibly credibility that you could have had in this argument to pieces. To claim working harder has no impact on success is objectively false.

Then you're economically illiterate. Markets don't give a shit how hard you work. They only care about the perceived value you produce. If I invent an amazing gadget (doesn't matter what it does) and I'm the only one who makes it it doesn't matter if I just dreamed up the idea in the shower or spent decades slaving over it. All that matters is the value it adds to the economy. I could work my ass off cleaning up shit all my life and die just as poor. "working hard" is just nonsense that gets trotted out to excuse wealth inequality by people like you who don't have the knowledge base to actually understand economics.

I never claimed that.

Irrelevant, you are using increased technology to explain increased inequality, which assumes that increased technology means less economic activity for the lower down on the social scale. Luddite 2.0.

---------- Post added 2013-05-27 at 01:58 AM ----------

You have shown me no such thing. Your graph shows wealth concentration to be fairly stable in the past couple decades. Care to actually look at your own graph?

So is increased technology driving inequality or not? Stop trying to have it both ways.

[Kasierith]

So the fact that you, through your extra effort, rose from nothing to a highly favorable situation does not support my argument how exactly?

Because it is an example of how social mobility is a factor both of personal determination and allowed opportunities. You want to completely ignore one and hold up the other one as the holy grail of nonsense.

[Grizzly Willy]

I thought it was already established that it doesn't matter how hard you worked, but how valuable that work is. Hence why management positions, which are arguably less demanding than manual labor, pay more. Granted they aren't necessarily easy jobs on the grounds that they still require a great deal of work, just not in the way of physical labor.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Then you're economically illiterate. Markets don't give a shit how hard you work. They only care about the perceived value you produce. If I invent an amazing gadget (doesn't matter what it does) and I'm the only one who makes it it doesn't matter if I just dreamed up the idea in the shower or spent decades slaving over it. All that matters is the value it adds to the economy. I could work my ass off cleaning up shit all my life and die just as poor. "working hard" is just nonsense that gets trotted out to excuse wealth inequality by people like you who don't have the knowledge base to actually understand economics.

If you work hard, you can increase the value of your labor and the value of what you produce. How is that not intuitively obvious?

Irrelevant, you are using increased technology to explain increased inequality, which assumes that increased technology means less economic activity for the lower down on the social scale. Luddite 2.0.

Wells how can you even take yourself seriously. I directly stated that my reasoning does not involve technology meaning less economic activity and that it likely meaning more economic activity, yet you insist that is what I am arguing? The only possible reason for that is that you cannot present any argument against what I actually state. You wish to mindlessly ascribe some argument to me that I have not made when I myself state that argument to be false solely for the sake of your own ability to defeat said false argument and appear victorious when your victory is only against a phantom of your own creation.

It's a fact. The way you're raised will have the largest effect on how you develop later in life, and how you work/learn. Kids with well off parents will do better not because of some magical, transcendent "will" or "effort" but because they were trained that way.

That is partially true, the false assumption is that people cannot choose to overcome their upbringing and choose to alter their lifestyle, work ethic, and culture to be more conducive to prosperity.

I thought it was already established that it doesn't matter how hard you worked, but how valuable that work is. Hence why management positions, which are arguably less demanding than manual labor, pay more. Granted they aren't necessarily easy jobs on the grounds that they still require a great deal of work, just not in the way of physical labor.

Through hard work, one can increase the value of one's labor. Learn skills, become more proficient in the skills you already posses, make yourself more valuable.

[Kasierith]

If you work hard, you can increase the value of your labor and the value of what you produce. How is that not intuitively obvious?

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/ashley.html

Please, tell me that these individuals either did not work hard, or received just compensation for their work.

[Kraenen]

If you work hard, you can increase the value of your labor and the value of what you produce. How is that not intuitively obvious?


Wells how can you even take yourself seriously. I directly stated that my reasoning does not involve technology meaning less economic activity and that it likely meaning more economic activity, yet you insist that is what I am arguing? The only possible reason for that is that you cannot present any argument against what I actually state. You wish to mindlessly ascribe some argument to me that I have not made when I myself state that argument to be false solely for the sake of your own ability to defeat said false argument.


That is partially true, the false assumption is that people cannot choose to overcome their upbringing and choose to alter their lifestyle, work ethic, and culture to be more conducive to prosperity.


Through hard work, one can increase the value of one's labor. Learn skills, become more proficient, make yourself more valuable.

It's up to you to prove you can. So far all you've done is spew ideology.

[Wells]

If you work hard, you can increase the value of your labor and the value of what you produce. How is that not intuitively obvious?

So we're moving goal posts now? Its not working hard, its the value you produce? Does that mean you agree with me now?

Wells how can you even take yourself seriously. I directly stated that my reasoning does not involve technology meaning less economic activity and that it likely meaning more economic activity, yet you insist that is what I am arguing? The only possible reason for that is that you cannot present any argument against what I actually state. You wish to mindlessly ascribe some argument to me that I have not made when I myself state that argument to be false solely for the sake of your own ability to defeat said false argument.

It would be nice if you'd spent more time addressing my posts and less time feigning incredulity. If you want to say technology is driving wealth inequality then you have to assume that increases in technology mean less economic activity for lower and working classes, which isn't true. If you aren't assuming that, as you claim you aren't, then your argument is nonsensical on its face.

[Grizzly Willy]

Through hard work, one can increase the value of one's labor. Learn skills, become more proficient in the skills you already posses, make yourself more valuable.

How do we gauge how hard one is working? Is a farm hand who spends hours on end toiling in the field not working as hard as the programmer? By what scale do we judge one's work?

[Wells]

How do we gauge how hard one is working? Is a farm hand who spends hours on end toiling in the field not working as hard as the programmer? By what scale do we judge one's work?

I believe in the scale is in metric tryhards.

[Kasierith]

How do we gauge how hard one is working? Is a farm hand who spends hours on end toiling in the field not working as hard as the programmer? By what scale do we judge one's work?

By shaking the magic eightball of the economy and finding out from how much he makes how much work he did. If it was anything less than average income in the US, the lazy bum better put in 90 hours in a week instead of 80.