wealth inequality

[Bushtuckrman]

Some families have made dynasties of creating wealth, good for them. Some individuals have taken risks and created wealth, good for them. Some people have made money off of stupid people or other peoples misfortune, good for them.

Majority of individuals, like me, have made a decent enough amount of money from just being a clog to achieve a happy lifestyle and work/life balance, good for them/me. Other people are too fucking lazy to make anything of themselves so they complain about the success of others, good for them but yet my taxes have to pay for them being failures at life.

That sums up my thoughts on wealth inequity. I see pictures of Arab refugee's who are apparently down trodden and disadvantaged with quad cpu processor smart phones. I remember when a 286 computer with a whopping 14mhz cpu was worth like $3000 in the 80's. When I grew up my toilet was a fucking hole in the ground. When I grew up we watered our grass from the sewage pit because we had to save proper water in our tanks to drink and shower with. Though don't shower for too long cos not enough water. This age is an age of plenty and the new generation simply cannot comprehend it. My parents were rich compared to their relatives who still had a dirt floor and a hut for a home.

[Bodakane]

Some families have made dynasties of creating wealth, good for them. Some individuals have taken risks and created wealth, good for them. Some people have made money off of stupid people or other peoples misfortune, good for them.

Majority of individuals, like me, have made a decent enough amount of money from just being a clog to achieve a happy lifestyle and work/life balance, good for them/me. Other people are too fucking lazy to make anything of themselves so they complain about the success of others, good for them but yet my taxes have to pay for them being failures at life.

That sums up my thoughts on wealth inequity. I see pictures of Arab refugee's who are apparently down trodden and disadvantaged with quad cpu processor smart phones. I remember when a 286 computer with a whopping 14mhz cpu was worth like $3000 in the 80's. When I grew up my toilet was a fucking hole in the ground. When I grew up we watered our grass from the sewage pit because we had to save proper water in our tanks to drink and shower with. Though don't shower for too long cos not enough water. This age is an age of plenty and the new generation simply cannot comprehend it. My parents were rich compared to their relatives who still had a dirt floor and a hut for a home.

[Bushtuckrman]

To me its not so much as what I think is balanced than more the fact that I do not care. I believe as far as monetary success goes in life it is a gamble but the more you put in or 'risk' the more you stand to get out of it but also the more you stand to lose. Some people and some families have gotten way more success than others in the magnitude of tens of billions of dollars.

Of course when you talk about corporate wealth increasing at the expense of their employee's and/or customers/consumers than that is a different subject. Corporations need to accept the fact that there is a ceiling to exponential profit in a capitalist society and the real fact that sustainability is more important than that 10% annual growth that so many revere. Which is why I also think that publicly owned/traded entities are a mistake that are mostly doomed to failure in the long term.

[Machismo]

Yes businesses do have an obligation to their employees. That has been proven time and again, with everything from insurance to breaks to anti discrimination, etc.

Then you support those mostly socialist places?

Define what you mean by victim, because working a job and not making a minimum wage makes that worker a victim.

No, it doesn't make someone a victim. They willingly chose to work for that wage. Is a store a victim if you buy things that are on sale?

I support freedom. In the case of minimum wage, I support nations that do not institute one. I do not have to support everything about a country in order to support something.

The idea that you can keep putting more responsibilities onto a business to give to its employees sounds nice, but that does not make such things necessary. I'm not going to deny that there are more requirements than there use to be, I'm merely arguing that they are oppressive and unnecessary.

- - - Updated - - -

You should steal money from people until you are happy that they aren't worth too much money...

[Bodakane]

To me its not so much as what I think is balanced than more the fact that I do not care. I believe as far as monetary success goes in life it is a gamble but the more you put in or 'risk' the more you stand to get out of it but also the more you stand to lose. Some people and some families have gotten way more success than others in the magnitude of tens of billions of dollars.

Of course when you talk about corporate wealth increasing at the expense of their employee's and/or customers/consumers than that is a different subject. Corporations need to accept the fact that there is a ceiling to exponential profit in a capitalist society and the real fact that sustainability is more important than that 10% annual growth that so many revere. Which is why I also think that publicly owned/traded entities are a mistake that are mostly doomed to failure in the long term.

The problem is the right has placed their narrative on the left's argument in the US. The left is saying the top graph is bad for the economy and bad for people in general. The right doesn't like hearing anything negative about business and the wealthy, so they say the left's argument is all about being jealous, blah, blah, blah. Case in point, the post above this one.

No one on the planet, in their right mind, can honestly think the top graph is how things should be.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it doesn't make someone a victim. They willingly chose to work for that wage. Is a store a victim if you buy things that are on sale?

I support freedom. In the case of minimum wage, I support nations that do not institute one. I do not have to support everything about a country in order to support something.

The idea that you can keep putting more responsibilities onto a business to give to its employees sounds nice, but that does not make such things necessary. I'm not going to deny that there are more requirements than there use to be, I'm merely arguing that they are oppressive and unnecessary.

- - - Updated - - -



You should steal money from people until you are happy that they aren't worth too much money...

No you support freedom of the wealthy. Big difference.

And no, for those countries to have no minimum wage and have a solid economy they must have bigger and more strict socialistic practices. That's the point you're not getting.

Do you honestly think the top graph is the mark of a good and healthy economy?

[Machismo]

The problem is the right has placed their narrative on the left's argument in the US. The left is saying the top graph is bad for the economy and bad for people in general. The right doesn't like hearing anything negative about business and the wealthy, so they say the left's argument is all about being jealous, blah, blah, blah. Case in point, the post above this one.

No one on the planet, in their right mind, can honestly think the top graph is how things should be.

- - - Updated - - -




No you support freedom of the wealthy. Big difference.

And no, for those countries to have no minimum wage and have a solid economy they must have bigger and more strict socialistic practices. That's the point you're not getting.

Do you honestly think the top graph is the mark of a good and healthy economy?

One can think the current status quo is wrong, yet not seek to have the government try and fix it for them. Is there too much wealth inequality? Almost certainly. Is government action required to fix it? Nope.

As for me, I support freedom for everyone, not just the wealthy. I should add, people think all businesses are run by wealthy people, and that's just not the case. Plenty of businesses are run by people who make less than the median wage in their locality.

By running to the government to fix something that people can fix themselves, we are becoming far too dependent. In the process, we are forcefully taking away the freedoms of others, something I will not support. The go-to answer shouldn't immediately be government intervention. It's a lazy ploy, and leads to oppression. Sure, people have no problem when it gets them what they want, but those very same people are the first to complain when government intervention goes against them.

[Bodakane]

One can think the current status quo is wrong, yet not seek to have the government try and fix it for them. Is there too much wealth inequality? Almost certainly. Is government action required to fix it? Nope.

To which I say again, and we'll see if you keep ignoring it.....that's never happened. The big businesses throughout the history of the US have ALWAYS needed to be reigned in by government as the government is the tool the common man has to do that (remember, by the people for the people). Businesses are not people. Businesses are entities whose interests often lie counter to what is good for the people. Hence rules making businesses spend money to ensure their facilities and practices are safe for example. So again, when has the wealthy or big business ever done what was correct for anything outside of their own interests as a whole?

As for me, I support freedom for everyone, not just the wealthy. I should add, people think all businesses are run by wealthy people, and that's just not the case. Plenty of businesses are run by people who make less than the median wage in their locality.

No you don't. You act as if there's this utopia where people just need to apply themselves and they can have everything they want. That doesn't exist.....well the closest it ever comes is actually socialistic societies actually. You refuse to acknowledge or accept there exists situations and environments outside of the ones you grew in, that actually make it impossible to flourish..or even just get by and they are neither rare nor isolated.

By running to the government to fix something that people can fix themselves, we are becoming far too dependent. In the process, we are forcefully taking away the freedoms of others, something I will not support. The go-to answer shouldn't immediately be government intervention. It's a lazy ploy, and leads to oppression. Sure, people have no problem when it gets them what they want, but those very same people are the first to complain when government intervention goes against them.

No one is taking away anything. And again, the government is the tool to fix things. That's its actual purpose. That's why there;s courts and police and fire depts and infrastructure and education and roads and the military. The wealth gap issues which even you admit are bad cannot and will not be fixed without the government.

[Machismo]

To which I say again, and we'll see if you keep ignoring it.....that's never happened. The big businesses throughout the history of the US have ALWAYS needed to be reigned in by government as the government is the tool the common man has to do that (remember, by the people for the people). Businesses are not people. Businesses are entities whose interests often lie counter to what is good for the people. Hence rules making businesses spend money to ensure their facilities and practices are safe for example. So again, when has the wealthy or big business ever done what was correct for anything outside of their own interests as a whole?

I never said everyone can succeed, but ANYONE can. I have no desire to force equality of outcome.

Yes, you are pushing to take away things, freedom and money. When you use the government to "fix" things, then you have also justified it when corporations use the government to "fix" things they want done. And the cycle continues...

The wealth gap can be fixed without government, people are just too lazy and complacent to do it themselves. They have grown to dependent on government, and want to continue the trend. That's why the definitions of "want" and "need" have changed so drastically in the minds of far too many people. Apparently, we NEED businesses to pay for our health care... I'm not sure when the hell that became a necessity.



No you don't. You act as if there's this utopia where people just need to apply themselves and they can have everything they want. That doesn't exist.....well the closest it ever comes is actually socialistic societies actually. You refuse to acknowledge or accept there exists situations and environments outside of the ones you grew in, that actually make it impossible to flourish..or even just get by.



No one is taking away anything. And again, the government is the tool to fix things. That's its actual purpose. That's why there;s courts and police and fire depts and infrastructure and education and roads and the military. The wealth gap issues which even you admit are bad cannot and will not be fixed without the government.

And when you push oppressive and burdensome legislation to rein in businesses, then you justify their actions when they do the same thing. I have no problem with stopping corporatism, but I would rather get rid of the shitty legislation they push, instead of pushing my own shitty legislation.

[Bodakane]

And when you push oppressive and burdensome legislation to rein in businesses, then you justify their actions when they do the same thing. I have no problem with stopping corporatism, but I would rather get rid of the shitty legislation they push, instead of pushing my own shitty legislation.

WADR, your just spouting nebulous ideologies at this point.

Try it from this angle, how do we fix the unhealthy size of the wealth gap without the government?

[Bushtuckrman]

[QUOTE=Bodakane;41060795]The problem is the right has placed their narrative on the left's argument in the US. The left is saying the top graph is bad for the economy and bad for people in general. The right doesn't like hearing anything negative about business and the wealthy, so they say the left's argument is all about being jealous, blah, blah, blah. Case in point, the post above this one.

No one on the planet, in their right mind, can honestly think the top graph is how things should be.

- - - Updated - - -


I understand what you mean but how can you regulate it in the means of your mindset that 'people/entities shouldn't be what is regarded as too wealthy'??? We are all different, some people have far far far higher drives than others when it comes to monetary gains. Some families also inherit this mindset and continue making money exponentially over generations. Who are you to say 'ok enough is enough you cannot keep making this wealth'?

Regulation is both a great thing and a horrible thing. The fact of the matter is, is that everyone is different BUT in the same brush stroke people can be categorized. In capitalism a healthy ratio of upper, middle upper and middle class must be obtained. Lower class should always be kept to a minimum as much as possible as to reduce the burden of everybody. Of course those with actual greed believe that much of the middle class should be reduced to the lower class however for a successful capitalistic society this absolutely cannot happen. This is where regulation needs to step in to ensure a healthy balance of wealth equity within reasonable means. You should be rewarded for your personal drive and tenacity in business as well as accepting the fact that success and failure is inline with risk when you try to 'rise above' from being middle/upper middle class.

You can talk down on the people, families and corporations who make tens of billions of dollars but yet in most circumstances they are a driving force for the employment of many millions of people. It is when those people or corporations try to screw those people over is when there is a problem. As a related example, look at Donald Trump, say what you will he is a multi billionaire who employs tens of thousands of people and that is what drives both our economy and society.

[Machismo]

WADR, your just spouting nebulous ideologies at this point.

Try it from this angle, how do we fix the unhealthy size of the wealth gap without the government?

Refuse to patronize any business that does not act in the way you want it to act. Have your friends do the same thing.

[Spectral]

Track all regulation back to how it originated and you'll likely find dead bodies.

This is obviously false. A non-trivial amount of regulation is regulatory capture where-in a large corporation benefits from barriers to entry that prevent competition.

- - - Updated - - -

Try it from this angle, how do we fix the unhealthy size of the wealth gap without the government?

There's a value statement in this post that isn't quite a fact. Makes it a bit of a loaded question.

[Goatfish]

If people are free to unionize, a store must be free to oppose them.

it is not harder to raise a price by a small amount, that is the natural flow of inflation. The problem with your attempt at math, is that you are pointing to the wrong target when trying to address harm. That's my entire point. People say it's not harmful, but only discuss the living wage and its recipients. There's no proper calculation as addressed to the actual "victim." They are basing harm on who is receiving the money, not from whom you are taking it. That is precisely why I brought up the entire issue of $1000 an hour, to show the basis of harm is not being addressed in the slightest, because people are pretending it does not exist.

Yes, a store is free to oppose them, but that is where one big flaw in your argument comes to light. You can't have equal bargaining when big corporations can literally just throw the entire playing field out the window if they might lose. It isn't a friendly game of chess, if the corporations win then the little guy loses, if the little guy unionizes like you said to even the playing field and fight for livable wages and not working 80 hour work weeks, the corp can literally just shut down and re-open elsewhere where people are too downtrodden to even think of fighting for more money. It's a siege and the corporations just have more supplies than we do. Far more.

As for you saying it isn't harder to raise prices by a small amount, when people see a price jump from $1.99 to $2.09 they will think it went up a full dollar. It's just how marketing works and how people see numbers. There is tons of research on the subject and unless we can completely change our pricing systems to eradicate people taking advantage of that phenomenon (which I think would be for the best), then that is just how it is.

Finally, you brought up the $1000/hr since you thought no one would take such a number seriously and not give you a thought out answer, don't try to pretend otherwise. The fact of the matter is exactly like I said, if minimum wage was increased to $1000 or even $100,000 per hour, prices would adjust to fit the situation, probably with less harm to companies than if it were to increase a single dollar. That big of a change removes any easy reference towards what prices should be and smart businesses could take advantage of it.

ps: Not saying that that big of a change wouldn't completely ruin our economy as a whole, but that is less because people have to pay so much money to employees, and more since everyone would have to re-learn a new monetary system. As if we were to suddenly change to the Yen from the dollar, but without any frame of reference to go off of.

[Bodakane]

The problem is the right has placed their narrative on the left's argument in the US. The left is saying the top graph is bad for the economy and bad for people in general. The right doesn't like hearing anything negative about business and the wealthy, so they say the left's argument is all about being jealous, blah, blah, blah. Case in point, the post above this one.

No one on the planet, in their right mind, can honestly think the top graph is how things should be.

- - - Updated - - -


I understand what you mean but how can you regulate it in the means of your mindset that 'people/entities shouldn't be what is regarded as too wealthy'??? We are all different, some people have far far far higher drives than others when it comes to monetary gains. Some families also inherit this mindset and continue making money exponentially over generations. Who are you to say 'ok enough is enough you cannot keep making this wealth'?

Regulation is both a great thing and a horrible thing. The fact of the matter is, is that everyone is different BUT in the same brush stroke people can be categorized. In capitalism a healthy ratio of upper, middle upper and middle class must be obtained. Lower class should always be kept to a minimum as much as possible as to reduce the burden of everybody. Of course those with actual greed believe that much of the middle class should be reduced to the lower class however for a successful capitalistic society this absolutely cannot happen. This is where regulation needs to step in to ensure a healthy balance of wealth equity within reasonable means. You should be rewarded for your personal drive and tenacity in business as well as accepting the fact that success and failure is inline with risk when you try to 'rise above' from being middle/upper middle class.

You can talk down on the people, families and corporations who make tens of billions of dollars but yet in most circumstances they are a driving force for the employment of many millions of people. It is when those people or corporations try to screw those people over is when there is a problem. As a related example, look at Donald Trump, say what you will he is a multi billionaire who employs tens of thousands of people and that is what drives both our economy and society.

Actually he doesn't. He sells his name to things. That's all he really does anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Refuse to patronize any business that does not act in the way you want it to act. Have your friends do the same thing.

Riiiiiiigght. People can go without food and gas for awhile.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a value statement in this post that isn't quite a fact. Makes it a bit of a loaded question.

No its not. #1 its a fact its unhealthy for a good economy. #2 the poster I was discussing this with admitted and agreed it was unhealthy. If you don't agree, then the problem is you don't understand.

[Hana Song]

WADR, your just spouting nebulous ideologies at this point.

Try it from this angle, how do we fix the unhealthy size of the wealth gap without the government?

It's not unhealthy with a gap, that is the natural result of people being different in their abilities

[Bodakane]

It's not unhealthy with a gap, that is the natural result of people being different in their abilities

No one said it was but thanks. You're missing huge chunks of the conversation. Pretty much no one is saying there shouldn't be gaps.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Which is one of my points. We are choosing to punish people who have not caused the actual harm.

They are not being punished, and there is no harm in minimum wage. By your logic, people who choose to work for a business are doing so by their own volition, regardless of how ultimately bad it is for them. Thus those people cannot be "harmed" or punished by said business.

Now we'll use your same logic. When a business signs up to do business in the united state, it AGREES to abide by all laws of the United States, present and future. By agreeing to these laws to attain a business license, it has CHOSEN to conduct business where minimum wage exists. There is no punishment, there is no harm BY YOUR VERY OWN LOGIC.

[Hana Song]

No one said it was but thanks. You're missing huge chunks of the conversation. Pretty much no one is saying there shouldn't be gaps.

? You said it was unhealthy

[Cthulhu 2020]

You should steal money from people until you are happy that they aren't worth too much money...

So the richest should not be worth as much as in the picture, because they legislated much of that wealth to themselves? You defend the wealth of the wealthy, yet oppose how they got it. You make zero sense. Then again that's why none of your arguments will ever work.

- - - Updated - - -

? You said it was unhealthy

Tiered wealth is not inherently unhealthy. Extreme levels where 5% of the country owns 95% of the wealth is. Keep up.

[Theodarzna]

? You said it was unhealthy

Wealth inequality can become incredibly damaging socially if those with lots of wealth have zero obligations to the not wealthy.

If the Wealthiest people and the poorer people existed as Patron-Client type relationships and they both need one another for their mutual benefit, then wealth inequality is not bad. When there exists no bonds of reciprocity, and no obligation, then it effectively becomes cancerous.