Wealth & Income Inequality

Cal? said:
Well the top rate is HK is 15%
Click to expand...

Yes, and as you proudly posted, many people live in luxury in HK!

1440.jpg


https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...g-kong-coffin-cubicles-cage-homes-in-pictures
 
Raoul said:
Definitely. But then again Americans have been conditioned to believe that government is bad and generally tantamount to waste and that money is best kept in the private sector, which of course helps keep most of it in the pockets of the top 1 percent.
Click to expand...

Did you read this article I posted earlier?

the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy said:
Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose.

In between the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent is a group that has been doing just fine. It has held on to its share of a growing pie decade after decade. And as a group, it owns substantially more wealth than do the other two combined. In the tale of three classes (see Figure 1), it is represented by the gold line floating high and steady while the other two duke it out. You’ll find the new aristocracy there. We are the 9.9 percent.


As of 2016, it took $1.2 million in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent; $2.4 million to reach the group’s median; and $10 million to get into the top 0.9 percent. (And if you’re not there yet, relax: Our club is open to people who are on the right track and have the right attitude.) “We are the 99 percent” sounds righteous, but it’s a slogan, not an analysis. The families at our end of the spectrum wouldn’t know what to do with a pitchfork.

We are also mostly, but not entirely, white. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, African Americans represent 1.9 percent of the top 10th of households in wealth; Hispanics, 2.4 percent; and all other minorities, including Asian and multiracial individuals, 8.8 percent—even though those groups together account for 35 percent of the total population.

Let’s suppose that you start off right in the middle of the American wealth distribution. How high would you have to jump to make it into the 9.9 percent? In financial terms, the measurement is easy and the trend is unmistakable. In 1963, you would have needed to multiply your wealth six times. By 2016, you would have needed to leap twice as high—increasing your wealth 12-fold—to scrape into our group. If you boldly aspired to reach the middle of our group rather than its lower edge, you’d have needed to multiply your wealth by a factor of 25. On this measure, the 2010s look much like the 1920s.

If you are starting at the median for people of color, you’ll want to practice your financial pole-vaulting. The Institute for Policy Studies calculated that, setting aside money invested in “durable goods” such as furniture and a family car, the median black family had net wealth of $1,700 in 2013, and the median Latino family had $2,000, compared with $116,800 for the median white family. A 2015 study in Boston found that the wealth of the median white family there was $247,500, while the wealth of the median African American family was $8. That is not a typo. That’s two grande cappuccinos. That and another 300,000 cups of coffee will get you into the 9.9 percent.
Click to expand...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
 
Cal? said:
I just don't get why some people just hate people for being rich without any regards for how those people got rich.
Click to expand...

With the exception of utterly despicable individuals like Trump it isn't a dislike of individuals but rather a dislike of the increasing and escalating concentration of wealthy in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

Social and economic mobility is getting worse and worse when it should be moving rapidly in the opposite direction.
 
Capitalist corporations at some point will create humanoide robots and the subproduct will be some form of egalitarian society via "slavery" of machines.
 
Wibble said:
With the exception of utterly despicable individuals like Trump it isn't a dislike of individuals but rather a dislike of the increasing and escalating concentration of wealthy in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

Social and economic mobility is getting worse and worse when it should be moving rapidly in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
I completely understand hating the system, but that's different from hating people for being very good at what they do.
 
Cal? said:
I completely understand hating the system, but that's different from hating people for being very good at what they do.
Click to expand...
It is practically only Eboue and to a lesser degree Silva who hate billionaires as individuals though. Most people have problems with the system and some of the despicable billionaires like the president, or Koch brothers. I really like people like Gates or Buffet.
 
Revan said:
It is practically only Eboue and to a lesser degree Silva who hate billionaires as individuals though. Most people have problems with the system and some of the despicable billionaires like the president, or Koch brothers. I really like people like Gates or Buffet.
Click to expand...
:nervous:

Gates is by the worst if we are actually talking about critiquing the system(Also there can never be too much hate for the super rich).
 
Sweet Square said:
:nervous:

Gates is by the worst if we are actually talking about critiquing the system(Also there can never be too much hate for the super rich).
Click to expand...
He has payed more money in taxes than any person ever, has given more money to charity that any person ever, has pledged 90% of his wealth to charity and together with Buffet has been working to make other super-rich people do the same. His work in Africa is definitely to be praised.
 
Revan said:
He has payed more money in taxes than any person ever, has given more money to charity that any person ever, has pledged 90% of his wealth to charity and together with Buffet has been working to make other super-rich people do the same. His work in Africa is definitely to be praised.
Click to expand...
What does Microsoft software run on ? Computers, Tablets, Phones etc and what are these products made out of ? Cobalt which is mined by slave and child labour in The Republic of Congo.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ng-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty

The report says that child miners as young as seven carried back-breaking loads and worked in intense heat for between one or two dollars a day without face masks or gloves. Several children said they had been beaten by security guards employed by mining companies and forced to pay “fines” by unauthorised mines police sent by state officials to extort money and intimidate workers.
Click to expand...

The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde
The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good.
Click to expand...

As Wilde points out the worst slavery owners were those who prevented the horror of the system being realised through ''kindness'' the same can be said of Gates and his fellow charity donors. Gates really shows the true horror of today Capitalist system.
 
Gates was the world's wealthiest man for a long while, of course he's paid huge money in taxes. He is fecking supposed to. Let's not make it a 'noble' thing.
 
Sweet Square said:
What does Microsoft software run on ? Computers, Tablets, Phones etc and what are these products made out of ? Cobalt which is mined by slave and child labour in The Republic of Congo.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ng-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty



The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde


As Wilde points out the worst slavery owners were those who prevented the horror of the system being realised through ''kindness'' the same can be said of Gates and his fellow charity donors. Gates really shows the true horror of today Capitalist system.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous logic for blaming Gates. First he no longer works at Microsoft and holds a small share of it. Then, If anyhing , blame PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. Their hardware runs other OSes too, such as Linux. Is the open source community to blame for that as well?
 
The Firestarter said:
Ridiculous logic for blaming Gates. First he no longer works at Microsoft and holds a small share of it. Then, If anyhing , blame PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. Their hardware runs other OSes too, such as Linux. Is the open source community to blame for that as well?
Click to expand...
Why aren't the people that purchase the products also to blame? No one has to have a computer, tablet or phone of their own, it's a choice.
 
711 said:
Why aren't the people that purchase the products also to blame? No one has to have a computer, tablet or phone of their own, it's a choice.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? It's a basic utility now, you can't function in a modern society without one , unless you are Amish.
 
711 said:
How many people have all three? You don't need all three, and you don't need to change your phone every 2 or 3 years, but how many of the people complaining about cobalt miners do so?
Click to expand...
Phone components are recycled. And usually you have to change it every three years because it's barely usable at that point due to being tied to old software and the battery failing. And you should ask your last question to the poster that mentioned the cobalt mining
 
Revan said:
It is practically only Eboue and to a lesser degree Silva who hate billionaires as individuals though. Most people have problems with the system and some of the despicable billionaires like the president, or Koch brothers. I really like people like Gates or Buffet.
Click to expand...
Then we agree.
 
The Firestarter said:
Phone components are recycled. And usually you have to change it every three years because it's barely usable at that point due to being tied to old software and the battery failing. And you should ask your last question to the poster that mentioned the cobalt mining
Click to expand...
I wasn't having a go at you personally you plonker, I was actually supporting your view that it's wrong just to blame Gates for everything. Although I was trying to add that perhaps we should also take some responsibility ourselves for what we do, but it looks like that was a concept too far.
 
711 said:
I wasn't having a go at you personally you plonker, I was actually supporting your view that it's wrong just to blame Gates for everything. Although I was trying to add that perhaps we should also take some responsibility ourselves for what we do, but it looks like that was a concept too far.
Click to expand...
Did I insult you personally like you just did ?
 
Silva said:
You don't have to be an off grid freegan to criticise the exploitation of working people.
Click to expand...
No, of course. I was merely trying to make the point was that it can be all too easy to criticise someone else, Gates in this case, when maybe we all share a bit of responsibility. I know I buy stuff I don't really need, and don't always recycle. Not proud of it mind, must try harder.
 
711 said:
No, of course. I was merely trying to make the point was that it can be all too easy to criticise someone else, Gates in this case, when maybe we all share a bit of responsibility. I know I buy stuff I don't really need, and don't always recycle. Not proud of it mind, must try harder.
Click to expand...

But that's no fun. It's primarily about getting a feeling of moral validation and meaning by associating with a cause that goes beyond the boundaries of one's own life. It's quite a bit like religion.
 
711 said:
No, of course. I was merely trying to make the point was that it can be all too easy to criticise someone else, Gates in this case, when maybe we all share a bit of responsibility. I know I buy stuff I don't really need, and don't always recycle. Not proud of it mind, must try harder.
Click to expand...

Yes, capitalism makes us all complicit in its crimes.
 
The Firestarter said:
Ridiculous logic for blaming Gates. First he no longer works at Microsoft and holds a small share of it. Then, If anyhing , blame PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. Their hardware runs other OSes too, such as Linux. Is the open source community to blame for that as well?
Click to expand...
Er... I was blaming Capitalism not Gates.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
The fundamental flaw in the argument is treating Capitalism as form or govt (instead of Democracy) rather than a socioeconomic modal. Fine line, but distinctly separate.



1. You have influential people in a capitalist form of govt who support green policy and environmental concerns....as many as those who deny them. It would not be fair to make an argument stating capitalism is the cause we do not tackle global warming. A communist China having as much pollution and factories is as much to blame as any other capitalist country.

2. True, but then as you say oligopolies are both good and bad depending on the end product they offer to benefit of customers. It's not fair to blame to companies for becoming big when we continue to support that same growth by supporting them via product purchase.

3. A company's primary purpose is profit (irrespective of whether it is located in a capitalistic or a communist country). I'd put the primary ownership to take care of societal needs on the government rather than companies. The same country which gave America a environmentally friendly Obama has now given us a Trump who is hostile to this cause. This attitude of the nation towards this has little to no relevance to the economic model, capitalism or communism.



Isn't it the duty of the state to balance long term strategic solutions with immediate tactical needs. It's not state becoming unpopular if a factory leaves...but people actually suffer if they become jobless, homeless and fall below poverty line. Ignoring all this and just blaming the state for 'popularity' just does not make sense.

America for example has been under Capitalism for quite some time now...but the individual policy changes and outlook is starkly different between Obama vs Trump. The points mentioned in Berba's post are more on agenda of people running the govt and has little relevance to Capitalism. You can easily find the same problems under Communism.
Click to expand...

My first few points were about capitalism as an economic system. After that I explored how capitalism can override democracy. For a simple explanation, see here. There is a fundamental tension in a society where people are (supposedly) politically equal, but where property rights are respected..

1. The individual beliefs of capitalists do not matter - it matters what actions and what kind of interests they represent. Exxon and other oil companies knew about global warming since the 60s and chose not to reveal it. Oil and gas and other companies have been blocking any action on climate change in the US for the last 30 years, and they have been successful. This is entirely a problem of capitalism and the power of money in any society (democratic or not) which respects property rights.
China?
China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.
Click to expand...
And China is not communist, though the govt has more power over corporations than the US.

2. *You* are an individual consumer and have no market power. The only thing that can affect companies is collective consumer movements (In the same way, workers' rights became a reality after a century of *collective* action by workers).
The company and the consumer are acting as rational market actors when they look for most polluting goods made in the most exploitative way if they happen to be the cheapest. That is a fundamental feature of free markets. Forcing deviations from this usually requires govt intervention, perhaps via environmental or labour regulation.

3. > A company's primary purpose is profit (irrespective of whether it is located in a capitalistic or a communist country).
See, again, companies competing for profit isn't really what people understand by communism. (You can look up market socialism, but that is a niche area). I've already explained how the power of the capitalist class can change govt policy (in regards to climate change). It is well documented in general. Here are two examples:
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo3624792.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...1/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html


> It's not state becoming unpopular if a factory leaves...but people actually suffer if they become jobless, homeless and fall below poverty line.
That's not my argument. Say, a govt wanted to research a cure for cancer, but didn't have money. It decided to raise taxes. As a result of that, a factory moved abroad. Now, the govt becomes unpopular and loses. This is the constraint on an elected democratic government pursuing its policies, by an unelected capitalist class. This is the tension between democracy and capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.