Wealth & Income Inequality

[Silva]

Also governments already have absolute power everywhere. Like, I really don't know what your fear is? Having a big safety net, living wage laws, industry regulations and so on doesn't turn you into the soviet union.

 

[Member 55443]

The only country that has ever used this weapon, with a president that threatens to use it in our current time is the one with the biggest and freest markets.

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm not talking about a literal weapon. Look throughout history of all the times a government has decided to take wealth from some people and give it to someone else... how does it end 100% of the time.. If you think the answer to the woes of capitalism is to give other people (which any government is comprised of) even more power than anyone in the free market has and that these people will definitely act more responsibly and without tyranny unlike the evil capitalists then I think we just have different views on human behavior.

 

[Cheesy]

I don't disagree with you at all re your two examples, in that they're obviously both scenarios where there was catastrophic failure, be it through loose laws, greed or not enough regulation (or all of the above). I'd be more on board about limiting the sizes of companies themselves, akin to monopoly laws, rather than to concentrate on wealth and salaries of citizens and individuals within those companies. Redistributing wealth etc means giving more power to the government than any company has ever had under our current system and more power than anyone should have in any civil society. It might work great to begin with or the first time, if we're really lucky and anarchy doesn't break out but now a huge weapon has been created which will inevitably fall to tyranny sooner or later and be used to cause more devastation than any company ever could in the free market.

I'm not sure that's really the case. Plenty of governments have ventured on huge social welfare programs in the past, such as the formation of the welfare state in Britain, without becoming increasingly tyrannical due to the expansion of the state.

A balanced, well-functioning democracy has checks and balances in place to ensure that governments can't abuse their extensive powers, and that those who seek to do so are then removed from government as a result of that.

And besides, this argument could equally be applied to huge multinational corporations. The likes of Google, Facebook etc are now absolutely huge to the extent that they have a significant influence over society both through the vast numbers they employ, and the products they sell to people who depend on them. Yet the idea of reigning them in and reducing their power is often met with scorn.

 

[Member 55443]

Also governments already have absolute power everywhere.

They really don't have that much power, relatively speaking.

 

[Silva]

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm not talking about a literal weapon. Look throughout history of all the times a government has decided to take wealth from some people and give it to someone else... how does it end 100% of the time.. If you think the answer to the woes of capitalism is to give other people (which any government is comprised of) even more power than anyone in the free market has and that these people will definitely act more responsibly and without tyranny unlike the evil capitalists then I think we just have different views on human behavior.

what the feck are you talking about, you're just describing taxes now and a welfare state, it has ended in thousands of different ways in different countries at different times

 

[Cheesy]

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I'm not talking about a literal weapon. Look throughout history of all the times a government has decided to take wealth from some people and give it to someone else... how does it end 100% of the time.. If you think the answer to the woes of capitalism is to give other people (which any government is comprised of) even more power than anyone in the free market has and that these people will definitely act more responsibly and without tyranny unlike the evil capitalists then I think we just have different views on human behavior.

Again this is only really true in the cases of countries that adopted for full-scale communism, many of which were just a desire for authoritarian rule under the guise of a political ideology.

You can venture on mild programs of redistribution without being particularly tyrannical or authoritarian. The adoption of welfare states in many countries and the acceptance of the general idea that the state had some responsibility in the life of the individual often meant tax increases for rich people and the expectation for them to contribute to society, but that tended not to result in tyrannical rule.

Indeed, such measures can end up benefiting rich corporations by giving their consumers more money to go out and buy their products. This was the case with FDR's America - many of the big business types who oppose his reforms inadvertently benefited from them because the poor people whose qualities of lives were enhanced had more money to spend on stuff as a result.

 

[Member 55443]

what the feck are you talking about, you're just describing taxes now and a welfare state, it has ended in thousands of different ways in different countries at different times

We weren't debating taxes and welfare, we were talking about one persons wages vs another, and you claimed in no uncertain terms that the free market shouldn't decide their wage, but you should be the one to.

 

[Silva]

such as the formation of the welfare state in Britain, without becoming increasingly tyrannical due to the expansion of the state.

also the formation of welfare systems in every other developed and developing country in the world, whether it becomes a tyranny isn't linked in any way to redistribution of wealth

 

[Silva]

We weren't debating taxes and welfare, we were talking about one persons wages vs another, and you claimed in no uncertain terms that the free market shouldn't decide their wage, but you should be the one to.

No I didn't. I said the free market as it exists can fall down a well and die. I'd also settle for throwing it off a a metaphorical cliff. Free markets aren't a good system, they're open to abuse and destruction, often encouraging said behaviour. There needs to be regulation and redistribution of wealth to prevent the concentration of power and money as has happened in recent decades in America.

 

[Member 55443]

No I didn't. I said the free market as it exists can fall down a well and die. I'd also settle for throwing it off a a metaphorical cliff.

You've said it by implication (See Below). How you could possibly quantify or measure that I do not know, thus your argument is based on your own unsubstantiated belief and nothing more. There's no reason why you or anyone else should be so special to make such a statement unless it's your own money. When one person wants to pay another person X of their own money (which it is first and foremost, don't give me that hedge fund smoke and mirrors again) for their services, then they should be able to freely, hence what makes it a free market. When you start to say who can and can't earn what, you're taking away the freedom and interrupting the natural competitive supply/demand aspects of the market and making it all kinds of distorted and giving oneself a higher authority than competition itself. The choices should remain with the individual and not be dictated to by anyone else, no matter how good their intentions.

Drone work might be easier and lower skilled, but not to the extent that their wage difference indicates.

 

[Silva]

yeah in response to this post trying to justify wage inequality

Do you recognise there is an important distinction in priority for skills and competency over 'working hard' in the workplace?

just because I can see a problem, and want legislative and welfare solutions doesn't mean I'm going to personally give everyone on the planet a fecking performance review or set their wage

 

[Silva]

When one person wants to pay another person X of their own money (which it is first and foremost, don't give me that hedge fund smoke and mirrors again) for their services, then they should be able to freely, hence what makes it a free market. When you start to say who can and can't earn what, you're taking away the freedom and interrupting the natural competitive supply/demand aspects of the market and making it all kinds of distorted and giving oneself a higher authority than competition itself. The choices should remain with the individual and not be dictated to by anyone else, no matter how good their intentions.

There's nothing natural about most of these companies, and they already only pay significant portions of employees minimum wage, all it's gonna take is increasing minimum wage significantly and having a welfare state paid for by very high taxes on their massive incomes but alas these cnuts you love so much literally pay politicians not to do it.

If we just left it to personal choice these motherfeckers would still have slaves in shacks, no feck that. Your free choices end when they impact other people.

 

[Member 55443]

All of a sudden I'm justifying wage inequality now? Because your argument is the drone worker works 'just as hard' as the CEO and I pointed out that skills and competency are much more important factors when deciding someones salary? I'm done.

You see a problem that can't be substantiated, which means when it comes to legislation you wont be able to draw a line, which means it'd turn into a never ending shit show. What would the law be? If @Silva from redcafe decided you earn too much then tough shit? You can reply if you want but this is my last post what a waste of time.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I did. Didn't really get the point. So just the Uber billionaires are the problem. The next tier is too. And where does it stop. Have they considered the 10% below the 'aristocracy' and found that they do not hoard what they have and pass it down to their children? Saving money for children is pretty much done at every level, from the poorest parents to richest ones.

To be frank, I personally don't qualify as one of the 9.9%. Majority of who I know also don't and they do hoard money for their children. Is that wrong?

I'm not sure how you read the entire article and this is the point you got out of it. I'd have to say you missed the point really. 9.9% is relevant because that is the rough/relative barrier that shows up when you crunch the data. Its not some definitive barrier but more a very illustrative statistical barrier.

No one has a problem with people saving money for their children. But there still absolutely has to be an estate tax over 2-5 million USD (not including the value of one property). Personally I don't think any child needs to inherit more than a free house and 2-5 million USD tax free.

It feels like you are dramatically reducing and stripping away the nuance of the issue to just make a strawman.

The defining challenge of our time is to renew the promise of American democracy by reversing the calcifying effects of accelerating inequality. As long as inequality rules, reason will be absent from our politics; without reason, none of our other issues can be solved. It’s a world-historical problem. But the solutions that have been put forward so far are, for the most part, shoebox in size.

Well-meaning meritocrats have proposed new and better tests for admitting people into their jewel-encrusted classrooms. Fine—but we aren’t going to beat back the Gatsby Curve by tweaking the formulas for excluding people from fancy universities. Policy wonks have taken aim at the more-egregious tax-code handouts, such as the mortgage-interest deduction and college-savings plans. Good—and then what? Conservatives continue to recycle the characterological solutions, like celebrating traditional marriage or bringing back that old-time religion. Sure—reforging familial and community bonds is a worthy goal. But talking up those virtues won’t save any families from the withering pressures of a rigged economy. Meanwhile, coffee-shop radicals say they want a revolution. They don’t seem to appreciate that the only simple solutions are the incredibly violent and destructive ones.

The American idea has always been a guide star, not a policy program, much less a reality. The rights of human beings never have been and never could be permanently established in a handful of phrases or old declarations. They are always rushing to catch up to the world that we inhabit. In our world, now, we need to understand that access to the means of sustaining good health, the opportunity to learn from the wisdom accumulated in our culture, and the expectation that one may do so in a decent home and neighborhood are not privileges to be reserved for the few who have learned to game the system. They are rights that follow from the same source as those that an earlier generation called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I call this unsubstantiated bullshit. Is there any direct correlation proven that educating one kid is at cost of another?

Here again I think you are missing all the nuance.
But yes there are even direct examples of this. First we have to recognize how much elite universities matter in true social mobility. Outside of rare examples in entertainment and sports, elite universities are the only reliable path to the elite. Fact is, a degree from Harvard is worth much more than one from Southern Arkansas University.

Yet at the Ivy Leagues (the traditional mark of the best universities) the policies of legacy admissions are directly antithetical to a true merit based system. Legacy admissions and other policies directly harm working class average joes and benefit the children of the elite. The best academic and historical account of the exclusion and true range of legacy and other (often racist) admission practices is in Jerome Karabel's classic, The Chosen.

The whole panoply of strategies for reducing the admission of Jews without creating an explicit quota survived. Admissions directors around the country will tell you why athletic preference, alumni offspring (“legacy”) preference, regional distribution, and well-roundedness (the new “character”) remain vital parts of the admission process. They will tell you that without these things, private donations would dry up. Karabel cites the size of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton’s endowments to debunk that assertion.

Karabel’s detective work in the archives of these three universities also lays bare the mechanisms by which new practices were invented, tweaked, and diffused across an organizational field, in this case the field of elite colleges. By the late 1930s, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and their peers had arrived at a quite effective and yet subtle system for limiting the number of Jewish students.

he (Karabel) shows how, in spite of an applicant's proven academic performance, the Big Three favored in overwhelming numbers the sons of the Protestant moneyed class because the institutions determined that it was in their self-interest to do so. The way these universities have sometimes answered but mostly resisted societal demands to open their doors turns out to be a juicy story indeed.

https://www.amazon.com/Chosen-History-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/061877355X

Another segment I call bullshit.

Singapore became independent later than India. Japan recovered better from the war and bombing than many countries not as badly affected in the region. Their success came at whose expense?

I'm not sure what those examples prove. There is a tonne of literature in political economy courses on the rise of the 'Asian tiger economies". And Japan's recovery post-WWII (also written about a lot) was a direct result of USA investment in rebuilding Japan. So really the richest US taxpayers, with that offensively high 80-90% top bracket tax rate would be the ones whose "expense" the Japanese success was derived from - a worthwhile investment in my opinion.

During the American occupation:1946-49, Japanese economy was sustained by $500 million annually from the US. Despite this help, because of wartime devastation, Japanese economy was in shambles.

During the Cold War, strategic interests led the U.S. to allow Japan to export to the US while protecting its domestic market, enabling the formation of cartels and non-market driven factors in Japanese economy, and the development of an asymmetrical trade relationship with the U.S.

Japan was also pretty famous in PEIS circles for not adhering to Milton Friedman like advice to Russia in 1990s

In Japan, trade unions, in the 1940s and 50s, were very militant, so much so that the Japanese government and big businesses decided to negotiate with them via Confucian values of trust and reciprocity.

And other unique factors:

Social mobilization of the Japanese: sacrifice for the nation's place in international economy

Ultimately it was the Japanese consumers who bore the brunt of shouldering the cost of Japanese companies' competition abroad, in the form of high cost of consumer goods. After the war, they were taught to redirect their devotion to the nation from its military expansion to economic expansion. They were constantly exhorted that they were a homogeneous people and superior to all other Asians, and superior even to the whites. To establish their national position in the postwar world, they should not be very concerned about individual well being, thus should not mind the high cost they have to pay for consumer goods that cost less abroad. It is the same kind of mentality that prevented the Japanese from talking about their worries and pressure and ethnic/religious differences that Norma Field discusses in her In the Realm of A Dying Emperor, while worries, anger, and frustration still pop up unexpectedly, often from the periphery instead of mainstream Japanese society.

I'm really just touching on all the nuance here and as I mentioned Japan and the Asian tigers are well studied by economists for a long time. But ultimately (for Japan and Germany post WW2) it was the US investment (expense of the rich tax payers) that provided the monetary foundation for their quick recovery and economic rise.

http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h207_2002/jecontakeoff.htm

And who exactly failed during America's earlier era of development?

Is this even a serious question? Native Americans and African slaves?

 

[Silva]

All of a sudden I'm justifying wage inequality now? Because your argument is the drone worker works 'just as hard' as the CEO and I pointed out that skills and competency are much more important factors when deciding someones salary? I'm done.

You see a problem that can't be substantiated, which means when it comes to legislation you wont be able to draw a line, which means it'd turn into a never ending shit show. What would the law be? If @Silva from redcafe decided you earn too much then tough shit? You can reply if you want but this is my last post what a waste of time.

The law is that the living wage is the minimum wage and earnings above $1M/yr (and that's a fecking generous allowance) are taxed at 100% and the money is used for a big social safety net and to tackle the climate change that is making the planet unliveable.

Well, it depends how long it takes to get these changed. Leave it long enough and the law becomes rich people in guillotines.

 

[Silva]

Is this even a serious question? Native Americans and African slaves?

And women, LGBT people, the sick, the disabled, a long list of immigrants from around the world. We could be here a while.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

And women, LGBT people, the sick, the disabled, a long list of immigrants from around the world. We could be here a while.

Indeed. Could also mention all the victims of pollution, the workers of the industrial age who lived in dangerous conditions chronicled by the muckraker journalists,etc.

 

[utdalltheway]

Was listening to a Ted talk earlier about social progress.
There’s a list of countries from 2017 that has the usual countries at the top (Scandinavia & Canada) and the US down lower near Spain & France.
https://www.socialprogressindex.com/?tab=2&code=DNK

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Indeed. Could also mention all the victims of pollution, the workers of the industrial age who lived in dangerous conditions chronicled by the muckraker journalists,etc.

It's far easier to pass judgements with benefit of hindsight.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

The law is that the living wage is the minimum wage and earnings above $1M/yr (and that's a fecking generous allowance) are taxed at 100% and the money is used for a big social safety net and to tackle the climate change that is making the planet unliveable.

Climate change is responsibility of the rich? Surely everyone on the planet is equally responsible for where we are now and what needs to be done.

Perhaps we should have a environmental tax for everyone, tiered based on income.

I can agree with @oneniltothearsenal comments on social mobility, but that doesn't include wealth and income cap.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I believe we have enough funding. It's being wasted through blatantly inefficient distribution systems and does not reach the public.

Throwing more money into a drain hole won't help. Fix the process of distribution.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

It's far easier to pass judgements with benefit of hindsight.

You really should start reading some of the literature on those mentioned before making such an absurd, flippant comment.

Plenty of contemporaries in Victorian England or Roaring 20s USA pointed out the wrongs in society. In 19th century USA there are accounts of the brutal mass killing of the great herd that drove the Natives to famine by the rail companies. The fact that those concerns weren’t heeded at the time doesn’t mean there’s any hindsight needed when evaluating the economic and social impact of the actions carried out by capitalists of the time.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

It's far easier to pass judgements with benefit of hindsight.

A lot of those choices were done absolutely knowing the human cost. Just look how long and hard the tobacco companies tried to hide the science of knowing it caused cancer. They did not want to relinquish their profits because of social/human costs.
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1996/05/wigand199605

Or how Enron executives after rigging the system to have phony power outages cheered "burn, baby, burn" as people died.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/04/business/fi-enron4

Greed can very often overwhelm reason in many cases.

 

[berbatrick]

Climate change is responsibility of the rich? Surely everyone on the planet is equally responsible for where we are now and what needs to be done.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change

That's without going into the role of specific capitalists (oil and coal) in blocking climate action because they directly profit from environmental destruction.

 

[Eboue]

Climate change is responsibility of the rich? Surely everyone on the planet is equally responsible for

Huh? How is that "surely" the case?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change

That's without going into the role of specific capitalists (oil and coal) in blocking climate action because they directly profit from environmental destruction.

People can choose to not work at industries they think harm climate? The status of mid west mining communities should give you an idea of other side of the equation.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Huh? How is that "surely" the case?

Everyone lives on this planet, don't we?

 

[Eboue]

Everyone lives on this planet, don't we?

but some people use more resources than others...

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

A lot of those choices were done absolutely knowing the human cost. Just look how long and hard the tobacco companies tried to hide the science of knowing it caused cancer. They did not want to relinquish their profits because of social/human costs.
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1996/05/wigand199605

Or how Enron executives after rigging the system to have phony power outages cheered "burn, baby, burn" as people died.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/04/business/fi-enron4

Greed can very often overwhelm reason in many cases.

Not disputing that, but have people stopped smoking? We have a new breed arguing Marijuana is less harmful than tobacco, ffs. If you want a healthy lifestyle, why don't people stop doing that? Easier to continue doing it all the while blaming others. Has the warnings on cigarettes packets ever stopped anyone?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

but some people use more resources than others...

So responsibilities are based on resources? Is ok to be not responsible if you are not wealthy?

 

[Eboue]

So responsibilities are based on resources? Is ok to be not responsible if you are not wealthy?

i think you are veering off topic. people who own private jets and 7 houses have contributed more to climate change than the homeless or a rice farmer

 

[Sweet Square]

Just a daily reminder that capitalism is killing the earth

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

i think you are veering off topic. people who own private jets and 7 houses have contributed more to climate change than the homeless or a rice farmer

A bunch of mining community people voted for Trump to take away some environmentally friendly laws so they can have jobs. Are they not harming the society?

There is a big divide on people who claim to think about future vs reality. It's not just financial contribution or giving away freebies, creation of alternate jobs, re-skilling etc are the solution. You can just ask to stop a industry without making alternate arrangements..

 

[Eboue]

A bunch of mining community people voted for Trump to take away some environmentally friendly laws so they can have jobs. Are they not harming the society?

There is a big divide on people who claim to think about future vs reality. It's not just financial contribution or giving away freebies, creation of alternate jobs, re-skilling etc are the solution. You can just ask to stop a industry without making alternate arrangements..

ive got an alternate arrangement. put hedge fund managers in jail, seize their ill gotten gains, use the money to support social programs for miners who are now out of work

 

[berbatrick]

People can choose to not work at industries they think harm climate? The status of mid west mining communities should give you an idea of other side of the equation.

The CEO or major shareholders of Exxon Mobil choosing to suppress climate action will not starve or face any real danger if his company dissolves. He has already made more money than most of us can imagine.
A coal miner might die, without health insurance, if his mine is shut down. The same coal miner has no say over legislation, while the CEO has lobbyists and legislators at his beck and call.
This poll shows that 70% of the US public supports a "Green new deal", and 67% support retraining coal workers for green jobs.

Yet, none of this has happened. No CEOs have decided unilaterally to destroy their planet-destroying companies. There is no green new deal.


Freedom of action under capitalism is restricted by your material reality.
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

ive got an alternate arrangement. put hedge fund managers in jail, seize their ill gotten gains, use the money to support social programs for miners who are now out of work

Give away other people money is your answer to everything!

 

[Eboue]

reclaiming stolen resources is good and just

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

When would you realize lack of money has never been the cause of the problem?

 

[Eboue]

???

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

US spends nearly $2.5 trillion dollars approximately on social security Medicare, unemployment etc. Its not as if taking from hedge fund managers is going to fix the issue. Problem is not and never has been lack of money.