My brilliant(ly obvious) theory for why income inequality is utterly inevitable

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
lets experiment. Lets take all the money in the US. divide it equally. How many years will it be before we see massive "inequity"?
Chappelle - reparations
"those black people can't get that money back to us fast enough"



Inequality is obviously part of the human condition, but it wreaks havoc with societies and economies when it becomes too great, as it did in 1929
Whoa hold on. Income inequality is not what caused 1929. What happened was people were making bets using borrowed money. If you buy a hedge fund, it goes down, and there's a margin call, you need to pay the loss. Often that means selling the stock. The market crashes when too many people are trying to sell. Now that selling the stock is no longer enough to cover the margin call, people need to withdraw from the bank. When too many people do this, it's called a bank run.

The recent market crash is a good example of how MIDDLE CLASS people cause a market crash. Millions of people were borrowing money (mortgage) for the sake of investing (real estate investment). This isn't some super extreme upper class causing a crash. This is average people causing a crash.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Chappelle - reparations
"those black people can't get that money back to us fast enough"




Whoa hold on. Income inequality is not what caused 1929. What happened was people were making bets using borrowed money. If you buy a hedge fund, it goes down, and there's a margin call, you need to pay the loss. Often that means selling the stock. The market crashes when too many people are trying to sell. Now that selling the stock is no longer enough to cover the margin call, people need to withdraw from the bank. When too many people do this, it's called a bank run.

The recent market crash is a good example of how MIDDLE CLASS people cause a market crash. Millions of people were borrowing money (mortgage) for the sake of investing (real estate investment). This isn't some super extreme upper class causing a crash. This is average people causing a crash.

Didn't even read Reich's interview, did you?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I've been mulling over articles and statistics for a few months and have this half-assed theory on why greater income inequality is inevitable. Please comment and tell me how wrong I am.

As our economies employ more "knowledge workers" and less labour-intensive positions, intelligence becomes the limiting factor for whether a person lives paycheque-to-paycheque or comfortably above six figures. The above average in intelligence will see their particular talents rewarded handsomely the further the services/knowledge economy develops while the majority of the population sees their wages stagnate or, at best, stay level.

Here's the BLS's chart of private sector gross job gains and losses by industry, seasonally adjusted. Finance and IT have taken a large hit, but they're emerged relatively unscathed compared to construction, manufacturing and goods producers. That's whether you look at the raw numbers or as a percentage.

The second half of this lame theory comes from a maxim we all learned in childhood: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Thus, companies are busily making use of the current state of the economy as a convenient reason to cut underperforming and easily made redundant staff. (The "excuse" of the poor economy is particularly useful in countries like Canada where terminating workers is not a straightforward process.) These companies are not turning around and hiring younger, smarter or faster workers to replace those on their way out - they're automating, pushing more work upon fewer people or simply doing without. Of course, this is their perogative: The corporation's goal is not to employ, but to reap profit.

The end result is an ever-shrinking pool of employed who stay that way by possessing skills and knowledge that is not easily automated or done without. Because of how small that pool of workers is, they will have the ability to command ever greater salaries. Everyone not in that esteemed labour pool stagnates.

Long term, I can only see this issue being solved in one of three ways.

Solution #1: Eugenics. Make the population smarter. (Which it is getting, despite what you'd think - but we may need to speed up the process.) Make most everyone a useful employee. Of course it takes more than sheer intelligence coded into your genes to be a productive member of society, but the lack of that intelligence is nearly a veto against a person.

Solution #2: Income redistribution on an unprecedented scale. The top 20% giving half of their annual salary via taxes to the bottom 80%.

Solution #3: Extreme interventionist and protectionist economic policies. This must be done as a coordinated global effort to work. Making it equally as expensive to automate or use foreign labour will give corporations an incentive to employ locals.

Note: Don't read too much into how anything above is phrased. I'm not advocating any of them - they all have massive downsides. I just don't see alternatives. But maybe I've got everything wrong to begin with.

It's nothing new Yllus. Wealth begets more wealth because you begin to control things and people for secondary and tertiary income streams. Ever heard the saying first million is the hardest?

Solutions are good unless people want to start getting shot in the face over $1.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
It isn't possible for everyone to have equal income, if it were you couldn't spend money. The act of giving money to someone creates an imbalance. The longer the process occurs the greater the imbalance will become. You can slow it down but never stop it.

Money is just standardization of a bartering society.

If I have 100 loves of bread and you have 1 TV, we would trade because I have bread and you have TVs.

Well 100 loaves of bread and 1 TV are both worth the same - $1.

So if we both had $1 we could obviously spend it.

So obviously you are an idiot.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Chappelle - reparations
"those black people can't get that money back to us fast enough"




Whoa hold on. Income inequality is not what caused 1929. What happened was people were making bets using borrowed money. If you buy a hedge fund, it goes down, and there's a margin call, you need to pay the loss. Often that means selling the stock. The market crashes when too many people are trying to sell. Now that selling the stock is no longer enough to cover the margin call, people need to withdraw from the bank. When too many people do this, it's called a bank run.

The recent market crash is a good example of how MIDDLE CLASS people cause a market crash. Millions of people were borrowing money (mortgage) for the sake of investing (real estate investment). This isn't some super extreme upper class causing a crash. This is average people causing a crash.

LOL, really you think average people take out subprime mortgages?

lololol u dumb broad

U should do some lite reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
LOL, really you think average people take out subprime mortgages?

lololol u dumb broad

U should do some lite reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010

From your own link:
The term subprime refers to the credit quality of particular borrowers, who have weakened credit histories and a greater risk of loan default than prime borrowers.[41] The value of U.S. subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007,[42] with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding.
7.5 million people have subprime mortgages? If it's not average people who have these, then who do you think does? New York's exactly 7.5 million Jew population? CHUDs? Extraterrestrials?

wiki graph
800px-U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share.png


20% of mortgages are subprime? Damn those sneaky Jew bastards take out a lot of loans. For a second there I thought it was normal people getting these!
 

KlokWyze

Diamond Member
Sep 7, 2006
4,451
9
81
www.dogsonacid.com
No human beings are ever truly equal and the economy reflects it's makers. The bigger the differences between the classes the more chaotic that society becomes. It's all about the government AND private companies to get to that equilibrium that makes everyone, or really, as many people as possible.... a functional component of that society.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
It simply isnt fair to take away money from the rich simply because they are more successful in life.

Taxing the rich at a great amount will drive DOWN innovation and invention. opportunities and jobs.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
By chance, an article from my daily paper about exactly this issue. Disincentivizing automation seems like the worst idea ever, so outside of propping up education I'm at a loss as to solutions.

Canadian companies put machines before jobs

OTTAWA — Canadian companies plan to ease off on hiring and squeeze more production through the acquisition of machinery and equipment, according to the latest quarterly outlook survey done for the Bank of Canada.

In fact, the intention to accelerate the pace of equipment purchases over the next 12 months shot to levels never seen in the history of the central bank survey. Meanwhile, only 40% of firms said that employment levels would be higher over the next 12 months, the lowest reading since the second quarter of 2009.

This would reinforce recent forecasts from Canadian economists that job creation is set to slow to a crawl on weakening U.S. growth prospects. Friday, Statistics Canada reported the economy shed a net 6,600 jobs in September.

“Some firms had recently increased employment to a level sufficient to meet expected demand, while others were focusing on achieving productivity gains from new equipment or new processes,” the Bank of Canada said in its latest business outlook survey, released Friday.

Financing to purchase new equipment is likely attainable, as a separate central bank survey of loan officers indicated an overall easing in business lending conditions in the third quarter. However, lending conditions appeared to be “largely unchanged” for the small-business sector, and overall business demand for credit remained “modest.”

...
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,989
20
81
The important thing that most people forget to mention is that although incomes are widely varied, price for goods and services are relatively constant throughout the spectrum.

Look at the following scenario:

Person 1 is called Mr. A.

Person 2 is called Mr. B.

Mr. A is in the high income bracket (>$250,000/annum).

Mr. B is in the low income bracket (<$30,000/annum).

If both need to take high-speed rail to LA from San Francisco, both pay essentially the same tariff. This is where I think perception needs to change.

If Mr. A, due to his much higher income, has to pay a ticket price commensurate to his earnings, things would indeed be more equitable. Since Mr. B has no choice but to pay the price of the ticket, the percentage of his income that he is able to save at the end of the year is miniscule in comparison.

Income redistribution is out of the question as people perform various jobs and earn based on several factors such as education, industry etc.

The only way things can be made more equitable is to have a tiered "COST STRUCTURE" commensurate to each person's earnings. Planes have 1st class, business class, economy class but they don't insist that people who make a lot of money have to fly 1st class. Since many people are niggardly, this uneven level of income becomes uneven distribution of wealth and this continues from one generation to another.

The typical argument against this is, "Why should someone have to pay more for the same thing/service (like groceries etc.)?" Well, that is because they earn a lot more and can afford it. Some wealthy people do indulge in more expensive things but that does not percolate into the middle class; the backbone of any society.

In other words, instead of trying to narrow the income disparity, society should insist that goods and services should have a price structure commensurate to that of each person's earnings. This is not only fair, but gives psychological comfort to all classes that may otherwise feel disenfranchised.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
This discussion brings to mind the singularity. In the not so distant past, subsistence living meant everyone worked. You worked or you starved. Technology and specialization allowed the standard of living to increase, but everyone still had to work. Technology continues to move forward faster and faster, and is leaving some people behind. It allows us to do more work than ever with fewer people and those capabilities are only increasing. Are we past the point on the technology curve where everyone has a function? Is a percentage of society simply not needed? Will that percentage increase until we reach the singularity, at which point no humans are needed at all?
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
As our economies employ more "knowledge workers" and less labour-intensive positions, intelligence becomes the limiting factor for whether a person lives paycheque-to-paycheque or comfortably above six figures. The above average in intelligence will see their particular talents rewarded handsomely the further the services/knowledge economy develops while the majority of the population sees their wages stagnate or, at best, stay level.

Except knowledge is nothing without labor. Knowledge can be an aid to labor, but that doesn't mean all knowledge is, or that the knowledge that is is always accurately priced. Making six figures doesn't mean your output actually contributes a continual six figures.

As the plant in back becomes more efficient, the more opportunities arise for the front office to become bloated. (I worked at a small manufacturing facility that had twice as many people doing office work as actually making product.) You shouldn't assume that this glut of cushy front office jobs is a permanent aspect of the economy, though. It's ripe for cost-cutting. And at that point what do you think is going to happen with the resulting huge profit margins? The rich get richer.

It simply isnt fair to take away money from the rich simply because they are more successful in life.

The rich are rich due to leveraging power disparities.
In my above example, who fires those extraneous middle class front office workers? The rich owner. Can the middle class stop it? No.
Do the laborers have the power to take this freed up money -- the result of their labor which is no longer being wasted on useless white-collar employees? No. The owner owns it.

The owner isn't "successful," he's leveraging property rights in order to pay laborers less than what they're worth so that he can pocket the difference.
 
Last edited: