What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

[TridenT]

Never said that; I merely think that at the point everyone has shelter, food, and water, the gov't has no further role in addressing inequality. If you want to live beyond the baseline, that's up to you, not your fellow citizens.

ROFL

Spoken like a true fool.

 

[sandorski]

If the middle class holds the majority of the wealth, then are they really middle class anymore?

Yes, due to shear numbers of People within the Group.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sure it does, there is a finite amount of "wealth" available for everyone.

I die a little every time I see a corporation reporting "800 billion dollars in profit", after paying their executives multi-million dollar bonuses. Meanwhile their employees don't even see enough of a raise to counter inflation, assuming they dodged the latest round of layoffs and outsourcing.

There is a systemic greed at the top where those who are already rich wield the power to line their pockets further at the expense of honest working people.

lol, yet another whiner who doesn't understand that wealth isn't finite. Here's a clue - you trade your labor for a paycheck. don't like it - find someone who will pay you more. If you can't.... well maybe you need to check your ego...

 

[Acanthus]

Ideal spread of wealth per Democrats: Tax the Rich as much as possible and then tax them some more, further increase the number of people who don't pay any taxes (currently 43%)...lie to the middle class telling them that you really care and then stab them in the back by raising their taxes. The middle class is where the real money is and, after all, somebody has to pay for all the spending.

This isn't about spreading wealth to the middle class...it's about spreading wealth from the rich AND middle class to the government and the "poor".

Actually, there is substantially less money in the middle 60% vs the top 20%.

 

[QuantumPion]

The ideal spread of wealth should be an exponential, because the more money you have the more money you can make, in a free society.

 

[lord_emperor]

lol, yet another whiner who doesn't understand that wealth isn't finite. Here's a clue - you trade your labor for a paycheck. don't like it - find someone who will pay you more. If you can't.... well maybe you need to check your ego...

Are you trying to say there are an unlimited number of executive level paying jobs available to everyone? That's what it sounds like.

The fact is there are not. There are a handful of such jobs which are filled by entrenched super-wealthy people in one big circle jerk, whose very job is to rape their workers and customers to maximize profit.

 

[Craig234]

Actually, there is substantially less money in the middle 60% vs the top 20%.

Studies have shown people have *very* warped understanding, myths, of wealth in our society.

For example, people thought the bottom 40% have 10%-15% of the wealth IIRC (they also thought it should be higher), when the number was 0.3% of the wealth.

That's a big reason we see many supporting terrible policies - they are based on wrong assumptions about the situation. It's a shame the media doesn't point out the facts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Are you trying to say there are an unlimited number of executive level paying jobs available to everyone? That's what it sounds like.

The fact is there are not. There are a handful of such jobs which are filled by entrenched super-wealthy people in one big circle jerk, whose very job is to rape their workers and customers to maximize profit.

WTF? I don't what sort of warped "logic" made you think I meant that.

No one is entitled to a certain job or pay - this seems to be where so many liberals go wrong. YOU are trading your labor/skills for money and "they" are trading capital for labor/skills. Either is free to not enter into the agreement if the conditions are not acceptable. It really is that simple.

 

[lord_emperor]

WTF? I don't what sort of warped "logic" made you think I meant that.

No one is entitled to a certain job or pay - this seems to be where so many liberals go wrong. YOU are trading your labor/skills for money and "they" are trading capital for labor/skills. Either is free to not enter into the agreement if the conditions are not acceptable. It really is that simple.

Right, the workers are "free" to quit their jobs, which usually makes them ineligible for unemployment benefits. The fact is there is not usually a better paying job available, so their option is to work at the status quo or earn nothing and become homeless.

Do you honestly believe it's OK that executives largely determine their own pay and bonuses, which are in the millions, while paying employees as little as they can get away with. Often the defining feature of their time in power is how many employees they laid off or outsourced to maximize profits.This is great for shareholders (which they themselves are usually a large portion thereof) at the expense of their employees and customers.

 

[werepossum]

Right, the workers are "free" to quit their jobs, which usually makes them ineligible for unemployment benefits. The fact is there is not usually a better paying job available, so their option is to work at the status quo or earn nothing and become homeless.

Do you honestly believe it's OK that executives largely determine their own pay and bonuses, which are in the millions, while paying employees as little as they can get away with. Often the defining feature of their time in power is how many employees they laid off or outsourced to maximize profits.This is great for shareholders (which they themselves are usually a large portion thereof) at the expense of their employees and customers.

You honestly see no option beyond working "at the status quo" and not working? Please tell me you are not old enough to actually have a job!

Think about how those companies come into being. (Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be felt; it requires thinking.) Here are some hints: They do not spring into being complete with millionaire CEO and jobs to fill. They are not created by government fiat. They are not sent down by G-d. They do not hatch from seeds.

Heaven help us all, but we're raising a generation who don't even understand such basic economic theory as why jobs exist.

 

[lord_emperor]

You honestly see no option beyond working "at the status quo" and not working? Please tell me you are not old enough to actually have a job!

Think about how those companies come into being. (Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be felt; it requires thinking.) Here are some hints: They do not spring into being complete with millionaire CEO and jobs to fill. They are not created by government fiat. They are not sent down by G-d. They do not hatch from seeds.

Heaven help us all, but we're raising a generation who don't even understand such basic economic theory as why jobs exist.

I founded and ran my own business.

Not everyone can be entrepreneurs, it's just not possible.

The vast majority have to work for someone else and have very little say in their level of compensation. This is especially true now when one in ten people do not even have a job, except in the case of gross over qualification the prospective employee must take what is offered - or someone else will.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Right, the workers are "free" to quit their jobs, which usually makes them ineligible for unemployment benefits. The fact is there is not usually a better paying job available, so their option is to work at the status quo or earn nothing and become homeless.

Do you honestly believe it's OK that executives largely determine their own pay and bonuses, which are in the millions, while paying employees as little as they can get away with. Often the defining feature of their time in power is how many employees they laid off or outsourced to maximize profits.This is great for shareholders (which they themselves are usually a large portion thereof) at the expense of their employees and customers.

Yes, employees are free to quit. You can whine all you want about there not being anything else or whatever, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Now as to your 2nd paragraph of yapping - what exactly does any of that have to do with what I've posted? Let me help you - it has nothing to do with what I posted - just more of the typical whining about CEOs by libs.

 

[zsdersw]

It's all about unbridled envy, I suspect. The have-nots are perpetually envious of the haves and out of frustration they seek government as the means with which to take from those that have.

Rather than taking one of the only two realistic courses of action... be happy and appreciative of what they do have and working to maintain it.. or work harder to "move up the ladder"... they turn to government.

Using the analogy of the school playground (a very apt analogy, to be sure), it goes like this: Jimmy doesn't have as many toys as Johnny, so rather than finding more toys or exchanging the toys he does have for the toys he wants he runs to the teacher/chaperone and whines that Johnny isn't sharing (re: giving) his toys away.

I'm far from wealthy; I make around $50k per year... but I don't really care that I don't have every material possession or a particularly high social status. I can feed and clothe myself, keep a roof over my head, drive a car I like, take care of my friends and family, put some money away for retirement, and have a decent amount of fun. What more is there? A lot, to be sure, but I don't lose any sleep over not having those things. The bigger the crown, the heavier the burden.

 

[lord_emperor]

Jimmy doesn't have as many toys as Johnny, so rather than finding more toys or exchanging the toys he does have for the toys he wants he runs to the teacher/chaperone and whines that Johnny isn't sharing (re: giving) his toys away.

That's a poor analogy unless Jimmy works to produce Johnny's toys and Johnny decides how many toys to give to Jimmy, which is usually 1/8000th of what Johnny gets.

Then Johnny outsources toy production to a foreign student who is willing to do the work for 1/1,000,000,000th the toys and gives himself a huge bonus for the cost savings.

 

[zsdersw]

That's a poor analogy unless Jimmy works to produce Johnny's toys and Johnny decides how many toys to give to Jimmy, which is usually 1/8000th of what Johnny gets.

Then Johnny outsources toy production to a foreign student who is willing to do the work for 1/1,000,000,000th the toys and gives himself a huge bonus for the cost savings.

No, it's perfectly apt. Johnny and Jimmy aren't employer and employee (respectively).. they're fellow citizens.

 

[Acanthus]

It's all about unbridled envy, I suspect. The have-nots are perpetually envious of the haves and out of frustration they seek government as the means with which to take from those that have.

Rather than taking one of the only two realistic courses of action... be happy and appreciative of what they do have and working to maintain it.. or work harder to "move up the ladder"... they turn to government.

Using the analogy of the school playground (a very apt analogy, to be sure), it goes like this: Jimmy doesn't have as many toys as Johnny, so rather than finding more toys or exchanging the toys he does have for the toys he wants he runs to the teacher/chaperone and whines that Johnny isn't sharing (re: giving) his toys away.

I'm far from wealthy; I make around $50k per year... but I don't really care that I don't have every material possession or a particularly high social status. I can feed and clothe myself, keep a roof over my head, drive a car I like, take care of my friends and family, put some money away for retirement, and have a decent amount of fun. What more is there? A lot, to be sure, but I don't lose any sleep over not having those things. The bigger the crown, the heavier the burden.

This argument is misguided at best.

There is a term in economics for what you describe. "Economic Mobility"

The economic mobility in the United States, that is, the ability for a person to change income classes is no greater in the US than the "socialist" European countries.

Furthermore, it has been studied time and again that "working harder" does not make one wealthy either. Sure, if you are a lazy ass you are never going to move up the wealth ladder, but you can't tell me that one in six families on food stamps is a sign of our laziness as a nation.

Policies to bring down the gini index make sense, especially considering that every time a nation rises over 50 (for income) or 90 (for wealth) your chances of civil war increase exponentially.

Look into the psychology and sociology of "relative poverty" if you want an interesting read.

 

[werepossum]

It's all about unbridled envy, I suspect. The have-nots are perpetually envious of the haves and out of frustration they seek government as the means with which to take from those that have.

Rather than taking one of the only two realistic courses of action... be happy and appreciative of what they do have and working to maintain it.. or work harder to "move up the ladder"... they turn to government.

Using the analogy of the school playground (a very apt analogy, to be sure), it goes like this: Jimmy doesn't have as many toys as Johnny, so rather than finding more toys or exchanging the toys he does have for the toys he wants he runs to the teacher/chaperone and whines that Johnny isn't sharing (re: giving) his toys away.

I'm far from wealthy; I make around $50k per year... but I don't really care that I don't have every material possession or a particularly high social status. I can feed and clothe myself, keep a roof over my head, drive a car I like, take care of my friends and family, put some money away for retirement, and have a decent amount of fun. What more is there? A lot, to be sure, but I don't lose any sleep over not having those things. The bigger the crown, the heavier the burden.

Spot on.

 

[Zebo]

Spot on eh? Today the government being the primary beneficiary of credit is picking and choosing who gets credit and who doesnt thus making winners and losers. If your employer or his customers gets a loan, you'll still have a job. IF not too bad. If your investments have access to credit or serviced because of credit, your investments have value like Goldman Sachs, if not, you are hosed like the GM shareholders or Lehman bros shareholders. It is arbitrary allocation of credit and govt spending that drives our economy. Nothing free market about it. All Banks are bankrupt. We allow small ones to fail and people lose their jobs while the big ones employees are recording record bonuses on tax payers dime.

I'd say it's more about equality under the law than anything else.

 

[Acanthus]

Lol intelligent rebuttal ignored. </gop>

 

[zsdersw]

The economic mobility in the United States, that is, the ability for a person to change income classes is no greater in the US than the "socialist" European countries.

That's not terribly relevant. Wealth shouldn't come or go easily or overnight.

Furthermore, it has been studied time and again that "working harder" does not make one wealthy either. Sure, if you are a lazy ass you are never going to move up the wealth ladder, but you can't tell me that one in six families on food stamps is a sign of our laziness as a nation.

It's not always about "working harder". It's also about working smarter. I see it all the time in the high school I work in. I can pick out the students who are going to find what they want to do for a career and work for it.. and I can pick out everyone else who's just going to drift, acquire no highly valuable/desirable skills, and be stuck working in a factory or in fast food or in retail. This is attributable to many things.. education and family upbringing being among the biggest. It's also very much about choice and choosing not to be lazy or apathetic about what's out there.

Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone, and some people are ambitious but have just fallen on hard times. What not enough people realize, though, is that falling on hard times isn't always a sign that more government action is needed; that not enough wealth has been forcibly redistributed.

Policies to bring down the gini index make sense, especially considering that every time a nation rises over 50 (for income) or 90 (for wealth) your chances of civil war increase exponentially.

Show me an effective policy that doesn't take from the rich to give to the poor.

 

[mjrpes3]

I'm glad everyone has come together and figured out what the ideal spread of wealth is in a healthy society