What issues would the question, is income inequality bad for society raise?

[Rebel_L]

Is there a particular application for your line of thinking or just something you were pondering on today?

 

[Jhhnn]

When this answer is no longer a reasonable output of the function of our system, then what?

What is the function of our system, other than making the most ruthless rich people richer?

If that's all there is, we're doing a fine job of it. If it's more than that, we need to alter the system.

Few Righties understand that the system has been changed enormously over the last 35 years or so in pursuit of the trickle down illusion. They seem displeased with the results but insist that we keep on the same path, as if we'll somehow achieve different results.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is there a particular application for your line of thinking or just something you were pondering on today?

I have been thinking a bit about the fact that many serious people seem to think income inequality has reached unhealthy levels, and yet, most people seem to be indifferent to it. I wondered what stories they may be telling themselves to account for such potentially dangerous indifference.

 

[Cozarkian]

I have been thinking a bit about the fact that many serious people seem to think income inequality has reached unhealthy levels, and yet, most people seem to be indifferent to it. I wondered what stories they may be telling themselves to account for such potentially dangerous indifference.

One story people tell themselves is thAt they elect public representatives to deal with public policy issues like income inequality so that they can focus on issues with a more personal and noticeable effect on their daily lives.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Income Equality is a good thing to some extent. People should be rewarded who work hard.

Thats said, the question is, what range of income equality is optimal to fuel the most productive society.

Gini index of 25-28 appears to be the range of most Scandanavian countries.

 

[realibrad]

I have been thinking a bit about the fact that many serious people seem to think income inequality has reached unhealthy levels, and yet, most people seem to be indifferent to it. I wondered what stories they may be telling themselves to account for such potentially dangerous indifference.

I am going to work off the understanding that you mean serious people as important and or informed on economics, and not someone who is solemn or thoughtful or sincere.

You of all people understand that human perception limits our understanding. No matter how knowledgeable someone might be, they are not immune to the limitations of our ability to perceive. That being said, knowledgeable and intelligent people can work problems in a way that others cannot. I personally feel that gives some small credibility to the value of an issue. I think you are probably at that same point.

So, is inequality bad? I would say its not inherently good or bad. People are unequal in their abilities. I don't think its fair for us to provide equal compensation when output is unequal. I think the argument against that is that ability is only a part of why income is unequal. Circumstance plays a large role in someones wealth.

As it turns out, the first born child tends to be more successful than any child born after. Its fact that being first born gives you an advantage, but is it fair that the advantage is given?

I think a world where we know the economic value of every person and we pay all based on their production would be nice, but that is impractical right now. A world where we allow for inequality should work far better, assuming people do not try and change the system to give unfair advantages.

So if the question is, should we pay people unequally based on unequal production, then I am for it. If you are asking is inequality bad when people break the system and extract extra from others, that is bad.

 

[senseamp]

Income inequality between hard workers and the lazy is good, if the hard workers are making more money. What we have now is people getting most of their income from doing nothing (passive investments) making more money on more preferential taxation terms than people getting most of their income from hard work (taxed at ordinary rates plus payroll taxes). So income inequality is creating the wrong incentives in our society.

 

[Moonbeam]

Income Equality is a good thing to some extent. People should be rewarded who work hard.

Thats said, the question is, what range of income equality is optimal to fuel the most productive society.

Gini index of 25-28 appears to be the range of most Scandanavian countries.

This seems to be a popular way folk shine on the issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Income inequality between hard workers and the lazy is good, if the hard workers are making more money. What we have now is people getting most of their income from doing nothing (passive investments) making more money on more preferential taxation terms than people getting most of their income from hard work (taxed at ordinary rates plus payroll taxes). So income inequality is creating the wrong incentives in our society.

This is another of those 'it's good, but' ways to shine on the issue. It won't allow me to sleep soundly, however, because I keep thinking that it's hard work in a families past that gave them extra income to invest. I can't see a difference at all between working hard to make money and working hard to invest it properly. Capital creating capital is capitalism and that's what we have. I can't believe that if hard work is good but smart investing isn't since one leads to the other. If the latter sucks than the former must too, no? Anyway, I appreciate your view. It's one answer to why folk don't get upset.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am going to work off the understanding that you mean serious people as important and or informed on economics, and not someone who is solemn or thoughtful or sincere.

You of all people understand that human perception limits our understanding. No matter how knowledgeable someone might be, they are not immune to the limitations of our ability to perceive. That being said, knowledgeable and intelligent people can work problems in a way that others cannot. I personally feel that gives some small credibility to the value of an issue. I think you are probably at that same point.

So, is inequality bad? I would say its not inherently good or bad. People are unequal in their abilities. I don't think its fair for us to provide equal compensation when output is unequal. I think the argument against that is that ability is only a part of why income is unequal. Circumstance plays a large role in someones wealth.

As it turns out, the first born child tends to be more successful than any child born after. Its fact that being first born gives you an advantage, but is it fair that the advantage is given?

I think a world where we know the economic value of every person and we pay all based on their production would be nice, but that is impractical right now. A world where we allow for inequality should work far better, assuming people do not try and change the system to give unfair advantages.

So if the question is, should we pay people unequally based on unequal production, then I am for it. If you are asking is inequality bad when people break the system and extract extra from others, that is bad.

This strikes me as a variation on the 'it's good, but' rationalization. It's nice, but again it doesn't put me properly to sleep. I keep having nagging doubts that income inequality inevitably corrupts the system and therefore it can't be good. I believe that money buys brainwashing that controls how people vote. People vote to self destruct, to support law the benefits the rich.

 

[sm625]

A certain amount of inequality is good. Somewhere in the neighborhood of "CEO makes 10x more than the average worker". But in the US it is "CEO makes 10000x more than the average worker". At that point society begins to break down. If things keep progressing at the current rate, there will be an economic catastrophe due to riots and bedlam. GDP can easily be cut in half if things get out of hand. The thing most people dont realize is that things can spiral out of control very quickly. All it takes is a couple more Fergusons and things go south real fast. And then everyone is screwed in the end. There are no winners in such an event. When it blows up, the poor dont get anything from the rich, everyone just gets a whole lot poorer.

 

[Rebel_L]

This strikes me as a variation on the 'it's good, but' rationalization. It's nice, but again it doesn't put me properly to sleep. I keep having nagging doubts that income inequality inevitably corrupts the system and therefore it can't be good. I believe that money buys brainwashing that controls how people vote. People vote to self destruct, to support law the benefits the rich.

Along those lines, if someone's interaction with the current economic system seems fair in regards to them it is easy to develop a belief that the entire system is fair. Once you believe that the whole system is fair you can rest assured and sleep soundly knowing that everyone is being treated fairly. Outcomes that look unfair to you only seem that way because you don't understand the intricate details of the system but you cant reasonably expect to understand it all because of its size and complexity.

 

[dank69]

I'm going to crap all over this thread by saying the phrase "hard work" is fucking meaningless with regard to income. I'd be willing to bet that illegal immigrants bust their ass harder than just about everyone that posts on this board. Like most people, I did some of that type of work when I was a teenager and if I had to work like that my whole life for $2/hr I'd have blown my fucking brains out long ago. If you want people rewarded based on how hard they work, our system isn't even close.

 

[Hugo Drax]

what does bad for society raise mean?

 

[dank69]

what does bad for society raise mean?

What issues would the question raise? The question being "is income inequality bad for society?"

 

[MongGrel]

Or on the other hand, why should the 1% have to pay the rest at all. They should be allowed to motivate people with some well placed executions. Efficiency drops too low and the nerve gas canisters activate. Afterall the market will allow it if government gets out of the way.

:sneaky:

 

[Moonbeam]

A certain amount of inequality is good. Somewhere in the neighborhood of "CEO makes 10x more than the average worker". But in the US it is "CEO makes 10000x more than the average worker". At that point society begins to break down. If things keep progressing at the current rate, there will be an economic catastrophe due to riots and bedlam. GDP can easily be cut in half if things get out of hand. The thing most people dont realize is that things can spiral out of control very quickly. All it takes is a couple more Fergusons and things go south real fast. And then everyone is screwed in the end. There are no winners in such an event. When it blows up, the poor dont get anything from the rich, everyone just gets a whole lot poorer.

Your answer seems to come up again and again so I would say it is quite popular. Popular arguments, unfortunately for me, never seem to put me to sleep. I keep thinking what if most people are wrong. I am not persuaded by the notion that inequality is good. We were told we were all created equal. We are taught by religion not to worry about material things and that God loves each of us infinitely. How is somebody who is loved by God to an infinite degree deserve to be less equal than me? It just doesn't make any sense, do you see? I am supposed to treat others like I want to be treated. These ideas are fundamental in our morality Of course you offer a good way to forget that, of that I will agree, opularly so, it seems.

 

[Moonbeam]

:sneaky:

There are people, I don't think they are human, who apparently feel no empathy. To them people are things. How this happens and whether it's genetic, I have no idea, but they should be identified and removed. They do not feel they are alive and can inflict enormous suffering without regret.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking what issues would occur just because people start talking about income inequality or are you asking what are the issues with income inequality?

 

[realibrad]

This strikes me as a variation on the 'it's good, but' rationalization. It's nice, but again it doesn't put me properly to sleep. I keep having nagging doubts that income inequality inevitably corrupts the system and therefore it can't be good. I believe that money buys brainwashing that controls how people vote. People vote to self destruct, to support law the benefits the rich.

We live in a complex world where many things are not pure good or bad. You learn in economics that everything has tradeoffs. Power will always corrupt when people are involved. The question is which system gives the most beneficial outcomes. Wealth does corrupt in free trade when governments force the market. The difference is that capitalism allows a better chance to deal with corruption. In a system like socialism, corruption can spread much faster and be more damaging because the power is more centralized.

Think of it like this. If you were fighting a war you would not put all your resources for production in one area because the enemy could take it out in one strike. There is a benefit to having everything so close but the tradeoff is not worth the risk.

So you would then say we agree because you ate saying to take some of the wealth of the rich so that all the power is not in one hand. The only problem is that the power to redistribute the wealth has to be even more powerful than the rich. So who keeps the government from getting too powerful?

Then you would say the votes. But we see that is not working. The powerful have a huge hold on government and seem to influence the voters. The system is broken because the feedback loop is broken.

The voters don't see the impact of their votes. The government is huge and powerful. The rich influence that huge power. So i say if the system is going to get broken we might as well shrink the government so the rich don't use the huge power. inequality well happen but trying to stop it with government does not work. So if anyone has a better idea I'm all ears.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking what issues would occur just because people start talking about income inequality or are you asking what are the issues with income inequality?

I begin with the premise that we have income inequality and have it to a degree that many serious thinkers warn to be dangerous to society and yet society apparently isn't worried much at all. I am asking what stories we are telling ourselves that prevent us from actually doing something about this problem as one would expect of people when they face real danger. What delusions must we be living with that keep us from fixing this problem. How are we insulating ourselves from real action in the face of real threat. I use the term real threat based on the notion that as a society built on the notion of equality, a kind of internal insanity must exist in order to think inequality is good.

 

[realibrad]

I begin with the premise that we have income inequality and have it to a degree that many serious thinkers warn to be dangerous to society and yet society apparently isn't worried much at all. I am asking what stories we are telling ourselves that prevent us from actually doing something about this problem as one would expect of people when they face real danger. What delusions must we be living with that keep us from fixing this problem. How are we insulating ourselves from real action in the face of real threat. I use the term real threat based on the notion that as a society built on the notion of equality, a kind of internal insanity must exist in order to think inequality is good.

Then it looks like you assume inequality is inherently bad. The only supporting reason i have seen you give is that private power can corrupt. I think it's a little presumptionsus to assume it's bad before explaining why. If you have the reason then explain.

If you want to understand why people are not worried, then you need to understand how they see the situation vs how you see it. saying there is a problem does not make the issue a problem.

 

[Paul98]

Some inequality is good, the real question for anyone who is willing to have a reasonable argument, is how much is too much. But to me it's really a question of how much is reasonable for a base level of existence in our society based off of available resources.

 

[Paul98]

We need to make it so companies can't rely on their employees having government assistance to be able to pay people that wage.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I want to know who these "serious thinkers" are, as it seems like they would have to be part of the side that has more money than others to have so much time on their hands to think about this issue. Most people are too busy living their lives to worry about the top 1% making too much money. If they don't see or feel the direct effects of this inequality they will spend very little if any time thinking about the situation. As long as they're getting a decent wage/benefits similar to what their peers and neighbors they don't ponder the equality question. Most of these same people could care less what the company for whom they work executive team are getting paid.