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

[Moonbeam]

realibrad: 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.

M: In the quote just above yours I stated this: 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. That is the stated basis of my presumption. In my original post I left it as the obvious answer to what I instinctively feel is the obvious answer to the question, how could inequality be good. A sense of fairness is a genetic trait of many higher animals.

r: 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.

M: I know that. That is why I implied that serious people see the problem and why I supplied my reasoning for why the problem must be real, that it goes against our genetics, against a founding principle of our government, and against our faith in God, whether a Supreme Being or just a projection of human potential.

Personally, also, I think power corrupts those who can be corrupted, not those who can't, the difference being where ones morality comes from, fear of evil, which temptation can easily overcome, or love of the good, which nothing can corrupt, owing to the fact that it self reveals itself to be the highest form of being. You can't corrupt people who love themselves because that love is of infinite worth. It is also a state that reveals all of us to be equal and the source of the motivation to see equality expressed in the world.

 

[blastingcap]

The real question we should be asking is why work hard when others work not at all and have everything. That is what our income inequality has currently set up. Hard work does not get one ahead. The hardest working people are often the poorest.
Education is not the answer either, because the better educated you make people the more they stop deluding themselves that hard work will get them ahead.

I can't believe it took this far into the thread for someone to finally state this. The truly wealthy don't even have to work at all, or if they "work" it's to decide where to slosh their money around. And the wealthy can also task financial advisors and accountants with that, too.

It's very true that often the hardest workers are the poorest, just doing what they can to survive.

If you want to punish trust fund babies for sitting on their asses collecting checks and reward people who actually work for a living, then change the tax code so that ordinary income from wages (up to ~40%) is taxed lower than income from capital gains (stuck at 15% for the longest time, and even now it's still mostly 15% with only a few eligible for 20%... I'm sure their lawyers are working on finding them loopholes though).

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Not necessarily, as I explained just above. To be a serious thinker merely requires a wealth of being, an abundance of empathy such that one always looks down the road to seek the best road for all humanity because of love.

LJ: 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.

Yes, but if the serious thinkers are right then the destruction of decent wages/benefits are already underway. The evolution of consciousness is dependent on need, and we are starting, I think, to feel that need. Inequality of wages is being discussed and the discussion, I think, will grow.

It seems clear to me at least, that business has lost its moorings in seeking profit and profit alone as a raison d'etre. How to set things right is the question, without breaking the whole system, which is the road we will go down if nothing more sensible is done.

Naturally, you are right though. Nothing changes so long as people sleep. My question then is why do people act as you describe, when the consequences of their sleep may well be the complete destruction of even a paltry lifestyle.

Not necessarily

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If the serious thinkers are right, herein lies the problem. And if they're wrong, then what?

I do not see playing Robin Hood as the answer to the problem. Any redistribution of wealth will find it's way back in the hands of those who possess it now, those in the middle and the bottom will see no real change.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't believe it took this far into the thread for someone to finally state this. The truly wealthy don't even have to work at all, or if they "work" it's to decide where to slosh their money around. And the wealthy can also task financial advisors and accountants with that, too.

It's very true that often the hardest workers are the poorest, just doing what they can to survive.

If you want to punish trust fund babies for sitting on their asses collecting checks and reward people who actually work for a living, then change the tax code so that ordinary income from wages (up to ~40%) is taxed lower than income from capital gains (stuck at 15% for the longest time, and even now it's still mostly 15% with only a few eligible for 20%... I'm sure their lawyers are working on finding them loopholes though).

I observe that hard work is viewed by many to be something to avoid, something folk work hard to escape. Why, if so, would you refer to folk who have escaped or who have children they worked to set free, as folk sitting on their asses. Why would you want to drag them back into drudgery and suffering somebody worked hard to escape by taxing away their freedom.

 

[Moonbeam]

If the serious thinkers are right, herein lies the problem. And if they're wrong, then what?

I do not see playing Robin Hood as the answer to the problem. Any redistribution of wealth will find it's way back in the hands of those who possess it now, those in the middle and the bottom will see no real change.

This sounds a lot like the global warming excuse, we are going to die but it's to expensive to fix and maybe we won't die, or we call live at the South Pole.

Anyway, I appreciate your take of why we can't do anything, any change would equal no change. I wonder, though, if there could be some other answer than Robin Hood.

I also wonder if continuously milking the rich to give to the poor wouldn't have at least some small effect of the poor having a few more crumbs. I have noticed in my life that folk who have little, seem to appreciate small things whereas others feel little satisfaction in anything.

 

[blastingcap]

I observe that hard work is viewed by many to be something to avoid, something folk work hard to escape. Why, if so, would you refer to folk who have escaped or who have children they worked to set free, as folk sitting on their asses. Why would you want to drag them back into drudgery and suffering somebody worked hard to escape by taxing away their freedom.

It's a Dead Weight Loss on society, that's why. The economy is allocated in less-efficient ways and does not serve the living, it serves the dead who have passed on wealth (ill-earned or otherwise) onto their descendants. Look forward to more gated communities and ever less funding for public goods: education, police/fire protection, etc. There will be a breaking point eventually, when the masses rise up and literally kill their masters. History is filled with revolutions. But often revolutions are bloody and do not always replace the old masters with better ones.

If you want to have a permanent ruling class, then just admit it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...ritain-wealthy-study-surnames-social-mobility

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This sounds a lot like the global warming excuse, we are going to die but it's to expensive to fix and maybe we won't die, or we call live at the South Pole.

Anyway, I appreciate your take of why we can't do anything, any change would equal no change. I wonder, though, if there could be some other answer than Robin Hood.

I also wonder if continuously milking the rich to give to the poor wouldn't have at least some small effect of the poor having a few more crumbs. I have noticed in my life that folk who have little, seem to appreciate small things whereas others feel little satisfaction in anything.

Well, well, well, now we have to believe the inequality issue is as dangerous as global warming.

Maybe you could provide us with some links to comments by these serious thinkers so we can determine if their concerns are valid or not. Maybe they have some peer reviewed studies to back up their arguments as well.

 

[fskimospy]

If the serious thinkers are right, herein lies the problem. And if they're wrong, then what?

I do not see playing Robin Hood as the answer to the problem. Any redistribution of wealth will find it's way back in the hands of those who possess it now, those in the middle and the bottom will see no real change.

You seem to be saying that government policy can't affect income and wealth distribution. That seems pretty wrong considering the huge amount of evidence that it can and does.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Let me guess, when the rich are finally taxed at rates serious thinkers feel will ease inequally that trickle down will finally work.

In this "gotta have what those who make more than me has" world any wealth that is redistributed will find it way back to the top as many of them own the companies that manufacture and/or sell those products that people have to have.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, well, well, now we have to believe the inequality issue is as dangerous as global warming.

Maybe you could provide us with some links to comments by these serious thinkers so we can determine if their concerns are valid or not. Maybe they have some peer reviewed studies to back up their arguments as well.

You seem to think I am pushing a solution when what I am asking is why folk permit inequality to exist given, as I said, what appears to me as a culture, a tradition, religious and otherwise, which seem to disparage it. I can appreciate the idea held, apparently by many, that we are all victims of fate and that the rich will always get rich again if deprived of it. I just don't buy it any more than I do the caste system. It just seems too convenient to me that it is those who have that seem to be very happy to believe they deserve what they have via some innate superiority. I see unequal opportunity and chance in action in almost everything.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me guess, when the rich are finally taxed at rates serious thinkers feel will ease inequally that trickle down will finally work.

In this "gotta have what those who make more than me has" world any wealth that is redistributed will find it way back to the top as many of them own the companies that manufacture and/or sell those products that people have to have.

Can you provide any empirical support for your argument that redistribution of wealth can't affect inequality?

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, well, well, now we have to believe the inequality issue is as dangerous as global warming.

Maybe you could provide us with some links to comments by these serious thinkers so we can determine if their concerns are valid or not. Maybe they have some peer reviewed studies to back up their arguments as well.

Will this do?

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-the-government-subsidizes-wealth-inequality/

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Can you provide any empirical support for your argument that redistribution of wealth can't affect inequality?

I'm sure that redistribution can effect the inequality, look at what quantitative easing has done for the inequality.

 

[Jaskalas]

There's nothing wrong with income inequality.
There's something wrong when jobs do not provide enough income.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Will this do?

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-the-government-subsidizes-wealth-inequality/

I see one serious thinker yet he doesn't seem to think the US is in dire straights due to wealth inequality like you've mentioned in your OP and several other times in the thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

There's nothing wrong with income inequality.
There's something wrong when jobs do not provide enough income.

How can inequality be bad but income inequality be good.

 

[Moonbeam]

I see one serious thinker yet he doesn't seem to think the US is in dire straights due to wealth inequality like you've mentioned in your OP and several other times in the thread.

I would think it is understood that income inequality is bad otherwise why study the possible ways to fix it.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's nothing wrong with income inequality.
There's something wrong when jobs do not provide enough income.

Where's that Free Market! trickle down spirit?

 

[IGBT]

"income inequality" is liberal illusory verbatim designed to generate liberal grievance mongering. Supply / demand / market conditions determine value of goods / services / intellectual content. There is no free lunch.

 

[Jhhnn]

"income inequality" is liberal illusory verbatim designed to generate liberal grievance mongering. Supply / demand / market conditions determine value of goods / services / intellectual content. There is no free lunch.

There's the spirit! Back to the Gilded Age! Rah! Rah! Rah!

 

[Jaskalas]

How can inequality be bad but income inequality be good.

Inequality before government is bad, because that would deny equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is not the guarantee of equal outcome. When the final result is not equal, that's perfectly normal and healthy and I don't give a !@#$.

What I do care about is if a job isn't sufficient for a certain standard of living that we expect Americans to have. While certain aspects of that deficit may be derived from extreme income inequality, it most certainly should not be the focus on how to solve the problem. Our inadequacies are a much larger and systemic issue.

Our efforts should be how to ensure a basic level of income, NOT how to prevent anyone from exceeding it.

 

[Moonbeam]

"income inequality" is liberal illusory verbatim designed to generate liberal grievance mongering. Supply / demand / market conditions determine value of goods / services / intellectual content. There is no free lunch.

An excellent way to look at it. Unfortunately, for me of course, an equally appealing fiction would be that the properness of income inequality is a delusion promoted by the haves to delude the have nots that their unfortunate fate is their own fault.

 

[Moonbeam]

Inequality before government is bad, because that would deny equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is not the guarantee of equal outcome. When the final result is not equal, that's perfectly normal and healthy and I don't give a !@#$.

What I do care about is if a job isn't sufficient for a certain standard of living that we expect Americans to have. While certain aspects of that deficit may be derived from extreme income inequality, it most certainly should not be the focus on how to solve the problem. Our inadequacies are a much larger and systemic issue.

Our efforts should be how to ensure a basic level of income, NOT how to prevent anyone from exceeding it.

This is a rationalization I have expected from the beginning and I am sure it satisfies many. Unfortunately I do not believe in equal opportunity. I see only accident. Somebody was somewhere at the right time with the right past experience to take advantage of an opportunity. A far more valuable person, say a good mother down the street, would be completely passed over by such an opening. People are not paid in accordance with what they are worth. The market is a place where folk with no internal value at all can make a fortune and where those of great worth would never tread. The market is a God that fools worship. The market tracks the valuations of things as estimated by the diseased. It is characterized by such things as the seeking of millisecond faster trading machines and other such life sustaining inventions like derivatives.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is a rationalization I have expected from the beginning and I am sure it satisfies many. Unfortunately I do not believe in equal opportunity.

Your words aggravate by their focus, a response best summarized by what it missed rather than what it explained. You see people fail in a free market, and they get trampled over. I said we should focus on correcting that, on lifting people up. We should ensure a basic level of income.

I see this whole topic as taking the wrong approach to a problem that rightly grieves many. I do not care if people are not equal, so long as those at the bottom have enough. If we feel they are wanting, then we should seek remedy.

I believe in a free market... with a floor. Often described as a safety net. What this safety net looks like, and how to achieve it are the real questions. Potential answers to that, I hope are the real discussion to be found. If we seek to raise people up, rather than tear others down, then I expect we might both be surprised at the level of support for such proposals.

You would be right in saying people are conditioned to hate themselves, and that their pride in "hard work" would make opponents for us to overcome. Moreover... there is a sense of "got mine, !@#$ you" which poisons the discussion... but do we not also bleed? Are we not all human?

In our frailty there comes an honest truth they will find difficult to hide behind. That we all have moments of need. In sickness or in health. For better or for poorer. There are times in all our lives when a safety net is warranted. There is something to be said for finding a way to provide that.

The discussion is not in what we take from people, it's best found in what we give.
So no, I oppose equal outcome. So long as every outcome is decent.