U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2019, 10:18 AM
 
1,377 posts, read 305,324 times
Reputation: 2329

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
I'll agree that the OP is kind of sloppy overall, but really, pal, if you wave that corporate flag any harder you're going to rip something.
I didn't wave any corporate flag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2019, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,586 posts, read 2,315,496 times
Reputation: 10260
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
I didn't wave any corporate flag.
I was going to quote your post #6 and make some point by points, but I won't waste the time. All it needs is setting to the GM company anthem.

Of course companies and managers are just hapless do-gooders being brat-slapped around by all these awful, demanding employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,586 posts, read 2,315,496 times
Reputation: 10260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
to answer your thread title: Because you are buying three times as much.
That's a good answer, in a nutshell.

Most people are oblivious, fish to water style, of just how much we've been whipped into consuming, consuming, consuming. It's hard to make that understanding rise above well-worn trope, and thus ignorable or dismissable or (O Captain My Captain) "everybody knows."

Just to build on your one point... no one through the 1980s spent 5-10% of the their income (or more) keeping a beepy box in every family member's pocket. It wasn't that far back that a $1k cell phone would have been an excessive playtoy of the wealthy; now it's a must-have. And inflation is no significant part of it, especially when you consider that the trend for electronics is down, down, down... you can now buy a laptop for $3-400 that smokes the $2500 executive model of a decade ago.

Go ahead - argue that you're "immune to all this advertising stuff."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 12:49 PM
 
1,131 posts, read 393,161 times
Reputation: 3458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Because the resultant wealth has not been evenly distributed, and has increasingly been concentrated in the hands and accounts of a few. The ratios are getting... ludicrous. Everything else is pretty much collateral.

We've made very poor decisions on both economic and social policies for at least 30 years that have greatly exacerbated this natural tendency of a capitalist system. One result of that is the widespread - across economic tiers, down to relatively poor folks who should know better - trope that the rich are entitled to their near-continuous growth in relative wealth because anyone who wants to get rich can, and the only people who can't are lazy parasites looking for a handout.
.....
Extreme income inequality is not the natural result of a capitalist system. It is the natural result of a modern, highly technical, global system. Such polarization results from the increasingly exponential marginal returns to talent, intelligence, and skills acquired usually via specialized training and education.

Linear rewards to superiority were once the norm, hence large disparities in wealth were not as common between classes as they are today.

Policies like EITC, Universal Basic Income, along with welfare supports and disability incomes can and do mitigate this, but are, IMO, like spitting in the ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,586 posts, read 2,315,496 times
Reputation: 10260
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela View Post
Income inequality is not the natural result of a capitalist system. It is the natural result of a modern, highly technical, global system. Such polarization results from the increasingly exponential marginal returns to talent, intelligence, and skills acquired usually via specialized training and education.

Linear rewards to superior quality were once the norm, hence large disparities in wealth were not as common between classes as they are today.
I disagree. Capitalism is a system that needs checks and balances; when they are absent, the immediate and universal reaction is for gross wealth concentration. (There are other issues, yes.) Trying to point to the matrix in which capitalism operates is... misdirection. Or at least, diffusing a simple validated theory into a complex system, which doesn't really change the answer or help in finding a solution.

Quote:
Policies like EITC, Universal Basic Income, along with welfare supports and disability incomes can and do mitigate this, but are, IMO, like spitting in the ocean.
Only when done as band-aids. As I've said more or less continuously, we can't keep moving the shoddy pieces around the worn checkerboard any more - raising this tax, chopping this entitlement, lift that job, tote that development program. We need a new economic theory that begins with the reality of today's world, accepting that we can no longer base the entire idea on individual worker productivity.

No one should be more concerned with restructuring and restraining capitalism (from the stupid choices of the last three decades or so) than those who prize it. It is a system that self-destructs if left to itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 01:01 PM
 
1,131 posts, read 393,161 times
Reputation: 3458
..and to elaborate, consider a couple of countries with the most equal economic populations in the world, Cuba and Venezuela. They are all equally poor.
Except of course, for the politicians and their military henchmen.

Even China has come to it's senses and their 'billionaire quotient' is exploding.

I have spent time in all three.

Be careful what you wish for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,629 posts, read 446,819 times
Reputation: 4097
Didn't read all the replies, but it's probably because the dollar is worth 3x+ less than when you were a teen and most of the gdp profits go towards the 1%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,586 posts, read 2,315,496 times
Reputation: 10260
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela View Post
Be careful what you wish for.
It's not a matter of wishing for some kind of legislated equality, like that stupid thread about distributing all money equally.

It's a matter of putting a chokehold on capitalism so that the distribution is more proportional to contribution and the overall distribution of wealth really does raise all boats.

I don't object to CEOs and stockholders making a lot of money. But when the ratios get as absurdly out of whack as we have now, it's destabilizing on every level.

And that's with the current system. Gross wealth inequality simply won't work any more, in the very near term, and should be built out in a new system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 03:13 PM
 
18,110 posts, read 23,182,098 times
Reputation: 33599
taxes, healthcare, and housing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2019, 04:19 PM
 
1,131 posts, read 393,161 times
Reputation: 3458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
It's not a matter of wishing for some kind of legislated equality, like that stupid thread about distributing all money equally.

It's a matter of putting a chokehold on capitalism so that the distribution is more proportional to contribution and the overall distribution of wealth really does raise all boats.

I don't object to CEOs and stockholders making a lot of money. But when the ratios get as absurdly out of whack as we have now, it's destabilizing on every level.

And that's with the current system. Gross wealth inequality simply won't work any more, in the very near term, and should be built out in a new system.
I understand the distress that gross wealth inequality generates, especially in such a money-centric society as ours. But honestly, after the first hundred million does it make any real difference?
And stating the fact that the poor of today live longer and better than the wealthy of yesteryear apparently does nothing to dull the sting that such inequality of status seems to bring.

Plus, are only business tycoons in your crosshairs or will athletes and entertainers be targeted as well?
It is also worth noting that sometimes the cure has unintended consequences that are worse than the disease.

If you can show me a system that can both determine what level of compensation/wealth is appropriate to contribution and achieve it without significant and harmful side effects I am willing to listen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top