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.
I only read through half of this meandering thread and never saw one reply that actually addressed the OP.
Because, although the mantras are repeated constantly, nobody has a single rational explanation for the assertions made. Nobody can explain any cause/effect relationship, except that they engage in fallacies and falsehoods.
No, if you can't demonstrate or explain HOW it happens, it doesn't.
i can't explain the physics of how gravity happens either yet I'm not floating away.
So, you can calculate an arbitrary number. Is this supposed to be impressive, or even interesting?
poverty figures, crime rates, and homelessness compared to top incomes aren't arbitrary...they're rock hard facts my friend. I'm sorry that you just dislike the indicate.
You don't "pull" anyone out of poverty. They have to get out ALL ON THEIR OWN.
why is there so little poverty in wester European social democracies...and so much in South America, the USA, and Eastern Europe? Are these people just inherently more stupid or lazy? Only an idiot ignores such overwhelming evidence just to defend his unfavorable ideology.
No, it's a meaningless bit of trivia.
You know, like producing anagrams from signs. It means precisely... Nothing.
The only one peddling meaningless trivia in this exchange is you. I'm basing my opinions off of empirical evidence from nations that have mitigated high income inequality through proactive social programs for decades. You're basing yours off of conjecture molded to fit your screwed up world view...fortunately for me and the rest of civilized society...no one pays attention to people like you.
Their money is not sitting in the bank in a money market fund
Their money is invested to make more money while an income stream provides them with discretionary spending.
But that type of strategy is not limited to rich people. Anyone can do that.
And in fact, union pension systems do exactly that. So you're exactly right, it's not only a wealth-building tool accessed by the rich.
Quote:
"CalPERS is one of the largest institutional investors in both the U.S. and international stock markets."
I would like the Leftists to explain the term "income inequality." What is it? How does it occur, and what should be done to correct it?
In your posts, please discuss wealth, wealth distribution, wealth creation, and the moral issues involved in creating wealth, which would include the right to own property, and the right to the fruit of ones labor, and the exclusive right to ones intellectual property.
I'm not a "leftist," but I'll give you an unpopular opinion. Those who share it, though, will not easily fall under a "banner" and become militant about what their neighbor has. Because, frankly, they don't even know or care what their neighbor has or has not.
Income inequality is a condition where Person A does more than Person B (either physically or intellectually or sometimes just by blind luck) and gains higher rewards because of it (for the sake of this post, I'm going to ignore family wealth). Pretty simple concept.
I suppose, way back when, some hunter-gatherers worked faster or longer and got more meat, fruit, and berries than others in their clan. And I'm sure the others bitched and moaned about it and wanted to take the more efficient person's spoils away from him/her.
From my perspective, it means close to nothing. I really don't care what others have or if their widget is bigger or shinier than mine. I'm not starving. I have a roof over my head. And I'm able to do pretty much as I please. That's more than 99.9% of human history can claim. I'd be considered very poor by most people on this forum. But I'm free. That's all that matters, other than the basic necessities of life.
It's too bad so many of you want to trade my condition of being free with a condition of economic slavery. I'd rather remain free and make 15K per year than become enslaved and make 100K per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
How does one improve ones standard of living; i.e., rise from poverty to middle class, to wealthy?
Why is that so important? I don't need a fancy car or a smartphone. In this nation, poverty is a condition of the mind--it's not really poverty like with the poor in Africa or other parts of the world. In the US, poverty wages, these days, needn't condemn one to living a "low-class" life. It's all about how you use the income you have. Are you blowing it on a smartphone, big-screen TV or fancy car as your children starve? You'd be surprised at what is inside the average "poor person's" dwelling and what is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
How should one put their money to work?
I put mine to work by living. It isn't going to do me any good when I'm six feet under.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What does it mean to own stock?
It means you are risking your assets big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What obligations does a company have to it's employees?
None, other than the agreed upon wage. An employer is not paying for a person, but paying for that person's time. Time is a commodity just like toilet paper in a grocery store is. You simply pay for it, and that is that. If I agree to labor for someone at, say, $15 an hour, that is exactly what I should get from that someone--no more or no less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What obligations does an employee have to his employer?
None, other than the agreed upon time sold to that employer. Of course, since that sold time is indeed sold, the employee is under obligation to make sure it is productive time. Again, you wouldn't go buy toilet paper if you knew the paper looked like swiss cheese. As an employee, when you sell your time, it is your obligation to make sure that time is spent as the employer wishes. If that's unacceptable to you, you should sell your time elsewhere.
The only one peddling meaningless trivia in this exchange is you. I'm basing my opinions off of empirical evidence from nations that have mitigated high income inequality through proactive social programs for decades. You're basing yours off of conjecture molded to fit your screwed up world view...fortunately for me and the rest of civilized society...no one pays attention to people like you.
Good day, sir.
Nonsense. YOU are the advancing meaningless theories, and arguing correlation without any means of causation.
Quote:
i can't demonstrate how gravity happens either yet I'm not floating away.
But you're not arguing WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY. You are arguing that income inequality CAUSES things. If you can't explain why, then there is no reason to believe there IS any cause and effect - much less accept as proven that ONE TINY TRIVIAL NUMBER matters one iota. There are much larger reasons for cause and effect and I can explain THEM, you can't explain YOURS. Got it yet?
Quote:
poverty figures, crime rates, and homelessness compared to top incomes aren't arbitrary...they're rock hard facts my friend. I'm sorry that you just dislike the indicate.
Yes, they are somewhat arbitrary. You have arbitrary definitions, assign them labels AND THEN ASSIGN CAUSES without any supporting argument or explanation.
Quote:
why is there so little poverty in wester European social democracies...and so much in South America, the USA, and Eastern Europe? Are these people just inherently more stupid or lazy? Only an idiot ignores such overwhelming evidence just to defend his unfavorable ideology.
Because "poverty" is an arbitrary construct and mostly meaningless. Any conclusions derived from statistical analysis IS IN ITSELF arbitrary and meaningless, as well.
WEALTH does indeed grow on trees. Money, however, is merely our medium of trade. It's how we denominate the value of our trades. So, no, MONEY does not grow on trees, but it can be gained by the wealth that grew on trees, in the case of a farmer.
I argue that the farmer can grow all the pears that nature allows, but if no one is willing to consume them, then he has no wealth. It doesn't exist without a market full of pear eaters willing to spend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
In reality, the economy changes... and his job is lost... but another may be created. Government is pretending that a good economy is a high consumption economy - that is, we're supposed to get rich by serving each other burgers and mowing each other's lawns and selling each other TV's imported from China. The whole idea is absurd from the start. We must have excess WEALTH creation before we can trade in money and CONSUME those things we want to consume.
Vehicles, appliances, and houses are consumable products as are providing for-profit services such as burger-slinging. McDonald's has done very well in burgers and fries because people are willing and able to consume them. If people did not like to eat burgers then McDonald's couldn't and wouldn't sell them.
Excess wealth to trigger a trade is not necessary in the age of installment loans. It's more expensive to consume this way, but it allows producers access to more consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
I don't think anyone here thinks that stuffing money under the mattress is a great economic engine, so let's not go there. "Saving" means to not spend beyond your means, to retain an adequate amount of cash accumulated over time, and to use your spare money to invest in things that produce more wealth. You seem to be arguing that consumption is required. No, INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTION OF WEALTH is required to produce the wealth that enables consumption.
I totally agree with spending within your means and with investing in production of things with value. But wealth doesn't exist without trade, and trade doesn't exist without consumption. I do not believe that over-consumption is a good thing. Under- or no-consumption is just as bad. I do believe there is an optimum point somewhere in-between..
Nonsense. YOU are the advancing meaningless theories, and arguing correlation without any means of causation.
But you're not arguing WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY. You are arguing that income inequality CAUSES things. If you can't explain why, then there is no reason to believe there IS any cause and effect - much less accept as proven that ONE TINY TRIVIAL NUMBER matters one iota. There are much larger reasons for cause and effect and I can explain THEM, you can't explain YOURS. Got it yet?
Yes, they are somewhat arbitrary. You have arbitrary definitions, assign them labels AND THEN ASSIGN CAUSES without any supporting argument or explanation.
Because "poverty" is an arbitrary construct and mostly meaningless. Any conclusions derived from statistical analysis IS IN ITSELF arbitrary and meaningless, as well.
Explain why crime rates and homelessness rates are so low in countries with high Gini Coefficients and so high in countries with low Gini Coefficients. Why is there such overwhelming ubiquity across the board in positive social factors with countries that have a strong social safety net and such **** poor results in countries that don't emphasize it? And just so that we have a control for "positive social factors," I mean low crime rates, low instances of homelessness, and a general higher standard of living.
I suppose it's all just coincidence or false statistics, huh?
I only read through half of this meandering thread and never saw one reply that actually addressed the OP.
Correct for the most part. The questions in the OP are pretty simple, but only one poster (ChrisC) who is not a "Leftist" really made the attempt. One other poster continues to claim that "conservatives won't allow the poor to own property" and that it is really zoning laws that keep people poor.
Let's give the Leftists another chance to answer these questions …… or even one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I would like the Leftists to explain the term "income inequality." What is it? How does it occur, and what should be done to correct it?
In your posts, please discuss wealth, wealth distribution, wealth creation, and the moral issues involved in creating wealth, which would include the right to own property, and the right to the fruit of ones labor, and the exclusive right to ones intellectual property.
You may also want to answer the following:
How does one improve ones standard of living; i.e., rise from poverty to middle class, to wealthy?
How should one put their money to work?
What does it mean to own stock?
What obligations does a company have to it's employees?
What obligations does an employee have to his employer?
I've been asking (in many different forums) for years - What do you consider "wealth" and what do you consider "Rich"? I've never gotten an answer to that.
I argue that the farmer can grow all the pears that nature allows, but if no one is willing to consume them, then he has no wealth. It doesn't exist without a market full of pear eaters willing to spend.
No, he has NO MONEY. There's a difference. Now, if he grows inedible pears, he didn't produce any wealth with his labors.
Quote:
Vehicles, appliances, and houses are consumable products as are providing for-profit services such as burger-slinging. McDonald's has done very well in burgers and fries because people are willing and able to consume them. If people did not like to eat burgers then McDonald's couldn't and wouldn't sell them.
Of course. But it doesn't PRODUCE anything, unless you can account for time saved as conservation of wealth, and only if the time saved was more valuable than the cost of eating at McD's.
Quote:
Excess wealth to trigger a trade is not necessary in the age of installment loans. It's more expensive to consume this way, but it allows producers access to more consumers.
LOL!!!! My gawd, how do people come up with this insanity? Did you read it somewhere?
Quote:
I totally agree with spending within your means and with investing in production of things with value. But wealth doesn't exist without trade, and trade doesn't exist without consumption. I do not believe that over-consumption is a good thing. Under- or no-consumption is just as bad. I do believe there is an optimum point somewhere in-between..
Consumption is ENABLED by production. Without production there can be no consumption. You must PRODUCE first, and consumption comes later.
One other poster continues to claim that "conservatives won't allow the poor to own property" and that it is really zoning laws that keep people poor.
I'd definitely be considered poor. I've not had any "conservative" come and give me a talking to about owning property or zoning laws. I do, in fact, own a lot in small-town North Dakota. And I got it for about the price of a big screen TV at the time. One day, I'll build a home there, even though I'm "poor." It's all about how you spend your money (or don't). Because even for the poorest in this nation, the money is there--either from a low-wage job or from our "safety net." It's just squandered all too often on garbage, rather than necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
I've been asking (in many different forums) for years - What do you consider "wealth" and what do you consider "Rich"? I've never gotten an answer to that.
My answer is that, for me, "wealth" is my ability to have freedom of choice--it has little to do with money. Someone who is "rich," again, is someone who has the freedom to do what he/she will with his/her own life. Too much emphasis is placed on, not only money, but "things" in this nation. Materialism and bad choices are what make many people poor.
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.
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.
