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.
That's like saying water must either be freezing or boiling, and nothing inbetween.
There are degrees of inequality, and they have been growing more severe.
No, because inequal are binary opposites by definition. A and Not A. There is no third option between A and Not A. There is no "Sort Of A" not in any logic system I am familiar with. But then, arguing with collectivists is typically outside the bounds of logic and reason.
Incomes are either equal, or they are not. If you champion some inequality, but less than the current inqeuality, then you still champion that which is not equal, thus you champion inequality. All you are doing then is arguing over degree, not kind.
So some jobs can still pay more than other jobs, but you wish to decide how much more, for the good of I am assuming the folks making less?
See, I get that the whole goal is to eliminate the poor class, but that requires, again by definition, getting rid of the rich class, because both poor and rich are relative measures. To be poor is to have less than someone, and to be rich is to have more than someone. If we are to get rid of poor, we must get rid of people having more than others, thus we must get rid of rich.
So tell me, oh sage and nuanced defender of the "well let's make it less unequal sorta kinda" economic system...how do we make the income inequality less? How much less and how do we go about applying social justice to smooth the inequality as you see it, yet keep it intact within the liquid water range of your analogy?
Describe "the most vulnerable in society" and how they got there.
Uh, he's referring to himself, and he got there by following Left-Wing policies, but doesn't have the courage to admit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
The divergent income paths since the mid-1970s are "perfectly natural"?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
If that is the case, why didn't it happen earlier, say, from 1945-1975?
Is that a serious question?
Okay, from 1945-1965 the US was still a developing-State.
The Agriculture Sector is always the first to benefit from Electro-Mechanical Industrialization, yet always the last to fully modernize, and that took place in the mid-1960s....I call it '65 but you can call it '64 or '66 or even '63 if you want.
When a State is in development, wages generally double every 10 years (on average). I've discussed that extensively on other threads regarding the development of States in Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Once you fully modernized, that's it.....your wages no longer double every 10 years; it tapers off.
Remember this is Economics; it's not a train....it doesn't run on a scheduled, but for a period after reaching modernization, your wages will only increase 50%, and then 25% and then 13% and then 6% and then 3% until you flat-line.
That is the Laws of Economics in action. It is perfectly normal. That is what is supposed to happen, and that is what is happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Simple, they support free market capitalism outside their community, but support unfree market socialism in their back yards, by supporting policies such as exclusionary zoning and NIMBY.
Exclusionary zoning is not Socialism.
You can have regulations in a Free Market.
Left-Wingers always lie and deceive with Straw Men Fallacies, and many wannabe Conservatives and pseudo-Conservatives are also too stupid to get it.
There is a simple test: Does the regulation create involuntary or coerced consumer transactions?
If the answer to that question is "NO".....then you are not interfering in the Market.
If the answer is "YES" then you are interfering in the Market.
Give me an example of a regulation that interferes in the Free Market by compelling involuntary or coerced consumer transactions?
Obamacare.
Give me another example of a regulation that interferes in the Free Market by compelling involuntary or coerced consumer transactions?
The "Out-of-Network" clause.
The ACA was written largely by the American Hospital Association who created the "Out-of-Network" clause in 1939. It interferes in the Free Market by forcing you to use only those medical facilities that are members of the American Hospital Association.
If you attempt to use a medical facility that is not a member of the American Hospital Association, then you are penalized with extra fees and higher costs.
No, because inequal are binary opposites by definition. A and Not A. There is no third option between A and Not A.
We are not talking about "inequal". We are talking about inequality.
The degree to which things are less equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
So tell me, oh sage and nuanced defender of the "well let's make it less unequal sorta kinda" economic system...how do we make the income inequality less?
Having the central bank stop giving large institutions preferential access to credit. Stop giving tax preferences to debt over equity. Start taxing all types of income at least as much as wage income. Maybe even start a financial transaction tax, to pay down the public deficit.
I'm not a liberal, but I think, to them, it means - You are entitled to only have ONE mansion and ONE luxury car. You're wealthy enough.
That probably sums it up pretty well. These are people who are envious of what others have, and they seek to limit the amount one person may have, or earn. We've all heard liberals say things. like, "When is enough, enough?"
First, I have to admit I have not read every post in this thread.
I never thought about 'income equality', but after seeing this title in the POC line-up, I gave myself a couple of days to ponder the topic.
The example below is the closest I can come to explaining what it means TO ME:
There is a very successful and wealthy company.
The top brass of that company make oodles of money; more than they can ever spend in their lifetimes.
The lowest person in the company doesn't make enough to meet standard needs, such as housing and food.
To me, that is 'income inequality'.
Conversely, if the lowest person makes enough to feed and house his/her family, and contributes to the growth of the company, that would be 'income equality'.
Last edited by Fox Terrier; 01-09-2014 at 11:46 AM..
The term is misleading, because no one expects everyone to make the same amount of money.
Then stop using it.
Your post was misguided, but thoughtful. You're evolving. I thought I'd point out where you made your errors.
The first one is here....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The problem is in the slow rate of economic increase/improvement in middle and low classes.
See your mistake?
You incorrectly evaluated the issue.
We're talking about Cause & Effect.
The"slow rate of economic increase/improvement in middle and low classes" is not the problem, rather it is the result of a problem.There is a [systemic] Cause, and the resulting Effect is "the slow rate of economic increase/improvement in middle and low classes."
Treating the symptoms will not eliminate the problem.
Solving the problem requires identifying the Cause, and attacking it at its root.....except you cannot do that. You don't have the power to control the Laws of Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The figure below illustrates the economic (wealth) growth in different classes of people since 1979.
Where did you go wrong there?
You committed the Fallacy of Equivocation. You used "wealth" an ambiguous manner that is deceptive and misleading.
When you say "wealth" do you mean...
Cash
Wages/Salaries
Earned Income
Unearned Income
Income
Assets
Wealth?
A refusal to clarify what you mean exactly, is evidence of the dissemination of propaganda and disinformation.
A person has $5 Million.
How much cash do they have?
$3,000
Then how can they have $5 Million?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The problem is not the fact that rich are getting richer, but the fact that the poor and middle classes are not improving fast enough.
And why would they?
I'm going to tell you the story of "One-Percent Pat."
Cash: Pat has $3,000 Cash in the bank.
Wages/Salaries: Pat's Wages are $26.75/hour
Earned Income: Pat's Earned Income is $53,490
Unearned Income: Pat has $0 Unearned Income
Income: Pat has $53,490 Income
Assets: Pat owns 100 acres of undeveloped land theoretically valued at $5 Million
Wealth: Pat has just over $5 Million
An ultra-conservative --- who shall remain nameless --- told Pat that throwing away money on stupid stuff like World of Warcraft and Netflix and Starsux and dining-out 37 times a week at fast-food and dope and lotto tickets and buying a new cell-phone every time one hits the Market would just bleed Pat dry.
Pat bought 100 acres of land @ $200/acre.
That land is now worth $52,000/acre.....uh, thanks to, uh, you know, suburban sprawl.
"...the poor and middle classes are not improving fast enough" and why not?
I just told you why.
Wealth is a choice.
Wealth requires active participation, not passive wishful thinking while smoking dope and playing World of Warcraft watching Netflix eating Taco Hell tacos.
Active participation requires one to risk their money.
Problem-Solving....
Mircea
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.
