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.
What's your opinion on income inequality? It's future? Should it be fixed and will it be fixed? I ask that no lefties answer this question because I can guess your answers.
1) First recognize that inequality in all forms has always existed, will always exist, and should always exist. Perhaps a few hundred thousand years in the future, DNA technology will be so advanced as to create one type of person with all perfectly matching DNA, physiology and neurology, but for the very long and foreseeable future that is not to be the case and we are stuck with what we have, a very wide and diverse array of humans in all shapes and colors, a wide range of intelligence, smarts, street smarts and capabilities. If one cannot accept this reality, then there really is not point in further discussion.
2) Mankind's actions have shaped the world we live in. While much of the angst has been focused on the World since 1492, when Columbus sailed to the Americas and enslavement took on a whole new chapter, one must not forget that the human chessboard had already seen thousands of moves, many of them brutal. Our actions together with evolutionary aspects of our species have resulted in the world we see today, all the kindness and beauty and all of its nastiness and tragedy.
3) In the income inequality activism world, there is a strong desire to "rest the clock" or "even the playing field." These are in my opinion, wrongheaded, naive and oftentimes dangerous. In the most simple terms, it is your advantage, however trivial, that will be sought out. In the mass evening out, modern history of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mugabe, and a host of others, the poor are never lifted but often beaten down further. So wholesale anti-income equality programs are to be feared.
4) What about tinkering with policies to redistribute? I think most of society is willing to allow government to do modest income distribution to the truly poor, though would prefer to donate themselves and donate locally (local food banks, local charities). But when the act of redistribution goes from charity (in which preferences of altruism are satisfied) to compulsion (which is the method Obama has employed (and not to blame him per se, but all those who drove his actions)), then you will note a great resistance. Compulsion today, from Obamacare to the force acceptance of migrants, is not a step in the right direction but will undoubtedly breed violence. In between, are passages of laws that expand welfare programs at the margin. These evoke grumbling and raise the bitterness but unlike compulsion, operate through standard and transparent channels. So as long as compulsion is not front and center, there is tolerance--though often begrudging--for income redistribution from to those who those who do not.
5) In contrast, there is great acceptance for equalizing the opportunity for generating income. The success here is really quite fantastic and a hallmark of human progress. The modern school would exist were this not the case. Again, the same rules apply for altruism-contributions via marginal taxation vs. compulsion. We see the dividing line in the growing expense of school districts and the poor output being generated. If one is taxed not for the children to be educated and do great things in the world, but instead to feed ever higher administrative salaries, lucrative pensions, political indoctrination, etc. then school finance is more compulsion.
6) I think the income inequality social justice warriors have given up on #5 as the only true tool to raise the quality of lives of future generations and are instead going for the long hanging fruit: compulsion and retribution. The youth movements we see today have bought into the illusion that they are (a) on firm moral ground and that (b) winning the shouting match via shaming will magically equalize the field. Actually, it is more delusion than illusion.
7) My prediction, as calls for social justice get increasingly more moral and self-righteous, there will be three time-tested responses. (A), some added money will be thrown in to the pot--a few more billion in social programs, diversity officers in 500 firms, more funding for whatever social justice angle there is; (B) You will see accelerated self-segregation--charter schools; incorporation of county land and exodus from nearby cities; and movement to different cities and states; (C) And this will actually be the worst of all, a delegitimization of both the impetus for the movements and the groups within those movements. Hillary Clinton was absolutely correct. The Civil Rights movement would not have succeeded had there not been fissures in the White establishment and a strong willingness of many of its progeny to reach over the huge divide.
(8) I think we are moving beyond charity and towards a world of compulsion, retribution and self-segregation. Within this world income equality will be shaped. Those who are poised to take advantage of charity and tax-funded opportunities will do so en masse. Those folks will solve the income equality puzzle faster than was done in previous generations. But those who push a moral and self-righteous agenda will fail to take advantage of those opportunities and fall further behind, with little sympathy.
(9) Today, if you are poor but have a drive to make something of your life (and your parents share that drive). there is not better time to move into the middle or upper middle class. There are a zillion funding opportunities that I did not have. But if you are poor and come from a broken family whose misery beat you and your outlook into the ground, then I am with the camp that things that today is more miserable than in the past.
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.
[quote=Spodi90;41601965]What's your opinion on income inequality? It's future? Should it be fixed and will it be fixed? I ask that no lefties answer this question because I can guess your answers.[/quoteI
Inequality isn't a problem per say, it's when standards of living are too low. This is something that leftists (and in some cases, righties as well) don't understand. Take the fallowing examples:
Example A:
David owns 10 bucks.
Bob Owns 1000 bucks.
Bob is a hundred times richer than David.
Example B:
David owns 5 bucks.
Bob own 20 bucks.
Bob is 4 times richer than David.
In the later example here is far less "inequality", but neither person is better off than before. And yet lefties claim that there is no difference between people being less equal and people being more poor. It's utter nonsense.
That said, taking wealth from the rich and giving it to less wealthy individuals can be justified in certain situations. But here is the thing (and this is something that conservatives/libertarians also fall victim into thinking isn't true): TAKING WEALTH FROM ONE TO GIVE IT TO ANOTHER ISN'T THE SAME AS MAKING PEOPLE MORE EQUAL!
In order for that to be the case, wealth in society would have to be finate, which it isn't. Even if a portion of a high earner's cash is taken and given to someone else, if the rich dude earns way more money the long term effect is still going to be a growht in inequality. Perhaps it won't grow as fast, but it will still grown so the end result is still the same. So wealth distribution is still possible without it being socialism, as long as it doesn't go to far.
Here is my take on this: Everybody should be able to at least pay their bills and have something left afterward, but people are not entiteld to actual equality of outcome.
I agree with your take on this, I'm not some loon who believes in total equality. It's two extremes and were heading in the direction of one of those extremes. 50+ percent of wealth being held by 1 percent today. There is some irony with talk of inequality. I remember Obama taking heat for talking about redistribution in 2008. Got it, redistribution is bad but why is it ok for income to get sucked up in the other direction?
What's your opinion on income inequality? It's future? Should it be fixed and will it be fixed? I ask that no lefties answer this question because I can guess your answers.
Idiotic and Insane monetary policy and perversion of Capitalism since 2001 + Congress and Wall Street in bed together led us to this. We have built an electoral system that depends upon the rich. We can change that, almost instantaneously, if we want to. We can remove the rich from government control. Of course the rich have been building this system for years.
You need vast amounts of money if you want to be elected in America. This means you have to be rich or you have to be a prostitute of the rich. Either way, the rich own both parties, Democrats and Republicans. They own the Republicans because the rich are Republicans, through ideology, and the rich now own the Democrats because the rich recently destroyed the Labor Unions as a source of Left-Wing Equality by dismantling all the high-paying union jobs and sending them to Mexico and Asia, robbing the Democrats of their funding source. So sad to see Clinton on his knees before Wall Street, begging to be included; so sad to see Obama on his knees before Wall Street, saying "Ok. We'll blame government big spenders for the collapse of the Global Economy, instead of you guys, whatever you want; just don't cut me out; I like hanging out at Country Clubs. I like being white too.")
Look at the housing problem in America. We allowed foreigners with money to buy houses since 2008, while Americans were being thrown out of their houses, and buyer's of houses were given fast-track visa and green-card service. Meaning if you are a foreign drug dealer, a thief, a child pornographer, anyone with ample means, the government is favoring you as a buyer of houses in America, to keep prices from falling to a level that might allow more Americans to buy houses.
We need a real change in this country. I'm NOT romantic and wild-eyed about a revolution. I think the OLD WORLD, protecting its money and power, makes a revolution possible -- but I prefer democratic change, and it will be sad if we destroy our democracy because of our greed and fear of change and loss.
We need a new era of relatively selfless leadership, for the good of the country instead of for the good of one's own pocketbook. This would be a radical change from what we have now. I think most of our problems are spiritual and moral. This is the shadow side of Rugged Individualism we are now seeing, every man for himself and God against all.
Last edited by Dr. Kevin; 10-18-2015 at 01:27 PM..
I rather be david with 4 stocks than bob with 20 bucks...
Quote:
it's when standards of living are too low
no its because people think they should have a standard of living higher than they can afford... wages would be fine if people didn't consume so much disposable junk...
that's my answer as a "lefty", people should learn to budget what they earn. If they want more items, they can't work minimum wage jobs. If they are happy with it, then go ahead... but don't tell the minimum wage workers that they deserve to live like middle class people. This is why I disagree with the entire living wage movement, that is not a living wage that is a middle class wage. They should forcibly take away people's junk if they want to stay at a minimum wage job until they can afford it without debt. IF all they can afford is roommates and food, then that's all they get until they figure out that they need to move up the social ladder. I'd be happy just making a government programs to give people jobs cleaning high ways at minimum wage in place of the current "social welfare", if they want food stamps, they have to work for the food >.> or at least learn to put food first before their other junk like tv/phone/etc. yes it is extreme.. and I'm not a politician so I can be on the extreme left
What's your opinion on income inequality? It's future? Should it be fixed and will it be fixed? I ask that no lefties answer this question because I can guess your answers.
i think income inequality sounds bad but ultimately isn't very important. what is much more important is the overall standard of living of everyone. if everyone has all the necessities, does it really matter so much that a small group of people are ridiculously wealthy? poverty in America today still seems to include all the necessities, health insurance and some luxuries like an iPhone, cable tv, food luxuries, etc. i would be careful about policies intended to reduce inequality that only bring some people down without really benefiting others.
i think income inequality sounds bad but ultimately isn't very important. what is much more important is the overall standard of living of everyone. if everyone has all the necessities, does it really matter so much that a small group of people are ridiculously wealthy? poverty in America today still seems to include all the necessities, health insurance and some luxuries like an iPhone, cable tv, food luxuries, etc. i would be careful about policies intended to reduce inequality that only bring some people down without really benefiting others.
because people are in poverty when they don't have the latest iphone >.>
What's your opinion on income inequality? It's future? Should it be fixed and will it be fixed? I ask that no lefties answer this question because I can guess your answers.
Capitalism is based on demand and supply.
When supply is high the cost is cheap.
Right now labor supply is high so wages are cheap.
If we had a tight labor supply then wages would go up..competition for bodies.
And with the influx of immigrants and their families I don't think our labor supply is going to decrease anytime soon in the future.
Your only answer to this income equality you seek is communism (nationalize all business) or socialism (people own the business) and then you can vote yourselves equal pay.
Now what I found interesting is that when Hostess went bust the baker union could have bought the plant and run it themselves. It was put up for sale and the union had the money.
But they didn't even attempt it.
So I really think that Americans are content with capitalism but they want the government to make laws that are more socialist in nature.
And just one thing to remember, Capitalism failed in 2008 and Government had to pick up the tab ever since bailing failed Capitalists, Wall Street and big corporations.
What we have today is Socialism for the Rich!!!!!
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.
