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.
Are the top 0.001% the one's fighting it? I see WB, Bill Gates, etc. actively pushing for it. I just don't see how it can close a gap when the entire discussion is centered around them needing this to consume more (have a livable dwelling, a better car, etc.). The only way it could theoretically close the inequality gap is if they saved and invested a substantial portion of the additional income and even then you would need to actively take money from the top 0.001% to slow down their wealth accumulation.
An example: I get an additional $10k in income.
I spend $5k of it to increase my lifestyle to 'living' and I invest $5k. That $5k compounds to a point where it doubles every 7 years (pretty unrealistic, but let's go with it).
In 7 years that $5k is $10k.
Warren Buffett invests $50 million dollars. Let's say he's conservative about his investment and he doubles his money every 12 years. Who ends up making more money over the next 12 years? Me, having invested $5k or the WB that invested $50 million? Does the gap widen or shrink? Even tax WBs capital gains at 25% and let me have all capital gains tax free. Does the gap widen or shrink?
If you were both able to invest your money in such a manner to make it double itself every 7 years. The gap in wealth would continue to grow larger every year.
And that gap would still have no impact on anyone.
Please do not imply that more unions/union membership will necessarily improve the economy to reduce income inequality.
We probably agree that unions in the US were woefully inefficient. But we had a very strong economy in spite of that. And they did have an important influence on wages and benefits, even for non union workers.
If you wish to increase wages and benefits (workers' % of the pie) then you need to improve their bargaining power in some fashion. Currently it is too lopsided, except for workers who have exceptional talent (who are always in demand). How would you propose doing that?
I think a UBI would achieve this reasonably well, and would be simple and efficient.
Hmm, lets say that you earn $50k/year and with that income, you support your family. I earn $20k/year and with my income, I support my family. And finally some other fellow, someone that you and I will never meet or have any contact with, he earns $100Million/year.
How is the gap between these incomes 'impacting' you? or me?
Our economy is the aggregate goods and services produced and purchased. How the money (wealth) from this activity lands in one person's lap vs another depends on policies/laws... how the "game" is structured.
A lot of people "earning" $100M/year are not doing anything productive. They are merely using the rules of the game to extract wealth from the economy and put it in their accounts. Who do you think that $100M is being extracted from? Even if they were doing something productive, was their contribution worth the amount they extracted?
If you wish to increase wages and benefits (workers' % of the pie) then you need to improve their bargaining power in some fashion. Currently it is too lopsided, except for workers who have exceptional talent (who are always in demand). How would you propose doing that?
same way CEO's increase their "pie", tell the workers to buy into the company stock
would help if they negotiated their benefits to include set # of shares in lue of $, but workers prefer $ it seems
Quote:
I think a UBI would achieve this reasonably well, and would be simple and efficient.
how does that increase a workers "pie"? It just pays them enough money to get them off their current welfare... good job, hand them $ and tell them to get out of their section 8 housing and take away their food stamps. If they were better at managing money, they wouldn't be on welfare in the first place. What does handing them $ each month do when they don't have skills to earn more $ on their own than the cost of living?
FYI, the UK did this, they have universal credit in place of welfare aid, and it hasn't done the poor there any better except make things messier
If you were both able to invest your money in such a manner to make it double itself every 7 years. The gap in wealth would continue to grow larger every year.
And that gap would still have no impact on anyone.
That's my point. It's simple math. By definition if I am compounding a larger amount my wealth is going to grow exponentially more than someone that can only invest a small amount each year. Even if the person that invests the small amount actually gets much better returns each year (which almost certainly isn't plausible).
A lot of people "earning" $100M/year are not doing anything productive. They are merely using the rules of the game to extract wealth from the economy and put it in their accounts. Who do you think that $100M is being extracted from? Even if they were doing something productive, was their contribution worth the amount they extracted?
most people also do not have $100M sitting in a bank account collecting 1-2% in interest, they have most of their money invested somewhere
that large bucket of money is not a "pot of money" there for the taking, it's already being used
most people also do not have $100M sitting in a bank account collecting 1-2% in interest, they have most of their money invested somewhere
Where exactly is it "invested"? If it is in inflating assets, it isn't "working". Only investments in R&D, productive capital, and infrastructure grow our economy. Not RE speculation, not stock inflation, and not finance.
By giving them greater negotiating power when it comes to jobs and wages. The job is no longer a necessity for survival.
yes it is... because they can't live off of basic income with how low it is
if they could live off of that little amount, they would be fine living off the minimum wage, but they don't because they can't
you think handing someone "UBI" means they got better at controlling their spending? that they are better financially?
the few that would do well with UBI are the same ones that do well without it
UBI doesn't increase quality of life anymore than increasing minimum wage has decreased poverty rates
edit: i see it as people aren't in debt because they are poor, they are poor because they are in debt. They will still go into debt even if the money is UBI because nothing stops them from going into debt with the new money.
Our economy is the aggregate goods and services produced and purchased. How the money (wealth) from this activity lands in one person's lap vs another depends on policies/laws... how the "game" is structured.
A lot of people "earning" $100M/year are not doing anything productive. They are merely using the rules of the game to extract wealth from the economy and put it in their accounts. Who do you think that $100M is being extracted from? Even if they were doing something productive, was their contribution worth the amount they extracted?
Why would I care?
Surely you know that life is not fair, right?
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.
