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.
Obviously there is income inequality in the USA. Some may claim the gab is getting bigger.
The main point I am considering is whether the government should take steps to address the income equality or NOT?
I DO think that it needs to be seriously addressed but I DON'T think the answer is any form of a redistribution of wealth. Instead, we need to look at the root causes of the income inequality and find ways to give better opportunities to the people at the bottom. If the reason the ones at the bottom are simply a lack of motivation, then maybe the answer is to actually cut welfare rather than expand it. Also, income inequality will not be going away anytime soon although I do believe it at an unsustainable level.. we need to find ways to organically bring the wealth distribution to more reasonable levels without playing Robin Hood.
I DO think that it needs to be seriously addressed but I DON'T think the answer is any form of a redistribution of wealth. Instead, we need to look at the root causes of the income inequality and find ways to give better opportunities to the people at the bottom. If the reason the ones at the bottom are simply a lack of motivation, then maybe the answer is to actually cut welfare rather than expand it. Also, income inequality will not be going away anytime soon although I do believe it at an unsustainable level.. we need to find ways to organically bring the wealth distribution to more reasonable levels without playing Robin Hood.
Umm......"Welfare" as we knew it was greatly reduced by the Clinton admin circa 1996, giving the states the right to administer their own system and the subsequent reductions in long term bennies. The term "redistribution" has been bandied about by those who fear a more equal construct of labor law and those other laws that were enacted through the efforts of lobbyists who front for the upper class. I've already pointed out in earlier posts that the government HAS addressed the "problem", and they have concluded that everything looks good just as it is.
Let's just take a minute and dissect the term redistribution, is it just a natural occurrence that the wealth in the US became concentrated? Was there an earlier "redistribution" of wealth in America's history? Can the overall wealth generator be something ascribed to capital alone, is labors effort not worthy of consideration? Was there a redistribution of labors reward $$$ to those who brokered that labor? "Root causes", correct me here if I'm wrong but the root causes of American poverty have been studied to death, and most of the studies have concluded that the greatest inhibitor of a wider spread of financial well being is found in our legislative process, at both state and federal levels.
"Opportunity", yes, that's the key to whatever those attainable opportunities imply, but we all know that our collective employment opportunities have been diminished by the arrival of a global system of labor arbitrage that favors the top percentile in America, and the upper class in the trading nations in the WTO. World poverty is a growing concern, and the US poverty rate is simply a reflection of those trading policies that have spurred on a growing world wide spread of inequitable compensation disparities. Unfairness is built into our system of government, simply because money corrupts the democratic process to the point that money rules.
I'm unaware of any "organic" method of wealth distribution unless that reference was to the possibility of a mass taking from the upper strata. But here again we see the "playing Robin Hood" platitudes being paraded out as a cautionary note to those who may advocate for a "real" solution to a historical imbalance of power. The upper class has the government's power behind it, the police support for the maintenance of the domestic status quo, and ultimately the military for maintaing the global status quo. I'm not too sure of what could ever upset their agenda of maintaing this horrendous imbalance.
Umm......"Welfare" as we knew it was greatly reduced by the Clinton admin circa 1996, giving the states the right to administer their own system and the subsequent reductions in long term bennies. The term "redistribution" has been bandied about by those who fear a more equal construct of labor law and those other laws that were enacted through the efforts of lobbyists who front for the upper class. I've already pointed out in earlier posts that the government HAS addressed the "problem", and they have concluded that everything looks good just as it is.
Let's just take a minute and dissect the term redistribution, is it just a natural occurrence that the wealth in the US became concentrated? Was there an earlier "redistribution" of wealth in America's history? Can the overall wealth generator be something ascribed to capital alone, is labors effort not worthy of consideration? Was there a redistribution of labors reward $$$ to those who brokered that labor? "Root causes", correct me here if I'm wrong but the root causes of American poverty have been studied to death, and most of the studies have concluded that the greatest inhibitor of a wider spread of financial well being is found in our legislative process, at both state and federal levels.
"Opportunity", yes, that's the key to whatever those attainable opportunities imply, but we all know that our collective employment opportunities have been diminished by the arrival of a global system of labor arbitrage that favors the top percentile in America, and the upper class in the trading nations in the WTO. World poverty is a growing concern, and the US poverty rate is simply a reflection of those trading policies that have spurred on a growing world wide spread of inequitable compensation disparities. Unfairness is built into our system of government, simply because money corrupts the democratic process to the point that money rules.
I'm unaware of any "organic" method of wealth distribution unless that reference was to the possibility of a mass taking from the upper strata. But here again we see the "playing Robin Hood" platitudes being paraded out as a cautionary note to those who may advocate for a "real" solution to a historical imbalance of power. The upper class has the government's power behind it, the police support for the maintenance of the domestic status quo, and ultimately the military for maintaing the global status quo. I'm not too sure of what could ever upset their agenda of maintaing this horrendous imbalance.
My dad immigrated to the US with maybe $500 in his pocket over 30 years ago. On a graduate student's stipend, he supported my mother and I while studying for his PhD. Now, he's nearing retirement, earns 6 figures, and lives a pretty comfortable life. All in spite of an economy that's supposedly diminishing in opportunities due to the globalization of labor arbitrage. While he's no 1%er, he's decisively in the top 10%.
What sort of "legislative process" has enabled him to achieve this success at the expense of others? I must ask..
While I do acknowledge that there are differences in opportunities available depending on which economic class you're born into, many of these obstacles can be broken if you're willing to take risks, refuse the status quo, and work hard. In fact, the act of overcoming extreme obstacles stacked against you at birth is probably a better "education" than the most elite PhD or MBA program in the world.
Don't think anyone is saying that everyone is not going to have one (or several) setback. Life is uncertain. We all make decisions and have to run with that given the cards we are dealt.
What seems a simplistic platitude is to blame setbacks and failure on some group who have the control and ability to oppress everyone else. True maybe in Iran, or Venezuela, etc. Not true in aggregate in the US.
"The other thing is that most people who are in the top 1% in income are there only one year. Over a period of about a decade the IRS tracked these people by Social Security numbers. Something like two-thirds of the people who were in the top 1% during that decade were in there one time. Only 13% were in there two years. Pundits talk about these income brackets as if they are enduring classes of people when they are simply transient snapshots of people who happen to be there right now." Thomas Sowell Part 3: Income Inequality And Economic Myths
"... the very opposite conclusion arises in studies that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time, most of whom move up across the various income brackets with the passing years. Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent." Economic Mobility - Thomas Sowell - Page full
"Discussions of income distribution are inherently misleading in one fundamental respect: Income is not distributed, it is earned. This fact, while obvious, is often overlooked .... most families with high incomes contain no corporate chief executives or professional baseball players, much less lottery winners. ... Most upper-income American families simply work more jobs and longer hours than their neighbors. It is fair to question whether the fact that harder work is typically rewarded with higher incomes really constitutes "inequality." The Truth About Income Inequality | Center of the American Experiment
Where, outside of the USA, do people have a better opportunity to rise?
Are you kidding me, do you really think that any educated person would believe that the US has no built in system of class oppression? Read some US labor history and become informed about the systematic taking off the top that the upper class has managed to do since colonial times. Who rules America, the people? No, the dumbest now know that our illustrious corporations rule the legislative process, how did you think those banks and insurance companies were able to rip us off to extent that they darned near caused a fatal collapse of our financial system and had to get the taxpayers to bail them out? AND, nobody went to jail...Coincidence, or control?
The crap about the 1% doesn't interest me in the least, it's a media term that grew out of the fact that some light had been shed on those at the top and they're relative position to those on the bottom. Jeez, drive through the ghettos in this nation and then tell me about the 1% and their struggle to remain in the upper bracket, I don't care that most of these people have smart enough accountants to help them obscure their wealth picture from the prying eyes of the IRS. Income inequity has been a real problem in this country, I think of it in terms of well being, as in "who is better off" the upper minority, or those who as you say, "suffer some setbacks"?
most haven't a clue about those "setbacks" as you term them, and reading the likes of Thomas Sowell won't help much. Speaking of platitudes, Sowel can come up with some real zingers. People read the words of a puppet pol and expect us to think we've been enlightened, well Those who know how Sowell thinks, or at least acts on what others tell him to think, know his thoughts and actions don't count for much. Nobody ever said that "income is distributed", on it's face that is ludicrous and you know it. Income disparity is the subject at hand not distribution.
Ultimately, it is never about how "hard" (or better, how "smart") someone works.
It is about what "value" they can and do produce. Remember, "value" is in the eye of the payer.
Who are we to judge if we think someone else is being foolish with their money? Nobody is forcing them to waste (in our opinion) their money.
Examples abound in our society of these differences in opinion across all sectors...CEO pay is really only one example.
One can reasonably argue that there is an agency problem with executive pay, but it is a far cry from implying some legislation is required because of the difference in the pay scale between CEO and the lowest level employee.
On what basis should we determine everyone's pay, if it is not based on the decisions made by millions of independent individuals voting with their dollars on what they perceive is best value?
Well, I guess I'll have to point it out, most people know what's fair, kids all know, paying crappy wages and then couching that workers despair as a kind of foolishness is disingenuous at best, and worse is the notion that compensation is really tied to some formula having "value" at it's center. Workers all create some value, but most of the investor class surely comes up low on that score, so it really isn't about value at all is it?
My dad immigrated to the US with maybe $500 in his pocket over 30 years ago. On a graduate student's stipend, he supported my mother and I while studying for his PhD. Now, he's nearing retirement, earns 6 figures, and lives a pretty comfortable life. All in spite of an economy that's supposedly diminishing in opportunities due to the globalization of labor arbitrage. While he's no 1%er, he's decisively in the top 10%.
What sort of "legislative process" has enabled him to achieve this success at the expense of others? I must ask..
While I do acknowledge that there are differences in opportunities available depending on which economic class you're born into, many of these obstacles can be broken if you're willing to take risks, refuse the status quo, and work hard. In fact, the act of overcoming extreme obstacles stacked against you at birth is probably a better "education" than the most elite PhD or MBA program in the world.
I fail to see the relevance in your dad's case, did you think that MY dad was rich and loafed around all day, did you think that most of America is made up of loafers, did you think that your dad's tale comprises enough breadth and width to compete with the larger reality at hand? Do you really believe your own words with regard to your remarks about hard work, refusing the status quo, and the last one, the notion that poverty and despair is somehow instructive? If so, I'd suggest you apply right now to our prestigious universities and allow them your pearls of wisdom to be heard on our social quagmire and it's possible resolution. We've been discussing the causes of poverty in America for decades, and, here it is, so simple..
I made no allusion to our legislative process as anything relevant to your dad, what I said was, the US legislative process creates barriers to labor's well being, our labor laws are not supportive enough of those who need the protection of a more powerful entity than those they oppose. Strikers are locked out even though our labor laws compel good faith bargaining. Low wages, poor enforcement of labor laws, an entrenched institutional poverty, and lastly, those with their smug attitude regarding the lesser members of our society, these don't occur in a vacuum, forces are at work to ensure the socio/economic status quo.
If the overall value of what you can produce isn't of value to anyone else because they can easily do it themselves, then you job isn't worth the penny you're paid. At that point, your entire value is based upon the time you can save someone else from having to do your job.
If you can clean, great. I can clean too. You don't have a unique skill at all. The only thing you have is a time saving element because my time is more valueable than yours. So I'll pay you to clean my house because I make $100/hr and pay you $10/hr to clean. That's the only reason jobs exist. Because it's cheaper to pay you to do what I could do myself, and I value my time above what I value yours.
Do you think it's fair that you only make 1/10th of what I do? Probably not. Do I think you're worth paying above that? Not at all.
That reasoning is why capitalism as a whole is designed to lead to a "1%". Because overall, capitalism is based upon using your capital to employ others at a rate low enough where you make a profit. If you aren't making a profit, you should be doing it yourself.
If the overall value of what you can produce isn't of value to anyone else because they can easily do it themselves, then you job isn't worth the penny you're paid. At that point, your entire value is based upon the time you can save someone else from having to do your job.
If you can clean, great. I can clean too. You don't have a unique skill at all. The only thing you have is a time saving element because my time is more valueable than yours. So I'll pay you to clean my house because I make $100/hr and pay you $10/hr to clean. That's the only reason jobs exist. Because it's cheaper to pay you to do what I could do myself, and I value my time above what I value yours.
Do you think it's fair that you only make 1/10th of what I do? Probably not. Do I think you're worth paying above that? Not at all.
That reasoning is why capitalism as a whole is designed to lead to a "1%". Because overall, capitalism is based upon using your capital to employ others at a rate low enough where you make a profit. If you aren't making a profit, you should be doing it yourself.
The "reasoning" behind your example has nothing to do with capitalism, it is simply pointing out that those who clean aren't organized in a way that allows them a wage that reflects their needs. Umm, I think that has been long known as exploitation, not the result of an economic theory..BTW, are you prepared to make your own shoes, clothing, attend to your children when you are at work, and a sundry of other jobs that don't connote a "unique" skill? If all compensation was really about skill, the fight would be on regarding the various measures of skill, and whom would be the arbiter of that?
The truth is that those who only have their time to sell must be payed at a level constant with the cost of living, period. That would be lower when compared to the IT tech, banker, managerial, or the CEO level of compensation, but it still needs to be at a level that allows for the worker to live and not become a burden on the rest of society.
Capitalism isn't "designed to "do" anything, it is a theory, and it's worth noting that this theory isn't actually practiced anywhere in the world. The US has a mixed economy, a hybrid of various constructs ranging from banking and investment to trade laws, tax laws, and markets.
Labor is a matter of necessity for those who must pay for it, either you need to have others do what you can't or won't do, or you are attempting to "broker" someone's labor for a profit. In either case, you are only capable of exploiting that labor when those workers in a particular job category fail to organize around their compensation rather than compete to the extent that their wages become sub par with regard to their particular economic requirements.
This is why you hear all the chatter about value being bandied about, real value calculations would necessarily include a human aspect instead of one wherein a human is reduced to a pure economic unit. In other words, profit isn't the ogre here, and neither is any particular economic theory, nor is it even about economics, when you are looking at poverty's face, you are looking at a human being and that's what this is really all about..
Well, I guess I'll have to point it out, most people know what's fair, kids all know, paying crappy wages and then couching that workers despair as a kind of foolishness is disingenuous at best, and worse is the notion that compensation is really tied to some formula having "value" at it's center. Workers all create some value, but most of the investor class surely comes up low on that score, so it really isn't about value at all is it?
You know, there was a time when people fiercely believed that the earth was the center of the universe. It was so obvious, even "kids all know". People were jailed for even suggesting otherwise.
What is the difference between that time and our understanding today?
Somebody (several people) actually looked at their surroundings, measured them, assessed the data and corroborated the results - the reality - for themselves.
After thousands of years of subsistence existence, in the last century is has become rather obvious by several objective measures that capitalism has improved the lives of the vast majority of humanity. I have provided several links in prior posts and, in fact, there is a free course that discusses it vs the alternatives here (course #2): Foundations of Economic Prosperity & Money and Banking: What Everyone Should Know (Set)
People can "believe" that there is oppression by one class against another, but there are too many rags to riches stories, especially in America, to say that is the norm. It rather seems to be a line of thought designed to drive envy and animosity, usually espoused heavily by people who seek to gain political power over the rest of us - a divide and conquer strategy.
People flock to the US (with and without permission) because they know that they have a greater chance of making it for themselves and their family (see my earlier links). Put another way, the US has a level of "oppression" that they seem to prefer vs any place else. Not sure why they would think so if there were any truth to some of the posts here trashing our system.
Capitalism isn't "designed to "do" anything, it is a theory, and it's worth noting that this theory isn't actually practiced anywhere in the world. The US has a mixed economy, a hybrid of various constructs ranging from banking and investment to trade laws, tax laws, and markets.
Very true. But that hardly is an argument against the ideas of capitalism (to the large extent that it exists here) and for the notion that somehow people are oppressed here.
Until very recently, the US was one of the "least mixed" economies, and by different measures it still is. But, by comparison, there is little evidence that it is capitalism that is systematically oppressing people. Where's your measure for this, if you think so?
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.
