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.
Trying to reconcile your assertion that production enables consumption, with the reality that slumlords have produced nothing.
How is this difficult?
Person X buys real estate, minimally maintains it and rents it to subprime renters at the highest possible rate.
The means for anyone to rent it had to be produced by SOMEONE, be it the renter or the one who paid the taxes that pay the rent subsidy, and the owner of the building had to use his or someone else's wealth to buy it.
Nothing of this act of being a slumlord produces anything. It consumes what others have produced, though.
I'd have to dig to find that, but you carefully couched the concept saying to the effect that you support minimum lot sizes because you don't want poor people buying next door to you.
But you raise the issue that I have been trying to get at, that of the wealth of the top 10% vs. the rest. Why is that an issue, if they earned their wealth legally?
It matters because high inequality is linked to instability, as others have noted. You might as well argue that mountains shouldn't create avalanches, because each snowflake is so tiny and light. However, avalanches happen, regardless of how you feel. Also, "earn" is a loaded term. "Possess" is more generally accurate, since people come into wealth in various ways that don't necessarily involve the traditional labor-reward conception of "earning." And the "top 10%" is not the problem so much as the top 0.02% or higher, which is where the wealth is really pooling quickly.
You see, America is still a wage-based economy, and most people are average in most major characteristics - intelligence, motivation, energy, and so on. So unless society is structured to successfully funnel some kind of income to people with skills and abilities no greater than average at best, you will probably get instability over time, because people's economic prospects will worsen over the years - an unprecedented event (over the long-term) in modern American history.
When income accumulates into a small sliver of the economy (rather than being more widely distributed), less of it circulates through the parts of the economy that most people use. This is because people with a lot of money have a much lower "marginal propensity to spend," and tend to save/offshore/etc. their wealth. People with less wealth tend to circulate their money locally, and this is what composes "the economy" to most people. Most Americans will never in their lives buy a Swiss chalet, or own a $50 million trading account for the Singapore market. That economy does not exist to them.
So, with labor force participation falling, and with productivity rising regardless due to automation and efficiency, and with overall wage income on a long-term downswing as a percentage of GDP, we may have some trouble in the future, based on what we have seen in the past.
It matters because high inequality is linked to instability, as others have noted.
Nobody has EVER produced any evidence to demonstrate cause and effect.
Quote:
You might as well argue that mountains shouldn't create avalanches, because each snowflake is so tiny and light. However, avalanches happen, regardless of how you feel.
That's right. Mountains do NOT cause avalanches. Loose snow, loose dirt, loose rock... these cause avalances, not mountains.
Quote:
Also, "earn" is a loaded term. "Possess" is more generally accurate, since people come into wealth in various ways that don't necessarily involve the traditional labor-reward conception of "earning." And the "top 10%" is not the problem so much as the top 0.02% or higher, which is where the wealth is really pooling quickly.
What difference does that make?
Quote:
You see, America is still a wage-based economy, and most people are average in most major characteristics - intelligence, motivation, energy, and so on. So unless society is structured to successfully funnel some kind of income to people with skills and abilities no greater than average at best, you will probably get instability over time, because people's economic prospects will worsen over the years - an unprecedented event (over the long-term) in modern American history.
Assertion... STILL NO EVIDENCE anywhere in sight.
Quote:
When income accumulates into a small sliver of the economy (rather than being more widely distributed), less of it circulates through the parts of the economy that most people use. This is because people with a lot of money have a much lower "marginal propensity to spend," and tend to save/offshore/etc. their wealth. People with less wealth tend to circulate their money locally, and this is what composes "the economy" to most people. Most Americans will never in their lives buy a Swiss chalet, or own a $50 million trading account for the Singapore market. That economy does not exist to them.
Why does this matter? It is THEIRS, and they did not take it from anyone.
Quote:
So, with labor force participation falling, and with productivity rising regardless due to automation and efficiency, and with overall wage income on a long-term downswing as a percentage of GDP, we may have some trouble in the future, based on what we have seen in the past.
"in the future"??? Why do you think we have high unemployment and a sick economy now? And it's not the fault of the rich, it's the fault of a government that has ruined the economy by excessive taxation, spending, and redistribution.
Nobody has EVER produced any evidence to demonstrate cause and effect.
Between income inequality and social instability? Income inequality tends to be symptomatic of other issues. It's an indicator. High income inequality plus a fast-growing economy may not be as much of a problem, since people feel as though the future will be better than the present-day. High inequality with sluggish growth and declining prospects is not so great, because then economic "participants" begin to lose faith in the system, and look for alternatives.
In that sort of environment, people feel as though the overlcass is oppressive and parasitic rather than a function of capitalist success. Something like the 2008 bank bailouts kicked off an undercurrent of social anger that still isn't well-understood or appreciated, but it could be a much larger issue in the future.
Quote:
Assertion... STILL NO EVIDENCE anywhere in sight
What you're looking for is something called "wages and salary accruals" (WASCUR), which is often expressed in terms of division by GDP. So for example:
As you can see on the chart, wages have been declining in terms of GDP since the early 1970's. Since most people draw their "wealth" from wages, this has led to a growing impression of "stagnation" for many Americans.
That's a problem, because the worldview you're trying to "sell" here (that everyone gets what they economically "deserve;" that effort = prosperity, etc.) is going to be increasingly rejected by masses of people who feel as though their hard work is getting them less and less reward over time, and that shadowy external agents such as big financial firms are robbing them in some fashion.
That's not good for society, any way you look at it.
Some people bought stock with their extra money.
Some people bought houses with their extra money.
Some people bought big screen TVs, smart phones, clothes with their money.
Some people INVESTED their extra money while others SPENT their extra money.
Dividends, interest are income. Use your money to generate more money.
A paycheck is but one way to get "income".
Nobody here has ever presented any evidence that income inequality causes problems with society or with the economy.
Namibia did with their basic income experiment.
They said crime went down, education went up and the economy improved.
But they also refused to allow anyone access to the data that supported their "findings".
There are no jobs and no economic development has happened.
People are not any better off.
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.
