"Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

...but How Do You Even Begin to Solve It?"

Explore the business, economy, finance and trade aspects of human society.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#21  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 16, 2013 3:24 pm

Panderos wrote:This article should be called 'Wealth Inequality Exists' since it doesn't make the case that wealth inequality is bad.

I'm thinking about Denmark here again of course..


Yeah, I'm of the opinion that it's not the inequality that's the problem, it's the absolute welfare of the people on the bottom.

I threw the thread title and subtitle in quotes for that reason.

I do think that "attacking" inequality to the end of helping the people on the bottom is a useful way to align with people I think are wrong on the issue to an end I think we all agree is better than the status quo.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#22  Postby Jakov » Mar 16, 2013 5:13 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Panderos wrote:This article should be called 'Wealth Inequality Exists' since it doesn't make the case that wealth inequality is bad.

I'm thinking about Denmark here again of course..


Yeah, I'm of the opinion that it's not the inequality that's the problem, it's the absolute welfare of the people on the bottom.


Presumably most people disagree because they made that inequality video go viral.
Perhaps you should use some empathy to try to understand why so many people feel it's about relative standards as well as absolute.

Maybe it was only a matter of time. The wealth inequality gap has been built by some factors we do control -- like governments' implicit and explicit subsidies of global finance -- and some factors we don't control, like globalization and technology making capital owners richer while they make unskilled workers replaceable. Both sides have numbers. The 1% has money. The 99% has people. Before the top-heavy returns of globalized capitalism get too out of hand, maybe we should think about some good solutions to wealth inequality before popular resentment leads to bad ones.


Bad solutions according to whom? I think I know.
Widespread class-consciousness and open class antagonism. Strikes, sabotage, sick-ins, go-slows, sit-ins, occupations. Wages rising, profits eaten into. Yes, a very bad solution, for them.
User avatar
Jakov
 
Posts: 1949
Age: 30

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#23  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 16, 2013 5:26 pm

Jakov wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Panderos wrote:This article should be called 'Wealth Inequality Exists' since it doesn't make the case that wealth inequality is bad.

I'm thinking about Denmark here again of course..


Yeah, I'm of the opinion that it's not the inequality that's the problem, it's the absolute welfare of the people on the bottom.


Presumably most people disagree because they made that inequality video go viral.
Perhaps you should use some empathy to try to understand why so many people feel it's about relative standards as well as absolute.


I'm sure many people disagree. It just so happens that I disagree with them.

I'm not sure what empathy has to do with anything. I could just ask people, and I have.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#24  Postby kennyc » Mar 16, 2013 6:00 pm

Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#25  Postby Jakov » Mar 17, 2013 12:51 pm

There's several associated threads on this forum going back years.
We bang on about inequality all the time here..
User avatar
Jakov
 
Posts: 1949
Age: 30

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#26  Postby Panderos » Mar 17, 2013 1:23 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Panderos wrote:This article should be called 'Wealth Inequality Exists' since it doesn't make the case that wealth inequality is bad.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that it's not the inequality that's the problem, it's the absolute welfare of the people on the bottom.

Correlation doesn't mean causation and all that, but I made a couple graphs anyway. Using intentional homicide rate as a proxy for all crime and general shittiness and Gini as a measure of wealth and income inequality.

Income inequality vs intentional homicide rate

Image

Wealth inequality vs intentional homicide rate

Image

Higher inequality, wealth or income, correlates with higher homicide rate. Note the logarithmic scales on the left there. A small change in inequality could make quite a difference in homicide rate.

Now you'll probably ask what about overall wealth? Well I used GDP/capita at PPP

Image

So there is a correlation there too, (unsurprisingly richer = lower crime) arguable whether it's better or worse than the inequality indexes. I'd say it's probably a bit worse. You might wonder if there is a relationship between inequality and overall wealth which is causing the top two graphs...correlation not being causation and all that. I used income inequality since that correlated a bit better than wealth wrt homicide rate (top two graphs).

Image

And maybe there is, but it's not great. Pretty bad really.

I know your theory is that it's the wealth of the people at the bottom that matters. Perhaps I'll get round to doing a graph at some point, but data on poverty lines isn't great. Many countries apparently have nobody below the international poverty line so it's hard to compare them.

But anyway, what do you think?

Notes:
All data from wikipedia
Some country data either missing or from previous years, especially on inequality ginis.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
User avatar
Panderos
 
Posts: 2971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#27  Postby proudfootz » Mar 17, 2013 1:54 pm

mrjonno wrote:If you can save anything you arent that poor, if you have stocks in anything you arent that poor, if you worry about taxes you arent that poor.

Telling poor people to save more is just taking the piss,


Sometimes I wonder why I'm paying taxes at all - there are 'persons' in the US who earn far more and pay far less:

Million-Dollar Profits, Ten-Dollar Tax Bill
By Caitlin Lacy

The Oregon Center for Public Policy found new data showing that more than 5,000 profitable corporations operating in Oregon paid no more than $10 in corporate income tax for 2006. Among this group, 31 corporations each recorded profits of over $1 million.

OCPP policy analyst Michael Leachman emphasizes the need for the Oregon Department of Revenue to disclose the names of these corporations: “By shining light on the system, Oregonians can see which big, profitable companies are good corporate citizens and which are not.” We need to know, stresses Leachman, “Which ones are playing us for fools?”

When corporations get lower tax rates they are contributing less to the cost of public services, thereby shifting more of the burden onto individual taxpayers. The current share of income taxes collected from corporations operating in Oregon is projected to be around 6 percent during 2009 to 2011, compared to the 18.5 percent in the mid 1970’s.

Leachman notes that a larger number of corporations are paying more than the $10 minimum, but still less than the typical Oregon household. “The system has gone awry when a profitable corporation pays less in income taxes than a single mother working at a minimum wage job,” Leachman notes. “When corporations don’t pay their fair share, working families and small businesses are forced to pick up the slack”

http://clawback.org/2009/03/11/million- ... -tax-bill/


If only I were wealthy enough to buy some legislators I could have them figure out a way to force someone else to pay my share of the tax burden, too.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10971

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#28  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 17, 2013 3:03 pm

@Panderos, I don't see much to suggest my contention about people at the bottom is wrong. High inequality (wealth and income) tends to be something that occurs with a society with a lot of poor people.

To me, inequality doesn't signal a great deal on its own. The processes that generate inequality could be problematic; I think the US has a significant problem of institutions, laws, etc that essentially function to redistribute income upward. I don't mind redistribution as a means of eliminating poverty, but it seems like an extremely inefficient patch on an already problematic system, without fixing any of the underlying problems.

The patent system for example is a huge issue that hurts poor people by making everything more expensive. Rich, established business interests capture a lot of gains through this system, and benefit further by using the patents as a high barrier to entry for potential competitors (among other problematic abuses of patents).

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor without touching that system keeps the barriers to entry in place, keeps the poor-to-rich cash vacuum sucking.

...and of course, there's global inequality, which nobody wants to talk about.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#29  Postby Federico » Mar 17, 2013 3:51 pm

In view of what has been written so far under the present heading, it is interesting to peruse an article entitled
"Global rankings: Although inequality between countries is falling, inequality within countries is rising" and written by
Rohinton Medhora for the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail.
The article comments the data recently released by the doyen of global rankings, the Human Development Index, computed by the United Nations since 1990.
The 2013 Human Development Report – "The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World" – examines the profound shift in global dynamics driven by the fast-rising new powers of the developing world and its long-term implications for human development. And I quote:

"....Every country in the world where the data exist has a higher human development score today than it did in 2000, with developing countries’ scores growing faster. The gains are evenly spread across the components of the index – income, life expectancy and education. Behind the numbers lies the larger trend that also forms the theme of this year’s report, The Rise of the South. The pace of change is impressive. China and India have doubled per capita output during the past 20 years, a rate twice as fast as that during the Industrial Revolution, and covering many more people."

",...although inequality between countries is falling, inequality within countries – especially the growth success stories such as China and India – is rising."

"...Just like their counterparts in developed countries, policymakers in developing countries will increasingly be preoccupied with managing middle-class vulnerability. Their challenge will be to fight inequality, not poverty, so as to preserve political stability.

"....A varied number of models for growth and development now present themselves, and countries need no longer look to the U.S. or Western Europe alone for inspiration. Chile and South Africa have shown that it’s possible to pursue a social democratic system in the aftermath of dictatorship, while China and India present interesting contrasts in economic and political systems while delivering consistently strong economic growth."
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.(Martin Luther King Jr)
User avatar
Federico
 
Posts: 932
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#30  Postby Panderos » Mar 17, 2013 5:34 pm

Loren Michael wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]Panderos,[/b][/color] I don't see much to suggest my contention about people at the bottom is wrong. High inequality (wealth and income) tends to be something that occurs with a society with a lot of poor people.

That's why I put that last graph in there. The correlation between wealth and equality isn't particularly good. It's there, in the direction you suggest, but it's it certainly doesn't appear strong enough to account for the relationship between inequality and crime.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
User avatar
Panderos
 
Posts: 2971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#31  Postby Warren Dew » Mar 18, 2013 5:30 am

Loren Michael wrote:Two writers at The Atlantic talk about this. Derek Thompson:

Rich people have more money. More money tends to lead to bigger properties, fatter savings, and better access to capital markets. As a result, the top 1% of the country controls between 40 and 50 percent of the total wealth from stocks and bonds. What's more, the very very richest people tend to be lawyers, doctors, and executives, especially in finance, with equity in their firms and companies. And that, right there, represents the overwhelming source of high wealth (as opposed to high income) at the tippy top: It comes from stocks, from real estate, and from business equity.

Poorer people save much less, don't have much in the way of a stock portfolio, and (somewhat by definition) aren't owners or partners in rich private firms. Instead, they might own homes. But homes, as we've seen, aren't always the steadiest investment. All of that explains why the share of total household wealth, which has fallen at the bottom thanks to the housing bust, is accumulating at the top 1 percent.


[...]

The two easiest ways to think about reducing wealth inequality are (a) building up the bottom and (b) cutting down the top. These aren't equally sensible approaches, they're just the two most obvious. From the bottom, if we found ways to make poor and middle class families save more, they could invest that money in assets that got more valuable over time, and this would increase their wealth. From the top, one extreme solution beyond raising taxes would be to find ways to cap income and compensation...

Noah Smith says wealth inequality should be fixed by teaching Americans to be cheaper in their habits:

...A lot of that wealth inequality is actually age, not class. Young people tend to have a lot of debt and not much savings, meaning they have negative wealth (a prime example being yours truly). Also, these statistics don't include things like entitlements, or human capital (the value of your skills and education). So Americans aren't quite as unequal as the video makes out. But they are still very, very unequal.

[...]

...there are reasons to believe that redistribution can't fix all of the problem, or even most of it. If you do the math, you discover that in the long run, income levels and initial wealth (factors 1 and 2 from above) are not the main determinants of wealth. They are dwarfed by factors 3 and 4 -- savings rates and rates of return. The most potent way to get more wealth to the poor and middle-class is to get these people to save more of their income, and to invest in assets with higher average rates of return.

As I mentioned, income redistribution helps these things a bit, but it doesn't account for the whole difference. The rich probably save more than the poor for many more reasons besides the simple fact that they're rich. In fact, being willing to save more is probably a big part of how the rich got rich in the first place. "Cheap" is an insult, but being cheap is how you get rich. If you consume everything you earn, your consumption will be higher today, but lower twenty years down the road; in our consumption-focused society, a lot of people are caught in this trap. And government can and should help them get out.

Wealth inequality is likely the biggest problem of our time. Unfortunately, these quotes, like most of the press, completely misanalyze the problem. The problem is not doctors or most lawyers, who are really just upper middle class. The problem is people who are not only in the top 1%, but in the top 0.01% or above - the multibillionaires.

Once you recognize that, you realize why simply admonishing the poor to "save more" won't work. Once you have ten billion or so, you can buy legislation and swing special deals that give you rates of return that the typical doctors and lawyers, investing their retirement money in mutual funds, can't match. Just look at Buffett's investment in Goldman Sachs, where Sachs issued a special class of preferred stock for Buffett's investment, plus gave him warrants for common stock, which in toto netted him more than a 70% return in less than 3 years. No mere millionaire can regularly match that kind of rate of return, let alone a poor person.

But when you have that kind of money, magazines like the Atlantic fawn all over you in the hopes that you'll throw a bone towards their pet projects, as in http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ie/273263/ . Meanwhile, they're more than happy to run interference for you by blaming "doctors and lawyers" instead of the billionaires and huge corporations that are the problem.

The fix? Historically, it is typically revolution or war destroying the wealth of the super rich and the ordinary folk alike. Laws to broaden the holding of wealth - for example, privileging dividends over capital gains to prevent corporations from growing too large, and zealous antitrust enforcement - along with, perhaps, laws requiring that sweetheart deals such as that negotiated by Buffett with Sachs be open to public participation - could theoretically do it as well, but the super rich are likely too politically influential to allow those things to happen.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 60
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#32  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 20, 2013 3:29 am

Panderos wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b][color=#CC0000][b]Panderos,[/b][/color][/b][/color] I don't see much to suggest my contention about people at the bottom is wrong. High inequality (wealth and income) tends to be something that occurs with a society with a lot of poor people.

That's why I put that last graph in there. The correlation between wealth and equality isn't particularly good. It's there, in the direction you suggest, but it's it certainly doesn't appear strong enough to account for the relationship between inequality and crime.

That last graph is income and equality, isn't it?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#33  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 20, 2013 3:43 am

Warren Dew wrote:Wealth inequality is likely the biggest problem of our time.


Why do you believe this to be the case?

My view is that wealth inequality is a problem only insofar as the people on the bottom are in a fucked situation that they can't get out of.

Unfortunately, these quotes, like most of the press, completely misanalyze the problem. The problem is not doctors or most lawyers, who are really just upper middle class. The problem is people who are not only in the top 1%, but in the top 0.01% or above - the multibillionaires.

Once you recognize that, you realize why simply admonishing the poor to "save more" won't work. Once you have ten billion or so, you can buy legislation and swing special deals that give you rates of return that the typical doctors and lawyers, investing their retirement money in mutual funds, can't match. Just look at Buffett's investment in Goldman Sachs, where Sachs issued a special class of preferred stock for Buffett's investment, plus gave him warrants for common stock, which in toto netted him more than a 70% return in less than 3 years. No mere millionaire can regularly match that kind of rate of return, let alone a poor person.

But when you have that kind of money, magazines like the Atlantic fawn all over you in the hopes that you'll throw a bone towards their pet projects, as in http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ie/273263/ . Meanwhile, they're more than happy to run interference for you by blaming "doctors and lawyers" instead of the billionaires and huge corporations that are the problem.


I tend to view the influence of the unbelievably wealthy as being similar to any particularly powerful special interest. The problems that lead to wealth inequality absolutely include doctors and lawyers; they're as likely to band together to put protections on their positions as people at the top are able to act in near-unilateral manners to do the same.

I do think that media ownership has been a problem in recent years - a narrow band of business interests owning large swaths of the media ecosystem - but I think that's going away as people who watch TV for their news die their demographic death, and people cut their cords more and more.

Why exactly do you think the admonition to "save more" won't work? Won't work to do what?

The fix? Historically, it is typically revolution or war destroying the wealth of the super rich and the ordinary folk alike. Laws to broaden the holding of wealth - for example, privileging dividends over capital gains to prevent corporations from growing too large, and zealous antitrust enforcement - along with, perhaps, laws requiring that sweetheart deals such as that negotiated by Buffett with Sachs be open to public participation - could theoretically do it as well, but the super rich are likely too politically influential to allow those things to happen.


I tend to agree with those, but I prefer more extensive free market reforms for people in the middle and more extensive welfare for people at the bottom.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#34  Postby Panderos » Mar 20, 2013 1:16 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Panderos wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I don't see much to suggest my contention about people at the bottom is wrong. High inequality (wealth and income) tends to be something that occurs with a society with a lot of poor people.

That's why I put that last graph in there. The correlation between wealth and equality isn't particularly good. It's there, in the direction you suggest, but it's it certainly doesn't appear strong enough to account for the relationship between inequality and crime.

That last graph is income and equality, isn't it?

Hmm yes true, I've been taking GDP as a measure of a nation's wealth but I guess it's not that, it's income isn't it? Nonetheless I think it's probably a reasonable measure of how well off a country is - how many poor people there are (%). That graph shows that being a poor country only correlates a bit with being more unequal. Not enough to explain the comparatively stronger correlation of inequality and crime.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
User avatar
Panderos
 
Posts: 2971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#35  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 20, 2013 1:59 pm

@Panderos I don't agree with everything this guy says, but I do think he has some decent ideas/complaints about "income".

Regarding crime, I think there are too many variables present at the country level. In a country, you'll find crime goes hand-in-hand with impoverished areas, and particularly violent crime.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#36  Postby Warren Dew » Mar 25, 2013 2:22 am

Loren Michael wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:Wealth inequality is likely the biggest problem of our time.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

Because the last time wealth concentration reached current levels - levels where capital control became an oligopoly instead of a free market - we had a world war. And this time around, we have nuclear weapons.

My view is that wealth inequality is a problem only insofar as the people on the bottom are in a fucked situation that they can't get out of.

If that were true, there would be no need to worry, since the people at the bottom in industrialized countries are actually pretty well off.

In fact, the problem with extreme concentration of wealth is that it constitutes a capital oligopoly, resulting in capital investment inefficiently based on personal concerns and political connections, instead of efficiently based on a free market. That throttles economic growth.

I tend to view the influence of the unbelievably wealthy as being similar to any particularly powerful special interest. The problems that lead to wealth inequality absolutely include doctors and lawyers; they're as likely to band together to put protections on their positions as people at the top are able to act in near-unilateral manners to do the same.

That must be why Goldman gave such cushy investment terms to millions of doctors and lawyers banding together.

Except, it didn't.

But hey, stick with what the billionaires want you to believe.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 60
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#37  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 25, 2013 3:24 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:Wealth inequality is likely the biggest problem of our time.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

Because the last time wealth concentration reached current levels - levels where capital control became an oligopoly instead of a free market - we had a world war. And this time around, we have nuclear weapons.


If you have some arguments for causal factors there, I'd be totally willing to look at it. Pointing out correlations isn't itself evidence for much.

My view is that wealth inequality is a problem only insofar as the people on the bottom are in a fucked situation that they can't get out of.

If that were true, there would be no need to worry, since the people at the bottom in industrialized countries are actually pretty well off.


If what were true? "Actually pretty well off" meaning relative to the global poor, they're well off. I don't think that's satisfying.

In fact, the problem with extreme concentration of wealth is that it constitutes a capital oligopoly, resulting in capital investment inefficiently based on personal concerns and political connections, instead of efficiently based on a free market. That throttles economic growth.

I tend to view the influence of the unbelievably wealthy as being similar to any particularly powerful special interest. The problems that lead to wealth inequality absolutely include doctors and lawyers; they're as likely to band together to put protections on their positions as people at the top are able to act in near-unilateral manners to do the same.

That must be why Goldman gave such cushy investment terms to millions of doctors and lawyers banding together.

Except, it didn't.


I said doctors and lawyers are as likely to put protections on their positions as the people on the top. I did not say that people on the top would be reaching down to lend a hand. If you're not interested in at least the veneer of an honest accounting of what is being said, I'm happy to point it out.

Regulatory barriers put in place by doctors to prevent the work that nurses can do do funnel work to (highly-paid) doctors redirects money away from people in lower positions, both nurses (who miss out on the opportunity) and the consumers (who pay higher fees for the more restricted services).

Lawyers do the same. By most accounting, there are too many lawyers in America, but the cost of legal services remains high. This is because of self-imposed legal restrictions made by establishment lawyers that severely restricts who can do what, and how. Innovation is actively resisted in the legal profession, at least to the extent that such innovation would shake up who is on top.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#38  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Mar 25, 2013 3:35 am

Jacquitoo wrote:The cheaper by the dozen principle only works once you get ahead, but bankers can be bastards and make it tough for many. Has anyone seen "Margin Call?"

Denmark is a bit of an exception to the rule. Only people who have not known privation would say that the current situation of wealth inequality is acceptable given the disastrous differences between the rich and poor in the world globally. The uneven distribution of wealth in the U.S. is a well known fact and not something they should be proud of. There are often hidden assumptions in their mainstream ideology that tend to blame the poor for not working hard enough in "getting ahead" or some such BS.

Glad to see an honest, if tough and uncomfortable personal anecdote from Will. I have known homelessness as a small child (5-6) and chose homelessness as an adolescent (16). Sitting on concrete seemed softer and easier than dealing with my family's irrationality. Though I loved them and had contributed to family income by selling cards in Sydney subways at 8, sewing PJs at 12 and working in shops etc from 13, did not know about child exploitation laws and as had tall genes always looked older. There were limits to what I could do. I have never taken much for granted. I learned a lot by traveling through 3rd world countries to stick to basics and not worry about what others in my western affluent country were in to. My old Indian maths teacher's "We must always go back to first principles" still echoes in my head and helped a lot more than the Ten Commandments ever did. Personal progress can be slow. Sometimes it takes a bloody long time for things to turn around. So dont give up (My dad died when I was 11.)

Secularism and government intervention and redistribution seems to be an answer for some and the debate still rages on. I worked in 2 federal government departments; Social Security and Tax and got a sense of the different issues on both sides of that fence.

Will's story touches on some of the reasons why people gather into churches: for that little bit extra; inclusion, camaraderie, or practical and material support. Church agencies were often foundational for social justice models in governmental contexts. I have also been the recipient of church charity and tried to give back in that arena. My life seems defined by sitting on the fence ... oh-oh.

The situation will never be "solved" because we are human, but we still have to grapple with it.

Interestingly, it was solved in the US for a period, say between about 1950 and 2000 when all the provisions of FDR's "New Deal" were in place and labor unions were strong. That has to be the golden era of income "equality" in America.

But something funny happened on the way to the new millennium, much of the New Deal was repealed, unions were bashed practically out of existance, and the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999 paved the way for the enormous corporate, big bank, and Wall Street frauds that eventually led to an almost complete economic collapse in 2008 and put some 20 million Americans out of work.

But meanwhile, it also paved the way for the one per cent to get richer, and richer, and richer until they became obscenely rich and held most of the weath in the country, while middle class wages declined and continued to decline and continue to decline even today. Imagine, the Federal minimum wage in America stands at $7.25 an hour, when by all accounts and according to recently elected Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), it should be at $22.00 an hour if it had kept pace with gains in productivity.over the decade or so since it was set at $7.25.

Is the Congress going to act on this and lift the rate to even $10 or $12? Not if the Republicans have their way, and they will.

So you see income inequaity was solved at one time, at least in America, but then fraudulent politicians allow corporate interests to hijack the government and change all the rules, and today we see the result, which is a horrifyingly skewed distribution of income.

I have to laugh at the notion of middle and lower class Americans saving money when they are bombarded daily (and nightly) by a tsunami of advertising promoting them to buy everything under the sun, and then go out to dinner. That blizzard of advertising costs $billions of dollars and is psychologically devious and almost irrresistable. The idea that middle and lower class Americans will save in the face of this is a very bad joke, they won't and they don't. It's much more important for them to keep up with the Jones's, as they nearly all strive to do.

Income inequaliity won't be corrected until the economic rules of the game have been rolled back to what they were in 1970, and nobody in their right mind would consierr that to even be a remote possibility. America is fast becomeing a third world country and when it does actually become that it will stay that, as long as it lasts, which likely won't be very long.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#39  Postby Warren Dew » Mar 25, 2013 4:25 am

Loren Michael wrote:I said doctors and lawyers are as likely to put protections on their positions as the people on the top.

And I demonstrated that was not the case. But I see you've quit reading, so I'll quit writing.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 60
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: "Wealth Inequality Is a Problem...

#40  Postby Loren Michael » Mar 25, 2013 4:41 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I said doctors and lawyers are as likely to put protections on their positions as the people on the top.

And I demonstrated that was not the case. But I see you've quit reading, so I'll quit writing.

...I id not say that people on the top would be reaching down to lend a hand, which is the strawman you addressed. The examples of doctors/nurses and how lawyers guard their profession show that it is the case that doctors and lawyers put protections on their positions.

...but I also said that if you're not interested in at least the veneer of an honest accounting of what is being said, I'm happy to point it out. So here we are again.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Economics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest