Slashdot Mirror
Does Income Inequality Matter?
theodp is concerned about the following: "Alarmed by Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein's record-setting $53M bonus, Charles Wheelan (aka The Naked Economist) argues that income inequality matters. Wheelan notes that the Gini Coefficient (a measure of income inequality) for the U.S. has been moving away from countries like Japan and Sweden and closer to that of Brazil, where the murder rate is 5X that of NYC and crime is materially impacting GDP."
This is true, in America and other places with high income inequality. It doesn't seem to be true in really poor countries, where even starving people seem to stick together. Why do you suppose that is?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"If the gap between rich and poor gets too large, and if those at the bottom feel they have no meaningful route to the riches at the top, then the fabric of society will fray, or even come unraveled entirely."
What the author chooses to ignore is that the average criminal is too lazy, dumb, and foolish to know how to create income honestly. Along with that, these people continue to churn out more kids with no moral standards who perpetuate this. The wise know better and are not criminals. In a free society, this is normal.
The author also exlcuded the fact that market forces determine how much you make. If you have something to offer someone in the lines of goods and services, and, they want those, they will pay you. It is truly that simple. You earn what you are worth.
The community I live in has almost no crime. Why? The only crime we have is a rare murder (drug related) and occasion theft (kids, those that lack wisdom). My community is mostly made up of people who provide value to society.
Mod points are of little value, give them to me, I don't need them.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
...increasing income inequality is dangerous.
Also, danger is a part of life.
Income inequality is not bad, as long as it doesn't result from force. "Fixing" it by having government redistribute wealth at gunpoint is the real travesty.
Remember government == force when you get down to it. So big-government liberals (and conservatives) are violent people.
[quote]There are -some- poor folks who live off the charity of others, and there are -some- rich people who live off their connections.[/quote]
Indeed. That doesn't mean a thing. I give my charity to people who deserve it because they are trying to make their life better, like the 17 YO girl at my daughter's school who doesn't get enough to eat, because her parents either cannot or will not buy food. I give to her, rather than the "will (not) work for food" bums on the corner, because she is trying to do better, and isn't afraid to work hard to get a better life. She's a good kid that needs a chance at life.
It makes me feel good knowing that it isn't wasted, and actually is truly appreciated. She doesn't know who gives her the food, all she knows is that the food is waiting for her at school when she gets there.
"there is an extremely large group of hard working middle class folks propping up the economy here, if you really worked hard and came from the background you say you did, you would know that."
Indeed I do. However there is a large underclass of people who believe that life entitles them to 2 tvs, a microwave, nike shoes, xbox and a Nintendo, but don't feel like working for them. I don't own a Wii, or an Xbox or whatever. My shoes are $20 sneekers. My income last year was $40k, and I am debt free (LITERALLY). I don't own a credit card, make payments on cars or anything else. I have money set aside for retirement. I live in California and have my whole life.
I am unique among my peers. I don't have a bunch of stuff, and live a plain life. It is something I wouldn't trade for anything. WHY? Because I am satisfied with what I have, and don't compare myself to the Jones next door.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
However - the (anecdotal) evidence you provide fails to support your contention. You don't take into account (among many other things) the cultural differences between Asia and the West.
Here's where those cultural differences come into play. First, in the West there has been a concerted (and almost completely sucessful) effort to stamp out kidnapping for ransom. The penalties are steep, and typically the top echelons of the police get involved. Secondly, in the West - families don't typically cooperate with the kidnappers. They go to and cooperate with law enforcement authorities. Thirdly, when the crime of kidnapping for ransom involves children - it invokes the 'protect the children' meme that appears much stronger in the West than in Asia. (For example, you hear tales of children in Asia being sold into chattel bondage, often sexual. Such tales are noticeable by their near complete absence in the West.)
Again, we see the same failure of logic - as the two items [increased costs of staples] and [increasing wage disparity] are only weakly connected, if at all.
I'd rate your post +5, pandering to stereotypes, +5 pandering to the Slashdot biases, -5 for logic, -5 for excess rhetoric.
"These people are fat because they can't afford nutritious food like fresh fruits & vegetables. I'd highly recommend a visit to the Southeast section of Washington, DC at some point."
....
I lived in LA, and saw the gettos of South Central. I saw the catch-22 of what you speak of. The problem isn't that they cannot afford it, it is that people cannot afford to sell it in some of those neighborhoods for the prices you find the same thing in the suburbs.
Crime affects everyone, and stealing, murder and destruction raise the prices for everyone. Which according to the article causes people to steal, murder and riot, which raises the cost and therefore the prices
That is why it is called a vicious circle. In the Rodney King riots, the same community that was "disenfranchised" was the same community that they destroyed. Beverly Hills and Arcadia weren't affected, South Central and Watts were. That is insane, if you ask me.
If people really wanted nice houses, nice neighborhoods nice communities, they would have them, even if poor. I've seen the nice houses in South Central, and the community hates them, and continues to try to destroy them. WHY???
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"All of this happening while the Execs of my corporation are reaping massive bonuses, getting raises without regard to the stagnation of wages in the ranks"
So, get another job. You signed up for that job, in that company. Think you can do better elsewhere, then leave. Not as easy as it sounds? Sounds like you have made a choice then. So quit complaining about the choice you've made.
I don't work for BIGCO, Inc, for precisely this reason. I also don't have to worry about the pension plan being gutted, or the execs making gross salaries. I'm not rich, but neither am I complaining about "unfairness" or "inequity" in the system.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Corporatist Ethics:
... everyone, because institutions are not human have no feelings, human-rights, cannot think, never find a better way, but humans do all that important stuff and more. Institutions are just golems performing the intents and reflecting the nature of the people controlling the monsters.
.... ... all gone.
... I made a mistake." It is all really very dark-humor funny, very pitiful, but very vary funny in many delusional self-centric cosmic ways.
Income inequality is more Devastating to poor folks.
Income inequality is less Important to ignorant exploited/oppressed folks.
Income inequality is more Essential to wealthy folks.
Income inequality is less Significant to schizoid dogmatic/plutocratic folks.
Ignorant-beliefs or truth-spin
Institutions of businesses, governments, or religions have thoughts.
Institutions of businesses, governments, or religions have civil liberties.
Institutions of businesses, governments, or religions have life and happiness
Institutions of businesses, governments, or religions have a better way.
All the above dehumanizes US, EU
Income inequality does greatly benefit the clueless and valueless few by abuse and subjugation of most others. Sounds like aristocratic feudalist-industrialism more than democratic capitalist meritocracy.
Oh well; the more things change, the more shit stays the same for US, EU
Evolution is too slow; So, until the species is extinct expect status-quo sustainment. Insipidness or greed of businesses, government, or religious leaders will be the death of all our descendants eventually including their own
As a god; might say, "too hell with all y'all
!HAVEFUN! !HAVEFUN! for we are all dead "tomorrow, tomorrow the sun will come out tomorrow," but eventually without humans or dinosaurs [THANK GOD!].
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
You're an idiot.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Well, you're right. But if inheretance doesn't exist (or is severely limited), then there's little point for the parents to work hard to build up an inheratance in the first place.
First I never said we should do away with inheritance, merely tax it to diminishing returns so people have to work harder to provide more. Second this lack of motivation is offset by the increased motivation of their heirs since they must now work for a living and contribute to society. Third, even if you can't give your kids more than a million bucks, you can still spend it on other things, like a new yacht or funding an art museum in your name. I don't think the lack of something to do with their money will stop many from being acquisitive after a lifetime of doing just that.
My parents, for example, are busting their butts so that my siblings and I can have a nice little nut when they die.
How many millions will each of your siblings inherit? If it is under 10, then you're not in the ultra rich class I'm talking about.
And at the same time, there's an ethics piece. Is it ethical to tell somebody that they cannot give their hard earned money to their kids, if they so choose? I'm not so sure that it is...
Ethically, yes it is fair to promote equality through these taxes. You have to think of the source of inequality. Is it ethical for all african americans to be poor forever because of unethical things done to them in the past? Te key to making money is to have money. Consolidated wealth leads to more consolidation. Since we've never had a complete reset where every person was given equal amounts of wealth and then a string of ethical behavior since that time, it is fair to assume all wealth was gathered, at some point, via unethical behavior. No child is entitled to the wealth gathered by another and no person has the right to anything after they are dead.