What’s behind inequality?

Mircea · Mar 11, 2019

Lafayette said:
The "people" have a fundamental right to unionize!

They also have a fundamental to be free of such associations.

Still waiting for you to show us which Law, Theory or Corollary of Economics support your claims.

Lafayette · Mar 12, 2019

Mircea said:
They also have a fundamental to be free of such associations.

Still waiting for you to show us which Law, Theory or Corollary of Economics support your claims.

OK, for your edification, from a report on economic analysis of union participation, done at Berkeley (UofCal) here:

What Do Unions Do? recognizes that there is no consensus on the social benefits of the equalizing effects of unions on the distribution of income. It states that “For readers to whom greater inequality is a plus, what do unions do here is definitely good. For readers to whom greater equalization of income is undesirable, what unions do is definitely bad”.

On balance, however, [the answer to the question] What Do Unions Do? clearly sides with those who think that unless the equalizing effects of unions result in large costs due to allocative inefficiencies, what unions do here is socially good. Although we do not assess the impacts of unions on resource allocation and economic performance, we share the view that the consequences of unions for wage inequality are beneficial from a social point of view.

The last paragraph of What Do Unions Do? starts with a dire warning: “All told, if our research findings are correct, the ongoing decline in private sector unionism – a development unique to the United States among developed countries – deserves serious public attention as being socially undesirable.” By linking the decline in unionism to the dramatic increase in wage inequality in the United States since the 1970s, our research strongly confirms that the ongoing decline in private sector unionism indeed had socially undesirable consequences.

So, yes, contrary to your thinking, evidence shows that unions do good towards minimizing Income Disparity "at the level for which the above research has been done".

Which does not even address the Income Disparity of the American nation as a whole, which is one of the worst of any so-called "developed economy"*.

America's problem is clearly that NOT ENOUGH of the economy is unionized and were that the case wages would be not only better but would have no impact whatsoever on the unemployment rate ...

*A developed economy (in my view) is one where the work of all-its-constituents show a pattern of higher wages for work that requires more talent (for which a post-secondary education is necessary). The above study cited was done at a time when "Manufacturing" was still a sizable component of GDP. That is no longer the case. Barely 12% of the US workforce is now employed there. So, where are the jobs to come from? The Information Age that is upon us tells us the answer, and it means a much higher level of educational attainment will be necessary to have a "sufficiently good" income nowadays.

James972 · Mar 12, 2019

Lafayette said:
, evidence shows that unions do good towards minimizing Income Disparity "at the level for which the above research has been done".

this is true, unions drove entire industries off-shore leaving millions unemployed or working at Walmart for minimum wage.

Lafayette · Mar 13, 2019

What if...? said:
Because taking everything some.could led to life becoming untenable for the masses and they are fforced to stop. Or they spend too much either trying to get somebody else's land and peasants or defending from somebody trying to get theirs.

A bit archaic that comment. We are not in the latter part of the 19th century and you are not Karl Marx.

We are NOT LOOKING for socialism as those of the 19th century preached it. In practice, it has been shown to NOT FUNCTION ADEQUATELY.

So, what next?

Good question, and the answer was found in a place far more physically closer to the original Communism. That is, Europe. And it goes like this: Social Democracy - the definition of which, encapsulated, looks like this:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist economy.

The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions

Note the specific mention of "capitalist economy". What most people will read from that conjunction of words is "immoral" because from the very beginning landed-gentry owned the land upon which everybody else worked. And, given the arrival of the Industrial Age, it was also this same group (mostly newcomers) who owned the means of production.

If one reads the history of Great American Fortunes*, they will find that most generated their millions during the Industrial Revolution. And, boyz-'n-girlz, we are way beyond the Industrial Revolution! We are well into the Information Age, which has changed nothing - except to add a few more names to the Top-10 list below.

Yes, if one looks at who is making the mega-billions today, it is a sad repeat of the Industrial Age. BigBigMUNEY is in the hands of a select few! Namely these here on Forbes' list: The Full List Of Every American Billionaire 2016 - of which the top-ten:

1. Bill Gates
Net Worth: $75 B
Source of wealth: Microsoft

2. Amancio Ortega
Net Worth: $67 B
Source of wealth: Zara

3. Warren Buffett
Net Worth: $60.8 B
Source of wealth: Berkshire Hathaway

4. Carlos Slim Helu
Net Worth: $50 B
Source of wealth: telecom

5. Jeff Bezos
Net Worth: $45.2 B
Source of wealth: Amazon.com

6. Mark Zuckerberg
Net Worth: $44.6 B
Source of wealth: Facebook

7. Larry Ellison
Net Worth: $43.6 B
Source of wealth: Oracle

8. Michael Bloomberg
Net Worth: $40 B
Source of wealth: Bloomberg LP

9. Charles Koch
Net Worth: $39.6 B
Source of wealth: diversified

10. David Koch
Net Worth: $39.6 B
Source of wealth: diversified

My Point: Does a nation need a bunch of billionaires in a day-and-age when 14% of its population is eking out a living below the Poverty Threshold ($25K a year income)? That makes for about 45 million American men, women and children ...

*The history of Great Fortunes actually starts with the land-grands of the British king in the 18th century. Why do you think Pennsylvania is constructed of William "Penn" and "sylvania" meaning forest in latin. America's history of Great Fortunes has been all downhill ever since because the US will not enact either higher Income Taxation or near-confiscatory Death Taxation.

James972 · Mar 13, 2019

Lafayette said:
Good question, and the answer was found in a place far more physically closer to the original Communism. That is, Europe..

Europe lives at 50% USA GDP so is worst answer possible. France is a liberals wet dream but yellow vests riot in the streets every weekend because poor cant make ends meet despite confiscatory taxes. THey live like Arkansas our poorest state

What if...? · Mar 13, 2019

Lafayette said:
A bit archaic that comment. We are not in the latter part of the 19th century and you are not Karl Marx.

We are NOT LOOKING for socialism as those of the 19th century preached it. In practice, it has been shown to NOT FUNCTION ADEQUATELY.

So, what next?

Good question, and the answer was found in a place far more physically closer to the original Communism. That is, Europe. And it goes like this: Social Democracy - the definition of which, encapsulated, looks like this:

Note the specific mention of "capitalist economy". What most people will read from that conjunction of words is "immoral" because from the very beginning landed-gentry owned the land upon which everybody else worked. And, given the arrival of the Industrial Age, it was also this same group (mostly newcomers) who owned the means of production.

If one reads the history of Great American Fortunes*, they will find that most generated their millions during the Industrial Revolution. And, boyz-'n-girlz, we are way beyond the Industrial Revolution! We are well into the Information Age, which has changed nothing - except to add a few more names to the Top-10 list below.

Yes, if one looks at who is making the mega-billions today, it is a sad repeat of the Industrial Age. BigBigMUNEY is in the hands of a select few! Namely these here on Forbes' list: The Full List Of Every American Billionaire 2016 - of which the top-ten:

My Point: Does a nation need a bunch of billionaires in a day-and-age when 14% of its population is eking out a living below the Poverty Threshold ($25K a year income)? That makes for about 45 million American men, women and children ...

*The history of Great Fortunes actually starts with the land-grands of the British king in the 18th century. Why do you think Pennsylvania is constructed of William "Penn" and "sylvania" meaning forest in latin. America's history of Great Fortunes has been all downhill ever since because the US will not enact either higher Income Taxation or near-confiscatory Death Taxation.

I was speaking more to human behavior.

Social species seek status in the group. Status confers better access to resources. The member of any species with the best access to resources is the most likely to reproduce.

Pro-survival behavioral are rewarded with pleasurable neurochemicals. These chemicals are addictive. Its how instincts manifest. A cat chases a string because it feels good. It feels good because it Honda his skills and improves his chances of reproducing.

While we were wandering around, hunting and gathering, personal relationships and the simple fact we were all apex predators kept these behaviors in check.

Then we settled down. And before long it became necessary to lock up and dole out the food. This created wage labor, the management class and full time armed guards/soldiers. And the earlier mentioned checks broke down. You could no longer just say "screw you" when somebody got too greedy, too power hungry.

Ever since we have repeated a cycle. Those who hunger for status/power feed that Jones until their actions make life untenable for the masses and are forced to stop, or expend all their treasure trying to take someone else's dirt/peasants or defending from same. And the society collapses.

So it isn't ideology and I don't even know how we would go about addressing it.

We're all driven by our hindbrains to climb the ladder. We have also evolved to this "new" paradigm. That change in the way we live put more evolutionary pressure on us than we had seen for millennia.

I call this "maladaptation to the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle".

It does answer the question of why someone who already has more money than they could spend living is doing everything they can think of to get more, even when they know doing so means somebody else gets less.

JustHanging · Mar 13, 2019

James972 said:
No mystery at all. Wages are booming in China where liberals sent all our jobs,

Dang, liberals control every university and college, and now they also control every big business that sends jobs offshore? Seriously..."liberals"?

but they now have a solution: tear down the immoral wall and let another 30 million illegals in to compete against American workers for the remaining jobs!!

Yeah, sadly your typical Trump supporter can't compete with those people. They're smarter, faster, and harder working. No wonder Trump's base is willing to do anything to prevent the competition, they almost always lose.

James972 · Mar 13, 2019

JustHanging said:
Dang, liberals control every university and college, and now they also control every big business that sends jobs offshore? Seriously..."liberals"?

no, no!! liberal policies sent our jobs to China: taxes ,regulations, trade deals, unions, deficits. And lets not forget 30 million illegals who took remaining jobs and bid down wages still further. And lets not forget the wall is now an immorality so we can expect another 30 million illegals to bid down wages still further. Do you understand??

James972 · Mar 13, 2019

JustHanging said:
Yeah, sadly your typical Trump supporter can't compete with those people.

Nancy Pelosi said Democrats would never again lose the working class who had always been the base of the Democratic party. Cool to see you're so contemptuous of the Democratic base most of whom still voted for Democrats.

“This is not just on Nancy Pelosi,” said Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, who is supporting her. “Our entire party has to figure out how we appeal to everybody, how we reconnect with the working class.”

James972 · Mar 13, 2019

What if...? said:
It does answer the question of why someone who already has more money than they could spend living is doing everything they can think of to get more, even when they know doing so means somebody else gets less.

A child would know its not zero sum game! Did your handlers tell you to say that or do you have evidence to support it?

Lafayette · Mar 14, 2019

What if...? said:
So it isn't ideology and I don't even know how we would go about addressing it. We're all driven by our hindbrains to climb the ladder.

Ideology - "Definition of ideology
1a : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
1b : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
1c : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2 : visionary theorizing"

As I accept the above definition of "ideology" I also think that our behaviour is fashioned by what we believe.

We like/love to blame someone/anyone else when the "fit hits the shan", but in fact we caused such to happen economically by our own ravenous and collective behaviour. And until we come to grips with the foundational principles by which our behaviour is fashioned, we shall continue to do so. That is, the fit will continue to hit the shan!

It's human nature at present to buy, buy, buy whilst the buying is good. Which fires Market Demand, which gets out of hand, which ignites inflation, which finally kills economic growth. And when unemployment explodes we all rush for cover - meaning, as with the Great Recession - the poorest are hit the hardest with unemployment and the rich simply curtail somewhat their spending. (But not that much.)

Methinks ...

What if...? · Mar 14, 2019

Lafayette said:
Ideology - "Definition of ideology
1a : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
1b : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
1c : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2 : visionary theorizing"

As I accept the above definition of "ideology" I also think that our behaviour is fashioned by what we believe.

We like/love to blame someone/anyone else when the "fit hits the shan", but in fact we caused such to happen economically by our own ravenous and collective behaviour. And until we come to grips with the foundational principles by which our behaviour is fashioned, we shall continue to do so. That is, the fit will continue to hit the shan!

It's human nature at present to buy, buy, buy whilst the buying is good. Which fires Market Demand, which gets out of hand, which ignites inflation, which finally kills economic growth. And when unemployment explodes we all rush for cover - meaning, as with the Great Recession - the poorest are hit the hardest with unemployment and the rich simply curtail somewhat their spending. (But not that much.)

Methinks ...

I'm talking more about evolutionary psychology than current events/constructs.

In my view current ideologies should have copyright or trademarks on them as they are products of an industry, not organic in origin.

The embodiment of the saying "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".

James972 · Mar 14, 2019

Lafayette said:
It's human nature at present to buy, buy, buy whilst the buying is good. Which fires Market Demand, which gets out of hand, .

It only got out of hand because liberal govt had 84 programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. 1+1=2

Lafayette · Mar 15, 2019

SOCIAL THOUGHT IN AMERICA

What if...? said:
I'm talking more about evolutionary psychology than current events/constructs. In my view current ideologies should have copyright or trademarks on them as they are products of an industry, not organic in origin.

The embodiment of the saying "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".

Very wrong to my mind.

There is no such thing as Social Thought (compared to the Europe Union where it exists in the political framework) in America; and the lack of it does not mean whatever exists in the matter is the produce of "industry". Trademarks are not the embodiment of Social Thinking. They are just a ruse to entice/motivate consumers.

The Dems don't even dare to use the word "social" (except in the concept of a "church social"!) Such thinking for the most part is European in nature. And in practice, the European Union is a Social Democracy (as the definition of term defines it).

All that the US has contributed to furthering social-thinking is WW2 when it destroyed the Nazis. How and why they were able to call their party by the name of National Socialists is an aberration of history.

In the US there is a lot of ballyhoo at present in reaction to the Replicant's usurpation of political power over the past two decades. But most of the animosity recently is triggered by the fact that the Dems won the election but not the presidency! Because of America's historically faulty employment of the Electoral-College manipulation of the popular-vote!

MY POINT
As a Social Democracy the US has a long, long road to haul. The reasons are patently obvious:
*The fact that it was the American electorate that allowed the Replicants to attempt to take down Obamacare, when healthcare is the prime-factor determining personal longevity (which is in the decline in the US)!
*We yanks have only ourselves to blame - anyone with the narcissistic nature of a Donald Dork should have lost the popular-vote election not by 2% but 20%.
*And he still has an approval rating of around 40%? What in heaven's name did he do to enjoy that rating? Stop the economy for nearly a month ... ?

Lafayette · Mar 15, 2019

What if...? said:
I'm talking more about evolutionary psychology than current events/constructs.

In my view current ideologies should have copyright or trademarks on them as they are products of an industry, not organic in origin.

The embodiment of the saying "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".

But that is not the point of the debate, I suggest.

Why should convincing anybody be the ultimate assessment of political thinking? THAT is the point I was trying to make when I mentioned Hitler. He had convinced the entire German nation that he was right. (And German Jews paid the price of his inanity with their lives.)

He was the embodiment of a national political thinking that was sick, sick, sick - and 40% of Americans think Donald Dork is doing a Great Job because he shuts down a government to show Americans he's serious about building a wall that most people think is unnecessary*? (See here from Pew Research.)

Just where does that sort of idiocy stop in a PotUS ... ?

*As I have mentioned multiple times here: The US can solve its "migration problem" if it (1) adopts a national Identity Card, and (2) fines considerably all companies that hire illegal workers (and deports all) who are working but have no national Identity Card or an authenticated Employment Permit that they obtained in their home-country from a US embassy. The permit would carry dates of validity, and anyone working beyond the specified date without a renewal could be jailed.

What if...? · Mar 15, 2019

Lafayette said:
But that is not the point of the debate, I suggest.

Why should convincing anybody be the ultimate assessment of political thinking? THAT is the point I was trying to make when I mentioned Hitler. He had convinced the entire German nation that he was right. (And German Jews paid the price of his inanity with their lives.)

He was the embodiment of a national political thinking that was sick, sick, sick - and 40% of Americans think Donald Dork is doing a Great Job because he shuts down a government to show Americans he's serious about building a wall that most people think is unnecessary*? (See here from Pew Research.)

Just where does that sort of idiocy stop in a PotUS ... ?

*As I have mentioned multiple times here: The US can solve its "migration problem" if it (1) adopts a national Identity Card, and (2) fines considerably all companies that hire illegal workers (and deports all) who are working but have no national Identity Card or an authenticated Employment Permit that they obtained in their home-country from a US embassy. The permit would carry dates of validity, and anyone working beyond the specified date without a renewal could be jailed.

Both hitler and Goebbels are on record saying the Reich could never have happened without what they learned about propaganda from the Soviets.

Lafayette · Mar 15, 2019

KEEPING THE HISTORICAL RECORD STRAIGHT

What if...? said:
Both hitler and Goebbels are on record saying the Reich could never have happened without what they learned about propaganda from the Soviets.

I rather think the key provocation came from the fact that after WW1 the Germans were obliged to give a great deal of their government revenues to both France and Britain in War Reparation Fines. France was particularly devastated by WW1.

The 1920s were very difficult for Germany because of general lackluster economic performance (but also the fines being paid). And then there was the enormous inflation that made the cost of living almost unbearable.

The Nazis simply promised to undo that mess, and when Hitler was made Chancellor his first action was to cancel all war-reparations to France and Britain. With the money saved, he rebuilt the German economy. All this tin-pot soldier had to do next is show the German people that "their army" could invade ex-German territories - which he did by annexing Austria.

Then emboldened by his success in actually invading and conquering a country (Poland), he blundered. He decided to invade Russia. From there the dice were thrown - and Germany became the loser.

Historically we in the west regarding WW2 focus upon the invasion that started with the Americans, British, Canadian and (yes) Free-French forces landing in Normandy. What history book in the west relates in detail how the Russians first stopped the German invasion; then kicked the Germans out of Russia then freed Poland and actually took Berlin (where Hitler committed suicide).

We don't hear much about that part, do we? Or the actual stats regarding military deaths (from here):
*UK - 384K
*France - 210K
*Germany - 4.4 to 5.3M
*Russia - 8.7 to 11.4M
*US - 407K

Russia's by far was the greater loss in terms of military deaths ...

James972 · Mar 15, 2019

What if...? said:
Both hitler and Goebbels are on record saying the Reich could never have happened without what they learned about propaganda from the Soviets.

insane lie of course. Lets see the record!!

WIKI: Adolf Hitler devoted three chapters of his 1925 book Mein Kampf, itself as a propaganda tool, to the study and practice of propaganda.[2] He claimed to have learned the value of propaganda as a World War I infantryman exposed to very effective British and ineffectual German propaganda.[3] The argument that Germany lost the war largely because of British propaganda efforts, expounded at length in Mein Kampf, reflected then-common German nationalist claims. Although untrue – German propaganda during World War I was mostly more advanced than that of the British – it became the official truth of Nazi Germany thanks to its reception by Hitler.[4]

James972 · Mar 15, 2019

Lafayette said:
He was the embodiment of a national political thinking that was sick, sick, sick -

National thinking is liberal thinking. AOC and Hitler need the nation to think as one to act as one to accomplish there goals. Do you understand?
Conservatives and libertarians support individual thinking!!

TheEconomist · Apr 25, 2019

James972 said:
National thinking is liberal thinking. AOC and Hitler need the nation to think as one to act as one to accomplish their goals. Do you understand? Conservatives and libertarians support individual thinking!!

Research in psychology has tied political attitudes with certain personality traits. Jordan Peterson talked about this many times in his lectures and public speeches if you are interested. Alternatively, Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues worked on moral sentiments and political views and also find patterns of the same sort.

Conservatives tend to score higher in conscientiousness and orderliness than liberals and this appears to be tied to disgust sensitivity. Conservatives like order and dislike disorder, in other words. That's the insistence on putting barriers between ideas, people, places, etc. Any attempt to move the barriers or limits around will evoke notions like blending, diluting, contaminating, or even poisoning, spoiling, very much like what you see normal people do when it comes to health-related hazards such as raw meat, insects or rotten food. It likely employs more or less the same kind of neural circuitry. A damning example of this actually is Hitler. He was a hygiene maniac. He actually had many plants cleaned and revamped, even planting flowers in front. Guess what the Germans used for rats and insects? Zyklon B, the same gas used in the gas chambers. How did Hitler talk about Jews? As an illness, as parasites, etc.

That's the salient feature of fascists: that they're very radically far to the right. Authoritarian attitudes are not the sole property of any one political group, so they're not good determinants to use to differentiate between conservatives and liberals. I am not sure that you can point your finger at the religious fringe in the United States, who most definitely is very conservative, and see these people are free thinkers. They blab bibble verses ad nauseam and try to use the power of the State to enforce their views of morality on everyone else.

I do understand the confusion, however, when you see clueless kids march in the streets with placards, chanting slogans in unison, while hearing conservatives defending freedom of speech. The crowd of crazies who made it so long for the SCOTUS to finally strike in favor of the state treating gay marriage like any other marriage between consenting adult definitely wasn't on the left and they most definitely were on the side of freedom. It just so happens that crazies nowadays seem to be radical kids who scream at capitalism.

James972 · Apr 27, 2019

TheEconomist said:
Conservatives tend to score higher in conscientiousness and orderliness than liberals and this appears to be tied to disgust sensitivity. Conservatives like order and dislike disorder, in other words. .

of course that makes no sense whatsoever given that conservatives support the creative, chaotic, destruction, and renewal of capitalism while liberals support an very very very orderly world made so by an authoritarian central govt. Do you understand?

TheEconomist · May 6, 2019

James972 said:
of course that makes no sense whatsoever given that conservatives support the creative, chaotic, destruction, and renewal of capitalism while liberals support an very very very orderly world made so by an authoritarian central govt. Do you understand?

If you walk into someone's room, dorm room, cubicle or office, pay attention to how well it is organized. This simple aspect of how people organize their lives is sufficiently tightly linked to political attitudes that you can get the tidiest places almost always belong to conservatives. It is also one of my favorite weird tidbit of trivia that if you ask people to wash their hands with soap before having them make political choices or answering questionnaires, they suddenly become more conservative.

That you and many conservatives fear that concentrating much of the decision process in the hands of a few elites is potentially more dangerous than diffusing it across a multitude of individuals is not exactly the dimension of the problem I was pointing at. Many people who have large libertarian leanings call themselves conservatives and there might also simply be confusion between us on we delineate these groups.

James972 · May 7, 2019

TheEconomist said:
tidiest places almost always belong to conservatives.

And tidiest political philosophy almost always belongs to liberals and Nazis. Notice how a conservative is always made to feel like a kindergarten teacher?

James972 · May 7, 2019

TheEconomist said:
That you and many conservatives fear that concentrating much of the decision process in the hands of a few elites is potentially more dangerous than diffusing it across a multitude of individuals is not exactly the dimension of the problem I was pointing at.

You mean hands of few elites with very very very tidy philosophy or you have no idea what you are talking about?? Why so afraid to tell us what problem you were pointing out?? What have you learned from your fear?

James972 · May 7, 2019

TheEconomist said:
Many people who have large libertarian leanings call themselves conservatives

and your point is if you have any idea???