Income disparity ain't an evil.

Income disparity ain't an evil.

I'm Supposn said:

Lafayette, after referring to the dictionary, I again conclude that we generally share much of the same populist goals.


But you believe there's a “perfidious manipulation by key market-players” as “succeeds in allowing them higher profits …a Sell-out for the unique purpose of developing exorbitant riches fora distinct minority of individuals …”.I consider it to be their judgment failures, consequentially providing lesser than otherwise USA GDP, reflecting lesser numbers of jobs at lesser wages and purchasing powers than otherwise.


We all do better when we all do better. Because more wealthy USA residents are the greater beneficiaries of a more improved USA economy expressed in terms of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power, their incomes are detrimentally net less because we're all not doing better.Respectfully,Supposn[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

I'm a populist believing pure impartial justice is often a less than achievable virtue governments should strive to practice without regard to the wealth, power, and other attributes of those who see government's favorable decisions.

I'm a populist believing that peoples' opportunities to succeed often involves their opportunities to fail, and denying people hope to better their own conditions is dreadful. None of these beliefs require or justify a democratic government opposing their peoples'seeking of wealth, but such a government may regulate their population's methods to do so.

RespectfullySupposn

You're right, income disparity - in and of itself - is not an evil. I don't mind some people making more or less than others due to their education or experience or being at the job longer.

I do, however, mind CEOs and **** making 500% or more per year than the people working for them. They're not contributing anything to society. That class of people improves their own profits at the expense of everyone else, by laying off workers or cutting their benefits, by making people work longer hours or double up on jobs to save money over hiring more people.

When we talk about "the rich", we're talking about people who are wealthy because of theft and exploitation and being a generally ****ty human being.

nekrodev said:

You're right, income disparity - in and of itself - is not an evil. I don't mind some people making more or less than others due to their education or experience or being at the job longer.

I do, however, mind CEOs and **** making 500% or more per year than the people working for them. They're not contributing anything to society. That class of people improves their own profits at the expense of everyone else, by laying off workers or cutting their benefits, by making people work longer hours or double up on jobs to save money over hiring more people.

When we talk about "the rich", we're talking about people who are wealthy because of theft and exploitation and being a generally ****ty human being.

Click to expand...

Nekrodev, I believe laws and regulations should be written in an explicite manner. Persons in the USA may be arraigned for a crime and accumulating wealth is not a crime. Paying or receiving high wages is not a crime.

We have more importnt things in our lives to better consider. For example when our laws, regulations, and practices are undemocratic that should be contrary to law. When we in our personal lives do not grant people the common reasonable respect and consideration regardless of what we believe to be their lack of wealth and status, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Income disparity ain't an evil.





I'm a populist believing pure impartial justice is often a less than achievable virtue governments should strive to practice without regard to the wealth, power, and other attributes of those who see government's favorable decisions.

I'm a populist believing that peoples' opportunities to succeed often involves their opportunities to fail, and denying people hope to better their own conditions is dreadful. None of these beliefs require or justify a democratic government opposing their peoples'seeking of wealth, but such a government may regulate their population's methods to do so.

RespectfullySupposn

Click to expand...

"evil" in not exactly the word I would use to describe it, though wealth disparity is ultimately rooted in greed and greed is evil.

That all said, income disparity (which ultimately leads to wealth disparity) is exceptionally destructive to an economy, which relies on a healthy middle class. It is the middle class that typically has a high propensity to consume (the consumption part of economy). Wealthy people just do not spend all of their money.

Wealth Inequality: U.S. Wealth Gap Is Worse Than In Russia or Iran | Fortune
Rising Income Inequality Is Throwing The Future Of Capitalism Into Question, Says World Economic Forum
The problem with wealth inequality | World Economic Forum
Why income inequality is bad for growth | World Economic Forum
Political Issue: Wealth Gap | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/1...58-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-u-s
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/

Moreover, the stability of a country/government is compromised when the people do not believe there is an equitable distribution of wealth. There is good foundation for the belief that income disparity led to the stock market crash of 1928. And, its just as a acute today.

http://ecolocalizer.com/2010/04/12/plutocracy-reborn-wealth-inequality-gap-largest-since-1928/

There is also evidence that lowering the marginal taxes, particularly at the upper end, promotes income disparity.



Wealth disparity in the US is now on par with third world countries. There we are just between Uganda and Haiti...

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings


While its not "evil", it isn't healthy and is a threat to democracy in the long run.

I'm Supposn said:

Nekrodev, I believe laws and regulations should be written in an explicite manner. Persons in the USA may be arraigned for a crime and accumulating wealth is not a crime. Paying or receiving high wages is not a crime.

We have more importnt things in our lives to better consider. For example when our laws, regulations, and practices are undemocratic that should be contrary to law. When we in our personal lives do not grant people the common reasonable respect and consideration regardless of what we believe to be their lack of wealth and status, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

I don't think we should make it a crime to earn more money than someone else. I think we should make it a crime to layoff hundreds of people from your job immediately after announcing you've just made record profits. I think we should make it a crime for companies to fire people for wanting to unionize. I think it should be a crime to have someone work 40+ hours a week and not make enough to live on.

There will always be a degree of disparity: those who work harder or have better ideas will always make more. It's fair. What is unfair is a system that solidifies the advantage of the elite, through unequal access to education, tax loopholes, family ties and old-boy networks. This is what has made the average CEO's income many hundreds of times greater than the average worker's.

nekrodev said:

I don't think we should make it a crime to earn more money than someone else. I think we should make it a crime to layoff hundreds of people from your job immediately after announcing you've just made record profits. I think we should make it a crime for companies to fire people for wanting to unionize. I think it should be a crime to have someone work 40+ hours a week and not make enough to live on.

Click to expand...

then i think it should be a crime if a worker takes an extra 15 minute break because they are feeling sick....dont you?

i mean, if you want to get ridiculous, so can i

you dont like the place you are working, LEAVE

you want better wages, NEGOTIATE

you want better benefits, NEGOTIAGE

all you gotta have is a skill the employer needs....one that he/she cant fill easily

the laws of supply and demand still work in this country....if you have skills and are in demand, you can write your own ticket

if not, you better get some

gdgyva said:

then i think it should be a crime if a worker takes an extra 15 minute break because they are feeling sick....dont you?

i mean, if you want to get ridiculous, so can i

you dont like the place you are working, LEAVE

you want better wages, NEGOTIATE

you want better benefits, NEGOTIAGE

all you gotta have is a skill the employer needs....one that he/she cant fill easily

the laws of supply and demand still work in this country....if you have skills and are in demand, you can write your own ticket

if not, you better get some

Click to expand...

you're the only one being ridiculous here. you clearly have no understanding of how things work for most people in most jobs.

nekrodev said:

You're right, income disparity - in and of itself - is not an evil. I don't mind some people making more or less than others due to their education or experience or being at the job longer.

I do, however, mind CEOs and **** making 500% or more per year than the people working for them. They're not contributing anything to society. That class of people improves their own profits at the expense of everyone else, by laying off workers or cutting their benefits, by making people work longer hours or double up on jobs to save money over hiring more people.

Click to expand...

I like how you start by stating a common sense principle, and then immediately violating it . As though someone with 40 years in business and multiple post-graduate degrees with the experience and intelligence capable of running a multi-billion dollar international entity isn't worth far more than 500x the guy who shows up (most days) sober (most days) and cleans the dishes in the back.

When we talk about "the rich", we're talking about people who are wealthy because of theft and exploitation and being a generally ****ty human being.

Click to expand...

Actually when we talk about America's millionaire class generally we are talking about regular folks who are self-made.

gdgyva said:

then i think it should be a crime if a worker takes an extra 15 minute break because they are feeling sick....dont you?

i mean, if you want to get ridiculous, so can i

you dont like the place you are working, LEAVE

you want better wages, NEGOTIATE

you want better benefits, NEGOTIAGE

all you gotta have is a skill the employer needs....one that he/she cant fill easily

the laws of supply and demand still work in this country....if you have skills and are in demand, you can write your own ticket

if not, you better get some

Click to expand...

But, but, but, I showed up, so I deserve a trophy!!!

cpwill said:

I like how you start by stating a common sense principle, and then immediately violating it . As though someone with 40 years in business and multiple post-graduate degrees with the experience and intelligence capable of running a multi-billion dollar international entity isn't worth far more than 500x the guy who shows up (most days) sober (most days) and cleans the dishes in the back.




Actually when we talk about America's millionaire class generally we are talking about regular folks who are self-made.

Click to expand...

I don't see any violations of my simple, common sense principle. Making more does not mean making absurdly more, or making more than could possibly be rationalized by the job they perform. Also, my figure was a bit on the low side, I said 500%, which is only 5x, and that's probably actually fair. I meant more like what you said with 500x (some make thousands of times more). THAT is just way too absurd and completely unjustifiable.

Also, the lower millionaire class ($1-10 million or so) are probably mostly fine. You're right, they're probably largely self-made people - maybe they wrote some books or just save really well. Sure. But, there are people worth BILLIONS, who make MILLIONS in weeks or months off of stocks and interest that aren't actually contributing, and are just serial assholes jumping from company to company laying people off and cutting corners to save money for their bonus.

cpwill said:

But, but, but, I showed up, so I deserve a trophy!!!

Click to expand...

We never wanted the trophies, you guys did.

nekrodev said:

I don't see any violations of my simple, common sense principle. Making more does not mean making absurdly more, or making more than could possibly be rationalized by the job they perform. Also, my figure was a bit on the low side, I said 500%, which is only 5x, and that's probably actually fair. I meant more like what you said with 500x (some make thousands of times more). THAT is just way too absurd and completely unjustifiable.

Click to expand...

OTC, it is imminently justifiable, which is why companies are willing to pay that much.

The value added of one employee is not determined by the value added of another.

Also, the lower millionaire class ($1-10 million or so) are probably mostly fine. You're right, they're probably largely self-made people - maybe they wrote some books or just save really well.

Click to expand...

Mostly the latter. The three most common careers for millionaires are engineers, teachers, and accountants.

Sure. But, there are people worth BILLIONS, who make MILLIONS in weeks or months off of stocks and interest that aren't actually contributing, and are just serial assholes jumping from company to company laying people off and cutting corners to save money for their bonus.

Click to expand...

You mean evil people like Bill Gates, who cruelly sold me a computer I wanted.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

cpwill said:

OTC, it is imminently justifiable, which is why companies are willing to pay that much.

The value added of one employee is not determined by the value added of another.



Mostly the latter. The three most common careers for millionaires are engineers, teachers, and accountants.



You mean evil people like Bill Gates, who cruelly sold me a computer I wanted.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Bill Gates is certainly a person who is a beneficiary of this system, though he's certainly not the worst offender. You mean to tell me you are not aware of people who were born rich and haven't done ****, who were given a job by their dad at his company and then bounced to another after a good year. Obviously, these people are not super common - that's why they're the 1%, but the fact that they exist at all is a failure of our system.

Companies are only willing to pay what they do because they're completely ****ing over their workers, who actually make the company work, in order to do so. The engineer that actually created the product that the company sells doesn't make what the CEO does, and he's surely contributed more. The IT guy that keeps it all running doesn't get paid what the CEO does. And the CEO couldn't come in and do these guys job, but I'd bet money they could do his.

nekrodev said:

I do, however, mind CEOs and **** making 500% or more per year than the people working for them. They're not contributing anything to society. That class of people improves their own profits at the expense of everyone else, by laying off workers or cutting their benefits, by making people work longer hours or double up on jobs to save money over hiring more people.

Click to expand...

I see. Have you known many CEOs?

I actually knew one rather well. He was not only the founder, but was the founder of what is the 4th largest privately held company in the United States. My step-father was the first "company architect" his company hired, and rose to be one of the top executives in the company. And every time I went to visit him, Joe recognized me by name, and he was always at work, often one of the first one in every day, and the last to leave. Of course, Joe Alberton really was a self-made man.

Or Michael Dell, the man who created the #5 privately held company in the country. He is still highly involved in all day to day aspects of the company he founded and still owns and runs to this day.

What about Anthony Maglica? Raised in Croatia, his family moved to the US after WWII where he worked as a metal worker. He worked and saved and in 1974 finally set up his own metal shop in California. Then 5 years later he had an amazing idea, to make flashlights out of aircraft aluminum. Today, everybody knows Maglight, another of the largest privately held companies in the country.

Each of these was founded by 1 man, and became industry leaders because of 1 man. And you are saying they are thieves who contribute nothing?

Sorry, that is just class warfare drivel, based on pure envy and nothing else. And you expect us to believe that if you invented a better widget, you would simply turn the patent over to the Public Domain, and profit nothing from it?

nekrodev said:

Bill Gates is certainly a person who is a beneficiary of this system, though he's certainly not the worst offender.

Click to expand...

You mean the guy who's father was a lawyer, and dropped out of college to start a computer software company on a shoestring budget? Who worked at Honeywell as a student to pay for his living expenses? Who then actually lived in his 3 room "company office" in Albuquerque for 9 months as he wrote software for MITS?

Who's father was the son of a small furniture store owner, who got his law degree via the GI Bill after WWII. Yea, he really benefited from "this system".

If I had gone into business and been successful instead of the military, I am sure I would be one of these "beneficiaries" you talk about as well. My stepdad was a high ranking executive of a major corporation, so obviously any success would have been only because of him.

Envy and greed. That is all this entire thread is, envy and greed.

gdgyva said:

then i think it should be a crime if a worker takes an extra 15 minute break because they are feeling sick....dont you?
I mean, if you want to get ridiculous, so can i
you dont like the place you are working, LEAVE
you want better wages, NEGOTIATE
you want better benefits, NEGOTIAGE
/////////////////////////////////////////////

all you gotta have is a skill the employer needs....one that he/she cant fill easily
the laws of supply and demand still work in this country....if you have skills and are in demand, you can write your own ticket
if not, you better get some

Click to expand...

stan1990 said:

A controversial subject debated in the U.S and Canada is the plan to increase the minimum wage up to 15 Dollar/hour. …

Click to expand...

James972 said:

a dumb idea since it makes it illegal to hire anyone not worth the minimum wage.

Click to expand...

Nickyjo said:

Maybe businesses are not worth existing if they can't pay a decent wage.

Click to expand...

gdgyva said:

define decent wage?
and don't tell me...living wage
tell me a number that goes on a paycheck

Click to expand...

Gdgyva, somewhat relative to the income disparity, do you just question a “living wage”? What's your opinion regarding a minimum wage rate? Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Income disparity ain't an evil.

I'm a populist believing pure impartial justice is often a less than achievable virtue governments should strive to practice without regard to the wealth, power, and other attributes of those who see government's favorable decisions.

I'm a populist believing that peoples' opportunities to succeed often involves their opportunities to fail, and denying people hope to better their own conditions is dreadful. None of these beliefs require or justify a democratic government opposing their peoples'seeking of wealth, but such a government may regulate their population's methods to do so.

RespectfullySupposn

Click to expand...

I interpret your thesis, above, as: 'the accumulation and concentration of wealth is inevitable and government shouldn't get in the way of that natural action.' What this ignores is many truths. For one, peoples' opportunities are not equal, In America, the number one measure of how one will succeed financially in life is what zipcode you grew up. Zipcode determines what schools you attend and what doors are open to you later in life.

From the reading above, it also appears that you have a benign view of political actions that help those who are wealthy stay and increase their wealth. For an alternate perspective, from yours that we should not act to reduce income inequality, I refer you to read Paul Krugman's first blog post:

Introducing This Blog - The New York Times

That post is a brilliant history of how we got here with respect to income inequality.

If we are truly committed to a society with an economic system based on merit, then we should be committed to a 100% inheritance tax.

nekrodev said:

I don't think we should make it a crime to earn more money than someone else. I think we should make it a crime to layoff hundreds of people from your job immediately after announcing you've just made record profits. I think we should make it a crime for companies to fire people for wanting to unionize. I think it should be a crime to have someone work 40+ hours a week and not make enough to live on.

Click to expand...

it is illegal to fire people for wanting to unionize.
if you don't like the pay you don't have to work there.

that is the cool thing about a free market. you are free to take your labor to the highest bidder.
the only problem is if your only ability is to do minor things.

Sorry you are not allowed to make it a crime to pay someone what their labor is worth.

MTAtech said:

I interpret your thesis, above, as: 'the accumulation and concentration of wealth is inevitable and government shouldn't get in the way of that natural action.' What this ignores is many truths. For one, peoples' opportunities are not equal, In America, the number one measure of how one will succeed financially in life is what zipcode you grew up. Zipcode determines what schools you attend and what doors are open to you later in life.

Click to expand...

100% innaccurate. I grew up in a lower income area when i was young. we moved several times when i was younger.
ended up in a upper middle income neighborhood later on. so no zipcode determines crap since people have the freedom of movement.

From the reading above, it also appears that you have a benign view of political actions that help those who are wealthy stay and increase their wealth. For an alternate perspective, from yours that we should not act to reduce income inequality, I refer you to read Paul Krugman's first blog post:

Click to expand...

Krugman is a hack. quoting him and he has been proven wrong more times that it can be counted.
you want to reduce income inequality then you need to reduce the cost of hiring and doing business.
not make it more expensive. you then need to motivate the market to actually pay more to non-executive pay.
basically the opposite of anything krugman suggests.

That post is a brilliant history of how we got here with respect to income inequality.

Click to expand...

we got there because there was a huge market shift and many people didn't make the moves to compensate for the market shifts.
I know i didn't. If i would have seen what was coming and made the right investments when i was younger i would be
a multi-millionare right now.

i wouldn't have to work.

j brown's body said:

If we are truly committed to a society with an economic system based on merit, then we should be committed to a 100% inheritance tax.

Click to expand...

yes because the destruction of wealth makes everyone better.
where do you people come up with this nonsense.

nekrodev said:

Bill Gates is certainly a person who is a beneficiary of this system, though he's certainly not the worst offender. You mean to tell me you are not aware of people who were born rich and haven't done ****, who were given a job by their dad at his company and then bounced to another after a good year. Obviously, these people are not super common - that's why they're the 1%, but the fact that they exist at all is a failure of our system.

Companies are only willing to pay what they do because they're completely ****ing over their workers, who actually make the company work, in order to do so. The engineer that actually created the product that the company sells doesn't make what the CEO does, and he's surely contributed more. The IT guy that keeps it all running doesn't get paid what the CEO does. And the CEO couldn't come in and do these guys job, but I'd bet money they could do his.

Click to expand...

those guys couldn't step into the CEO role and run the company in a manner that would be profitable.
you miss the point a CEO is responsible for the entire company and the health and running the entire company.
the IT guy only keeps the computers up. He doesn't manage the contracts or the businesses decisions of all the companies.
hell the IT guy doesn't manage half the stuff in this department.

It is the same reason the line cook doesn't make as much as the head chef. the line cook is responsible for his station.
the head chef is responsible for the entire kitchen. the IT guy is only responsible for his little nook.
the CEO is responsible for the entire company. If it is a publicly traded company then the CEO is also responsible
tot the investors in the company as well.

ludin said:

yes because the destruction of wealth makes everyone better.
where do you people come up with this nonsense.

Click to expand...

It does, obviously, make everyone better, but that's not the reason here for an absolute tax on inheritance.

The reason here for it is because passing wealth from one generation to the next violates the concept of meritocracy, the idea that wealth is based on being earned through personal initiative, not based on the family one is born into.

ludin said:

those guys couldn't step into the CEO role and run the company in a manner that would be profitable.
you miss the point a CEO is responsible for the entire company and the health and running the entire company.
the IT guy only keeps the computers up. He doesn't manage the contracts or the businesses decisions of all the companies.
hell the IT guy doesn't manage half the stuff in this department.

It is the same reason the line cook doesn't make as much as the head chef. the line cook is responsible for his station.
the head chef is responsible for the entire kitchen. the IT guy is only responsible for his little nook.
the CEO is responsible for the entire company. If it is a publicly traded company then the CEO is also responsible
tot the investors in the company as well.

Click to expand...

Companies like Microsoft, which is practically a monopoly and relies on essentially colonizing workers should not be allowed to exist as they are. They have inaporpriarpte control if the market, which stifles competition, which is essential to a free market economy, and innovation