Wealth Distribution in the USA

gaffer91

gaffer91 wrote: »

While nearly everyone is attracted to large amounts of money in the abstract, most people are not ready to devote the time and energy it takes to rise to the top of the economic ladder and are quite happy to settle for a bit less in their pay packet if it means an easier life. This doesn't mean we should be looking to take as much money off people for whom it is a top priority.

Perfectly said ^^

Radiosonde

awec wrote: »

I would personally suggest that making a decision that could affect 1000 people working below you is riskier and more stressful than making a decision that will affect only yourself.

People aren't paid in accordance with some "how many people will my decisions affect and how severely" index. Officers in the military, firefighters, ambulance crews - these people have, from time to time, to make decisions that could quickly, if they manage to f*** it up, lead to people dying. Yet their pay packets aren't stratospheric.

Sleevoo

It's very simple, what people get paid is generally determined by supply and demand.

There seems to be some strange sort of entitlement attitude in our society. If a company doesn't pay you enough then ask for more or leave. They owe you nothing. The company can spend its money how it wishes, it's the comapnies money, not yours.if they want to spend millions on a ceo that is their decision to make.

K-9

gaffer91 wrote: »

Interesting thread. I'd have to agree with posters such as Awec, Permabear, who take the line that hard work should be rewarded even if that means higher income and wealth disparities.

While arguments can be made that people from lower socioeconomic groups are disadvantaged by the environment they grow up in from birth, it is also true that poorer people in the western world are provided for as much as conceivably possible with dole payments, council housing, free healthcare and education and so on. I personally think what currently plays a large role in multi-generational poverty is the lack of emphasis placed on education in the home in poorer households and the fiercely anti-intellectual environment in which less well off children grow up in. I don't think a whole pile more can be done on this front beyond taking people off their parents at birth, which would of course be an utterly barbaric solution.

Well instead of taking their children of them Governemnt can provide grants and decent education systems to give them a good chance of getting out of poverty.

While income inequality may seem unfair, I'd have to say that it would probably be more unfair for a young man or woman who has worked and studied hard from the age of 15 or 16 to get a good leaving cert, do well in college and excel post-graduation to be taxed into oblivion so that more money can be funneled to those closer to the bottom of the pyramid (and I wouldn't necessarily consider myself very right-wing).

That would tend to be a right wing view though. More left wing views would see no problem with that person paying higher taxes if they do well out of the system, some of which will go to help others get out of disadvantaged areas. To me, you just can't give up on poor areas just because of problems there, I'd tend to focus more on people who do get out of them and the state helped do so, the more that do the better it is for everybody.

drumswan

Sleevoo wrote: »

It's very simple, what people get paid is generally determined by supply and demand.

Lol, tell that to our bankers. People at the very top use money as a tool to protect income at any cost. Oligarchy, cartels, lobbying, brown envelopes, white collar crime, too big to fail bailouts, tax-dodging, corruption and buying elections all put paid to this ridiculous idea of all CEOs being heroic guys who worked their way up from barrow boy to the boss.

Most likely their Daddy paid for their Ivy League education, introduced them to his elite friends and off they went.

KyussBishop

awec wrote: »

Losing their job along with public embarassment and knowing that you have made a mess for some people.

That doesn't sound bad to you?

They already got their salary and bonuses - it's not like they're at risk of poverty or homelessness.

Companies spend more time covering their ass than ever holding anyone accountable like this anyway.

awec wrote: »

The bank CEOs are a bit of a special case. It would be unfair to equate them to other CEOs.

Bank CEO's are the absolute perfect example - showing that for them, the banks are a means to an end (personal riches), and they don't care if their reckless lending harms the entire economy - same with companies, many of them end up just being a vehicle for extracting personal wealth.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

awec

K-9 wrote: »

But somebody has to help the CEO's and provide the information necessary to form the decision, they need that expertise and knowledge to decide whether to buy Nokia or not.

Again, that does not equate to being responsible for it. Their overall responsibility will be less than the CEO and their financial reward will reflect that.

Well that's what performance reviews are for, they'll have to justify their part in the decision. You seem to be making out that they've no responsibility whatsoever and it all rests with the CEO.

Ultimately responsibility lies with the CEO.

With a nice pay off, they might get less bonuses or their shares aren't worth as much, again embarrassment is part and parcel of the job if things go wrong.

Yes, it's part and parcel of the job and again the financial rewards reflect that. Why would anyone want to be a CEO if the financial side of things didn't outweigh the tremendous responsibility and stress?

So you do have a subjective cut off then?

Do you equate the Anglo execs with every other exec of all other companies out there? You don't see the difference?

gaffer91

K-9 wrote: »

Well instead of taking their children of them Governemnt can provide grants and decent education systems to give them a good chance of getting out of poverty.

Primary and secondary education are free and grants are provided for people at third level. So all of your solutions already exist. Whether the system is "decent" or not is another matter.

K-9 wrote: »

That would tend to be a right wing view though. More left wing views would see no problem with that person paying higher taxes if they do well out of the system, some of which will go to help others get out of disadvantaged areas. To me, you just can't give up on poor areas just because of problems there, I'd tend to focus more on people who do get out of them and the state helped do so, the more that do the better it is for everybody.

My point was disadvantaged areas are already being helped out via welfare transfers, free housing etc. You must realise that the answer to everything is not always more spending. Perhaps a better approach would be to try and get a cultural shift in attitudes to education among poorer socio-economic groups so that poorer households and environments would become more hospitable to learning and intellectual development.

drumswan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:rolleyes:

Thats a pretty representative sample. What about the billions who were born poor and died poor in the same period. I suppose these were just lazy when compared to you and the individuals above you attach yourself to.

awec

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's moving away from what I meant (inflating the credit due to owners/management/CEO's, and minimizing that due to workers, to justify excessive salaries), but at least we agree that the credit they award themselves is inflated.

While assigning reputation credit to CEO's like that is good for PR, using that as an argument that workers should be credited less in salaries, or the CEO more (based on the reputation they are falsely credited, for PR purposes), has no justification.

How are they falsely credited?! It's their company, they are responsible for all of it. Do you think that a CEO has to be physically in the room with the employees responsible to claim credit?!

I did justify it, you just chose to ignore it because it didn't fit with what you are saying. I can lead a horse to water and all that.

The Backwards Man

Jaysus, reading this thread is like listening to a REM song.

Namely, this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2wET1OlK4Q

awec

KyussBishop wrote: »

They already got their salary and bonuses - it's not like they're at risk of poverty or homelessness.

Of course not, when you work that hard and get yourself that far up the ladder then of course you're not going to be as close to the breadline as other people.

That tends to be one of the benefits of being successful - you have a lot more money. There is nothing wrong with this.

Rather than focus on how to drag them all down there should be a focus on telling people, particularly young people how they can raise themselves to that level.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This, after all, is the perfect economic environment to create a profitable business.

Blaming the public for not creating business in an economy like this, is pretty much the same as blaming the jobless for their own situation; the demand isn't out there to make business profitable, just the same as the jobs aren't out there to soak up the unemployed.

Need an injection of money into the economy, to get either of these things (demand/business) going? Tough - the banks aren't lending (sensible given the massive overextension of private debt, and the difficulty most new businesses face).


You're still pretending that business is not massively stacked in favour of those who are already wealthy/privileged, and that there are not massive barriers-to-entry in place.

Since I've provided detailed arguments on this, and since you're indirectly replying to me (nobody else but me has mentioned anything about credit being distorted in favour of owners/management/CEO's), it would be a better discussion to address those actual arguments, rather than only alluding to them.

clairefontaine

drumswan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Thats a pretty representative sample. What about the billions who were born poor and died poor in the same period. I suppose these were just lazy when compared to you and the individuals above you attach yourself to.

Many possible reasons for that.

I'd say one reason are the artificial barriers liberal ideology puts in their heads.

I'd say another is no ethic at home.

I'd say another might be single parenting and not enough time and attention at home because there is only one parent.

Many many possible reasons.

Son Of A Vidic

drumswan wrote: »

Lol, tell that to our bankers. People at the very top use money as a tool to protect income at any cost. Oligarchy, cartels, lobbying, brown envelopes, white collar crime, too big to fail bailouts, tax-dodging, corruption and buying elections all put paid to this ridiculous idea of all CEOs being heroic guys who worked their way up from barrow boy to the boss.

Most likely their Daddy paid for their Ivy League education, introduced them to his elite friends and off they went.

Very true, I have several friends who fall into that category. Who you know not what you know, is alive and doing very well in Ireland. That will never change.

awec

KyussBishop wrote: »

This, after all, is the perfect economic environment to create a profitable business.

Blaming the public for not creating business in an economy like this, is pretty much the same as blaming the jobless for their own situation; the demand isn't out there to make business profitable, just the same as the jobs aren't out there to soak up the unemployed.

Need an injection of money into the economy, to get either of these things (demand/business) going? Tough - the banks aren't lending (sensible given the massive overextension of private debt, and the difficulty most new businesses face).


You're still pretending that business is not massively stacked in favour of those who are already wealthy/privileged, and that there are not massive barriers-to-entry in place.

Since I've provided detailed arguments on this, and since you're indirectly replying to me (nobody else but me has mentioned anything about credit being distorted in favour of owners/management/CEO's), it would be a better discussion to address those actual arguments, rather than only alluding to them.

What barriers?

There may be hurdles, but there are certainly no barriers. You are implying that there are literally blocks put in place to prevent some people being successful.

You are being disingenuous.

drumswan

clairefontaine wrote: »

Many possible reasons for that.

I'd say one reason are the artificial barriers liberal ideology puts in their heads.

I'd say another is no ethic at home.

I'd say another might be single parenting and not enough time and attention at home because there is only one parent.

Many many possible reasons.

Lets just sum it up as "the poor are lazy" its easier that way.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Many possible reasons for that.

I'd say one reason are the artificial barriers liberal ideology puts in their heads.

That's funny... if you're born poor we're going to do our best for you by insisting to your face you'll stay poor forever and never come of anything because it wasn't handed to you

EmptyTree

K-9 wrote: »

But somebody has to help the CEO's and provide the information necessary to form the decision, they need that expertise and knowledge to decide whether to buy Nokia or not.

You can be sure consultants and advisers get paid very handsomely indeed. Not to mention all the other executives that help inform the CEO's decision.

gaffer91

KyussBishop wrote: »

This, after all, is the perfect economic environment to create a profitable business.

Blaming the public for not creating business in an economy like this, is pretty much the same as blaming the jobless for their own situation; the demand isn't out there to make business profitable, just the same as the jobs aren't out there to soak up the unemployed.

Need an injection of money into the economy, to get either of these things (demand/business) going? Tough - the banks aren't lending (sensible given the massive overextension of private debt, and the difficulty most new businesses face).


You're still pretending that business is not massively stacked in favour of those who are already wealthy/privileged, and that there are not massive barriers-to-entry in place.

Since I've provided detailed arguments on this, and since you're indirectly replying to me (nobody else but me has mentioned anything about credit being distorted in favour of owners/management/CEO's), it would be a better discussion to address those actual arguments, rather than only alluding to them.

To be fair you don't necessarily have to start your own business to receive a high-income. Law, Medicine, Professional and Financial services are all examples of careers in which a person can plant themselves firmly among the highest earners in the country if they lack the creativity and skills needed to be a successful business leader.

KyussBishop

gaffer91 wrote: »

Interesting thread. I'd have to agree with posters such as Awec, Permabear, who take the line that hard work should be rewarded even if that means higher income and wealth disparities.

Even when that is shown to be harmful to society overall, with income inequality having well documented negative effects? Even when giving people the ability to gain excessive wealth, grants them greater de-facto power over society, through their ability to get more favourable treatment in the legal/political systems? (among many other ways of exerting greater power through money)

I'm all in favour of peoples hard work being rewarded, and successful business owners being very richly rewarded; these wider issues need to be taken into consideration, when setting limits on that though.

gaffer91 wrote: »

While arguments can be made that people from lower socioeconomic groups are disadvantaged by the environment they grow up in from birth, it is also true that poorer people in the western world are provided for as much as conceivably possible with dole payments, council housing, free healthcare and education and so on. I personally think what currently plays a large role in multi-generational poverty is the lack of emphasis placed on education in the home in poorer households and the fiercely anti-intellectual environment in which less well off children grow up in. I don't think a whole pile more can be done on this front beyond taking people off their parents at birth, which would of course be an utterly barbaric solution.

While income inequality may seem unfair, I'd have to say that it would probably be more unfair for a young man or woman who has worked and studied hard from the age of 15 or 16 to get a good leaving cert, do well in college and excel post-graduation to be taxed into oblivion so that more money can be funneled to those closer to the bottom of the pyramid (and I wouldn't necessarily consider myself very right-wing).

It's not just the poor and the rich, it's the poor, working classes, and the middle classes (i.e. the vast majority of society), who all are at a disadvantage due to income inequality, and all of the related societal issues.

drumswan

awec wrote: »

What barriers?

Educational barriers, crime issues, social issues caused by poverty which need to be overcome, lack of access to correctional health issues in youth, inability to pay for elite education, no access to Ivy League college, social prejudice, the list is endless.

It is orders of magnitude more difficult for those born poor, particularly in a place like the US, to rise to the top of the pyramid. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either crazy or lying.

awec

drumswan wrote: »

Educational barriers, crime issues, social issues caused by poverty which need to be overcome, lack of access to correctional health issues in youth, inability to pay for elite education, no access to Ivy League college, social prejudice, the list is endless.

It is orders of magnitude more difficult for those born poor, particularly in a place like the US, to rise to the top of the pyramid. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either crazy or lying.

Barrier implies that they are completely blocked.

They are not. There is hard work involved, as there is with everything in life, but if someone is determined enough then those hurdles will be overcome.

Nobody is saying it's easy.

KyussBishop

awec wrote: »

I would personally suggest that making a decision that could affect 1000 people working below you is riskier and more stressful than making a decision that will affect only yourself.

Sounds a far sight more risky and stressful for the 1000 people below - with the ability of the person making the decision, to be at practically no real personal risk, due to their salary.

drumswan

drumswan wrote: »

no access to Ivy League college

Hmmm

http://www.admissionsconsultants.com/college/ivy_league_financial_aid.asp

Harvard is committed to meeting 100% of admitted students' demonstrated financial need.
Financial aid is available for international students.
All applicants are automatically considered for the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, which expands aid to middle- and lower-income families. Families with annual income below $60,000 are not expected to contribute to educational costs. Families with income between $60,000 and $150,000 are expected to pay zero to ten percent. Families with annual income over $150,000 are expected to pay proportionally more.

Yale Families with annual income of $65,000 or less are not expected to contribute to educational costs

Turtwig

awec wrote: »

Of course not, when you work that hard and get yourself that far up the ladder then of course you're not going to be as close to the breadline as other people

Work hard? Suppose somebody works at a textile factory and has another job on the side just to make ends meet. Does this person work less harder than the person who started out in the same culture but is now a CEO? (And those types of "CEOs" are incredibly rare.)

It seems to me like you believe in a Just World. It isn't. People don't get their positions solely by effort and effort doesn't necessarily reflect success. Loads of people work hard, some work harder than others and some of those people are on the verge of homelessness or homeless. Some people don't try at all.

I'll put it another way. Is the CEO of a company the optimum person for that role? Maybe, maybe not, the fact that they're CEO doesn't actually tell you anything. You only need to remember your teachers in school or colleagues in your workspace. Not all are hard working, or for that matter productive to their work environment.

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

drumswan

awec wrote: »

Barrier implies that they are completely blocked.

They are not. There is hard work involved, as there is with everything in life, but if someone is determined enough then those hurdles will be overcome.

Nobody is saying it's easy.

Its much, much, much harder for the poor. Thats the barrier. So hard that it makes it entirely unlikely.

UCDVet

I used to have a very high opinion of the poor. I thought they were just people who were dealt a bad hand. I didn't think less of them, I just assumed they didn't have all the same advantages as other people.

Then I became a poor, dirty, immigrant. I left my nice upper-middle class, single family detached home, and got to rub shoulders with poor people.

That pretty much changed my mind completely. Sure, yes, absolutely, there are some poor people who are decent enough. For the most part though....I'm sorry, I'll gladly pay more money for the same stuff for the sole purpose of making it inaccessible to poor people. I mean, I don't want to hurt them or anything, I just don't want to be around them. And not because of their income, or not having a fancy car - I'm referring to attitudes and behaviours. Things that are FREE. Go to a park in a trashy neighborhood, and it is trashed. Go to a park in a nice neighborhood, and it's clean - even when it's cleaned on the same schedule. Just an example, there are millions more. Makes me angry just to think about it.

In the US, you get a free education until you finish high school. Then, you get (virtually) unlimited funding from the government for college. I'm not saying everyone can be rich by doing well academically, studying a practical field, and working hard. But you can certainly be not poor.

drumswan

bluewolf wrote: »

That's funny... if you're born poor we're going to do our best for you by insisting to your face you'll stay poor forever and never come of anything because it wasn't handed to you

This is the crux of the libertarian argument at its ugliest. The poor are lazy and have everything handed to them by some imaginary hero-elite that the libertarian is always part of. The reality that the poor need to expend the same amount of work just to thread water in our system is ignored. Its truly nauseating.

Luckily there are only about 20 of these nuts in Ireland. Ive better things to do than argue with such cretins.