Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…5681011…24

Comments

  • #212
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Good post :) I wouldn't begrudge him that success either, as (even if he got a significant helping hand) he's still got that company put together and running successfully now, so certainly deserves good reward for that.

    While wealth begets more wealth, and it gets passed along in families and gives advantages like that, I don't think that is something that specifically needs to be clamped down on - but what is important I think, is being able to factor this in, and set some limits (to salaries say) to prevent income inequality being too great and getting perpetuated - because we know that harms opportunities for the less well off even more (and limiting it, would just be preventing an even greater imbalance in the playing field).

    You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?


  • #213
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Because it's omg not fair and I demand some too just because

    Let me finish the sentence


    ...... I'm JEALOUS!!!!


  • #214
    Pepe LeFrits
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 15,001 ✭✭✭✭Pepe LeFrits


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?
    Course not. They just tell them how much they're taxing them.


  • #215
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    All this talk but no one can answer the question if a CEO can make many times the average worker's wage then why shouldn't they? More power to them.
    That was answered though, and nobody seems to have tried to counter my 'bigger-picture' answers on that; here was one of the uncontested ones:

    Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).


  • #216
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?

    Ours already do through minimum wage, we used to have Joint Labour Committees but they are unconstitutional now.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Let me finish the sentence


    ...... I'm JEALOUS!!!!

    We can all stereotype if you want!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    Children of rich parents may have an advantage, but they are often disadvantaged by never having a work ethic instilled in them. Succesful people often have an emotional framework in place whereby they feel good putting in the hard work. This never develops when you are given everything without having to work for it.
    This is a bit of a fallacy, though a popular one to be fair. I've known many the child of rich parents and many had "everything handed on a plate to them", even a couple of trust fund kiddies who didn't have to work and few of them were layabouts. Very few. Even those that were ended up in more advantageous positions in later life because of their parents economic and social stock.
    But back to advantages, we live in the best time of the history of the planet to be alive. Imagine telling egyptian slaves a few thousand years ago about the plight you must endure in this modern world.
    Ahh the first world problem debate. 1) slavery in ancient Egypt wasn't the slavery you imagine and slaves didn't build the pyramids, they were paid workers with bonuses and free medical care. Fancy that. 2) Most physicians in Rome* were Greek slaves and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't swap their lot with those people pushing their entire life in a shopping trolley wending the streets of LA at this very moment. Yes life is great at the mo in the west anyway, but "Best time in history" is not so cut and dried as it is often portrayed.


    EDIT I was about to * about Rome being a remarkably socially mobile society, but I had brain failure. :o Sorry. Still prolly** for the best.


    ** I'm down with the kidz. Until the Guards show up anyway.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #218
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    diomed wrote: »
    1% own 40%, 99% own 59% 60%. :o

    Do you expect 1% to own 1%, and 99% own 99%?
    Actually D I'm a Nazi so I want about 60% and the rest of ye can fight it out among yourselves. I'll make sure ye've got very cool uniforms though. So long as I get a salute, I'm happy out. :D

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #219
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    This is a bit of a fallacy, though a popular one to be fair. I've known many the child of rich parents and many had "everything handed on a plate to them", even a couple of trust fund kiddies who didn't have to work and few of them were layabouts. Very few. Even those that were ended up in more advantageous positions in later life because of their parents economic and social stock.

    Ahh the first world problem debate. 1) slavery in ancient Egypt wasn't the slavery you imagine and slaves didn't build the pyramids, they were paid workers with bonuses and free medical care. Fancy that. 2) Most physicians in Rome* were Greek slaves and I'd bet the farm they wouldn't swap their lot with those people pushing their entire life in a shopping trolley wending the streets of LA at this very moment. Yes life is great at the mo in the west anyway, but "Best time in history" is not so cut and dried as it is often portrayed.

    Actually the people pushing those trolleys are entitled to free healthcare, as are the poor. The problem was the threshold for what constitutes poverty and the exhorbitant costs of healthcare in the first place [why a visit to the dentist for example, in the US is $530 and in Ireland E70 - same big disparity for most services I imagine. ]

    This however has less to do with redistribition of citizens wealth imo and the protectionism of the medical cartel by lobbyists and pharma.


  • #220
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    UCDVet wrote: »
    100% correct.

    In addition to school specific programs, the US Federal Government backs all of the student loans. People in the US don't pay to go to college, and they don't need jobs or credit history. They fill out paperwork and wait for their check. Each year they can get more and more money.

    The idea that poor people can't afford to go to college in the US is crazy.

    There are lots of US students at UCD who borrow 80k USD per year, for their educational costs. And they are posting pictures of their fancy holidays and yacht cruises. All financed with their student loans.

    The bigger question relating to the 1% versus the 99& is why? Indebted life servitude through debt is one that springs to mind.

    I'm sorry to quote another article by Chomsky but he talks about this specific thing quite recently and the whole article ties in rather well with the discussion in the thread.
    Noam Chomsky on Student Debt and Education interviewed by Edward Radzivilovskiy, Deputy Opinion Editor, Washington Square News.

    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20130227.htm

    Edit - Also found a video of the interview.

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


    Opr


  • #221
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Id agree with the rest of your post KB however not so much with this bit:

    Libertarianism is not as monolithic as some seem to think. Libertarians also may pick and choose along a spectrum, just like any other "ism". You most certainly have "hardline" Libertarians and ones who are more a la carte. You even have a Libertarian left which the Libertarians on the right would have issues with. Of course you find a spectrum, that's people for ya. And Libertarians are people? Right? Some of my best friends... :D
    True, certainly :) though the reliables shared between all Libertarians (and when I say that, I mean Right-Libertarians; I'd count myself as Left-Libertarian, but today 'Libertarian' is more associated with the right, due to the US), would be an anti-government, free-market view, where the markets are viewed as being capable of self-regulating in managing society, such that public services like welfare and other government involvement, are not needed to prevent large subsections of society from becoming poor and/or suffering harm - among much much more.

    Those are very general sweeps I apply to (Right-)Libertarians, but I don't think they would be untrue? (I've not, from what I can remember, seen any self-identified Libertarian poster, not hold views pretty much identical to this - mostly around free-market stuff)

    I don't use the label to dehumanize the posters or anything :) I find the methods of argument I encounter a bit maddening a lot of the time, but if anything, it just makes me very curious how the views are held onto, and why certain methods of argument/thinking get used to back them.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    True, certainly :) though the reliables shared between all Libertarians (and when I say that, I mean Right-Libertarians; I'd count myself as Left-Libertarian, but today 'Libertarian' is more associated with the right, due to the US), would be an anti-government, free-market view, where the markets are viewed as being capable of self-regulating in managing society, such that public services like welfare and other government involvement, are not needed to prevent large subsections of society from becoming poor and/or suffering harm - among much much more.

    Those are very general sweeps I apply to (Right-)Libertarians, but I don't think they would be untrue? (I've not, from what I can remember, seen any self-identified Libertarian poster, not hold views pretty much identical to this - mostly around free-market stuff)

    I don't use the label to dehumanize the posters or anything :) I find the methods of argument I encounter a bit maddening a lot of the time, but if anything, it just makes me very curious how the views are held onto, and why certain methods of argument/thinking get used to back them.

    I think you are mostly right, but the idea is not so much that government is not needed, more that government is not trusted, because historically it has cocked up so many things, and has its pockets lined by so many special interests, and wasted so much money, that it cannot be trusted.


  • #223
    Fox_In_Socks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭Fox_In_Socks


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I think you are mostly right, but the idea is not so much that government is not needed, more that government is not trusted, because historically it has cocked up so many things, and has its pockets lined by so many special interests, and wasted so much money, that it cannot be trusted.

    Just exactly the same as (historically) business in general, religions, societies, empires and most especially, the common factor in everything on this thread....




    .....people.:pac::pac:


  • #224
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Of course there are barriers, of course there are inequalities. That's life and no point pretending otherwise.

    But telling people over and over and over again about closed doors and lack of access yadda yadda yadda, that they cant achieve something or get access to something,is only going to convince them that they cant.

    Sure you may have to work a little harder, study a little harder, make compromises others don't have to, so do it! What other choice is there? Wait for someone to do it for you? Sit around and feel sorry for yourself while those professors up in the NE making pretty good salaries propegate more of this rhetoric of paralysis?

    Door is closed, find the window.

    There are no guarantees, just opportunities.
    I don't think the realities of the inequality, should be hidden from people in case it might prevent them from trying (it seems to assume people would have a rather fragile self-esteem about that) - if anything, I think it would make them want to do more about fixing the inequalities.

    The point I make though, is that if you acknowledge this inequality, then it is also acknowledging that leadership within business often has as much to do with privilege than about real skill or merit - and this greatly undermines the arguments, about CEO's and such, deserving such enormous compensation.

    It also bolsters arguments in favour of putting some kind of cap on the compensation, because this will lessen the growth of income inequality, and will assist in levelling the playing field (as well as counteracting all the other wider societal damage income inequality causes - nobody seems to have a strong counterargument to this).


  • #225
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    Or maybe thats something you are imagining.
    Perhaps. I hope so.
    Sleevoo wrote: »
    You actually think the government should be able to tell an employer how much they can pay their emoloyees?
    They already do - the minimum wage.


  • #226
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Let me finish the sentence


    ...... I'm JEALOUS!!!!
    In fairness though, I don't think any poster here has said people should not be richly rewarded for their success - I would say most people favour that really (I do anyway), so it seems almost close to an ad-hominem, to imply people are just jealous.

    I'd like to see people mint it for getting a good company put together and providing a benefit to society, just not extracting such a ridiculous amount from the company (and as a class of people - from the economy/society), that the inequality in income, can give them disproportionate power over society, and contribute to all the other societal harm income inequality does.

    There's plenty of room for people to become filthy rich, without them becoming so ridiculously rich, that it harms society.


  • #227
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    In fairness though, I don't think any poster here has said people should not be richly rewarded for their success - I would say most people favour that really (I do anyway), so it seems almost close to an ad-hominem, to imply people are just jealous.

    I'd like to see people mint it for getting a good company put together and providing a benefit to society, just not extracting such a ridiculous amount from the company (and as a class of people - from the economy/society), that the inequality in income, can give them disproportionate power over society, and contribute to all the other societal harm income inequality does.

    There's plenty of room for people to become filthy rich, without them becoming so ridiculously rich, that it harms society.

    What do you consider ridiculously rich?

    Do you feel Apples low tax rate in Ireland harms society? If so, how? If not, why not?


  • #228
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Wibbs wrote: »
    TL;DR? I don't blame "capitalism" or the "market" for overinflated ceo and other exec wages(costs really), I blame human nature, a historic system, bragging rights between companies(we pay our execs more), uninformed shareholders and those who don't want to rock the boat. Among them the CEO class of course. Turkey's aint gonna vote for xmas.
    I don't see how your Apple anecdote was related to my post so I'll skip it.

    As for the rest of your post I don't blame anyone for over inflated wages. I don't blame any one because there isn't a problem. If I could make that much money I would and using state power curtail someone's earning potential is grossly unfair.


  • #229
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Perhaps. I hope so.


    They already do - the minimum wage.

    Yes and they should remove the minimum wage.


  • #230
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I think you are mostly right, but the idea is not so much that government is not needed, more that government is not trusted, because historically it has cocked up so many things, and has its pockets lined by so many special interests, and wasted so much money, that it cannot be trusted.
    Absolutely, I'd agree with that view myself 100% - the problem is though (and this is something else I think would justifiably fit the label 'Libertarian'), this same level of skepticism just doesn't get applied to 'the markets' (specifically, the idea that markets can self-regulate) and private business (especially banking/finance).

    I've never had a good discussion about fraud (the 'f' word ;)) with posters who hold these views - discussing it (very quickly) makes it rather difficult to defend self-regulation.


  • #231
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Fox_In_Socks wrote: »
    Just exactly the same as (historically) business in general, religions, societies, empires and most especially, the common factor in everything on this thread....




    .....people.:pac::pac:
    Ya actually, that's a far more useful distinction than talking about corruption in government, or private business, or unions/among-labour etc:
    People are corrupt, and you can't fully trust anybody - you need to apply skepticism to everyone and every sector, you need the right checks and balances, and need to factor in potential corruption, everywhere, not just in business, or just in government, or wherever.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That was answered though, and nobody seems to have tried to counter my 'bigger-picture' answers on that; here was one of the uncontested ones:

    Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).
    This is simply not true and other posters have already answered this. The quality of life of the poor while perhaps owning a smaller percentage of the nations wealth is constantly increasing.

    It's like I give you a euro and your brother 100 euros and you throw your free euro back at me just because your brother has more.


  • #233
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't see how your Apple anecdote was related to my post so I'll skip it.
    and there's the rub.
    As for the rest of your post I don't blame anyone for over inflated wages. I don't blame any one because there isn't a problem. If I could make that much money I would and using state power curtail someone's earning potential is grossly unfair.
    And you don't see any "problem" therein? I suspect even my Libertarian mates working off a pure meritocratical(should be a word) viewpoint are reading this and going "ehhhh wut da f...?".

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #234
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Wibbs wrote: »
    And you don't see any "problem" therein? I suspect even my Libertarian mates working off a pure meritocratical(should be a word) viewpoint are reading this and going "ehhhh wut da f...?".
    Your libertarian mates would no doubt favour making the market more competitive to drive down executive salaries and bonuses. I'd tend to agree.


  • #235
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    What do you consider ridiculously rich?

    Do you feel Apples low tax rate in Ireland harms society? If so, how? If not, why not?
    I don't know really (on the first question); how much does someone have to be earning, to be able to gain a harmful amount of power over society? (such that they can corruptly influence the legal system and/or politics in their favour)

    Billions? Hundreds/tens of millions? Just millions? The figure put on that is going to be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done - the harm from income inequality is well known/documented.

    Arguments against this, usually ignore the harm from income inequality, just reduce to weak moral arguments about 'should's, which are easily overpowered by the argument that we 'should' (need - if we want a more equitable society) deal with counteracting income inequality.


    On the second question, I would say my ideal economic system would have Apple paying no tax ;) but then that would be a cop-out, heh.

    Ireland is certainly benefiting from other countries tax money being paid here, instead of in those other countries, yes - and I think that because Apple can legally sidestep their tax obligations, that means Americans need to pay more tax to compensate the shortfall in funds.

    I don't think I'd call that harmful exactly, but I don't think it's very fair that the bigger the company, the more they can legally evade taxes like that. If your happy paying more tax, so that companies like Apple can evade taxes (and the wealthy too - who often get to legally evade a large portion of their taxes), then fair enough - it seems a bit self-defeating to justify it on their behalf though.


  • #236
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    This is simply not true and other posters have already answered this. The quality of life of the poor while perhaps owning a smaller percentage of the nations wealth is constantly increasing.

    It's like I give you a euro and your brother 100 euros and you throw your free euro back at me just because your brother has more.
    That wasn't what I argued, I said this:

    Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).


  • #237
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Do you feel Apples low tax rate in Ireland harms society? If so, how? If not, why not?

    I'd say it's creative accounting, similar behaviour was often described as "cute hoorism" in Ireland.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #238
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That wasn't what I argued, I said this:

    Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).

    Thats only true if the "rest of society" have been brainwashed to think they are impotent.


  • #239
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'd say it's creative accounting, similar behaviour was often described as "cute hoorism" in Ireland.

    No it's legit. Ireland offers them a really low corporate tax rate and they avail of it.

    If USA wanted to be truly competitive they'd drop their corporate tax rate and bring the jobs home. That's why we have so much outsourcing.


  • #240
    Fox_In_Socks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭Fox_In_Socks


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Thats only true if the "rest of society" have been brainwashed to think they are impotent.

    I'm sure the many media outlets that are owned by one family are doing their very best with regard to this.:pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    , gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society
    Power in what way?All people are equal before the law and every person only has one vote. Sure some wealthy businesses and groups lobby but two points on this. First these are businesses/groups that act in the interest of the business/group not individual people. Secondly no matter how well lined a parties pockets are it's people that will get them re-elected not money. Politicians are smart enough to know this so I question how much influence lobby groups really have.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    ,the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society
    Of course inequality is disadvantageous to the less well off. That's what inequality means!


Advertisement