Should we Americans care about economic inequality?

I think we Americans should not care about income/ wealth inequality. Inequality is inevitable and natural. Some people are smarter/more talented than others or just work hard/take risks. So it is just a fact of life. We can't and should not fix inequality. Rich people are rich because they are smart, work hard and are productive. They are the makers. They create jobs. How many poor people create jobs. Poor people are not productive, they deserve their povert because they are not smart enough or just don't work hard.
So i think the people who want our rich people to get poor are those who're bloody socialists and commies. We should not pay attention to them. Inequality is the American way. What is dangerous is the path to equality (equal poverty/misery).
So what do you think?

 

The town I lived in when I was in the U.S. pursued a no-growth policy which drove up prices on real estate and then they whined about not enough affordable housing.

We have a government fighting against business and private sector jobs with liberals bragging they've increased the number of people on the dole and have free people from the drudgery of work and people wonder why there's a wage gap. Well, part of the reason is people who consider welfare a wage. Liberals want more people on welfare and once there they want them to stay.

 

Worrying about inequality doesn't automatically mean wanting to (or believing it is possible to) eliminate it entirely. Generally when people are expressing concern about income/financial inequality it is about the growing differential between the rich and the poor. The issue is that the rich have the resources to take almost everything for themselves and the poor, however talented they may be or how hard they work, only have a limited proportional of the resources made available to them. When the poor work hard, most of the product of that work goes to the rich (employers, land owners, big business) or the government (taxation). When the rich work hard (and even when they don't) they get to keep most of the product for themselves.

It's obviously possible to break through that barrier with sufficient talent, a lot of hard work and a big chunk of luck but the very fact there is a barrier there in the first place remains an issue. If everyone was working on the same basis, the hard-working poor would automatically succeed and the lazy rich would fall. Currently, neither of these things often happens.

 

income inequality propaganda is nothing but hollow rhetoric, and its only purpose is to cause envy and class warfare to divide us for political purposes

where is it written you need to close some gap to bring the poor out of poverty? which is better taking from the rich and giving it to the poor to bring them out of poverty and closing the gap, or having both the poor and the rich make more money bringing the poor out of poverty but not closing the gap?

if that is answered truthfully it will show you that income inequality is nothing but damaging propaganda that solves nothing but satisfies the hate and envy for the makers in society

 

That can certainly be true but that doesn't mean increasing income inequality isn't a bad thing for a society.

Poverty is relative. If everyone earns more, inflation goes up, everything costs more and we're in exactly the same place (though as increases in income are likely to be proportional, the rich end up with even more). On a related note, the poor are more likely to be satisfied with a given level of income/resources if they don't see lots of other people with many times more for no obvious reason.

I'm not taking about simply shifting money about or taking from the rich to give to the poor though. It's really about recognising the efforts of the working poor and giving them a fairer share of the results of those efforts. The could well mean (some of) the rich don't get as much of a share as they currently do. In the long run though, everyone should benefit for a fairer and more balanced economy.

 

only time it causes inflation is when wealth creation isn't proportional to income increase when you have an artificial income increase with out the rise in wealth creation you have inflation

and you proved with that comment it is about envy and not about bettering the lives of the poor your claiming as long as the poor even if they ate not poor anymore sees anyone with more then them they feel it is not fair and demand the ones with more have less so to quench the feelings of envy

 

Inequality is irrelevant, initial conditions and resource allocation are crucial.

The left almost always ignores resource allocation and uses the power of the state to redistribute after the property rights have already been assigned. In this way they are no better than common thieves and muggers, except they wear suits and call themselves politicians. The exception to this mostly comes through left anarchists, who have the privilege of being able to think things through a little more deeply, even if I disagree with their solutions.

[hr][/hr]

So yeah, I think focusing on equality as your sole value in a society is undesirable.

Equality is like taking a raster image of a vector source. If you don't know what that means - imagine creating an image using a mathematical equation, then compressing that to a JPEG. With the equation you could zoom infinitely and it would remain sharp and detailed, with the JPEG you'll only be able to zoom 2x or so before it becomes pixelated. In concentrating on equality, a lot of information about differences in ability/justified headstarts (inheritance for instance) is lost.

In seeking to do away with unjustified inequalities, you do away with them all - because you take a nonsensical consequentialist approach to law and sociology.

[hr][/hr]

Just my

 

Wealth is the thing that is so much harder to increase for the poor though (and so much resisted by the rich). The total wealth within society is relatively static but even where you can create or import it, we're still talking about giving more of it to the poor than they currently get otherwise nothing really changes.

It's not about envy as such but envy is one of the factors that makes wide income/wealth inequalities a social problem. I'm not promoting envy, just pointing out that it exists and it will continue to exist (and grow) whether we talk about it or not. It's a symptom of the underlying issue.

 

Ah, it's been so long since I visited the right wing echo chamber. Still refusing to accept objective observation I see. So much time, so little change.

Your economy is still bumping along at near recession rates for well over 80% of the population. The highest income continue to accumulate a greater portion of the total wealth than in any time in history, ( and considering that includes both the Roman and Feudal periods that's saying something ). The majority of your liquid assets are being held by corporations which are fleeing to foreign tax havens at an alarming rate further concentrating the total wealth in the world in roughly 3000 families which now have more wealth than 40% of the counties on earth and are worth more than the lower 4,200,000,000 of people combined. Nothing to worry about here.

Statistically you have a much better chance of hitting the national lottery than you have being born in the lower 50% of the population and making it into the 1%, ( and note that hitting the lottery puts you nowhere near the 1% ). In fact the economic classes are much more rigid in both America and England than it was in the time of the American Revolution.

So how does all of this effect you? Well if you'd like to live the typical American Dream of owning an average house, driving an average 3 year old car, having 2 kids in public schools, with a median amount of savings and taking the family out to dinner and catch a movie a couple of times a month, then you should be earning roughly $131,000 a year. Your effective tax rate will be about twice that paid by your employer.

And what has brought us to this wonderful new normal? All classical economics text books will tell you politics. In any health economy there is a balance between management and labor. Even the great industrialists of the Robber Baron era knew that they needed their own workers to be able to afford their products. The balance between management and labor can be left to its own devices as long the regulatory conditions mandate an even balance of power. Those conditions include precluding monopolies, safe working conditions, and empowering Labor to collectively represent themselves to a collective Management. But when Government puts its thumb on the scales in favor of Management by limiting collective action, favoring Management with economic advantages built into the tax code, and limiting Union activity, then there is no one to step in and represent Labor interests. The Government supposedly represents everybody, both Management and Labor. The situation will stay unbalanced until voters get tired of the rigged game and install representatives that favor a more balanced approach. There appears to be no limit to the amount of money those representing management and the private interests benefiting the imbalance status quo will spend to hold on to their advantages. It appears those monied interests are working since it is seems to be their party line that you are spouting.

 

We should be more concerned with corruption. Rich using loopholes to get richer through lousy written laws or using political contacts to get no bid contracts for people they know. And the poor using loopholes to get handouts they don't qualify for, spending those handouts on drugs or other luxuries instead of rent, food, Ect. Having kids for more money....&$(@;: like that.

It's eliminating the corruption that is most important. Dumb people will be dumb. Smart people will be smart. A work ethic goes far. Common sense and values go far. Some have it. Some don't. What's most important is to not punish those doing all the right things like those found in the middle who make responsible decisions, always do the right thing. Don't cheat. When we get hurt because the stock market crashes through no fault of our own that's the real tragedy.

 

I think history shows that some people get rich from hard work and intelligence, but most rich people are rich because either they inherit wealth from ruthless, cunning, and violent ancestors or they're ruthless, cunning, and violent themselves.

I know that jobs aren't created by the wealthy except those jobs that cater only to the wealthy such as yacht productions. All jobs are created when there is a need or perceived need for a task to be done. What the rich do is find a way to control the Earth's natural resources and societies' technologies and political systems in such a way as to be able to decide who will get the jobs and who will be denied the jobs in order to force others to work for less than the value of their own labor. The stolen value is called 'profit'.

Can we create a society where hard work that is valuable to society is fairly rewarded? Yes. Should we? Yes. Does capitalism do this? Absolutely not.

 

The term income inequality is a marriage between those who lust for power and those who covet others blessings. So the covetous elect those who lust for power to office to plunder the remainder.

 

When you know that income inequality is really just a Socialist buzz word for "OMFG that person has more stuff so it must be taken away!" crap then you'd say no, Americans shouldn't care about it.

Income inequality is a crap buzzword, is all it is, designed to play on people feelings.

 

If what you say is true, then please explain this to me....

Last nights MDA Telethon raised about 52 million dollars world wide. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, the most successful in history, has raised 93 million since it went viral in July. The UN says it needs 400 million to feed, house, and rebuilt Gaza and the West Bank for a year, but has only raised 187 million from all member countries. About 4 years ago, Warren Buffett, loaned Bank of America 7 billion dollars to fund an acquisition and walked away with a $3.500,000,000 in profit 24 days later. Mr Buffett today earns roughly 1.5 million dollars a day in just the interest on the principle on the money he got from that 3 1/2 week loan.

At what scale would you like to measure the accumulation of wealth by individuals verses the needs of the entire world?

 

What makes you think the wealthy are responsible for doing that?

Why should need trump a person's individual rights?

Need does not trump rights.

Or it shouldn't.

if need trumps right then you wouldn't mind letting me have your wallet, would you? I'm in some pretty dire needs of funds.

 

I don't think income inequality is the issue.

It's the lack of upward mobility and vastly unequal access to opportunity that is the challenge.

It is also tax and government policies that are increasingly tilted toward preserving wealth, not creating it, and tilted toward rewarding capital over work.

 

I said nothing about being responsible about Mr Buffett or any other individual. It is a byproduct of the law and tax code that allows such an accumulation to exist. I advocate a rewrite of the financial regulations and the tax code to correct the damage done by the current set of regulations which led to the situation.

I was raised in a house that proudly wore " I Like Ike " buttons. The top tax rate under Ike was 90%. I think that a bit excessive. However, 50% for all income beyond $50 million a year doesn't bother me too much. Capital Gains? I think it a bad idea. Let's treat Capital Gains as ordinary income. Estate Tax? I won't quibble pick your number, 50 million, 100 million, 500 million. There should be some limit to the real percentage of total national wealth that should be earned by the accident of one's birth.

Number One on the Hit Parade, abolish Investment Banking and the leveraged buy out. Back before Reagan, Wall Street was a method for public investment to inject capital into successful businesses for their expansion and investment in research and development. After "reform", Wall Street became a method to strip off the assets and sell off the bones. Business can no longer look at long term research or risk expansion since the first quarter without a suitable profit gets you sold and dismantled. It's a way to take money out of business, not put money into it.

I'm all for playing within the rules but I also advocate reasonable rules.

 

You stated that accurately and eloquently. Bravo!!

 

That isn't even close to being true.

Yes, the information on the topic CAN be abused (as with any) to project one's narrow and less than realistic view of something, but the truth is that extreme income inequality in a nation such as ours is a serious problem.

Why is that so? Let's consider:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/b...equality-and-the-problems-behind-it.html?_r=0

 

so what is the goal what is the purpose of income inequity propaganda what are you trying to accomplish if it isn't envy and class warfare?
why does the gap need to be closed or closer what is the purpose?

there are 3 ways to close a gap you can move point A closer to point B you can move point B closer to point A or you can move point A and point B closer to each other

This is why liberals use the propaganda of income inequality because their goal is to take from B to give to A to close the gap

 

I'm not talking about "propaganda", I'm pointing out the problems with EXCESSIVE income inequality itself.

A few hyper-wealthy people will never be as excellent as a society that's making a living. No way, no how.

 

you still haven't put forth any purpose other then envy
is your purpose to bring the poor out of poverty? or is your purpose is to drag the wealthy down caused by envy? what is the goal what is the purpose to close the gap

 

Ooh, ooh, ooh, can I play?

How about balancing the overall economy of the nation so that it's internationally competitive and avoids a domestic humanitarian crisis? Or perhaps distributes the taxation burden across all economic activity without regard to individual sources? Or maybe limits the power of an emerging oligarchy over the lives of everyone? Or maybe just head off the armed revolution and failure of society that has been the result of every other instance of such a wealth distribution shift in recorded human history.

 

Wrong.

You are seeing what you WANT to see. Only you can remove the veil before your own thinking.

 

Right back at ya.

NYAH!