Serious Income Inequality

[mirza]

Income inequality seems inevitable in a capitalist society. I do agree it is a problem. It is also the hand us younger people have been dealt.

Inflation-adjusted wages, education, tax reform (estate tax, capital gains) are some of the changes I think would help society as a whole. Still, there are many more factors.

Laziness, stupidity, lack of skills for example contribute to why someone would be ok with making a bare minimum living.

The cool thing about America is IT IS possible to climb your way into a higher class. You DON'T HAVE to be ok with your greedy boss wanting to pay you 7.25. Make yourself NEEDED by the company and see if they'll pay you more to stay. In this country you have to develop a hustle to live. I hate people who aren't generous at all to their employees but the truth is that's become the norm. Greed doesn't exist only in the 1% it exists in the 100%.

Also as a Finance major I have to admit the finance sector really does not give 1 shit about the average person. Remember: if you're stealing a little bit you're a thief. If you're stealing a lot you're a hero.

Ultimately income inequality is a fault of the system, the people, the government, and the other 1,000,000 factors that contributed to the sequence of events that has brought us here.

I don't know what the solution is. Personally I think there is TONS of money out there. You as the individual have to take it upon yourself to get your little slice of the giant pie.

 

[Zebstrika]

Not everyone can move up, society always needs the crap min wage jobs...Anyone can move up but not everyone

 

[Darth Manaphy]

Not everyone can move up, society always needs the crap min wage jobs...Anyone can move up but not everyone

Ideally who works the crap minimum wage jobs are the people that really don't have much potential in society such that everyone in all classes can have the same opportunities to move up and, for those that can perform, move down.

That's the one problem with our society in that matter. The problem is our current society doesn't provide enough to help people move up and there's no way our society is going to provide any reliable methods for moving people DOWN because they just aren't intelligent. And people who are in a higher class do have those opportunities to get higher education even though they don't have the intelligence to deserve going there. And people who are in lower classes seem to be unrightfully brought down and don't always think they can succeed in life unless they get the right encouragement. So it goes off a slippery slope there...

 

[Brap]

Right-wing nonsense about inequality being inevitable

I don't know what the solution is.

For someone who apparently knows finance, you musn't have covered the inequality topic in macro-economics.

I give you, the Scandanavian model. I think most of them currently have centre-right or right-wing parties in power, yet still the inequality levels there are lower than anywhere else. Their model has proved that inequality (well certainly not as great at it is in the UK or US) is not an inevitable feature of capitalism. My point I just made about the current parties shows it is capitalism.

There is your solution. Also more progressive taxes, as I said in a previous post, is one of the simplest ways to decrease inequality.

 

[mirza]

^Thanks smart guy. You sure know better than me. Your macro class has prepared you to tackle one of the biggest issues in the U.S. Mine hasn't.

Income inequality IS INEVITABLE IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY. We have this thing called leverage and scales of production. Rich get richer. Welcome aboard.

Scandinavia is not comparable at all to the U.S. Do I have to spell this out? Right-wing in any Scandinavian country is like FAR LEFT in the U.S. Obama couldn't cut it as a right-winger in Scandinavia.

You think Americans will want to realistically pay Scandinavian-level taxes? Get the hell outta here. If you've ever made a paycheck in your life you would know. Even Scandinavians would rather live in the U.S. because they can make more money for their work.

BTW I lean left. Right-wing politics has nothing to do with it.

 

[Brap]

No it is not inevitable. The viewpoint that inequality is inevitable in capitalism is a right-wing viewpoint. So therefore that's what that has to do with it.

I do not agree either that Scandinavians would rather live in the US. There's probably a few on here. Go and ask them where they'd rather live.

Also I think you'll find the direct tax rates in Scandanavian countries isn't much higher than the US. By some calculations, it's lower than the tax rates in the UK.
Indirect taxes on the other hand, such as VAT, is a different matter and not what you referred to.

 

[dwarfstar]

No it is not inevitable. The viewpoint that inequality is inevitable in capitalism is a right-wing viewpoint. So therefore that's what that has to do with it.

Just popping in to say that's not true at all - inequality, both in terms of power and of material wealth, are intrinsic to the function of a wage-labor economy. The workers' remuneration for the time they spend in the service of someone else's aims is a pittance, generally speaking, compared to the wealth flowing into the coffers of those who own the means of production (and of the middle-management types, who don't even put anything of value into the system), so there's your material inequality. There's also a net power imbalance involved in that the workers are often unable to take their services to someone who will pay them better, and they are forced to sell their labor for less than what it's worth to those who own the means of production because the alternative is being unable to pay for the basic necessities of life. Capitalism is BUILT on inequality, Brap. This is not a right-wing viewpoint; rather, it's an objective fact that anyone, be they an apologist for capitalism or a dedicated communist or anything in between, should be able to observe.

 

[Brap]

No, I've shown you my evidence already and have no need to repeat it.

It seems you've been blinded by the fact inequality is so prevalent in the Americas so for some reason seem to think that applies to capitalism as a whole. That's simply not correct.

Either that, or your definition of inequality is way-off.

 

[Stratos]

or YOUR definition of capitalism is way off?

 

[Myzozoa]

Marx has certainly argued that inequality is inherent to capitalism. If this is accepted, then a "leftist" (these scare quotes are 4 real tho) could argue against capitalism on the basis that inequality is bad. A "conservative" (be afraid of these scare quotes) could argue against this and the debate could shift to being about whether inequality is bad or not. They could argue that more "efficient" markets lead to greater wages/production at every level overall, thus even if inequality persists, freeing the market will lead to everyone doing better off overall.

The other way to go is to disagree with Marx's claim, in which case the "leftist" might argue that safety nets and regulations (the best scare quotes are the ones that you put in for yourself) are necessary to preventing inequality. However, this does not necessarily affect the debate about whether inequality is bad or not.

I find it interesting which users, based on my prior understandings of their political leanings, trot out what conception of capitalism's relationship to inequality.

 

[newtonja]

I am going to ask a question. How much does population size and country size affect income inequality?

 

[dwarfstar]

No, I've shown you my evidence already and have no need to repeat it.

It seems you've been blinded by the fact inequality is so prevalent in the Americas so for some reason seem to think that applies to capitalism as a whole. That's simply not correct.

Either that, or your definition of inequality is way-off.

The "evidence" you cite is the decreased magnitude of economic inequality in the Scandinavian region compared to the US, and you fail to grasp that a lesser degree of inequality DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO INEQUALITY. While the degree to which those who own the means of production have an advantage over the workers is smaller in Scandinavia than in the US, there is still a material difference there, and the power imbalance I mentioned before is still in place as well. Your argument is based on faulty logic.

 

[Brap]

So, there's the answer to my puzzlement then. Your definition of inequality is clearly way off.

 

[newtonja]

So, there's the answer to my puzzlement then. Your definition of inequality is clearly way off.

Then what is your definition of inequality?

 

[Minwu]

user Crux may have been sarcastic but anyone who owns a superyacht or a 400 person living space for 4 people simply should not

I don't see how you can attempt to call me out not knowing history when you don't realize how horrible the vast majority of human history was. In just 20something years the people starving in the world was cut in half thanks to market forces. FYI Living > Dying.

I know a thing or two about the history of communism and I definitely know a thing or two about communism from talking to people who experienced it. At first I swore your privilege checker title was a joke but judging by your posts, you're really just a hardcore liberal/marxist.

You don't know how compassionate I am. I've witnessed real poverty via my family still living in the old countries. You have electricity they don't. You have mattresses, they don't. You have surplus food, they don't. You're the real privileged one. Latin American countries generally have a bunch of government involvement in their economy and socialist policies which show no correlation with improving the countries standard of living. These people are willing to risk their life to move to a country where market forces are present. The most prosperous country in that region is Chile which has low regulations and taxation. Then the poorest country in that region, Nicaragua, has heavy regulation and one of the most underemployed countries in the world. Life fucking sucks there.

Just because I have a different solution (and a proven one at that) than you do does not mean I lack compassion.

Capitalism in the US lives off of exploiting the starving in poor countries too, sorry. Social reform in a country with as much resources as held by the United States is both within power and the morally conscientious thing to do.

I also highly contest the idea of fry cooks being unskilled/poor people lacking talent and most of the accepted concepts of intelligence in general, but that discussion is probably better suited outside of cong for anyone equally interested. From a "97th percentile" US third grader to you.

 

[Twisted Kneebar]

^ I bet you think all "sweatshops" should be shut down too, huh? Can't believe people are this naive.

America exploits third world countries by overthrowing governments and installing friendly puppet governments and all sorts of shady shit, but not by American companies opening shop in 3rd world countries, paying far higher wages than local businesses and offering people a chance at social mobility.

I think it's funny that Smogon has so many Marxists. People talking about "they're exploiting the poor people maaan" when they haven't been to these places. I'm going to Mexico on Friday to visit family who make a living because American's and immigrants from other countries decided to invest in the area and create a thriving tourism industry.

Oh no wait they're being exploited by the big scary capitalists. I'll remind them that they're being exploited meanwhile people in Mexico who aren't fortunate enough to live in a place developed by capitalists are living in dire poverty. Idiots.

 

[Minwu]

I have Iranian heritage and I have been there to see more than enough homeless and poor for a perspective on poverty, and my Dad even moreso. I suppose capitalism did enforce the skill of stealing to survive and in my Dad, paranoia to the point of near-hermitry. Oh, and don't breathe the air out there nowadays unless you're rich or secluded.

 

[jumpluff]

^ I bet you think all "sweatshops" should be shut down too, huh? Can't believe people are this naive.

America exploits third world countries by overthrowing governments and installing friendly puppet governments and all sorts of shady shit, but not by American companies opening shop in 3rd world countries, paying far higher wages than local businesses and offering people a chance at social mobility.

I think it's funny that Smogon has so many Marxists. People talking about "they're exploiting the poor people maaan" when they haven't been to these places. I'm going to Mexico on Friday to visit family who make a living because American's and immigrants from other countries decided to invest in the area and create a thriving tourism industry.

Oh no wait they're being exploited by the big scary capitalists. I'll remind them that they're being exploited meanwhile people in Mexico who aren't fortunate enough to live in a place developed by capitalists are living in dire poverty. Idiots.

The British came to my country and now a lot of my people, who were previously self-sufficient, live in squalor, with decades less of life expectancy, massively increased incidences of easily treatable or preventable disease, huge mental illness problems, employment disparity, engendered alcohol abuse problems, homelessness, preventably disparate educational outcomes, and all the other social ills that come with social stratification, and this is Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world *shrug*

Capitalism brought a lot of horrible changes over the last few centuries for my people.

And if you don't think the USA and allies have an obscene stranglehold on many countries through economic imperialism and resource exploitation then I don't know what to say to you. You don't think the fact that such an alarming proportion of global wealth is concentrated in such a tiny percentage of the global population, and geographically too, says there's a problem that needs more addressing than tourism?

 

[Aldaron]

So is this topic about doing something about existing inequality in the current, established economic systems, or about blasting the current systems and waxing hopeful about the unrealistic and near improbable establishment of totally different economic systems?

Cause we can do the internet's 234324252's "debate" between capitalists and marxists or we can do...wait the internet's 4353254234's "debate" between people who want to tax a lot and people who don't.

Damn.

I'm not gonna close the topic but honestly, there isn't much to discuss...If we do keep the debate within the realm of existing systems, then maybe we should talk about how higher taxes on the middle / upper class can hopefully benefit the lower classes?

The issue with "government enforced redistribution of wealth" almost always boils down to two types of opposition: the first being those who don't feel they have any obligation to the people and don't want to help them even survive, and the second being those who are willing to give as much as necessary to ensure survival (but not "the good life").

Since I'm talking in realistic terms, I'm going to throw out the concerns of the former, because again, completely abolishing welfare (at least in the USA) is a joke proposal and will never happen.

The initial thoughts I've always had on this subject is taxing as much as required to ensure that primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling is free, or at least extremely cheap in tertiary's case if completely free isn't practical. I feel like as much as people whine about inherited wealth (and alot of the super wealthy's wealth is inherited), a strong education is the greatest equalizer is moving people up from lower class to at least upper middle class.

I personally fall into the latter opposition for government redistribution; I am fine with getting taxed as much as necessary to ensure people can have shelter, food, and health insurance. I really want to give enough to ensure that they have the freedom to "move up" (giving to ensure cheap primary / secondary / tertiary education), but I'm not at all comfortable with giving to ensure that welfare queen A can buy an iphone or welfare king Z can purchase timberlands.

As long as lines of socioeconomic mobility (cheap education) and survival are ensured, and again speaking within the confines of the established systems (because I'm interested in a realistic debate), why should I or other people have to give more? Note the give more is only in the context of money applied to the lower class individuals, and not money allocated for improving country infrastructure / military / etc.

Again, note I am speaking within the stance that wage labor and capitalism are both assumed, so coming at me from the perspective of "wage labor is SLAVE LABOR LOL" or "ALL THE SUPERYACHTS OF THE RICH SHOULD BE CONFISCATED DUH" is pointless.

 

[billymills]

I've been interested in how taxation structure relates to income inequality. Current taxation relies heavily on income tax, either in flat or progressive forms. Consumption based tax (GST, VAT, gas taxes) is typically a supplement. Would a taxation scheme primarily pulling from consumption taxes do a better job of controlling income inequality? I've heard this argument proposed by a few people, but I haven't really seen a refutation yet.

In general terms, income tax would be reduced towards 0. Consumption taxes, such as taxes on oil, minerals, land and water would be increased to reflect the environmental impact of production. Further taxes would be placed on luxury items (iphones, cars, etc.) as means of government enforced redistribution of wealth.

 

[Twisted Kneebar]

The British came to my country and now a lot of my people, who were previously self-sufficient, live in squalor, with decades less of life expectancy, massively increased incidences of easily treatable or preventable disease, huge mental illness problems, employment disparity, engendered alcohol abuse problems, homelessness, preventably disparate educational outcomes, and all the other social ills that come with social stratification, and this is Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world *shrug*

Capitalism brought a lot of horrible changes over the last few centuries for my people.

And if you don't think the USA and allies have an obscene stranglehold on many countries through economic imperialism and resource exploitation then I don't know what to say to you. You don't think the fact that such an alarming proportion of global wealth is concentrated in such a tiny percentage of the global population, and geographically too, says there's a problem that needs more addressing than tourism?

You're blaming the issues of the aborigines on capitalism? No, that is because the British genocided them, stole their land, took their culture, and defeated them mentally.

Don't you guys know what capitalism is? And FWIW you can say the exact same about American Indians and the ones in best shape in America thrive because they open businesses and the worst ones are dying because they're not and are in self destructive paths via drugs (not to mention the fact that they're often living in isolation in reservations but that is bc of the evils of American government, not capitalism)

 

[jumpluff]

snip

You're blaming the issues of the aborigines on capitalism? No, that is because the British genocided them, stole their land, took their culture, and defeated them mentally.

Don't you guys know what capitalism is? And FWIW you can say the exact same about American Indians and the ones in best shape in America thrive because they open businesses and the worst ones are dying because they're not and are in self destructive paths via drugs (not to mention the fact that they're often living in isolation in reservations but that is bc of the evils of American government, not capitalism)

Excuse you? This entire thing is really fucking racist? Like why am I even responding to 'the British defeated them mentally' and 'the American Indians are on self-destructive paths due to drugs but the respectable ones have businesses'?

When did I ever say it was all the fault of capitalism? (P.S. 'aborigines' is a really outmoded racist term don't use it thanks, especially in lowercase) Capitalism has a huge role in it though. Capitalism is a huge driver of imperialism and the actual truth is that capitalism creates incredible class disparities... which Aboriginal people have suffered most of the brunt of, due to racism and colonialism. The things I mentioned result in Aboriginal people largely making up the working class / falling below the poverty line, which is problematic in a capitalist society with class divides. Events like the Stolen Generation were motivated primarily by paternalism and extreme racism, but there was also a strong exploitative capitalist element in that most of the children were groomed to basically be servants / do menial labour for settlers. One of the most important parts of the Stolen Generation re-education assimilative programme was teaching Aboriginal children a work ethic suitable to exploit them as such.

And, yes, you can say the exact same thing about Native Americans. I don't because I am not one.

P.S. people who think colonised peoples are at fault for their own drug problems are absurdly ignorant. They are intergenerational and generally a result of the horrible things that have happened to them very fast and the incredible losses they have suffered. In the case of Aboriginal people, British people deliberately engendered alcoholism in them by giving them alcohol to fight and as payment for labour. I believe Aboriginal people actually drink less alcohol generally speaking than white people, it's just the Aboriginal alcoholics go harder than the white alcoholics. Alcohol, like everything else that came with the British, is a powerful introduction to cope with; previously Aboriginal people only had really weak stuff, there was nothing responsible about the introduction of it.

There's really little point arguing with someone who is a) really racist b) illogically thinks capitalism is the remedy for people who have been fucked over by it though. All the programs that have helped at least slightly amelioriate this disparity have generally been socialist in nature. (Not sure why you think workers don't exist in socialist/communist societies?)

billymills I know essentially nothing about economics but I would be interested in seeing a discussion on this. My intuitive, but not evidenced, feeling is to disagree with you, but I can't provide a mathematical argument. I find it improbable that even the wealthy are consuming at a rate where their consumption taxes would outstrip their current income taxes (ignoring the disparity between what should be and what gets paid). I don't know much about luxury taxes, but things like cars aren't bought that often.

 

[Aldaron]

the issue Twisted Kneebar, is that people confuse flaws in implementation / examples of X as flaws of X.

Now if it was inevitable that X (capitalism in this case) always led to such implementation flaws, then it would be a valid concern, but I just do not believe that.

Also billymills point...I'm actually interested in that as well. Perhaps a person majoring in economics can shed some light on that topic?

Tangerine ?

for ease, here is billymills post:

I've been interested in how taxation structure relates to income inequality. Current taxation relies heavily on income tax, either in flat or progressive forms. Consumption based tax (GST, VAT, gas taxes) is typically a supplement. Would a taxation scheme primarily pulling from consumption taxes do a better job of controlling income inequality? I've heard this argument proposed by a few people, but I haven't really seen a refutation yet.
In general terms, income tax would be reduced towards 0. Consumption taxes, such as taxes on oil, minerals, land and water would be increased to reflect the environmental impact of production. Further taxes would be placed on luxury items (iphones, cars, etc.) as means of government enforced redistribution of wealth.

 

[Tangerine]

the issue Twisted Kneebar, is that people confuse flaws in implementation / examples of X as flaws of X.

Now if it was inevitable that X (capitalism in this case) always led to such implementation flaws, then it would be a valid concern, but I just do not believe that.

You should just think of capitalism is a model. It's a damn good model that is very powerful. Generally implementation problems aren't really a problem in the long run, because pat of it is that we as a collective have some sort of incentive to fix whatever we think is a problem. That's the "general" idea behind how capitalism is based off from, except a lot of people take it literally and just say "money" rather than "incentives", so whatever...

So by this idea implementation flaws are a part of capitalism but the belief is that, we'll identify them and slowly get better and better at fixing it through incentives.

So rather than talking about specific implementation flaws, when you talk about capitalism and its flaws, you should be thinking about whether this system of checking itself through incentives breaks or not. So implementation flaws aren't really an argument against capitalism, but if this implementation flaw can't be corrected by itself (which a lot of people believe, but they're not really realizing that entire thing of wanting to correct these problems IS a part of capitalism).

It's one of the reasons why people talk more about the government when it comes to these things, because they're usually the rule makers that directly manipulate the system of incentives. Usually people are naive and swing in extremes ("government is always evil cause it's inefficient" vs "capitalism has issues, lets fix it using the government"). Usually both sides are kind of right because capitalism doesn't really fix stuff in the short run but in the long run and government solutions are very very short run. So in reality it is kind of both and depends on what you prioritize and what you're willing to sacrifice.

Which leads me to my response to this income inequality point

for ease, here is billymills post:

I've been interested in how taxation structure relates to income inequality. Current taxation relies heavily on income tax, either in flat or progressive forms. Consumption based tax (GST, VAT, gas taxes) is typically a supplement. Would a taxation scheme primarily pulling from consumption taxes do a better job of controlling income inequality? I've heard this argument proposed by a few people, but I haven't really seen a refutation yet.
In general terms, income tax would be reduced towards 0. Consumption taxes, such as taxes on oil, minerals, land and water would be increased to reflect the environmental impact of production. Further taxes would be placed on luxury items (iphones, cars, etc.) as means of government enforced redistribution of wealth.

I don't think taxes is a good way of controlling income inequality. Income inequality is a long term problem, not a short run one... and taxation is a short run measure to try and "patch" things. I don't think it's a great idea. I don't think taxes really control income inequality at the basis, it just makes the problem seem a lot less severe based on the technical definition (oh there's income inequality? lets just take money from the rich and give it to the poor! tada, solved). In reality it really just doesnt do much since the rich will always find a way of avoiding paying taxes and defining what's a "luxury" good or not is going to be a gigantic pain in the ass that just creates a lot of work that's probably going to be largely loopholed anyway.

If you want to fight inequality then you need to fix what may actually be causing it, whether it be technology allowing companies so much control that people were really able to take advantage of that, or education gaps, or who the hell knows. Stop gap solutions suck and just create more loopholes while giving the illusion that people are trying but honestly I bet the luxury item tax is going to hurt the middle class more than it will affect the upper class.

tldr aldaron is a noob