Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinX";p="
Pretty much. I don't have a problem with income inequality. I think it's a good thing. Or, would you rather everyone earned the same, regardless of ability or effort?
|
Yeah, like I was arguing for complete income equality. It's not a binary question, it's a spectrum. Gross inequality is nearly as bad as state-ordered equality. |
Oh, I see... it's a spectrum. So what then is the optimum balance of income distribution on this spectrum? Exactly how wide should the "gap" between rich and poor be? And once decided: How do you suggest we achieve this happy medium? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure government involvement is going to be part of any solution proposed.
So... government involvement to make things more equitable. How is this different from the "state-ordered equality" you disapproved of above? A difference of degrees perhaps? As long as the government doesn't insist on
complete income equality, it's okay then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Quote:
|
This widening income gap does not mean that people are getting poor so much as others are getting rich. And there is nothing wrong with this. Or are we now to judge wealth (or lack thereof) by what others have, rather than what we ourselves have?
|
When real wages for the bottom 90 percent of earners are falling, your thesis doesn't hold. |
I said it isn't so much people getting poor as others getting rich. Even if we take the NY Times article at face value (never a good idea), income for the bottom 90% dropped only 0.6% (hardly a significant amount), while total income increased 9%. How does this not support my point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe";p="
People are losing ground. Saving rates are nonexistent.
|
Not quite true.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...l=chi-site-nav
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe";p="
Credit card debt continues to be the foundation of economic activity. The wealthy- whether they deserve it or not- will always be able to move their wealth into the most advantageous currencies or wealth producing products while the rest of us experience the full impact of domestic policies. Power always concentrates wealth.
|
Well, I suppose we could set up a government committee - let's call it the People's Board of Wealth Worthiness - to decide who deserves their wealth and who doesn't. Every citizen who doesn't appear deserving enough will have their wealth seized and redistributed among the masses (and then maybe they'll be taken out and shot, so the state can harvest their undeserved organs as well... just kidding). Though, I wonder what such a policy (arbitrary wealth seizure) would do to "minor" concerns like productivity, employment, incentive, standard of living, etc...?
I would like to ask again: Are we now to judge wealth (or lack thereof) by what others have, rather than what we ourselves have? Because it seems to me that this question is at the heart of all this newly found concern with income inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe";p="
P.S. the more ancient measurement for a cubit is 20.64 inches (couldn't help myself.)
|
Google has it as 45.72 centimeters (18 inches) and I'm sticking to that. (Otherwise, I'll have to dismantle my ark and start over...
)