Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

[DarrinS]

People that about outsourcing shouldn't complain when they buy cheap products from those companies.

[baseline bum]

The founders of Google are very weathy -- unfairly so (just kidding). Do they have any employees at Google? Do those employees buy tangible goods?

Google has done a lot to increase the wealth of our nation. They give lots of jobs that pay very well, and the company is full of creative people. Google was born on a brilliant idea (the quality of a search result being tied to the count of pages linking to it), and they keep doing incredible things while still giving back to the community (for instance, their work on the Linux kernel licensed under the GPL). Google is about as forward-thinking a company as there is in America: people who work there get a full day per workweek to work on their own personal projects aside from their normal duties.

[Jekka]

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

Because it was the US citizens who were buying all of his and making him rich in the first place so that he could expand globally and take the world's money? Because otherwise he's just taking currency out of circulation to ... hoard it so no one else can use it? Because it's the decent ing thing to do?

He doesn't have a legal obligation, but that speaks very little to ethics. You aren't legally obligated to remain faithful in a marriage, but it's a sham marriage if you're not. When a person amasses that much fortune, if he's not giving back some then he's just sitting on money that he doesn't even have enough lifetime to spend. There are these ideas of pride for and obligation to one's country that make a country great and add to the quality of life for many.

And all of that aside, I don't hear anyone ing about Gates's efforts outside of the US - I'm pretty sure no one is walking around saying, "You know, he should really stop trying to fund a cure for malaria in Africa when there are people in his own country who have problems."

[DarrinS]

Google has done a lot to increase the wealth of our nation. They give lots of jobs that pay very well, and the company is full of creative people. Google was born on a brilliant idea (the quality of a search result being tied to the count of pages linking to it), and they keep doing incredible things while still giving back to the community (for instance, their work on the Linux kernel licensed under the GPL). Google is about as forward-thinking a company as there is in America: people who work there get a full day per workweek to work on their own personal projects aside from their normal duties.

I agree with all that.

Those two dudes are EXTREMELY rich. Is that fair? I think it is. After all, they are the ones who had the idea.

[vy65]

Because it was the US citizens who were buying all of his and making him rich in the first place so that he could expand globally and take the world's money? Because otherwise he's just taking currency out of circulation to ... hoard it so no one else can use it? Because it's the decent ing thing to do?

Those customers got his in return. Sale completed. He now owes them more? That sounds pretty indecent.

He doesn't have a legal obligation, but that speaks very little to ethics. You aren't legally obligated to remain faithful in a marriage, but it's a sham marriage if you're not. When a person amasses that much fortune, if he's not giving back some then he's just sitting on money that he doesn't even have enough lifetime to spend. There are these ideas of pride for and obligation to one's country that make a country great and add to the quality of life for many.

Dunno how marriage is any way relevant to the conduct of business. What's wrong with sitting out hordes of cash from circulation if you earned it and doing so isn't illegal? There are obligations apart from the law that dictate what you should do with your hard earned money?

And all of that aside, I don't hear anyone ing about Gates's efforts outside of the US - I'm pretty sure no one is walking around saying, "You know, he should really stop trying to fund a cure for malaria in Africa when there are people in his own country who have problems."

If that's what he wants to do with his money, more power to him.

[baseline bum]

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one? It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money. What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Cons ution or the tax code?

A wealthier person is obliged to pay at a higher rate because it pays for the society that gives him the ability to earn. When you keep milking the people and not giving much back, you're eventually going to bring chaos which will drag everyone down. Maybe not in the short term, but it's not a viable long-term strategy, Look at Mexico as an example of what wealth inequality brings; people dropping like flies left and right because it's hard to make it living on $70 a week being legit in a border town.

[DarrinS]

I kinda like the idea that someone can drop out of school and become the richest man on Earth. If your idea is good enough, you would be a FOOL to stay in college.


I wonder how much wealth MS, Apple, et. al. have created? I suspect a lot.

[DarrinS]

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

[vy65]

A wealthier person is obliged to pay at a higher rate because it pays for the society that gives him the ability to earn. When you keep milking the people and not giving much back, you're eventually going to bring chaos which will drag everyone down. Maybe not in the short term, but it's not a viable long-term strategy, Look at Mexico as an example of what wealth inequality brings; people dropping like flies left and right because it's hard to make it living on $70 a week being legit in a border town.

Doesn't everyone have that ability to earn?

[baseline bum]

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

Our wealth inequality is headed in that direction. It's not a stretch to think that's our future.

[baseline bum]

I kinda like the idea that someone can drop out of school and become the richest man on Earth. If your idea is good enough, you would be a FOOL to stay in college.


I wonder how much wealth MS, Apple, et. al. have created? I suspect a lot.

Gates is a little overrated in this country. Yes, he is an amazing salesman with balls of steel, but he hasn't done much innovative in his career. He pretty much just took a big bite out of Apple's market share, and is lucky that IBM believed he had an operating system when they scoffed Apple and their hippy culture. Gates would probably just be a $150k a year software engineer if Xerox would have been smart enough to cash in their winning lottery ticket with the Alto. Too bad, as the Alto would have created a lot more wealth in this nation than anything Apple or MS did. That's another topic though.

[Sec24Row7]

Shrug... easy to pick on them... they are .00013% of the vote and can't defend themselves if the government insists on taking more...

Win win for a Democratic president.

[SnakeBoy]

There is nothing wrong with that dream, no matter how many people starve to death!

The CDC considers obesity in America an epidemic. So I don't you have to lose sleep over the starving masses.

[DarrinS]

Gates is a little overrated in this country. Yes, he is an amazing salesman with balls of steel, but he hasn't done much innovative in his career. He pretty much just took a big bite out of Apple's market share, and is lucky that IBM believed he had an operating system when they scoffed Apple and their hippy culture. Gates would probably just be a $150k a year software engineer if Xerox would have been smart enough to cash in their winning lottery ticket with the Alto. Too bad, as the Alto would have created a lot more wealth in this nation than anything Apple or MS did. That's another topic though.

But he had the vision when a lot of people didn't. Otherwise, some poor sap wouldn't have sold him DOS for 35K. He was also smart enough not to get all tied up in the hardware business.

[LnGrrrR]

People that about outsourcing shouldn't complain when they buy cheap products from those companies.

Most of the people that are probably affected by outsourcing don't have the time/money to buy only US made products.

Hey, do you agree with every move the NYJets management makes? If not, why do you still follow the team?

[LnGrrrR]

Doesn't everyone have that ability to earn?

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, cir stance, etc etc).

[LnGrrrR]

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one?

Citizenry deciding so.

It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money.

Yes.

What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

The justification is because that's how the world works. Like I said, realpolitiks takes over here.

If you look at most revolutions, the "justification" for the revolution is rather weak. The real reason is because the populace just gets seriously pissed off. Taxing the rich more prevents that.

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Cons ution or the tax code?

The justification is that rich people pay more so the poor folks don't go crazy and steal/attack them for their wealth.

[LnGrrrR]

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

I think it was used as an example, not an analogy. Or at best, it was a weak analogy in this case.

[LnGrrrR]

Shrug... easy to pick on them... they are .00013% of the vote and can't defend themselves if the government insists on taking more...

Win win for a Democratic president.

Honestly, do you do standup?

[SnakeBoy]

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, cir stance, etc etc).

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

[baseline bum]

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

I agree that we waste too much money on cars and plasma screens, but look at the things whose price has shot through the roof in the last 30 years: absolute necessities like healthcare, housing, and education. Wages haven't followed. This isn't the same nation it used to be.

[sickdsm]

By the way, I engage in speculation and I'm not a billionaire. Sometimes, investments are a better place to put your money than a piece of consumer electronics that is obsolete in two years.

Agreed.

[LnGrrrR]

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

That plays in for some millionaires, but I'm not sure how many. It seems more and more millionaires are younger and younger nowadays.

[Stringer_Bell]

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

"Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the upper crust - you get it, then they move it so you're never keeping up enough. Crooked banks around the world would gladly give a loan away so if you miss a payment they can take your home away."

But I'm glad you still believe in the American Dream under President Obama, real patriotic.

[CuckingFunt]

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

This doesn't take into proper consideration the HUGE grey area that exists between the two poles of obliging one to dedicate his/her money to the greater good and encouraging him/her to selfishly dedicate that same money to the greater suck.

I agree that the answer to all of this is not obligation or forced philanthropy, but that doesn't mean that we should swing all the way to the other side and abandon any hope of a system in which a) the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is quite so severe, and b) it becomes financially attractive for those with money to invest in the betterment of their own community/country. An imagined utopia free of capitalistic greed and its resulting power/privilege dynamic is, for better or worse, completely unrealistic; but that doesn't mean that violently stomping on the heads of those below you HAS TO BE a necessary part of climbing the ladder.