The system we have has some external power (i.e. the government) (re)organizing people's stuff to deal with the simple fact that some people have more stuff than others. The question is to what degree the wealth is redistributed.
:INCREASED in their monetary well-being since 1979. EVERY ONE. Seems like we're doing a pretty good job"
no, since 1979, real household income has been basically stagnant.
If you want a non-BULL "pretty good job", take the same stats for 1945-1975, after which the General Welfare flattened, and the wealthy exploded, based on policy decisions, man-made, not the mysterious "invisible hand", defined by the VRWC, not by the "natural" economic order.
Neither would I.
Then again, he didn't coin the phrase.
Fail.If the decision making power of how to divide that benefit rests in a small group of people, who collectively take most of that benefit, is this a conflict of interest?
It is a very clear conflict of interest.
Here is the pie we made. I will divide it into two pieces then get first pick as to which piece I get, and which piece you get.
Care to guess how big your piece is going to be? I like pie.
Workers aren't en led to a piece the same size as management. Your assumption that the contribution made by workers is equivalent to management is incorrect.
If any particular worker doesn't agree with this, they can move along to another company or start one.
Look at the chart in the OP.
which group got the redistribution of wealth?
There was no REdistribution
Now who is making assumptions?
I didn't say the pie slices had to be equal. That is your faulty stereotype of what someone you perceive as liberal believes.
I am saying that the decision as to how that pie is divided is strongly and disporportionately skewed to benefit the people making that decision.
Most "particular workers" don't have any idea that this is taking place. Why would they move to a different company based on something they dont' know?
Argue with scott about that.
If everyone had a net worth of $1M, then no one would be poor and no one would be rich. We'd all be the same. Your reading comprehension is stupid.
Who cares? This is only an issue for someone who assumes that the workers should but don't have a say on the piece of pie that they're getting -- or that worker's should be en led to more benefits than they actually receive -- or that worker's aren't aware of these facts.
Worker's don't know that management decides how much their salary is?
I don't think we are at a point to make conclusions or characterizations on (a) or (b), because we still haven't identified what we are trying to accomplish. Is it total income equality? Is it the level of income equality that maximizes quality of life? Is income equality moot to what we're really trying to accomplish?
I have my personal opinions on this, but honestly I have more fun stepping back and being the scientist to other people's positions.
fair enough. which group got the cash and where did it come from?
Now there is a more pointed question, that I can answer!
If by harmful, we are talking about some measurable quality of life standard, then the data certainly points to our level of income inequality being greater than optimal.
When we graph quality of life (by a measurable standard index) against income inequality (by a measurable standard index), we see a clear inverted U shape: there is some level of "too much equality" and a level of "not enough equality" and if we set out to maximize those meausrable standard indicies of quality of life - then we (America) have "not enough equality".
PS: My theory on what "wealth" is... is just like, my opinion man.
I don't believe in equality, so there goes the first two options.
If I'm playing social engineer, I'd want a system that emphasizes (economic) mobility and incentivizes hard-work, creativity, and intelligence. If wealth is relative, then I'd argue for a system that maximizes the most opportunity for any person to increase their wealth relative to others.
I'm also a bit curious as to the way you've phrased the issue. The notion that wealth is relative seems to be a natural concept (I don't see it being much different than saying "the world is unfair," or that power/hierarchy/etc... will always exist). I find it odd that we need to engineer a system to deal with what I see to be a natural occurrence. Not saying that it's bad, just seems odd to me.
Is there a better way to address the inequality than through taxes/government transfers? I would be all for trickle down economics, if only it worked. The evidence does't seem to show that it does.
But didn't you agree with Scott when he said "too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality with very little economic mobility is equally harmful to a society."? This appears to be the natural occurrence of unfettered capitalism, so it seems we would need to engineer a system to prevent that, no?
Our economic system is one where pies are privately owned and the owners determine how the pie is sliced. Is it fair? No, but it has created a load of wealth amongst all classes, even if disproportionately so. Some would like the govt to seize larger portions of these pies and redistribute them more "fairly". What percentage is "fair" and who gets to decide that?
I don't think unfettered capitalism restricts mobility.
At the end of the day, we're all animals
I think it inherently does not, but I also do think it can be manipulated so it is.
Most people got the cash the sweat of their brow and/or the ingenuity of their intellect earned. Others got cash by gaming the system and cheating (to a certain extent ingenuity, but ill begotten), others got their cash after it was coerced from their fellow citizens and given to them.
I would prefer the the government not have to seize larger portions of the pie. I would prefer the owners slice the pie more fairly. That's how trickle down economics was sold. Unfortunately, since productivity has increased, while wages have remained flat, I don't think that's been true historically. So, the government has to step in, which is unfortunate, as it's a much less efficient way to narrow income inequality.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote