Everything is a cost for benefit. If profits are a cost to funding, then wages are a cost for labour. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is not a problem except for extreme misers.
You're missing the point.
The point is that society does not need to enrich an elitist layer of private (corporate) ownership, to get things produced. The working class should be in control of social production, to produce for society's human needs.
There's nothing about capitalists being born that makes them *entitled* to benefit from workers' labor -- you should be telling *them* to 'get a job' so that they can be socially productive, instead of just expropriating wealth from the efforts of workers, like the global aristocracy that they are.
So you assert without proof that "income inequality" is the result of "private property".
Well, how do *you* explain it?
There are a wide variety of types of economic inequality, most notably measured using the distribution of income (the amount of money people are paid) and the distribution of wealth (the amount of wealth people own). Besides economic inequality between countries or states, there are important types of economic inequality between different groups of people.
Important types of economic measurements focus on wealth, income, and consumption. There are many methods for measuring economic inequality, with the Gini coefficient being a widely used one. Another type of measure is the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, which is a statistic composite index that takes inequality into account. Important concepts of equality include equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.
Research suggests that greater inequality hinders economic growth, with land and human capital inequality reducing growth more than inequality of income. Whereas globalization has reduced global inequality (between nations), it has increased inequality within nations.
1. Where is the casual relationship?
It's called 'wealth'.
2. Why is income inequality a problem?
See the Wikipedia entry above.
3. What problem is it and for whom?
I've already covered this -- it's called 'class'.
Class stratification is a form of social stratification in which a society is separated into parties whose members have different access to resources and power. An economic, natural, cultural, religious, interests and ideal rift usually exists between different classes. People are usually born into their class, though social mobility allows for some individuals to attain a higher-level class or fall to a lower-level one.
Process of class stratification
In the early stages of class stratification, the majority of members in a given society have similar access to wealth and power, with only a few members displaying noticeably more or less wealth than the rest.
As time goes on, the largest share of wealth and status can begin to concentrate around a small number of the population. When wealth continues to concentrate, pockets of society with significantly less wealth may develop, until a sharp imbalance between rich and poor is created. As members of a society spread out from one another economically, classes are created.
When a physical gap is added, a cultural rift between the classes comes into existence, an example being the perception of the well-mannered, "cultured" behavior of the rich, versus the "uncivilized" behavior of the poor. With the cultural divide, chances for classes to intermingle become less and less likely, and mythos becomes more and more common between them (i.e. "the wrong side of the railroad tracks"). The lower class loses more of its influence and wealth as the upper class gains more influence and wealth, further dividing the classes from one another.
4. At least some inequality seems entirely fair, because someone who does a good deed should be rewarded over someone who does a bad deed.
It's *not* a meritocracy out there -- you're thinking that your moralizing reflects the way the world works, and it *doesn't*. Those who have capital already are in a much better position to get even *more* capital, or wealth. That's how the capitalist world works.
5. Why do you ASSUME "equality" is a goal or a virtue? The implications are horrendous.
No, they're not -- the world has the capacity to produce for everyone's human needs and basic requirements for life and living, but the world isn't *organized* to fulfill that goal.
My framework model approach *detaches* work inputs from material rewards so that the entire post-capitalist economic direction is instead driven by *human need*. Those social needs that are needs-in-common will receive more prominence and visibility, for the efforts of available-and-willing liberated labor, wherever those workers may be. The 'labor credits' are a societal *incentive* for communist-gift-economy liberated-labor efforts, and can be thought of as discrete portions of post-private-property political power in the direction of future liberated-labor organizing, going-forward. Economically labor credits are non-financial liberated-labor IOUs that are either debt-based, or not-debt-based (in terms of labor hours). They continue to circulate after being actually 'paid-for' by the collective liberated-labor work efforts from those of the locality that *issued* the debt-based labor credits in the first place. (Also see the first scenario from the 'Emergent Central Planning' diagram.)
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
6. By definition workers do all the work but work must include managing and directing because it is work and people would not do it if they did not get paid to do it.
Yes, I agree that a social component of social organizing of production is necessary, but as things are now, it's *private ownership* that gets to determine what's produced, and what isn't, and those mega-owners are disproportionately rewarded for having this elitist power. Workers can certainly include this kind of co-administrative role as a regular part of their productive routines at work.
Work, and its material proceeds (goods and services), do *not* have to be commodified, as you're suggesting. Money / currency / exchange values are no longer needed -- our modern, high-tech society needs a 'social-software' 'upgrade'.
As long as enough people are contributing to the collective commons, then human needs will be met for those who have unmet needs, and then society can collectively decide where to do from there -- what kind of a civilization to bring about on collectivized industrial implements, with everyone's basic needs met.
If no one does it then the entreprise is not organised at all and cannot function or operate intelligently. How well would you body operate it is robbed of its central nervous system? (actually in your case there probably would be no difference)
(See the previous segment.)
7. Generally workers are not impoverished and standards of living are rising all over the world have been for millenia. The only time the improvement of standards have reversed has been under communism...
Well, I don't defend bureaucratic elitism any more than I defend private-property elitism.
Yes, capitalism's regular incremental improvements have increased many people's standards of livings, generally, but look at the human cost involved -- two world wars, ongoing privation, substandard housing and amenities for entire *continents*. The unevenness of it all can't be ignored.
'Social production' just means all of the goods and services that a society produces.
The current *global*, *human* society.
This is why you need to get a job. You have ZERO clue at all how shit gets done in the real world.
I think *you* need a job so that you'll keep your facile opinions off of this board. Follow your own moralizing and do some busywork for the next few decades. You'll get into heaven easily that way.