[DrSteveBrule]

And it seems like Rich is spewing his nonsense again. Implying that the poor in America are somehow gifted since they are the world's "1 percent" is downright asinine, especially when living and succeeding in western societies involves substantially higher costs than living in a 3rd world nation.

Most conservatives cannot envision the difference between a normal income distribution, to which koby-p alludes, and an extreme income inequality.

At a certain point, income and success is not about individual ability and talent, but one's preexisting resources and prior wealth from being born into the upper class. No matter how well a society is structured, taking measures that are too extreme in addressing the wealth disparity will inevitable stifle competition and the economic impetus to work.

On the other hand, failing to address extreme wealth inequality will also remove said impetus. What's the point of playing if you can't win? At this point, it's clear that America is quickly shifting towards the latter situation, not the former. It seems that the GOP has forgotten that despite the diversity in what the "American Dream" defines, social mobility was almost always a key factor.

[Rich]

And it seems like Rich is spewing his nonsense again. Implying that the poor in America are somehow gifted since they are the world's "1 percent" is downright asinine, especially when living and succeeding in western societies involves substantially higher costs than living in a 3rd world nation.

Purchasing power parities take account of this. Using purchasing power parities GDP per head is about twelve thousand dollars. that has to include both private income and public expenditure. Virtually everyone in the West benefits from the world's inequalities. If wealth was shared out equally the vast majority of the West's population would be losers assuming such an equal system was viable which it is not.

[DrSteveBrule]

Purchasing power parities take account of this. Using purchasing power parities GDP per head is about twelve thousand dollars. that has to include both private income and public expenditure. Virtually everyone in the West benefits from the world's inequalities. If wealth was shared out equally the vast majority of the West's population would be losers assuming such an equal system was viable which it is not.

Utter nonsense. Do working class Americans benefit from having their wealthier countrymen exploit foreign labor? Sure, the IPhone 69 is 20 dollars cheaper for a middle class family, but the US factory worker gets screwed when this cost saving comes at the expense of his job.

Simply having a higher GDP PPP does not necessarily ensure a higher quality of life. The resources that public expenditures are put into vary greatly by nation, and such metrics don't capture how this wealth is distributed among society. Furthermore, it also does not consider the barriers to economic success that tend to be higher in first world nations. Obviously, a higher degree of education is needed to achieve economic independence in the US, and most enterprises or businesses require some form of official licensing or training.

[Ignatyev]

I don't, but I am not exactly your standard conservative.
I see no reason why the more successful people who wind up paying the bulk of the taxes in a flat tax system anyway, should be penalized for doing things right.
However I believe in no exceptions, everybody pays the same percentage on their income, irrespective if it is from an investment, a house sale, salary, inheritance or any other activity or event.

[Truth To Power]

I see no reason why the more successful people who wind up paying the bulk of the taxes in a flat tax system anyway, should be penalized for doing things right.

By "doing things right" you presumably mean making a contribution rather than merely arranging to intercept for themselves wealth that others create. That certainly sounds reasonable.

Oh, no, wait a minute, it looks like that's not what you mean at all:

However I believe in no exceptions, everybody pays the same percentage on their income, irrespective if it is from an investment, a house sale, salary, inheritance or any other activity or event.

So in fact, you think those who make a contribution to the community through their productive labor or provision of capital goods to the producers should be penalized for doing things right, and those who simply take from society by dint of legal entitlements to do so -- landowners, banksters, IP trolls, etc. -- should get to keep the same percentage of what they steal as the productive get to keep of what they produce.

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

[taltom]

There is no question that cost of living can strongly impact quality of life. Among the highest median home prices in the nation are Santa Clara, CA and Alpine, NJ, where in both cases the median is $1 million. The median here in my hometown is $140K, give or take. Here $500K will buy you a very nice home and the very best of everything a top-15 city can offer. Living in San Francisco is roughly 30% more than living here, and places like Palm Beach will go way beyond that.

Wealth inequality should not be confused with income inequality. They are related, but not the same. And wealth inequality is far from news. Vilfredo Pareto did the first systematic study of it in the late 1880s/early 1900s, and found that across many places and time, inequality tended to follow what we now call a "Pareto distribution", or "80/20", where 20% of the top wealthiest owned 80% of the wealth.

But it should be borne in mind that while considerable inequality is the norm, excessive inequality can cause a society to become unstable. Various revolutions are testimony to this: Cuba, Russia, France, and even the American Revolution were at least partly fueled by wealth inequality. In very unequal places, riots and coups are all too common.

In the US, it's been noted that as long as the lower 80% believes that the 20% earned their way to the top, instability is less likely to occur. But increasingly wealth is being accumulated by making massive bets, and when those bets fall apart the entire economy can take a huge hit. Witness the recent Great Recession, where a catastrophe followed attempts to get wealthy solely by making those bets. To Americans, it's understandable that Henry Ford and Thomas Edison would become wealthy, but it's less so for Warren Buffett or Jamie Dimon. There is also less chance of instability if the 80% believe that they truly have a shot at joining the 20%, something that Americans have believed now for generations, but are today beginning to question.

True egalitarianism is probably impossible for anything larger than a tribe, but it must be kept within limits. This was apparent even to the Romans, where wealthy citizens routinely paid for games, feasts, and monuments that pleased the poorer citizens. But when those citizens were in dire straits, they would riot, just like they will today.

[Truth To Power]

Wealth inequality should not be confused with income inequality.

Right. When, as is so commonplace today, someone claims that wealth is better measured by income than by wealth, you know that person is a lying sack of $#!+.

Vilfredo Pareto did the first systematic study of it in the late 1880s/early 1900s, and found that across many places and time, inequality tended to follow what we now call a "Pareto distribution", or "80/20", where 20% of the top wealthiest owned 80% of the wealth.

Whereas today, it is the top 10% that owns 90%, and the top 1% owns nearly 50%...

In the US, it's been noted that as long as the lower 80% believes that the 20% earned their way to the top, instability is less likely to occur. But increasingly wealth is being accumulated by making massive bets, and when those bets fall apart the entire economy can take a huge hit.

It's not merely that the economy takes a hit, but that those who have been pocketing trillions when their bets were going well are then GIVEN MORE TRILLIONS, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, so they can stay in business when their bets go badly. The greedier and stupider they are, the more they can hold the economy to ransom, and they more they are given in return for being so greedy and stupid. We are told that they are paid the big bucks for their expertise in managing risk, but when it turns out they are completely incompetent at managing -- or understanding -- risk, they are paid even more.

Witness the recent Great Recession, where a catastrophe followed attempts to get wealthy solely by making those bets.

More accurately, the catastrophe followed their successful taking of trillions of dollars from the productive through their pyramid betting scams, which destabilized the system.

To Americans, it's understandable that Henry Ford and Thomas Edison would become wealthy, but it's less so for Warren Buffett or Jamie Dimon.

Buffett is just a very clever punter. Dimon and the other banksters are flat-out thieves. The modern model of the self-made man is Richard Fuld (a man so completely evil, he actually looks like Voldemort), who extracted hundreds of millions in stock options and performance bonuses while driving Lehman Bros into bankruptcy.

But when those citizens were in dire straits, they would riot, just like they will today.

No, these days it's very cheap to just let them stuff themselves with enough sugar to make them too fat, stupefied and slothful to riot.

At a certain point, income and success is not about individual ability and talent, but one's preexisting resources and prior wealth from being born into the upper class.

The situation is actually quite easy to understand: if you own land, you are on the escalator; if you work for a living, you are on the treadmill that powers the escalator.

No matter how well a society is structured, taking measures that are too extreme in addressing the wealth disparity will inevitable stifle competition and the economic impetus to work.

Why not just stop giving rich, greedy takers money in return for doing and contributing nothing?

On the other hand, failing to address extreme wealth inequality will also remove said impetus. What's the point of playing if you can't win? At this point, it's clear that America is quickly shifting towards the latter situation, not the former. It seems that the GOP has forgotten that despite the diversity in what the "American Dream" defines, social mobility was almost always a key factor.

Depending on where you are talking about in modern capitalist societies, the idle poor number about 10% of the population and are given about 3% of GDP for doing nothing. The idle rich, by contrast, while numbering an order of magnitude fewer, are given an order of magnitude more. Mainstream politics and media systems are devoted to convincing the productive -- who pay for both groups -- that it is the idle poor who are the main problem.

[KlassWar]

The idea of them being filthy rich but not interfering in politics is a pipe dream. By definition the people with the money are the ones with political power anyway. Economic power always precedes and dominates political power, it is an eternal truth.

Under Lenin's state capitalism, the bourgeois NEPmen had a lot of money and they didn't have any political power at all. In fact the NEPmen had so little power that they were utterly powerless to prevent their destruction at the hands of Uncle Joe in the late Twenties.

Political power comes out the barrel of a gun. If you've got the money but you don't control the guys with the guns, you're just a cash cow.

[taltom]

A few things come to mind.

First, power doesn't always come solely from the barrel of a gun, although it certainly can in a limited sense. But it's also true that if you don't need violence to enforce your wishes, guns become less relevant. Throughout much of the modern era in America, the moneyed class has wielded great power without staging revolutions, although they have resorted from time to time to commanding the police to enforce their desires. You must either convince your foe or overcome him, after all. It's not so surprising, nor particularly outrageous.

Second, it should not be forgotten that although it may be somewhat more difficult today to crawl upward from poverty into wealth, it has never been easy. Just stepping upward from middle class to wealth is quite a trick, albeit far easier to accomplish. But rising from relative poverty or working class to the professional class is done today by a great many young people, so vertical mobility is not barred. It is merely difficult. Take aside any large group of lawyers, doctors, accountants, or engineers today and ask them what their parents' income or wealth was when they were growing up, and a sizable number will cite relatively modest amounts. As long as the "tween classes" can aspire to joining the well-off ranks, they will not object overly much to those ranks having their fortunes. "There, but for the grace of God..." has two implications. Societal pressure tends to build when the masses believe that their upward path is blocked and they have no hope.

Third, do not assume that the poor, even the poor being given assistance, are idle. They are not. This is a misapprehension fueled by conservatives such as Ronald Reagan who believed that they understood the plight of the poor, when they did not. The poor are in constant motion, although it may not appear so to the casual observer. Sociologists like Sudhir Venkatesh have shown that the poor are eternally hustling, seeking whatever remunerative work they can find. They repair things, cook for others, watch children, engage in prostitution and drug dealing, sell found items, build structures, or anything else that pays in small amounts of cash or barter. There is a huge thriving underground economy within which the poor operate. Much of it is illegal, because that's all the work they can find, given the restrictions around them. And those efforts generally result in very little income, not enough to sustain what Americans consider a minimal lifestyle.

[Truth To Power]

Third, do not assume that the poor, even the poor being given assistance, are idle. They are not.

The point is not whether they do anything with their time, but whether they are doing anything economically productive, and whether they are being paid for doing nothing -- welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. -- or for making a contribution.

Sociologists like Sudhir Venkatesh have shown that the poor are eternally hustling, seeking whatever remunerative work they can find.

Some are. I've known enough of the poor to know that many are not.

They repair things, cook for others, watch children, engage in prostitution and drug dealing, sell found items, build structures, or anything else that pays in small amounts of cash or barter.

And steal and cheat.

There is a huge thriving underground economy within which the poor operate. Much of it is illegal, because that's all the work they can find, given the restrictions around them. And those efforts generally result in very little income, not enough to sustain what Americans consider a minimal lifestyle.

Of course it's not easy being poor when private landowning has removed their liberty to sustain themselves by their own labor without paying an extortion racketeer not to stop them.

[quetzalcoatl]

Of course it's not easy being poor when private landowning has removed their liberty to sustain themselves by their own labor without paying an extortion racketeer not to stop them.

Private land ownership goes back a long time. Good luck in getting rid of that. In any event there is not enough arable land to support the poor in the US, even on a subsistence lifestyle.

[Truth To Power]

Private land ownership goes back a long time. Good luck in getting rid of that.

That's what they said about slavery. The only difference between slavery and landowning is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

In any event there is not enough arable land to support the poor in the US, even on a subsistence lifestyle.

What do you mean, "arable land"? Why would you incorrectly assume that people would want to farm, rather than support themselves by accessing the kinds of economic opportunities that modern urban and suburban locations afford?

[quetzalcoatl]

What do you mean, "arable land"? Why would you incorrectly assume that people would want to farm, rather than support themselves by accessing the kinds of economic opportunities that modern urban and suburban locations afford?

Simply because you either opt in or you opt out. There is no incremental path. If you opt in you will work to pay taxes, however reluctantly. If you opt out you must steel yourself for a subsistence lifestyle on a plot of land. And that's assuming the owner doesn't evict you, or you don't fall afoul of water use restrictions, etc. On second thought, the only opt-out clause is death.

[Truth To Power]

What do you mean, "arable land"? Why would you incorrectly assume that people would want to farm, rather than support themselves by accessing the kinds of economic opportunities that modern urban and suburban locations afford?

Simply because you either opt in or you opt out.

Of what?

There is no incremental path.

Then how did we get here from there?

If you opt in you will work to pay taxes, however reluctantly.

Only if the tax system is unfair and economically harmful, like the current one.

The current system requires the productive to pay for government twice: once in taxes to fund desired services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to landowners for access to the exact same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for. A better system would just let people pay land rent to government for access to the level of services and infrastructure they desired, cutting out the taxes and the parasitic landowners. That way people wouldn't be paying for government "reluctantly" any more than they pay for a loaf of bread reluctantly: it would be a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction.

If you opt out you must steel yourself for a subsistence lifestyle on a plot of land.

I don't know what you are talking about. Opt out of what? Why would anyone opt out of production and prosperity if they had their right to liberty back?

And that's assuming the owner doesn't evict you, or you don't fall afoul of water use restrictions, etc.

We were talking about restoring people's rights to liberty, which landowning removed. There is no owner to evict you. And as you would be paying land rent to government, the effect of the water use restrictions would already be included in that price: the better access to water (which government water supply infrastructure typically provides, remember), the higher the rent.

On second thought, the only opt-out clause is death.

That's the current system, where people's liberty to sustain themselves has been removed by force, making them the slaves of landowners (and mortgage lenders). I'm talking about a better system, where people's access to opportunity and liberty to support themselves and their families are restored.

[TerryOfromCA]

Income Inequality is, in a word, NORMAL.
There are so many many different FAIR reasons why people make different incomes.
Here is an example: Two doctors work in a hospital department. The first one is the hottest thing in town and all the hospitals want him, and they are all trying to get him. The second one has a couple of malpractice suits in his jacket.

Now, they BOTH do the same exact job in the same exact place. The difference is, the first one has leverage to demand a better salary. The second one has no leverage because no other hospital wants him, so if his current hospital want to lower his salary they can.

This is a classic reason for income inequality and why the income inequality agitators are full of so much bullshit hype. I highly doubt that you could scrap together ten men who sit behind closed doors and say "Lets hire that girl and pay her less because she's a girl." Good luck finding people like that.
- And as a side note, there is no inequality on hourly wage jobs, only high end salary jobs, and usually for good reason

[quetzalcoatl]

[
Under Lenin's state capitalism, the bourgeois NEPmen had a lot of money and they didn't have any political power at all. In fact the NEPmen had so little power that they were utterly powerless to prevent their destruction at the hands of Uncle Joe in the late Twenties.

Political power comes out the barrel of a gun. If you've got the money but you don't control the guys with the guns, you're just a cash cow.

That was true in the case of the NEP. It's not true in the current setup. Capitalists have learned a lot since the last crisis of the great depression. The most important lesson is to have all the levers of government solidly under their control. They won't ever again be forced into a Grand Compromise along the lines of the New Deal. I have no way of knowing for certain, but I suspect if NEP had continued unabated, moneyed interests would have gradually acquired their own power base within the Soviet system. Even as it was, money from official corruption began gaining significant power under Brezhnev.

[taltom]

Income Inequality is, in a word, NORMAL.
There are so many many different FAIR reasons why people make different incomes.
Here is an example: Two doctors work in a hospital department. The first one is the hottest thing in town and all the hospitals want him, and they are all trying to get him. The second one has a couple of malpractice suits in his jacket.

Now, they BOTH do the same exact job in the same exact place. The difference is, the first one has leverage to demand a better salary. The second one has no leverage because no other hospital wants him, so if his current hospital want to lower his salary they can.

This is a classic reason for income inequality and why the income inequality agitators are full of so much bullshit hype. I highly doubt that you could scrap together ten men who sit behind closed doors and say "Lets hire that girl and pay her less because she's a girl." Good luck finding people like that.
- And as a side note, there is no inequality on hourly wage jobs, only high end salary jobs, and usually for good reason

To some degree, there are valid reasons for differing incomes. Cost of living differences, for example. But assuming that income has anything to do with competence is misguided. There is only a tenuous correlation between them, as anyone who has worked for a large organization can tell you. The workings of probability are constantly minimized, but they are just as important and perhaps more important than competence. To use your example, a very rich surgeon may indeed have malpractice suits decided against him, but because they were quietly negotiated and paid, they need never be officially recognized and will likely not affect his income. If he attended prestigious schools, he is more likely to be paid more even if he does nothing to deserve it. Sad to say, if he is black or happens to be a "she", the surgeon will also be less likely to be paid top dollar.

Truly outstanding finish carpenters are not paid more than ordinary ones, and the same is broadly true of all skilled trades, because few companies value outstanding performance in these realms enough to pay more for it. And witness the staggeringly huge golden parachutes that failed CEOs collect on their way out the door after crashing their companies into deep craters.

There is a general band of pay for every type of work, once geographical and other factors are worked in. After that, it does not pay organizations to hire spectacular employees, because their much higher remuneration is not commensurate with their value - near the top of competence, approaching excellence is like the limit in calculus: you keep approaching it forever, but it doesn't really help much. Some organizations may hire very well known employees like scientists or CEOs, but for the most part these are PR moves, not expectations of value. It is the name that is being sought, not performance.

The upshot is that it pays to get good at what you do while not actually being great, go to the best schools so you have chances of meeting others with little competence but good resumes, and present the very best PR face you can. Then luck must tap her wand on your head to complete the ascendancy. Counter-examples exist, but are washed away by the vast ocean of mediocrity that masquerades as super-competence. Ask any academic or employee of a large organization. No man is a genius to his valet, and few so-called geniuses have intact reputations after some time among competent colleagues.

[Truth To Power]

Income Inequality is, in a word, NORMAL.
There are so many many different FAIR reasons why people make different incomes.
Here is an example: Two doctors work in a hospital department. The first one is the hottest thing in town and all the hospitals want him, and they are all trying to get him. The second one has a couple of malpractice suits in his jacket.

Now, they BOTH do the same exact job in the same exact place. The difference is, the first one has leverage to demand a better salary. The second one has no leverage because no other hospital wants him, so if his current hospital want to lower his salary they can.

This is a classic reason for income inequality and why the income inequality agitators are full of so much bullshit hype. I highly doubt that you could scrap together ten men who sit behind closed doors and say "Lets hire that girl and pay her less because she's a girl." Good luck finding people like that.
- And as a side note, there is no inequality on hourly wage jobs, only high end salary jobs, and usually for good reason

Do you know that some people make a distinction between income earned by commensurate contribution to production and income obtained by dint of privilege, in return for zero -- or even negative -- contribution to production?

[TerryOfromCA]

Do you know that some people make a distinction between income earned by commensurate contribution to production and income obtained by dint of privilege, in return for zero -- or even negative -- contribution to production?

- If you say so. If Joe Sr. want to give his kid Joe Jr. an executive title and a fat salary while Joe Jr. hits the clubs at night and sleeps all day, well, Joe Sr. can do that. That's life. If some pinhead doesn't like it then he can go start his own company.
- But aside from such a scenario, my previous post is correct. The salary you get is based on the leverage you have, and THAT is based on many factors. But you are not going to find a cigar-smoke-filled board room full of white beards scheming to pay women less. That's just a fantasy of the envious and of whiners.

[Truth To Power]

Do you know that some people make a distinction between income earned by commensurate contribution to production and income obtained by dint of privilege, in return for zero -- or even negative -- contribution to production?

- If you say so.

Oh, I do.

If Joe Sr. want to give his kid Joe Jr. an executive title and a fat salary while Joe Jr. hits the clubs at night and sleeps all day, well, Joe Sr. can do that. That's life. If some pinhead doesn't like it then he can go start his own company.

In that case, Joe Sr. is just wasting his own money, which he has a right to do. But that's not what generally happens with income inequality, especially the extremely high incomes of the super-duper uber-rich. Such incomes are almost invariably obtained by dint of privileges -- legal entitlements to profit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights -- such as land titles, bank charters, corporate limited liability, IP monopolies, etc.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

- But aside from such a scenario, my previous post is correct.

It's "correct," but it's an evasion, an attempt to divert attention -- including your own -- from the real issue: privilege.

The salary you get is based on the leverage you have, and THAT is based on many factors.

Then why are you trying to pretend that productive contribution is the only factor?

But you are not going to find a cigar-smoke-filled board room full of white beards scheming to pay women less.

Strawman.

That's just a fantasy of the envious and of whiners.

Who has suggested that is what happens, hmmmm?

And FYI, use of the terms, "envy" and "whiner" reliably identifies an attempt to blame the victims for what the perpetrators are doing to them.