Smart Man Discusses Income Inequality

[AVG-JOE]

Because of averages. A smooth bell curve is a description of "average". Anyone who has ever had a college course that was graded on a bell curve understands perfectly.

Average is one number, a bell curve has more than one number on it.

Average is actually three numbers: the mean, the mode, and the median. They are all different. But why a smooth bell curve is somehow desirable other than for aesthetic reasons is beyond me.

Again, no one pumping this wealth distribiution nonsense is able to identify at what point it becomes "inequitable", what the problems that arise from it are, or why the solution would not be worse than the problem.

It's not policy to be driven, it's a gauge to see if current policy is fair - nothing more.

 

[Againsheila]

A guy who grew up and worked in a country that supports a phony monarchy is criticizing income inequality in the US? Surely you jest.

Actually, he's not criticizing income inequality, he's criticizing the huge income gap in the USA AND the UK which led to an unhealthy economy and environment even for the uber wealthy....watch the video.

 

[editec]

The reason to fix extreme wealth inequity within the classes has less to do with FAIRNESS than it has to do with efficiency.

Capitalism cannot work very well (as we are plainly seeing right now) when too few have too much and too many have too little.

 

[tooAlive]

The reason to fix extreme wealth inequity within the classes has less to do with FAIRNESS than it has to do with efficiency.

Capitalism cannot work very well (as we are plainly seeing right now) when too few have too much and too many have too little.

You'd be right if we lived in actual capitalism.

What you see today is crony capitalism/corporatism. These huge corporations are putting politicians in their pockets and garnering unfair advantages. If this was really capitalism, many of those companies and banks would be out of business.

 

[Bern80]

The reason to fix extreme wealth inequity within the classes has less to do with FAIRNESS than it has to do with efficiency.

Capitalism cannot work very well (as we are plainly seeing right now) when too few have too much and too many have too little.

Totally agree. The question is how do you make the solution fair? Obama has proposed a living wage, that wouldn't be fair for many reasons. Cap how much a person can make? That goes against the most fundamental principles of freedom this country was founded on.

The only fair solution I see is that where individuals actually do something about it. If you don't like how much money some CEO has, stop supporting them financially by purchasing their products. If you want to raise your income, stop complaining about rich people and found out how they got rich instead of assuming they must have backstabbed their way to the top or done it at the expense of unfairly treated employees. That isn't reality. Find out what skills are in demand and acquire them. That is the only fair solution, but with liberals as cheer leaders constantly telling people someone else needs to fix it, that is unlikely to happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

Average is one number, a bell curve has more than one number on it.

Average is actually three numbers: the mean, the mode, and the median. They are all different. But why a smooth bell curve is somehow desirable other than for aesthetic reasons is beyond me.

Again, no one pumping this wealth distribiution nonsense is able to identify at what point it becomes "inequitable", what the problems that arise from it are, or why the solution would not be worse than the problem.

It's not policy to be driven, it's a gauge to see if current policy is fair - nothing more.

And if it's found that it isn't fair then the obvious solution is to adopt policies that would drive distribution towards some notion of fair.
I.e. just what i wrote.
Thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem is it is not the numbers that are in dispute. I would agree with most everything in the first two posts. Even the notion that our wealth distribution currently is less than ideal. What is in disagreement is the notion that how this wealth is distributed is somehow unfair along with the implication that someone else needs to 'fix' this distribution toward the ideal presented.

There is only one right way to fix this problem and it is a solution that liberals absolutely abhore. It's going to take responsibility on the part of individuals. If you don't like how much money a 1% makes, do your homework. Find out what company(s) he heads and don't give him/here your money anymore. If you are dissatisfied with what you make find out what skills earn more and do that. Find out how the wealthy, get wealthy instead of making excuses about how you're not wealthy because you're just too nice of a person.

This rest of the faulty assumption that success is determined solely by merit. The reality is that institution factors individuals have almost no control over play a much larger role.

It's a faulty assumption of yours that our assumption that it happens solely by merit. But while many things play into success the biggest is merit. I dont know what "institution factors" means, but they play next to no roll.
This is just part of the "you didnt build that" belief of the Left that success happens like winning the lottery rather than through hard work.

 

[Bern80]

The problem is it is not the numbers that are in dispute. I would agree with most everything in the first two posts. Even the notion that our wealth distribution currently is less than ideal. What is in disagreement is the notion that how this wealth is distributed is somehow unfair along with the implication that someone else needs to 'fix' this distribution toward the ideal presented.

There is only one right way to fix this problem and it is a solution that liberals absolutely abhore. It's going to take responsibility on the part of individuals. If you don't like how much money a 1% makes, do your homework. Find out what company(s) he heads and don't give him/here your money anymore. If you are dissatisfied with what you make find out what skills earn more and do that. Find out how the wealthy, get wealthy instead of making excuses about how you're not wealthy because you're just too nice of a person.

This rest of the faulty assumption that success is determined solely by merit. The reality is that institution factors individuals have almost no control over play a much larger role.

Where did I ever state it is solely based on merit? I'm well aware hard work isn't the only way to make money. It doesn't take merit to get a return on an investment for example. Institution factors will determine you're starting point. You may start out with some advantages and/or disadvantages, but it hardly determines outcomes.

 

[boilermaker55]

If that is not a big stretch with that statement, blaming the AFL-
for the greediness of CEO's , is that your stance. Really?
But you did not have any statistics to counter the one shown.

Which some political sides do not understand in any fashion.
CEO Pay Grew 127 Times Faster Than Worker Pay Over Last 30 Years: Study
And as we all know some don't like to deal with facts nor do they like to read any site that does not give them the information they desire: CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

The AFL-CEO is hardly a credible source of data. Furthermore, labor unions are responsible for the vast increase in CEO pay. IN the 1980s they lobbied for laws that prevent so-called "corporate raiders" from taking over a corporation and kicking out the overpaid management. They made it possible for corporate executives to pay themselves as much as they want.