US Income Inequality

On the contrary. When we see that the great majority of the rich nations are also those that approach equality, while the great majority of the poor nations are also those with the most inequality, the reasonable conclusion is not that it has no tangible effect. There's a clear correlation between income equality and economic success.

We can see this in our own history, too. The period since industrialization when our economy performed the best (by more than two to one compared to both earlier and later times) was the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Even if you lump the poorer-performing 1970s in there, those four decades saw per capita GDP grow more than twice as fast as it did in 1900 to 1940 or in 1980 to the present.

The "clear correlation" you speak of needs more support. I can corelate all kinds of things that are unrelated. Obtaining a correlation is just the start in proving a relationship.

The period you talk about could easily have been affected by other factors such as rebuilding from a war, technology advances, etc. I am not saying it is the case.

But I have heard this claim before and when I request additonal information or proof....suffice it to say I am still waiting.

Would you please define "rich nations" for me.
 
For income inequality to mean anything at all, you have to include in your analysis at the very least there two factors:

1. The actual wealth of the lower income groups, rather than their wealth relative to higher income groups.

2. Social mobility. Are people staying in one group, or moving up and down?

First I will briefly address point 1 in regards to the US. In the US, the average person defined as poor has better living conditions than the average person in Europe. The amount of living space is higher, material wealth is higher, the majority have TVs, refrigerators, and many other items that the wealthiest people 100 years ago could never even fathom. There are plenty more arguments to make on this point alone, but I feel enough people have adequately explained them. The common response always ends up being "inequality is still bad, even if the lower income people are well off." That brings us to point 2.

We cannot ignore time in the analysis of equality. So it is important to study this: Are people in lower income groups staying there? If that is the case, there is definitely cause for concern, because something is not right. But in the US, that is not the case at all. The problem many people have is viewing the economy in the aggregate, which will completely hide what is going on at the individual level. A massive study was conducted by the University of Michigan that tracked 50,000 Americans. Here where the results.

a) Only 5% of families in the bottom 5th of the income distribution in 1975 were still there in 1991
b) Not only that, but Over 75% of those in the bottom 5th had moved up to the two highest income quintiles in that same period
c)The poorest families made the most gains. They had an inflation adjusted income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those who started in the top 20% only increased their wealth by $4,354.
d)Less than 1% of people remained in the bottom 20% during the entire period of the study.
e)Among the second poorest quintile, by 1991 25% had reached the top 20% bracket. More than 70% had moved to a higher quintile in general.
f)Many of the changes were swift. More than half the families in the bottom 20% in 1975 made it to a higher bracket within four years.

The US Treasury department perfromed a similar study, and had the same results. 86% of those in the lowest 20% moved to a higher category from 1979 to 1988. 15% moved to the top 5th.

So why are there seemingly more poor people? Its called immigration folks. Immigrants to the US are poor. But they come here not to stay poor but to move up the social ladder like everyone else.


With this information, the irrelevance of income inequality fear mongering propaganda is evident. Such arguments are only used to justify big government statism. When governments try to equalize income, people lose social mobility. Everyone except for a few government-connect elites remain equal: equally poor.

I hope this is the last topic about inequality for a while, thank you very much.
 
The "clear correlation" you speak of needs more support. I can corelate all kinds of things that are unrelated. Obtaining a correlation is just the start in proving a relationship.

The period you talk about could easily have been affected by other factors such as rebuilding from a war, technology advances, etc. I am not saying it is the case.

But I have heard this claim before and when I request additonal information or proof....suffice it to say I am still waiting.

Would you please define "rich nations" for me.

When I speak of "rich nations" I'm speaking relatively, of course. If country A has a per capita GDP of $50,000 and country B has a per capita GDP of $400 then clearly country A is richer than country B. One can also see a clear correlation between wealth and technological/industrial development. Germany is richer than Zimbabwe for example because Germany has a lot more in the way of industrial development and higher technology.

Now, as far as going beyond correlation, there are only two ways to do this. One is to present more cases in which (in this case) income equality correlates with prosperity. I've done this. In addition to the temporal example from U.S. economic history we have the current-moment observation that those countries which have narrower income gaps also very strongly tend to be the wealthiest and most prosperous. So we don't just have a correlation, but also a repeated correlation which does not admit of any other explanation that would account for all of them.

The other way is to present a theoretical framework that accounts for the correlation. I have also done this. Prosperity is driven by investment in the production of goods and services. Investment is in turn driven by consumer demand for the goods and services to be produced. A more equal economy has higher incomes for most of its people than one in which income is highly concentrated into a few hands, and this results in higher consumer demand and therefore higher investment.

ShackledNation: economic mobility is a completely separate issue from income inequality as it impacts economic performance. Also, it's not something you really want to bring up, I think, because those same countries that show narrower income gaps compared to ours also display greater economic mobility.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. When we see that the great majority of the rich nations are also those that approach equality, while the great majority of the poor nations are also those with the most inequality, the reasonable conclusion is not that it has no tangible effect. There's a clear correlation between income equality and economic success.

No we don't. we see them scattered equally throughout the entire spectrum. You proved that yourself. What you claim is a bald faced lie and you know it. There is no causation between income equality and national prosperity

We can see this in our own history, too. The period since industrialization when our economy performed the best (by more than two to one compared to both earlier and later times) was the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Even if you lump the poorer-performing 1970s in there, those four decades saw per capita GDP grow more than twice as fast as it did in 1900 to 1940 or in 1980 to the present.

Uhhh... 1990's greatest, longest boom in US history ring any bells. If you discount the HW Bush/Desert Storm recession, it was almost 20 years of outstanding growth that rivaled and surpassed the post war period. The late 60's and 70's blew chunks.

If that's the case, then neither this country nor any other than has ever been has had a capitalist economy.

We're talking PURE capitalism here. the same way there has NEVER been a PURE communist nation. What America always tried to be was a MOSTLY capitalist system, because unbridled capitalism is just as bad as unbridled communism. Monopolies an trusts which may be the most efficient for a while are bad things. Competition must be fostered to provide the consumer with the best product and results of the market. I've been a long time believer in what I call "Ethical Capitalism". You're allowed to achieve as much as you want, but you cannot compete unfairly and stifle competition or endanger or lie to the public, labor or investor. Otherwise, have fun storming the castle. You cannot find one time where I was ever for Lassaiez Faire Capitalism.

The only way we would have an economy in which everyone worked for his own profit is if everyone owned his own company and nobody was an employee of anyone else.

Technically everyone IS their own company. They trade in time, skill and labor to others. That is what an employee is. You trade with another for your labor for a wage as compensation. This is known as a contract. If someone comes to work for you for wages or other compensation, this is also a contract. If you don't have much skill, what you are worth paying isn't going to be very advantageous. It's why we go to school, get apprenticed and trained. So our time and labor is more valuable to others and therefore justified in being paid more. You need to look at how employer/employee relations really work, instead of listening to marxist rhetoric of the nobility of labor in gross theoretical senses.

Then you would produce whatever goods or services your work enabled you to, and sell those on the market.

Your product is your labor. You provide it at the price agreed between you and your employer, client or customer. You own what you are paid for it.

When you work for a fixed wage, and produce goods that belong to someone else, along with the profit he makes for selling them, you are working for his profit, not your own.

No. You are working together. He has a product the public wants at a price they will purchase it. He needs help producing it. By becoming his employee, you are trading your labor to him for a wage you agree upon to compensate you for your time you could have spent directly providing for yourself through other means from hunting/gathering to subsistence farming to being your own entrepreneur. Did you ever consider that most people are not capable of being an entrepreneur in finding a product or service for the public and have the ability to deliver it? They just don't have the chutzpah to take on the risk, stress and dangers of putting their own life in the success of their own risk? Most people can never be successful at this because they are too scared. They want someone else to take the risk and come in afterward and help them, but not be the point of the spear.

Even that isn't true. Most seeds never germinate. A crocodile lays a gazillion eggs by the riverside; most of the baby crocs become bird food before they hit the water, and most of the ones that make it to the river get eaten by fish or whatever before they become big enough that nothing messes with them except humans.

You're talking odds of survival, not opportunity. Massive difference. A single crab may produce 20k eggs in one season and only a few hundred ever get fertilized, with only a few dozen being born with only a few of those ever making it into adulthood. This does not change the fact that every egg, if conditions are right have the opportunity to live. It's as automatic as chemistry can be. Every human is the result of one sperm fertilizing one egg, in a group of millions. So? The opportunity exists for every one of those sperm to become a person. The fact that only 1 can win is irrelevant.

And the observable reality is that rights CAN be taken away. Therefore, rights are NOT from a source beyond men. It follows logically, does it not?

No, your logic is faulty. Just because a right can be oppressed, does not mean it is only from men. If there was no society, what is left with a man alone? Does he not have freedom to live as he chooses? Does he not get to keep what he makes and owns and works for? Of course he does. If no one is there to interfere with this, his life will go on happily. What you call 'having rights taken away' is in all actuality a conflict of rights. I desire to do X, but X conflicts with someone elses desire to do Y. The question is most ethically solved by a question of the right that interferes least with another is the superior right.

Person A "I want to build a house on land and live in it."
Person B "I want to destroy houses because it's fun."

Who's desire has more right to exist? Person A's desire does not conflict with Person B's. But Person B's desire directly conflicts with Person A's because it takes from Person A what they desire to satisfy the desire to destroy. Society comes in when a structure is created in which to deal with these conflicts of desires. It now drifts in to the realm of ethics and morality, not rights. Rights exist when you are all alone. Ethics define Rights when you have a conflict of Rights.

These are, at most, an extremely minor problem.

That's your incorrect opinion when 60% of the budget is allocated to social spending.

The damage inflicted upon society by the very rich is astronomical.

Another incorrect opinion with no fact to it. The influence the rich have on society is greater because they have more material wealth and influence over society. The "damage" they inflict is often overshadowed by the good they do. This is an entirely new discussion, but this assumption is not allowed to be taken at face value. You assert damage but ignore benefit while considering the vast numbers of poor as innocent and blameless unable to cause damage when they most certainly can.

And that's yet another reason to pursue narrowing of income gaps and increased equality.

A pre-determined conclusion that you are trying to shoehorn facts to fit, but have yet to truly prove.

Sorry, but you're a long way from proving the necessity of income equality because you cannot show tangible proof of it's benefit.
 
No we don't. we see them scattered equally throughout the entire spectrum.

Flatly untrue. Look at the source again. Of the 50 most unequal countries, 48 are poor, underdeveloped countries (the U.S. at 39 and Thailand at 47 being the only exceptions). Of the 44 most equal countries, 42 are advanced, prosperous countries (Bangladesh at #95 and Ethiopia at 113 being the only exceptions). They are NOT "scattered equally throughout the entire spectrum." Totally the opposite.

We're talking PURE capitalism here. the same way there has NEVER been a PURE communist nation.

And as that statement has never excused the failure of the Soviet Union, so the claim that there has never been a "pure capitalist economy" does not change the fact that economies that have approached closer to that ideal have done very poorly compared to those that diverged further from it into a mixed capitalist-socialist economy.

Besides, we're specifically discussing income inequality, are we not? And that's a measurable quantity distinct from theoretical considerations of whether an economy is "capitalist."

What America always tried to be was a MOSTLY capitalist system, because unbridled capitalism is just as bad as unbridled communism.

Sort of. The reality is that America has tried to run its industrial economy in two recognizably distinct ways, one that favored the accumulation of private fortunes and the other that discouraged this in favor of widespread high standards of living. The latter worked better.

Technically everyone IS their own company.

Just as technically, every slave was free, as he had the free will to refuse to work for his master. Neither technicality means a lot, though.

Your product is your labor.

My labor produces products. Who owns those products? If not me, then I do not own the fruits of my labor. My wages are NOT the fruits of my labor; they are the payment I accept in return for surrendering the fruits of my labor to another for his profit rather than mine.

No. You are working together. He has a product the public wants at a price they will purchase it.

No, he doesn't have that product. If he did, he wouldn't be hiring me to make it for him.

Yes, we are working together, but hardly as equals or free partners. The company is making itself rich off my labor (and the labor of many others). Is that not what we were originally discussing, what you originally brought up?

You're talking odds of survival, not opportunity. Massive difference.

I'm not sure I see the significant of what you mean by "opportunity," then. It sounds like a truism of no importance.

Just because a right can be oppressed, does not mean it is only from men. If there was no society, what is left with a man alone?

For a man alone, the concept of "rights" ceases to exist, as there is no one around to either respect or contest his claim of rights. In effect, he has the right to do anything, and no right to do anything, because the term has become meaningless.

Does he not have freedom to live as he chooses?

"Freedom" and "right" are not synonymous.

Person A "I want to build a house on land and live in it."
Person B "I want to destroy houses because it's fun."

Who's desire has more right to exist?

If you're asking for my personal judgment, I would say it depends on the circumstances, and that Person B is perfectly within his rights to destroy his own property for fun as long as no one else is endangered. If you're asking which one takes precedence as an objective statement of reality, I would say the question is meaningless, because a right is a subjective (although collective) value judgment and not a statement of objective fact.

That's your incorrect opinion when 60% of the budget is allocated to social spending.

Only a very tiny fraction of social spending involves giving aid to the unproductive.

The influence the rich have on society is greater because they have more material wealth and influence over society. The "damage" they inflict is often overshadowed by the good they do.

The damage inflicted by their very existence far outweighs the good any of them do, even the most charitable. This goes back again to the economic damage inflicted by income inequality.
 
The influence the rich have on society is greater because they have more material wealth and influence over society. The "damage" they inflict is often overshadowed by the good they do.

The damage inflicted by their very existence far outweighs the good any of them do, even the most charitable. This goes back again to the economic damage inflicted by income inequality.

So, if I follow this thought pattern, then no one should be "rich".

But if there were tons of wealth and it was equaly distributed, then everyone would be rich and things would be very very very bad.

Did I get it right ?
 
Flatly untrue. Look at the source again. Of the 50 most unequal countries, 48 are poor, underdeveloped countries (the U.S. at 39 and Thailand at 47 being the only exceptions). Of the 44 most equal countries, 42 are advanced, prosperous countries (Bangladesh at #95 and Ethiopia at 113 being the only exceptions). They are NOT "scattered equally throughout the entire spectrum." Totally the opposite.

Although there is some disagreement on the data provided by the GINI, I see why you are making the point you are. Something though has been left out of the equation that I think you may need to consider when discussing this issue though: standard of living.

What good is income equality if everyone's poor?

Also, consider this, what has been the GINI in the past then?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg

What I find interesting is that nations that have been developing the most quickly since 1990 have the sharpest rise in inequality, but the instant their economies start to decline, their income equality goes up. So I guess since that the EU is in an economic power dive, that equality would be rising as poverty grows.

Correlation or causation? Which do you think it is?

And as that statement has never excused the failure of the Soviet Union, so the claim that there has never been a "pure capitalist economy" does not change the fact that economies that have approached closer to that ideal have done very poorly compared to those that diverged further from it into a mixed capitalist-socialist economy.

That would be yet another unfounded opinion. If communist economics of government run, five year central plans worked, the USSR would have won the cold war. instead they had to try and adapt to capitalism and it destroyed them. The same thing is starting to happen in china. They just have a better news blackout and useful idiots over here trying to help them avoid it. History proves your opinion wrong.

Besides, we're specifically discussing income inequality, are we not? And that's a measurable quantity distinct from theoretical considerations of whether an economy is "capitalist."

A measurable irrelevancy you mean. Equality in poverty is not very useful you know.

Sort of. The reality is that America has tried to run its industrial economy in two recognizably distinct ways, one that favored the accumulation of private fortunes and the other that discouraged this in favor of widespread high standards of living. The latter worked better.

Till it was forced to compete in a global economy and then fails miserably. See Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and the US for examples of how it doesn't work. Henry Ford got it right when he paid his employees enough to afford the product he was manufacturing thereby guaranteeing he had a market to sell and maintain. A smart capitalist always takes care of his workers so they can in turn take care of him. The fact that both paths are not exclusive to one another seems to have escaped you in your penchant to want to demonize anyone more successful for taking risks and providing something the public wants. No nation survives that if it becomes the prevailing sentiment of the people.

Just as technically, every slave was free, as he had the free will to refuse to work for his master. Neither technicality means a lot, though.

The slave was made so by force. He has choices, but they're pretty brutal ones. He can work in the situation, escape, or die trying. They are still choices he can freely make and no man can stop him from making them. That is an inalienable right of freedom to choose his actions and live the life he sees fit in the circumstances he finds himself. You mistake the types of the choices for a lack of choice.

My labor produces products. Who owns those products? If not me, then I do not own the fruits of my labor. My wages are NOT the fruits of my labor; they are the payment I accept in return for surrendering the fruits of my labor to another for his profit rather than mine.

No, he doesn't have that product. If he did, he wouldn't be hiring me to make it for him.

Yes, we are working together, but hardly as equals or free partners. The company is making itself rich off my labor (and the labor of many others). Is that not what we were originally discussing, what you originally brought up?

:::pinches bridge of nose::: Unbelievable. You're gonna pull something trying to stretch like that.

Your wages ARE the fruits of your labor, not the product produced. He bought your labor via contract to make HIS products. It's an agreement. If you produce product for me, you will profit from me by my paying you X amount in money for your time and effort. If you bring resources into the discussion, you will be compensated for those to at whatever price you two agree upon. The finished product is his in trade for the wages. What do you think? You worked to build the car, you get paid AND ownership of the car? Where does your employer get HIS profit from this arrangement? The privilege of letting you work for him is his compensation, and then you get to have the profit from his work selling the car? :rolleyes:

He hired you to do the job agreed, otherwise he'd have done it himself and left you out thereby saving himself the labor costs and keeping it all for himself, leaving you in the cold. You chose this agreement to make his product for your wages. Therefore you have no right to HIS product he contracted you to provide him, that is his end of the contract you agreed to. You sold rights to the product the instant you took compensation in another form.

If you think the contract is unfair, quit. Go work for someone else or form up a competing company if you can. That's your right to associate with whom you choose in action. If you can negotiate a better contract, awesome. More power to you. Do you have a right to be employed by this corporation? Not a chance in hell.

You fell into marxist rhetoric on this one. The laborer has no inherent right to be employed by anyone. The employer is not his to command, but rather to negotiate with so both can profit. If you feel working for the wages he provides is not enough, you are not a slave, go work somewhere else. If he doesn't like the way you work, he can fire your ass. You're entitled to nothing but a fair compensation for your work.

This is really getting tedious that you don't get this very very elementary concept.

I'm not sure I see the significant of what you mean by "opportunity," then. It sounds like a truism of no importance.

Then I will leave it to a power greater than me to explain it to you if they will bother at all.

For a man alone, the concept of "rights" ceases to exist, as there is no one around to either respect or contest his claim of rights. In effect, he has the right to do anything, and no right to do anything, because the term has become meaningless.

"Freedom" and "right" are not synonymous.

Wow. zen bullshit. You know, you could give an aspirin a headache with how convoluted your thinking is.

If you're asking for my personal judgment, I would say it depends on the circumstances, and that Person B is perfectly within his rights to destroy his own property for fun as long as no one else is endangered. If you're asking which one takes precedence as an objective statement of reality, I would say the question is meaningless, because a right is a subjective (although collective) value judgment and not a statement of objective fact.

Wow, relativist subjective ethics in action to violate the parameters of the objective question and weasel out of a direct answer. Yeah, I'm getting real bored with your inability to be concrete.

The damage inflicted by their very existence far outweighs the good any of them do, even the most charitable. This goes back again to the economic damage inflicted by income inequality.

What do you predict would happen if you stole all their money and killed them so they could never be a threat again? What would you do with the 1.4 Trillion you'd get from the top 3000 wealth holders? Who would get it? What criterion would you use to distribute it? Who is qualified to distribute it and why?

Ever hear of the French Revolution, Robespierre and the Citizens Committee? The more things change, the more they stay the same. What you propose has been done before and it only cost a few hundred thousand lives taken randomly in a reign of terror based on the whim of evil men who believed in "Liberte, Equalite and Fraternite" above all and collective rights.

But honestly, your philosophical circles are getting very boring. Like watching NASCAR with golf carts and no crashes. Why bother?
 
Although there is some disagreement on the data provided by the GINI, I see why you are making the point you are. Something though has been left out of the equation that I think you may need to consider when discussing this issue though: standard of living.

What good is income equality if everyone's poor?

Right, and I suspect that's why Bangladesh is there among the rich countries as being relatively low-inequality. Bangladesh is so poor that even the rich aren't very rich. And of course that's been the argument used on the right against attempts to level incomes: that it would mean we were all equally poor. But as the CIA's data show, that doesn't tend to be the case. Those countries with narrow income gaps tend to be the rich ones, and it's the ones with wide income gaps that tend to be poor.

What I find interesting is that nations that have been developing the most quickly since 1990 have the sharpest rise in inequality, but the instant their economies start to decline, their income equality goes up. So I guess since that the EU is in an economic power dive, that equality would be rising as poverty grows.

No in the case of the EU, which has had strong social-welfare and labor-friendly policies in place for a long time, and is in an "economic power dive" at present only because the whole world is.

Nations that have been developing the most quickly are, almost by definition, industrializing countries; an industrializing economy experiences extremely rapid economic growth that cannot be sustained, and also tends to experience rapidly growing income gaps. (This happens because of the rapid growth in GDP, which goes disproportionately into the hands of the wealthy.) This leads to a dynamic of repeated economic breakdowns due to slack consumer demand, followed by the implementation of reforms. So what you're seeing is to be expected. But the nations of the EU were industrialized long ago and so are following a mature-economy dynamic, as is the U.S. of course.

That would be yet another unfounded opinion. If communist economics of government run, five year central plans worked, the USSR would have won the cold war. instead they had to try and adapt to capitalism and it destroyed them.

Apparently you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not defending the Soviet Union's economic policies, which clearly were a bust. I was comparing your defense of capitalism on the grounds that "pure capitalism has never been tried," with a hard-core Marxist's excusing the Soviet Union on the grounds that "real communism has never been tried." (Actually, to be technical, the Soviet Union never claimed to be communist; however, it's clear enough that its version of socialism was not a success.)

Do you understand now?

Till it was forced to compete in a global economy and then fails miserably.

We were competing in a global economy from the beginning. The "whole world except us destroyed by war" idea is a myth. The only industrialized countries whose industrial plant was significantly reduced by war damage were Germany and Japan; most of Britain's industrial plant was in the northern part of the island, out of range of the Luftwaffe; France fell fast enough that the Germans didn't bomb it all to hell; same is true for Norway and the Low Countries; the Soviet Union moved its factories east of the Urals where the Germans never reached. Even Japan and Germany were back in the game by the end of the 1950s.

There's a myth on the other side (the left) that the global economy and outsourcing are entirely to blame for the stagnation and decline of real wages in this country. Not so. I don't even believe it's to blame entirely for the loss of manufacturing jobs -- automation accounts for at least as much of that, and if for some reason outsourcing became impossible we would see more automation rather than more industrial hiring.

No, the problem has been that the service jobs which have replaced the old manufacturing jobs haven't paid as well on the average. And that is because they have been non-union, and the strength of unions has declined, due to government hostility since 1977 and especially since 1981. (Carter wasn't very union-friendly, but Reagan was worse, and Clinton was only a small improvement. We may be seeing a real change in this trend under Obama, but I'm not prepared to say that for certain yet.)

The dynamic by which the powerful post-war economy lost its grip in the mid-1970s, creating the political climate that led to Reagan and the return to Gilded Age policies, all involved oil and OPEC. I'll go into details on that if you're interested.

The slave was made so by force. He has choices, but they're pretty brutal ones. He can work in the situation, escape, or die trying. They are still choices he can freely make and no man can stop him from making them. That is an inalienable right of freedom to choose his actions and live the life he sees fit in the circumstances he finds himself.

Exactly. And, although things are somewhat softer, the modern person without capital can choose to work for someone else's profit, or live on charity, or be a criminal. Or starve to death. There are always choices; that's an inherent part of having free will. But that being the case, if the word "freedom" is to have any meaning, it must refer to a situation where one has genuine options that are all acceptable. A slave is considered "unfree" not because he literally has no free will, but because his only options to working for his master are brutal punishment and death. It's like being robbed at gunpoint: you CAN choose to refuse to give the robber your money, but then he'll shoot you and take it anyway. And so we call that being "forced" to give your money.

Our economy is set up, and has been for over a century, so that most people have no good option except to work for someone else's profit. Long ago, say about Lincoln's time, most people didn't work for wages except temporarily, while putting their capital together to become a small farmer or tradesman. For most people the norm was being in business for themselves. But that's no longer so.

Your wages ARE the fruits of your labor, not the product produced.

No. The fruits of labor are always what the labor produces. Labor produces goods and services, it does not produce wages.

He bought your labor via contract to make HIS products. It's an agreement.

It is a FORCED agreement, as noted above. It arises from the concentration of capital, from the fact that a few people control all of the means of production, so that I lack the ability to work and own the fruits of my own labor.

He hired you to do the job agreed, otherwise he'd have done it himself

No, otherwise it wouldn't have been done. If he could have done it himself he would have done that and not hired anyone. Ask anyone who's owned a small, struggling business and worked 14-hour days at it. If you can do it yourself, you do; if you can't, you hire someone.

If you think the contract is unfair, quit.

And what if the entire system is unfair, so that quitting will simply put me in another equally-unfair situation?

Wow. zen bullshit. You know, you could give an aspirin a headache with how convoluted your thinking is.

"Then I will leave it to a power greater than me to explain it to you if they will bother at all." ;)

What do you predict would happen if you stole all their money and killed them so they could never be a threat again?

No, let's use a real-world possible example. What do you predict would happen if you rewrote the rules of the economic game so that wages across the board were doubled and accumulation of vast private fortunes were discouraged, so that the gap between the richest and poorest people dropped to something like 100 to 1 instead of what it is now, over a billion to one?

I predict that the economy would boom like we haven't seen in decades, most people would live a middle-class lifestyle, and the American Dream would be restored.
 
yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.

So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.
 
Fitz, when you have no argument left, the non-self-embarrassing options are: 1) admit you were wrong, or 2) say nothing.

Just a bit of free advice, which you may take to heart or not, as you please. :cool:
 
...What do you predict would happen if you rewrote the rules of the economic game so that wages across the board were doubled...
That idea is not very far fetched, in fact it's been tried many times.

What happens is employers lay off their crews and hire new ones at the old rate. When layoffs are also outlawed, the owners declare bankruptcy and form new companies and hire new crews. When bankruptcy's banned then owners flee and nobody hires except the government. The government pretends to pay and labor pretends to work until the government collapses.
... and accumulation of vast private fortunes were discouraged, so that the gap between the richest and poorest people dropped to something like 100 to 1 instead of what it is now, over a billion to one...
That's been tried too, and it works fine for those that never create anything of value. What happens is creative people just move to where they're allowed to create valuable things.
 
Fitz, when you have no argument left, the non-self-embarrassing options are: 1) admit you were wrong, or 2) say nothing.

Just a bit of free advice, which you may take to heart or not, as you please. :cool:
No. I recognize when I'm arguing with a fool and have no reason to continue. The fool may crow victory all they want, but much like their argument, that doesn't make it so.
 
That idea is not very far fetched, in fact it's been tried many times.

I wouldn't say many times, but it's not entirely untried, that's true.

What happens is employers lay off their crews and hire new ones at the old rate.

Well, no, it turns out that ISN'T what happened. For example, I give you the transition from the 1930s, when most U.S. industries were unionized, through the 1960s. During that period of time, real wages rose dramatically, although I can't find data confirming that they literally doubled. The employers didn't lay off their crews and hire new ones at the old rate, because that was impossible, and in any real-world situation where wages have risen dramatically it won't be possible.

That's been tried too, and it works fine for those that never create anything of value. What happens is creative people just move to where they're allowed to create valuable things.

And again, we may observe that that is NOT what happened. The times when income gaps were narrow here were actually the best for those who were creating things of value, as opposed to today, which is better for those who are playing financial shell-games instead. And there was no mass-migration out of Atlas Shrugged, which, everyone should remember, is a work of fiction.

Fitz: You were unable to answer my arguments and evidence. You then throw a temper-tantrum and call names. You are not going to be believed, and are simply making yourself seem childish.
 
Last edited:
...employers lay off their crews and hire new ones at the old rate.
Well, no, it turns out that ISN'T what happened. For example, I give you the...
In the interests of time I'm willing to stipulate that you are able to present examples, anecdotes, and logical frameworks to support your beliefs. We've heard many already and are unpersuaded. We are not willing to attempt yet another vain pointless repeal of the law of supply and demand.
 
In the interests of time I'm willing to stipulate that you are able to present examples, anecdotes, and logical frameworks to support your beliefs. We've heard many already and are unpersuaded. We are not willing to attempt yet another vain pointless repeal of the law of supply and demand.

Which, obviously, you do not understand. For example, you don't seem to understand that when there is no supply of labor at half the prevailing wages, it is impossible to replace the existing workforce with workers at half the prevailing wages, however much an employer might desire to do so.
 
...We are not willing to attempt yet another vain pointless repeal of the law of supply and demand.
Which, obviously, you do not understand...
We're together on the fact that this is a passionate subject that we really should get excited about. You probably wouldn't benefit by some snarky rejoinder from me so we won't get into which of us understands more. Besides, it doesn't matter because we may be on the same side here and just not explaining ourselves well. You proposed a society where--
...accumulation of vast private fortunes were discouraged, so that the gap between the richest and poorest people dropped to something like 100 to 1 ...
--and I thought of how very much people like myself enjoy creating wealth and how much humankind has gained through wealth creation. The ratio of really good song writers to listeners of really good songs is a million to one. Same with the ratio of sick people to discoverers of miracle cures. We must not seek out and punish a creative genius caught with something of value that he's created. My take is we're all better off when they're richly rewarded.
 
The ratio of really good song writers to listeners of really good songs is a million to one. Same with the ratio of sick people to discoverers of miracle cures. We must not seek out and punish a creative genius caught with something of value that he's created. My take is we're all better off when they're richly rewarded.

At least a million to one. But here are some related questions.

Who creates the really good songs? Is it the record companies?

Who discovers miracle cures? Is it the pharmaceutical companies?

The system we have now puts the smackdown on creative people (with the exception of a very lucky few) even more than on ordinary working people.
 
Dragon said:
Fitz: You were unable to answer my arguments and evidence. You then throw a temper-tantrum and call names. You are not going to be believed, and are simply making yourself seem childish.

The fool may crow victory all they want, but much like their argument, that doesn't make it so.

I called THAT one, by God!
 
(Sigh.)

All right, Fitz. I guess the reality is that you ARE childish.

And you just went on my ignore list. I prefer to discuss things only with adults.
 
(Sigh.)

All right, Fitz. I guess the reality is that you ARE childish.

And you just went on my ignore list. I prefer to discuss things only with adults.
Oh darn. I'm crushed. However will I get through my day. :rolleyes: If you can't understand basic economics and ethics, really, there was no hope.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top