Income Inequality: Another Aspect

[Kimura]

Labor is a commodity that has its own market forces. A sweeping generalization like this doesn't really give any noteworthy additions to the subject. For instance, and this is common, I posted in here a link to labor markets in the 1800s. If you read it, you'll realize that labor demand can significantly determine the price of labor. For instance, mill labor required in some instances long distance reaches to secure labor. Which in effect made supply smal but demand very high. This created the condition for much larger wages from businesses in need of securing said labor.

I don't see it as coincidental that neoliberalism is the most dominant social-economic political theory. It favors capital over labor. They view labor as a commodity and workers are just another input which can be tweaked.

It's impossible to treat labor as a pure commodity. The ownership of commodities can be transferred, for example, but labor cannot. It's owned by the individual at any and all times.

What nonsense. That's the nature of competition. It doesn't casue any macro problems to have market selected winners and losers. On the other hand,. the results of diminished competiton thorugh protectionism/favoritism shows a clear correlation of macro related problems. One such as is the the stagnation of wages. And i addressed some of these in my first post in this thread.

I'll read that study to NEBR you posted when I get chance. Wage stagnation has multiple factors.

Corporate profits, margins, and productivity are at an all time high. Over the past 5 years or so around 90% of national income growth went STRAIGHT to corporate profits, while wages only INCREASED 1%. Why? Wages aren't where they should be and they're far behind the prices of real goods and services.

One of those factors is also economic rent. This is where payments far surpass what’s required to mobilize the factors of production so to speak. A perfect example is Wall Street. It serves no public purpose only its own agenda. It adds economic rent to all of our economic activity and society as a whole.

Let’s take a look at the income going to the 1%. A vast majority are useless and economically parasitical, such as being a CEO in the financial sector or being the recipient of huge stock dividends. It should be clear that marginal productivity theory has no basis in reality. It amazes me how people can justify such massive concentrations of wealth, or that they deserve it due to their marginal contributions to production.

And a large protion of this problem stems from the exit of real wealth creation to the illusion induced by monetary policy.

What do you define as wealth? How do you define wealth?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What I do want is a fair free market system. We do not have that.

I dont know about any talks of fair, but i sure would like to have a free market system.

I know all about fair.
As I said in a thread I made awhile back, myself, the controller and one other decided to close the business that has existed since 1967.
There are several reasons...but they key reasons is the continuing consolidations and large corporate competition that has taken over the industry. We cannot compete. They are gang producing and selling products for about the cost of my raw materials.
The closest super-printer that opened up in Cincinnati last year - get this - does not have to pay taxes for it's first 5 years of existence. The city donated the land it was built on, and they received a HUUUGE tax incentive for the capital expenses of the equipment they purchased. Is this fair to all of the existing competitors in the area??
This happens all of the time.

 

[Kimura]

I have 10 seconds....that should be enough for you to tell me all you know.


"The majority of today's millionaires are self-made and weren't born into their wealth, new research shows."
How Most Millionaires Got Rich


There are 400,000 millionaires in NYC alone.
?Two cities?: Debunking De Blasio | New York Post


The Forbes article was about 400 billionaires.....273 of whom didn't inherit wealth.

Reading isn't your strong suit.


From your link:



Like I said, the wealthy are involved in real estate, stock, and commodity speculation and other types of rent seeking. What do they PRODUCE? The rich are idle while REAL WEALTH is created by workers in factories, construction sites, laboratories, schools, and other sectors of the economy that a given little attention.



From a fiscal standpoint, they are identical. Sorry to burst your bubble.




Right. SO pointing out rent seeking/extraction is clearly totalitarian. Newsflash: the wealthy don't produce the majority of goods and services. They're rent extractors which add costs to your life on a daily basis.



Right, I'm clearly a Marxist. I doubt you even read Das Kapital given your incoherent diatribe.

2. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
From David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32

Riiiiight...Because the teacher, plumber, engineer aren't skilled workers. It's the hedge fund manager and other rent extractors that produce nothing who have actual skills. Thanks for the clearing that up!!!! Next you'll be telling me how the rich are "job creators".

Wait....I have a reference to you right here:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs.

The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?"
—The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71


When your IQ reaches 60 you should sell.

Let's make a deal: get back to me when you have an ORIGINAL idea in your head and you decide to stop rehashing long discredited talking points.

 

[jasonnfree]

What I do want is a fair free market system. We do not have that.

I dont know about any talks of fair, but i sure would like to have a free market system.

Why is the free market as practiced in this country so great if creates great inequality?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What I do want is a fair free market system. We do not have that.

I dont know about any talks of fair, but i sure would like to have a free market system.

Why is the free market as practiced in this country so great if creates great inequality?

There is absolutely nothing aboout the US system that is free market. Nothing.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Kimura, I replied to post #21 and then accidently destroyed it after almost complete. I'll perhaps try again later after I regroup my thoughts after losing them on a bad key stroke.

 

[Kimura]

I dont know about any talks of fair, but i sure would like to have a free market system.

Why is the free market as practiced in this country so great if creates great inequality?

There is absolutely nothing aboout the US system that is free market. Nothing.

There's no such thing as a "free market". Markets operate within institutional frameworks such as contract law and enforcement.

 

[Kimura]

Kimura, I replied to post #21 and then accidently destroyed it after almost complete. I'll perhaps try again later after I regroup my thoughts after losing them on a bad key stroke.

Not a problem, I hate when that happens.

 

[jasonnfree]

I dont know about any talks of fair, but i sure would like to have a free market system.

Why is the free market as practiced in this country so great if creates great inequality?

There is absolutely nothing aboout the US system that is free market. Nothing.[/QUOTE


Well, corporations seem to have quite a bit of freedom by making profit their number on goal even if it destroys communities. Anyway, I don't believe any country has had a free market so why are you so sure a free market's so great anyway other than in theory?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why is the free market as practiced in this country so great if creates great inequality?

There is absolutely nothing aboout the US system that is free market. Nothing.

There's no such thing as a "free market". Markets operate within institutional frameworks such as contract law and enforcement.

Yes, contract laws is a part of exchange. The free market still protects private property institutionally, while not interferring or intervening in market forces through government meddling. Whether it be in agriculture, banking, or otherwise.

So, yes there is such thing as a free market, though it has rarely, and only to degrees been allowed to exist over the course of history. Markets operate completely separate from government under such circumstances. Govts only role is in rights and property protection under a free market system. Not dertermining mediums of exchange, prices, who can participate and how, and the additional myriad of of competition destroying legislation the government has imposed on markets.

In short markets exist despite institutional intervention, not because of it.

 

[bendog]

Wish the rich were paying my income taxes, property taxes, water sewer, sales, car tags .....

Oh I'm supposed to feel sorry for them cause they pay so much. Not.

 

[Kimura]

There is absolutely nothing aboout the US system that is free market. Nothing.

There's no such thing as a "free market". Markets operate within institutional frameworks such as contract law and enforcement.

Yes, contract laws is a part of exchange. The free market still protects private property institutionally, while not interferring or intervening in market forces through government meddling. Whether it be in agriculture, banking, or otherwise.

So, yes there is such thing as a free market, though it has rarely, and only to degrees been allowed to exist over the course of history. Markets operate completely separate from government under such circumstances. Govts only role is in rights and property protection under a free market system. Not dertermining mediums of exchange, prices, who can participate and how, and the additional myriad of of competition destroying legislation the government has imposed on markets.

In short markets exist despite institutional intervention, not because of it.

There hasn't been a "free market" since humans were hunter-gatherers. Once we had the emergence of city states, we entered the realm of political economy.

The "free market" is comprised of rules. These rules simply don't exist in nature. Governments are provisioned to maintain competitive markets. Markets aren't free of rules since these very rules define them.

 

[Againsheila]

Just a few considerations beyond the usual political claims about what may or may not be a problem, a crisis...an emergency that government must deal with.....




1. The much bemoaned 'income inequality' is really an interesting phenomenon....
Let's look at some facts.
According to the Michael Medved Radio Show, (12/18/2013):
the middle 20% of earners- below the top 40% and above the bottom 40%- earned 15% of the nation's income in 1947.
In 1979, the middle 20% earned 16% of said income.
But in 2013, the same statistical group earned........14%.
What does that say about the 'growing income inequality'?





2. CNBC had an interesting title to an analysis...."The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

3. ... the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.... The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.

4. ... the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since thestock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent.




5. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

6. "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."

7. The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters.





8. ...the greatest disparity in the report is the one mentioned above, regarding the share of individual income taxes paid by various income groups.

9. The report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

10. ... about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent."





There doesn't seem to be an aspect of illegality in the earnings of the highest income group...
...is there any real argument that the wealthiest are 'stealing' their wealth from the lowest earners? Often, that is implied.....
How about consequences of one's actions, and life decisions?



And....what is the role that 'envy' plays in the discussion of 'income inequality'?

Are there any math whizzes out there? I'm pretty sure there isn't more than 100% of anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just a few considerations beyond the usual political claims about what may or may not be a problem, a crisis...an emergency that government must deal with.....




1. The much bemoaned 'income inequality' is really an interesting phenomenon....
Let's look at some facts.
According to the Michael Medved Radio Show, (12/18/2013):
the middle 20% of earners- below the top 40% and above the bottom 40%- earned 15% of the nation's income in 1947.
In 1979, the middle 20% earned 16% of said income.
But in 2013, the same statistical group earned........14%.
What does that say about the 'growing income inequality'?





2. CNBC had an interesting title to an analysis...."The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

3. ... the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.... The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.

4. ... the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since thestock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent.




5. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

6. "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."

7. The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters.





8. ...the greatest disparity in the report is the one mentioned above, regarding the share of individual income taxes paid by various income groups.

9. The report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

10. ... about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent."





There doesn't seem to be an aspect of illegality in the earnings of the highest income group...
...is there any real argument that the wealthiest are 'stealing' their wealth from the lowest earners? Often, that is implied.....
How about consequences of one's actions, and life decisions?



And....what is the role that 'envy' plays in the discussion of 'income inequality'?

Are there any math whizzes out there? I'm pretty sure there isn't more than 100% of anything.

It isn't a mistake.
The article linked explains where the extra comes from.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The "free market" is comprised of rules. These rules simply don't exist in nature.

These rules are the very essence of human nature. Markets aren't the result of governance. They are the result of human action.

Governments are provisioned to maintain competitive markets. Markets aren't free of rules since these very rules define them.

Government in this country was designed to protect rights and property. Another hallmark of capitalism. No one has said that markets are free of rules. The rules, are made up and adhered to by the actors, and in cases where there is a dispute that needs arbitration, that is the role of government. Governments destroy competition, they do not facilitate it.

 

[Kimura]

The "free market" is comprised of rules. These rules simply don't exist in nature.

These rules are the very essence of human nature. Markets aren't the result of governance. They are the result of human action.

Governments are provisioned to maintain competitive markets. Markets aren't free of rules since these very rules define them.

Government in this country was designed to protect rights and property. Another hallmark of capitalism. No one has said that markets are free of rules. The rules, are made up and adhered to by the actors, and in cases where there is a dispute that needs arbitration, that is the role of government. Governments destroy competition, they do not facilitate it.

The human action axiom is trivial at best. The same view can be held by all manner of economists, such as Marxists, Monetarists, Keynesians, etc. We can't deduce anything significant from it without other premises involved. von Mises' Human Action was full of rantings and very ill-conceived. This was ironic given he considered himself a logician.

"Free markets" minus government involvement isn't the same as market conditions found in textbooks which produce ideal outcomes. Government involvement/regulation is required to prevent producers from engaging in behaviors such as monopolistic or excessive market power, harming consumers, etc.

I do agree one of the functions of government is to protect property and individual rights.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Monopolies are the result of government. Government being a monopoly itself and granting other entities such privilege. One would be hard pressed to find an example of monopoly that wasn't sponsored by the largest monopoly in a given domain.

And I would press you to lay examples of mises "ill conveived" "rantings", but i have strong doubts that you've actually read any Mises in order to make first hand critiques about his work.

 

[Kimura]

Monopolies are the result of government. Government being a monopoly itself and granting other entities such privilege. One would be hard pressed to find an example of monopoly that wasn't sponsored by the largest monopoly in a given domain.

And I would press you to lay examples of mises "ill conveived" "rantings", but i have strong doubts that you've actually read any Mises in order to make first hand critiques about his work.

The only monopoly the government has is the monetary system. It fits the traditional analysis of monopoly.

I've read Human Action at least three times (I have a copy on my Kindle), and I'm very knowledgeable about von Mises, Rothbard, Menger, Seglin, etc. The amount of unsubstantiated assumptions in Human Action are beyond the pale.

 

[oldfart]

Just a few considerations beyond the usual political claims about what may or may not be a problem, a crisis...an emergency that government must deal with.....




1. The much bemoaned 'income inequality' is really an interesting phenomenon....
Let's look at some facts.
According to the Michael Medved Radio Show, (12/18/2013):
the middle 20% of earners- below the top 40% and above the bottom 40%- earned 15% of the nation's income in 1947.
In 1979, the middle 20% earned 16% of said income.
But in 2013, the same statistical group earned........14%.
What does that say about the 'growing income inequality'?





2. CNBC had an interesting title to an analysis...."The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

3. ... the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.... The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.

4. ... the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since thestock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent.




5. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

6. "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."

7. The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters.





8. ...the greatest disparity in the report is the one mentioned above, regarding the share of individual income taxes paid by various income groups.

9. The report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

10. ... about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent."





There doesn't seem to be an aspect of illegality in the earnings of the highest income group...
...is there any real argument that the wealthiest are 'stealing' their wealth from the lowest earners? Often, that is implied.....
How about consequences of one's actions, and life decisions?



And....what is the role that 'envy' plays in the discussion of 'income inequality'?

Are there any math whizzes out there? I'm pretty sure there isn't more than 100% of anything.

You obviously don't visit PCs universe often.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just a few considerations beyond the usual political claims about what may or may not be a problem, a crisis...an emergency that government must deal with.....




1. The much bemoaned 'income inequality' is really an interesting phenomenon....
Let's look at some facts.
According to the Michael Medved Radio Show, (12/18/2013):
the middle 20% of earners- below the top 40% and above the bottom 40%- earned 15% of the nation's income in 1947.
In 1979, the middle 20% earned 16% of said income.
But in 2013, the same statistical group earned........14%.
What does that say about the 'growing income inequality'?





2. CNBC had an interesting title to an analysis...."The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes."
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

3. ... the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.... The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.

4. ... the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since thestock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent.




5. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

6. "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."

7. The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters.





8. ...the greatest disparity in the report is the one mentioned above, regarding the share of individual income taxes paid by various income groups.

9. The report shows the lowest-paid Americans earned on average $8,100 in 2010 but received nearly $25,000 in government aid. You begin to see how "transfers" create a negative tax burden.

10. ... about a quarter of the lowest earning group actually paid negative 15 percent of all individual income taxes. Contrast that with the combined share of the wealthiest two groups, which totals more than 100 percent."





There doesn't seem to be an aspect of illegality in the earnings of the highest income group...
...is there any real argument that the wealthiest are 'stealing' their wealth from the lowest earners? Often, that is implied.....
How about consequences of one's actions, and life decisions?



And....what is the role that 'envy' plays in the discussion of 'income inequality'?

Are there any math whizzes out there? I'm pretty sure there isn't more than 100% of anything.

You obviously don't visit PCs universe often.

This is one of the rare occasions in which you are correct: the name for my universe is "reality."

You should consider visiting some time.


Now, for your edification:

"The CBO explained that a group of U.S. taxpayers was considered to have a “negative income tax rate” when refundable tax credits, in terms of government transfer-payments to the group, exceeded the income tax the group would otherwise earn.

This produces the disparity in which the higher-income groups of taxpayers end up paying more than 100 percent of all income tax paid, as a result of needing to generate from income tax revenues the tax credit transfer payments the government “owes” lower income Americans."
CBO stuns! ?Rich? pay 106% of income taxes


Now say 'duhhhhhh.'


Bulletin: There's no award for 'stupid'....so stop competing.