The Real Causes of Income Inequality

[Ernie S.]

Driving a dumptruck is hard compared to pushing a wheelbarrow.

Wow, you got more skill than Alvin Lee, not.

Your feigned ignorance is cute, but isnt realistic.

Do you know how to do either?

You are a ******* idiot. Driving a dumptruck does not take as much as 50 skill points as pushing a wheelbarrow.

Seriously, driving a dumptruck does not take that much skill at all. What kind of asshole are you for saying otherwise?

Only a ******* idiot would believe that driving a dumptruck takes skills and warrant considerable pay. What a ******* douchebag.

Do you know how to drive a dump truck? Hmmm so who's worth more to me if I need someone to move dirt? You, or someone who does?

 

[Full-Auto]

Obviously, you never worked manual labor, plus this was not my original point.


Anyways, tell us how much skill it takes to work a dump truck than to push a barrel. Does it take 50 time more worth of skill? I would like you to prove it.

I am a contractor/builder.

Are you really as ignorant as you protrey?

lol...Conractors have it cake to sheetrockers.

Are, you are ******* *****. Try hanging up thousands of pounds of rock a day while your contractor of a foreman sits backs and yells at you for $6.50 hour while your contractor is making hundreds of dollars off of you a day.

You are joke.

One item wonders.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why should the dump truck get paid more. According, to you rw hacks, What I am saying is that the truck driver can move 50 times what a man with a wheelbarrow can, but the increased productivity is not a result of his labor. It is the result of the truck/machine/technology provided by his employer.

Why should the dump truck get paid more?

Can't you ******* read? I didn't say he should get paid 50 times, but driving a dump truck takes skill and training that wheelbarrow pushers don't possess.
My whole point was to show that increased productivity is not just due to hard work and a skill set. In large part it can be attributed to technology and/or machines the employer pays for. Who should reap the benefit of that investment?

 

[Ernie S.]

Why is a truck driver worth more than a wheelbarrow pusher when he didn't supply the truck?

From your own words, Just who is responsible for increased productivity? Is the guy that drives a dump truck worth 50 times what he was worth when he pushed a wheelbarrow?

Instead of throwing another hissy, explain yourself, you dumbfuck.

I'll try to explain it in one syllable words for you.


A man who drives a big red dump truck has more skills than a man who can just push dirt. He is worth more.

OR fills it with a HAND SHOVEL...

I put 7 yards of red clay on a truck this morning. I did it in about a half hour. Am I worth more than a guy with a shovel that would take 8 hours? Maybe a little, because I have the skill to operate a tractor with a loader, but I own the tractor.
THAT makes me worth a LOT more than a guy with a shovel.

 

[Ernie S.]

I need me some Maalox.

 

[Widdekind]

crony capitalism... all Libertarians stand against any form of cronyism

"crony capitalism", can occur, both by Management ("White-Collar Cronyism", e.g. Corporatism, cp. Fascism), and by Labor ("Blue-Collar Cronyism", e.g. Unions, cp. Communism)

neither are "true capitalism"; both appeal to Government Force, to "twist the economy's arm", thereby distorting markets, for short-term "Pillaging" Gain

 

[Widdekind]

there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government. Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible... They use our police and fire departments...

"unprotected free markets" do not exist

 

[rdean]

great read. very enlightening.

This is just a sample... go read the piece.
Gramm and McMillin: The Real Causes of Income Inequality - WSJ.com
Any analysis of taxes paid in high tax-and-spend countries shows that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system in the world.

In the stagnant days of the Carter administration, when inflation was approaching 13.5% and interest rates were peaking at 21.5%, income was more evenly distributed than in any period in 20th-century America. Since the days of that equality in misery, the measured income of the top 1% of income tax filers has risen over three and a half times as fast as the income of the population as a whole.

This growth in income inequality is largely the result of three dynamics:

1) Changes in the way Americans pay taxes and manage their investments, which were a direct result of reductions in marginal tax rates.

2) A dynamic shift in the labor-capital ratio, resulting from the adoption of market-based economies around the world.

3) The flourishing of economic freedom and technological advances in the Reagan era, which were the product of lower tax rates, a reduced regulatory burden, and an improved business climate. These changes have not only raised the measured income of the top 1%, they benefited the nation and the world.

An inconvenient truth for the advocates of higher taxes on America's rich is that big governments in developed countries are funded not by taxing the rich more than the U.S. does, but by taxing everybody else more.

In an eternal irony unique to large welfare states, it is the expansion of government in the name of the poor and middle class that always costs poor and middle-class families the most. When the U.S. collects 16.1% of GDP in income taxes, the top 10% of taxpayers pay 7.3% and the other 90% pick up 8.9%.

In France, however, they collect 24.3% of GDP in income taxes with the top 10% paying 6.8% and the rest paying a whopping 17.5% of GDP. Sweden collects its 28.5% of GDP through income taxes by tapping the top 10% for 7.6%, but the other 90% get hit for a back-breaking 20.9% of GDP.

If the U.S. spent and taxed like France and Sweden, it would hardly affect the top 10%, who would pay about what they pay now, but the bottom 90% would see their taxes double.

If you're a conservative and you're a member of the base, you're as poor as shit. And probably receiving food stamps. We know you have no college degree. Only a small chance you graduated high school. You'll never have more than you'll have right now. Unless you win the Lotto.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Except for the mentally or physically impaired we all have an equal chance at wealth. With a few minor exceptions of course.

Someone with twice Bill Gates' ability, but lacking Gates' rich lawyer daddy, could never have founded Microsoft.

Thank God Gates had a rich lawyer daddy...... or he never would have revolutionized the world with the PC.

Seriously?

You are complaining about people starting businesses with rich peoples money. How do you think venture start ups (the source of new jobs and growth I might add) get started? Answer... they need money!

 

[Londoner]

Reagan had an interesting idea.

Advised by Milton Friedman, he decided to transfer money from Washington to the private sector.

He said that Washington would spend less if you gave them less money to spend.

He said that if you taxed the wealthy less, than the wealthy would have more money to invest in and grow the economy. And … (as the wealthy grew the economy) there would be more jobs and less need for social programs and … less need for a big expensive government to administer those social programs. Better still: all the economic activity would lead to more revenue, and lower deficits, and less national debt!. . . indeed, the government would have the revenue it needed - only this time it would get that revenue from a growing economy, not by taxing the wealthy out of existence.

Win win.

Lower taxes > more investment > more jobs > less need for welfare!

But a funny thing happened after Reagan lowered taxes.

He quietly gave capital unprecedented mobility to tap 3rd world labor. He used the Soviet Threat to stabilize the global market system, so that American capital could have access to markets all over the globe. For every dollar he took from a social program, he invested 100 in growing the military. He used the Soviet threat to put bases all over the globe so that products could get from dangerous places to American shopping malls. He moved American capital and manufacturing to dictator run countries, where labor was oppressed, i.e., cheap. Business loved Reagan. They wanted sweatshop labor. (Do you know what Apple pays to make an iPad?) The workers who put the iPad together would have to live in sewage and eat dog food if they lived in the USA.

Cheap labor. Cheap labor. Cheap labor.

American capital wants cheap 3rd world labor.

But there is another consequence to giving American capital mobility to tap 3rd world labor. There is less of a need for American workers. Therefore, the big promise "give us tax breaks and we'll give you jobs" turned out to be a parlor trick. Instead of giving Americans good jobs with solid benefits, the Reagan Revolution lorded over a historic expansion of household debt. Everybody started receiving 3 credit card offers a week. Starting in 1980, working Americans went deeper and deeper into debt in order to maintain living standards. Once they ran out of room on their credit cards, they turned their homes into ATMs. During the Bush bubble, Americans pulled trillions of fake bubble dollars out of their criminally inflated housing values.

You think the Wall Street Journal opinion page - the most partisan spin zone in mainstream journalism - is going to admit the Morning in America was actually function of expanded credit? You think WSJ is going to talk about the loss of good jobs and the excessive debt starting in the 80s? You think the WSJ is going to talk about the crippling Reagan deficits which resulted from things like Star Wars - a farcical giveaway to weapons makers.

Nope. The WSJ is a joke.

 

[Dragon]

Thank God Gates had a rich lawyer daddy...... or he never would have revolutionized the world with the PC.

Seriously?

Of course. Gates had his father to draw on for all sorts of things, from his education to his family upbringing to the capital to start Microsoft. He couldn't have done it without his own marketing savvy and brilliance, either, to be sure. But someone with his ability and without his father's money would not have had the same opportunity.

You are complaining about people starting businesses with rich peoples money.

Nope, I'm not. Go back and read for comprehension, and try again.

 

[ThinkCritically]

Thank God Gates had a rich lawyer daddy...... or he never would have revolutionized the world with the PC.

Seriously?

Of course. Gates had his father to draw on for all sorts of things, from his education to his family upbringing to the capital to start Microsoft. He couldn't have done it without his own marketing savvy and brilliance, either, to be sure. But someone with his ability and without his father's money would not have had the same opportunity.

You are complaining about people starting businesses with rich peoples money.

Nope, I'm not. Go back and read for comprehension, and try again.

You are right. Bill Gates got his start up capital from his father-in-law. And yes, others would not have had the same unique opportunity he was presented with. Welcome to the World, please let me know how you intend to fix the fact that we all have a unique set of circumstances.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you. please let me know.

 

[Dragon]

You are right. Bill Gates got his start up capital from his father-in-law. And yes, others would not have had the same unique opportunity he was presented with. Welcome to the World, please let me know how you intend to fix the fact that we all have a unique set of circumstances.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you. please let me know.

Yes, you are. That observation was offered as a rebuttal to the fatuous nonsense that "anyone" can achieve great success in this country. It has no other significance. It does not present, in itself, a problem to be solved, or a wrong to be righted.

On the other hand, it does do a nice job of undermining a really stupid argument against doing something about the income inequality which, in general (as opposed to this particular item in specific) DOES present a problem that can be solved, or at least ameliorated.

 

[Misty]

Most liberals won't understand this article because it isn't a one word catch phrase.


"In an eternal irony unique to large welfare states, it is the expansion of government in the name of the poor and middle class that always costs poor and middle-class families the most. When the U.S. collects 16.1% of GDP in income taxes, the top 10% of taxpayers pay 7.3% and the other 90% pick up 8.9%.

The real and alarming message in these OECD numbers is that there appear to be limits in the real world to how much tax blood can be extracted from rich turnips. With much higher marginal income-tax rates, countries that are clearly willing to soak the rich have proven to be incapable of doing so."

 

[Dragon]

Most liberals won't understand this article because it isn't a one word catch phrase.

You need to learn the difference between the concepts of "understand" and "agree with," apparently. I find that a lot of conservatives suffer from that confusion.

 

[ThinkCritically]

If you're a conservative and you're a member of the base, you're as poor as shit. And probably receiving food stamps. We know you have no college degree. Only a small chance you graduated high school. You'll never have more than you'll have right now. Unless you win the Lotto.

I thought democrats were jealous of the rich republicans...now they are all poor people.

 

[ThinkCritically]

You are right. Bill Gates got his start up capital from his father-in-law. And yes, others would not have had the same unique opportunity he was presented with. Welcome to the World, please let me know how you intend to fix the fact that we all have a unique set of circumstances.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you. please let me know.

Yes, you are. That observation was offered as a rebuttal to the fatuous nonsense that "anyone" can achieve great success in this country. It has no other significance. It does not present, in itself, a problem to be solved, or a wrong to be righted.

On the other hand, it does do a nice job of undermining a really stupid argument against doing something about the income inequality which, in general (as opposed to this particular item in specific) DOES present a problem that can be solved, or at least ameliorated.

This may sound like a loaded question or sarcasm, but honestly, why is income inequality a problem that needs to be solved or ameliorated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Reagan had an interesting idea.

Advised by Milton Friedman, he decided to transfer money from Washington to the private sector.

Wrong.
Reagan let the private sector -keep- its money, rather than sending it to Washington.
Your failure to understand this speaks volumes.

 

[Dragon]

This may sound like a loaded question or sarcasm, but honestly, why is income inequality a problem that needs to be solved or ameliorated.

Let me clarify that it is excessive income inequality, not the mere existence of non-zero levels of inequality, that is a problem.

With that clarified, it's a problem for two reasons, one economic and the other political. The economic reason is that excessive income inequality depresses consumer demand and leads to an underperforming economy.

The political reason is that excessive income inequality undermines public support for the nation's institutions and risks revolution.

 

[ThinkCritically]

This may sound like a loaded question or sarcasm, but honestly, why is income inequality a problem that needs to be solved or ameliorated.

Let me clarify that it is excessive income inequality, not the mere existence of non-zero levels of inequality, that is a problem.

With that clarified, it's a problem for two reasons, one economic and the other political. The economic reason is that excessive income inequality depresses consumer demand and leads to an underperforming economy.

The political reason is that excessive income inequality undermines public support for the nation's institutions and risks revolution.

How do you define excessive?

You are right that there is a correlation between income inequality and depressed consumer demand, but i'm not sure why increased consumer demand is preferable to some other level of consumer demand isn't desirable consumer demand completely arbitrary, or based upon some previous notion of what is a good level of consumer demand? Again underperforming economy is relative. Our economy is underperforming compared to say 2006, but we all know now that it was consumer demand was so high that people were spending more than they were saving. You say it is underperforming, I say it is adjusting to the changing global economy.

Excessive income inequality does undermine public support for the nation's institutions and risks revolution. But it would merely be a symptom of the underlying problems, such as cronyism. In fact, correct me if I am mistaken, maybe what you are alluding to is that corruption leads to revolution?