Zone1 What is Wrong with Inequality?

[braalian]

That radio your grandparents bought cost more of their income than a flat screen TV today

• The average annual income in the U.S. in the 1920s was around $1,500.
• So even a $50 radio represented a significant purchase — like spending over $800–$1,000 in today’s money (adjusted for inflation).

Those grandparents often struggled to put food on the table.

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing anyone in America struggling to buy food, unless it a case of them being literally too mentally or physically handicapped to leave their house or something

“Groceries are getting expensive” does not equal an actual struggle to buy enough food to survive such as the poor a few generations ago experienced

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Those grandparents often struggled to put food on the table.

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing anyone in America struggling to buy food, unless it a case of them being literally too mentally or physically handicapped to leave their house or something

“Groceries are getting expensive” does not equal an actual struggle to buy enough food to survive

There will always be inequality. Some people just don't feel like hard work and study, and blame the rich or their skin color for their lack of struggle and work. This is what DEI is all about. It is to elevate those shiftless bums up a notch so that they get paid not to work so hard or a position as Vice President.

 

[forkup]

Did you miss the most of life’s basic tenets part of my post?

You mentioned "life's basic tenets," but the fact that humanity has intentionally diverged from nature in almost every meaningful way shows that those "tenets" aren't always useful or moral guides.


If a so-called basic tenet doesn’t align with how society actually functions — or needs to function — then using it to justify human behavior is flawed. We don’t let nature dictate our medical care, our laws, or our ethics — and for good reason. Appealing to "natural" behavior to justify inequality ignores the entire point of civilization: to do better than nature.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It is insane that you seem to use the unforgiving nature of nature to justify selfishness.

It’s insane that you deem the desire to keep the maximum of one’s earnings as selfish.

It’s insane than you can arbitrarily decide when someone has too much and dictate what they have to give up in the name of preventing selfishness.

No where in nature is an organism forced to provide for another’s survival.

 

[Woodznutz]

Anyone who pays for anything pays taxes.

Most of the poor effectively pay no taxes.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yea….pretty much so
We need to live in a nation that takes care of their less fortunate.

I agree, but with qualifications.

 

[Lisa558]

That radio your grandparents bought cost more of their income than a flat screen TV today

• The average annual income in the U.S. in the 1920s was around $1,500.
• So even a $50 radio represented a significant purchase — like spending over $800–$1,000 in today’s money (adjusted for inflation).

$50 for a radio in the 1930s?! That was the rich people’s radio.

There were plenty of cheap radios available for $20, and yes….it was a significant purchase. Back then, poor people scrounged to put food on the table (no food stamps), and pay the $35 a month on their tenement apartment (no Section 8).

The worst off of them lived in Hoovervilles.

Today, the “poor” you are crying about get $1000 food stamps, subsidized rents, child tax “credits,” free Medicaid, and have flat-screen TVs and iPhones.

Stop boo-hooing about the “poor.” They live better than many middle-class do in other countries, and better than the middle class did even 50 years ago.

 

[MarcATL]

Those grandparents often struggled to put food on the table.

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing anyone in America struggling to buy food, unless it a case of them being literally too mentally or physically handicapped to leave their house or something

“Groceries are getting expensive” does not equal an actual struggle to buy enough food to survive such as the poor a few generations ago experienced

So your calling Republican voters and politicians liars for claiming they were struggling to buy food for the four years of Biden's Presidency then?

 

[Lisa558]

Most of the poor effectively pay no taxes.

That’s true. Subtract out the sales tax they pay from their housing vouchers, food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and child tax credits, and they are still net takers.

 

[forkup]

It’s insane that you deem the desire to keep the maximum of one’s earnings as selfish.

It’s insane than you can arbitrarily decide when someone has too much and dictate what they have to give up in the name of preventing selfishness.

No where in nature is an organism forced to provide for another’s survival.

Wanting to keep everything you earn — regardless of how it affects others — is the definition of selfishness. Just like a lion killing its own cub to protect a scrap of food is "natural" — but not moral.


The entire point of human civilization is to rise above that kind of brutal instinct. We don’t organize modern economies around hyena fights — we build systems that acknowledge interdependence, shared responsibility, and fairness.


And no, deciding what’s “too much” isn’t arbitrary. It’s debated in parliaments, voted on in elections, argued over in courts — it’s society collectively deciding how to balance individual freedom with collective well-being. That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy.

 

[Crepitus]

Most of the poor effectively pay no taxes.

They pay far more as a percentage of their income in taxes and anyone else.

 

[Woodznutz]

Stop boo-hooing about the “poor.” They live better than many middle-class do in other countries, and better than the middle class did even 50 years ago.

That why so many remain "poor". It's a great life and no work.

 

[Woodznutz]

That’s true. Subtract out the sales tax they pay from their housing vouchers, food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and child tax credits, and they are still net takers.

The sheer number of benefits is a disincentive to work but a great incentive to vote for the Democrats.

 

[Lisa558]

They pay far more as a percentage of their income in taxes and anyone else.

And GET BACK a ton more in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc.

 

[Crepitus]

And GET BACK a ton more in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc.

Which they probably wouldn't need if some greedy corporation would pay them a living wage and stop buying up all the property.

 

[Lisa558]

The sheer number of benefits is a disincentive to work.

I know. The answer is to cut benefits.

Years back, NYC required a $15 minimum wage. What happened is that all the full-time workers asked to have their hours cut in half because they would lose out on all their welfare benefits.

There is something wrong when someone on food stamps shops in Whole Foods (and yes, they do), when the middle class cannot afford it.

 

[Woodznutz]

Wanting to keep everything you earn — regardless of how it affects others — is the definition of selfishness. Just like a lion killing its own cub to protect a scrap of food is "natural" — but not moral.


The entire point of human civilization is to rise above that kind of brutal instinct. We don’t organize modern economies around hyena fights — we build systems that acknowledge interdependence, shared responsibility, and fairness.


And no, deciding what’s “too much” isn’t arbitrary. It’s debated in parliaments, voted on in elections, argued over in courts — it’s society collectively deciding how to balance individual freedom with collective well-being. That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy.

That's not democracy, that's politics. Democracy is the majority disenfranchising the minority.

 

[Lisa558]

Which they probably wouldn't need if some greedy corporation would pay them a living wage and stop buying up all the property.

What’s your definition of a living wage?

It should be enough that, combined with a roommate’s living wage, one can live in a modest 2-bedroom apartment or perhaps rent out a single room in a house.

 

[Woodznutz]

I know. The answer is to cut benefits.

Years back, NYC required a $15 minimum wage. What happened is that all the full-time workers asked to have their hours cut in half because they would lose out on all their welfare benefits.

There is something wrong when someone on food stamps shops in Whole Foods (and yes, they do), when the middle class cannot afford it.

Food stamps (SNAP) is a cleverly crafted system devised to ruin the health of the poor and put the nation further in debt.

 

[Woodznutz]

Food stamps (SNAP) is a cleverly crafted system devised to ruin the health of the poor and put the nation further in debt. SNAP benefits should be drastically cut, with strict requirements of what foods can be purchased.