Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Choom boy's college records are still sealed.
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 9, 2015 - 09:02am PT
Sorry Chief, the picture of the Repugs is not accepting money from the arabs, it is KISSING them. So glad you are aligning yourself with the Sharia Law loving arabs. Let's us see what the NCO corps is all about.
Hmmmm...
That btw KENM is POTUS Obama... "KISSING" the Kings hand.
Too Funneeee I tell ya.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2015 - 05:32am PT
|
Larry posted 1. Income inequality is a natural result of freedom. We all make our choices and set our own priorities.
That rich guy may have sold his soul and never got to know his kids in making money his God.
You, OTOH, probably have more leisure time than he does. Why don't we measure leisure time inequality?
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, Larry. Unfortunately, it smacks of ideas formulated while ruminating on a long belay shift rather than rooted in the experiences of the average person or even a light reading of the various causes of wealth inequality in our country. I think the first problem is that you appear to be assuming that everyone has had the same opportunities and privileges that you have, which is not true. In a perfectly meritorious world where everyone gets exactly the same early education opportunities, same access to resources and schooling/employment are solely merit-based your viewpoint might hold up. Person A sees the pathway to be an investment banker and takes it, reaping huge financial rewards at the expense of discretionary time. Person B sees the same path but chooses to be a dirtbag climbing bum, accepts their lower income as a trade-off for pursuing their passion and is happy with it. We do not live in that world, however, and it requires a fair bit of intentional ignorance to maintain such a worldview. Inequality is the product of the wealth redistribution system we have created that rewards certain types of income producing opportunities at the expense of others through tax structures, labor laws, social norms and housing/banking systems that calcify economic mobility. It is no accident and it is not the natural product of any superhuman force or law of the universe. It's just literally how we've decided things should be.
Larry continued 2. Technology of the future will probably increase income inequality for a variety of reasons, and neither political party has an answer to that.
The primary reason that we choose to concentrate the rewards for automation at the top instead of requiring that they be shared more broadly. When people envisioned an automated future in the 1950's, they imagined these technologies would be used to better the lives of average Americans so that we might be productive while also having more free time. Instead they are largely being used to make larger segments of the population unemployable while those who create them continue to support politics that demonize the workers that have been replaced as lazy. There is no reason that factory farming couldn't be used to ensure a stable, free (or near free) food supply for our citizens instead of solely enriching a relative few. There is no reason that medicine can't be made accessible to people that need it instead of structured in a way that produces the highest possible profits for a relative few.
Many people, even within the party system, have put forward ideas to make this system more equitable. Maybe you just don't like them?
Reading on wealth inequality:
Coates' article on the case for reparations. It covers a lot of the pretty amazing (read: appalling) ways that America institutionalized poverty for black Americans in the 20th century.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
A very brief summary of Piketty's research into how tax structures have been a huge driver of wealth inequality (and not income differences):
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/thomas-piketty-capitalinequalityeconomics.html
Seven Pillars has a 5 part series on wealth inequality which (on first impression) seems like a decent read:
http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/case-studies/income-inequality-series
Suggestions?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 08:05am PT
|
Jammer, gone completely
what did he do to get axed?
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 09:57am PT
|
Hey HDDJ
Thanks for your input.
I'll leave aside your assumptions on my privileges, good fortune and limited life experiences, but I do make great efforts to be positive and cheerful.
You no doubt understand that there is a natural inequality, but that the top 1% or so have gamed the system to their advantage. I would agree with that.
But there will always be people who attain more wealth and use it to their advantage. This is also natural.
It is as natural for capitalists and industrialists as it is for politicians, actors and athletes. Not sure what we can or should do about that.
Make it against the law to be "too greedy"?
So the question becomes, how do we limit undue influence?
Who are these guys on the Federal Reserve?
Whose palms are getting greased in Washington DC to ignore bankruptcy laws for the benefit of CEO's who have mismanaged their responsibilities?
Why does everyone talk about tax reform and the loopholes, but nothing ever happens in congress?
What is the cure?
Here is where we should tread carefully, lest we find ourselves in a cul-de-sac of unintended consequences.
I think something needs to be done, but I admit that I'm not sure what it is. It is certainly not simple.
Here is a good graphic from the NY Times on occupations of the top 1%:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html
On your second point: How exactly do we "require" that the rewards for automation are "shared"?
Technolgy will not be stopped and it has no inherent compassion.
Your desires seem to be of a socialist perspective. I am not implying that is bad.
In fact, that is probably the future of our society. People just want more free stuff and that is natural.
The sustainability of that type of system will also determine our fate as a democracy.
Do society's ever run out of other people's money?
I am not the "Shell Answer Man" here. I have more questions than answers. Don't pin me in to be the all or nothing type.
I understand nuances and exceptions to rules.
But I do believe something needs to be done to level the field of opportunities (but not outcomes).
Liberty and security is a zero sum equation. Be careful what you wish for.
I'll go over your links as time permits. Thanks for your input.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 10:52am PT
|
Larry, I've often considered the following modest proposal:
Why simply redistribute monetary income? Why not also redistribute leisure? And why not do it progressively?
For example, we should have a "zero leisure tax bracket" consisting of two days off per week. For the first ten days in excess of that amount, you owe one hour of community service per day. For the next five days in excess of that amount, you owe an additional two hours of community service per day. For an additional five days of community service, you owe an additional three hours of community service. For any days off in addition, you owe four hours of community service for each additional day off. This approximates the combined state and federal income tax for a California resident.
Sure it's outrageous, but why should those rich in time escape the consequences of their richness?
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2015 - 11:57am PT
|
Larry posted I'll leave aside your assumptions on my privileges, good fortune and limited life experiences, but I do make great efforts to be positive and cheerful.
Forgive my assumptions, but your questions seem to come from a place of relative naivety regarding how our economic and political system works. We have a system designed to redistribute wealth to people who generally have money already and who make lots of money. How do we "require" it to be shared more evenly? We require it to be shared more evenly. I mean it's really that simple. I am not understanding the foundation under the question to be honest. Currently we have a system rigged to push the money in certain directions and the people who gain the most from that system work really hard to convince everyone that this is the natural order of things and that to change it would be catastrophic to everyone despite there being a wealth of evidence and real world experience to the contrary. I'm not going to go in depth much further because I provided a lot of good reading on how these systems are rigged and you appear to have ignored it.
Larry posted Technolgy will not be stopped and it has no inherent compassion.
Your desires seem to be of a socialist perspective. I am not implying that is bad.
In fact, that is probably the future of our society. People just want more free stuff and that is natural.
The sustainability of that type of system will also determine our fate as a democracy.
Do society's ever run out of other people's money?
Again, I'm not so sure the foundation of your questions are very sound. The argument that poor people "want free stuff" and that this is provided at the expense of "other people" (i.e., the rich) depends upon the assumption that our system is perfectly meritorious. It is not. The people making the most money do not necessarily work the hardest, provide the most benefit to society or produce the most. Quite often, those at the upper end of our wealth spectrum "want free stuff" but the question has to be asked "does society ever run out of other people's money?" I would argue that the wealth inequality gap is proving that we are starting to run out of other people's money and that we should stop giving so much free stuff to the people who are already benefiting so greatly by the system.
Larry posted But I do believe something needs to be done to level the field of opportunities (but not outcomes).
New Hampshire, where I currently live, has no income tax, no sales tax and a monstrous property tax. We also make a lot of money off of alcohol and tobacco taxes (all liquor is sold exclusively by the State because: conservatism or something). The quality of school districts vary massively depending on the tax base of a given town. The ability to live in a given town depends on one's ability to afford to live there. As such, towns with a high tax base and good schools are incredibly desirable which in turn feeds property values and then even higher taxes. If you can afford to live in one of those towns, you enjoy incredible educational resources, faculty and the social connections one needs to land job opportunities, internships and recommendations. If you don't live in one of those towns your rent/mortgage is a lot lower, but so are the opportunities. In this system, parents' outcomes = their children's opportunities. You can't separate one from the other.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 11:59am PT
|
John,
LOL, there really is just as much truth to the other side of the coin.
If only I had made different choices, why, "I coulda been a contendah".
As it is, I'm just a Walter Mitty climber who fantasizes more than realizes.
Relatively impoverished in the rewards of leisure time with friends and family.
Left way behind the 47% in their rich and unfair bounty of leisure time.
A slave to my responsibilities, rather than a master of my own domain (hat tip to Seinfeld).
A victim from the effects of trickle down leisure time.
Some steps to take:
1. Determine the causes of leisure time inequality.
2. Determine the consequences of leisure time inequality.
3. Determine leisure time inequality's effect on political inequality.
4. Find solutions to leisure time inequality.
5. Determine the ethics of minimum leisure time legislation.
(hat tip to HDDJ's link to 7 Pillars)
OK, just havin fun.
HDDJ,
Gotta go, back to you later on your thoughtful posting
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 12:17pm PT
|
We have a system designed to redistribute wealth to people who generally have money already and who make lots of money.
I respectfully disagree, HDDJ. First, let's agree on definitions. Wealth is the sum of income minus expenses accumulated over time. Income is receipts minus outlays for a given period of time. Wealth is a stock; income a flow.
Most of the arguments I see regarding concentration of "wealth" are really arguments about concentration of income. They come from IRS data, which does not measure wealth, and they are anonymous. We have no way of telling whether those with high incomes in one year are the same as those with high incomes in another year. Consequently, I don't think we can make any empirical conclusions about how our system distributes, much less redistributes, wealth. We can, however, make certain generalizations:
1. We have a capitalist economy, with a modest amount of government intervention.
2. If you spend less than you make, your wealth will increase.
3. Capitalism rewards those with capital, and rewards them unevenly. When interest rates drop unexpectedly, those holding equity securities obtain a much higher rate of return than those merely lending money (i.e., putting their money in a savings account). If interest rates rise unexpectedly, the reverse is true. Government policy affects interest rates, so the political system has some effect on what capital gets what reward.
4. Capitalism also rewards those taking entrepreneurial risk. The average return on investment increases with the risk involved, and this favors those able to diversify their risky investments. Nonetheless, the great variety of mutual funds and other investments available to small investors largely allows one to select the level of diversification and risk with which one is comfortable. Government policy has little effect on this issue.
5. Capitalism also rewards suppliers of labor and resources based on relative supply and demand. Government policy can artificially restrict supply (e.g. of sugar) or stimulate demand (e.g. of "clean" energy), but usually can do so only for small, well-organized and well-heeled groups. For most markets (labor generally, and most commodities) the government lacks the resources to affect the market in any major way. To this extent, the system really does favor those with more over those with less. I would note, however, that most of these policies of favoratism come from the left, not the right. The political thrust to end "crony capitalism" doesn't strike me as particularly strong among the current Democrats as it is among current Republicans, although both have sinned in this regard.
In general, though, our system is stacked in favor of those with intelligence, training, self-discipline and a willingness to delay gratification. A lot of that reflects things we did not really earn, such as stable families and native abilities, but a lot more of it, in my opinion, reflects decisions we make.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2015 - 12:36pm PT
|
John In general, though, our system is stacked in favor of those with intelligence, training, self-discipline and a willingness to delay gratification
Thanks for the thoughtful response. You're pointing at only the bright half of the moon, though. You forgot to mention all the ways that our system punishes those without capital, without access, without privilege. You describe the legs of the stool one is required to believe that holds up the idea that poor people are to blame for their own situation. You're right, too many of the points against inequality center on income which is why I specifically use the word wealth. If you have no wealth it becomes far, far harder to accumulate any with income. The poorer you are the higher your fees, the higher your borrowing interest, the lower your investment gains, the less able you are to go from renting to owning, the more likely it is you are unable to miss a day of work and still pay your bills. A huge number of Americans still don't even have bank accounts meaning they pay fees to cash their paychecks. Prior to the ubiquity of the debit card the average ATM fee was $2 and the average ATM withdrawal was $20. That means your average ATM using American was being charged a 10% fee to use their own money. Examples of this kind of stuff abound.
You state that the system rewards those who play by the rules but the system has different rules for different people. "Gratification" has a very different definition for someone who lives hand to mouth versus someone saving for vacation or retirement. There is also a lot of research showing that being poor actually makes people make worse financial decisions.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 01:01pm PT
|
You describe the legs of the stool one is required to believe that holds up the idea that poor people are to blame for their own situation.
I would state that differently, HDDJ. I think where we start depends on factors outside our control. Where we end up, on the other hand, largely depends on our actions and choices. Accordingly, I think poor people are not responseible for starting out poor, but are largely responsible for improving their position, and I say that mainly because of personal experience.
My father's family was dirt poor. He was the oldest child. He had three younger sisters. Only the youngest finished high school on time. My father finished a year late because he worked full-time in the packing houses during the fall semester of his junior and senior years, and basically supported the family (including his parents) once he graduated. The oldest sister never graduated from high school. The middle graduated from high school by going to night school in her 30's. She married an orphaned survivor of the Armenian massacres who never finished high school. None earned even a bachelor's degree.
All lived very frugally for a very long time, but all ended up with substantial liquid and real estate assets because they continually invested. I wonder if they would have been the same if they believed that they were not responsible for improving their condition, or if they thought that saving and investing, getting as much education as they could afford, and working hard would not bring any tangible reward.
In my mid 50's, I suffered a terrible, debilitating depression caused solely by brain chemistry issues, not outside circumstance, that caused me to lose my profession, all of my accumulated wealth, and my ability to earn income, as I've chronicled elsewhere. I have experienced firsthand the extra costs those with lower incomes pay to borrow money, or to buy goods because they can only afford small quantities, etc. I had to start over financially when I got out of prison at age 56, so I know from experience what happens when you have to "check the box." Now that I've reached my "Beatles Birthday" (i.e. 64) I don't see a comfortable retirement any time soon. You definitely speak truth when you say those without means have it harder than those with means. We agree there.
Nonetheless, I don't see the system stacked against me, because I understand what I need to do, and I'm blessed with a wife who also understands it. We don't like it, but we had to adjust our budget and lifestyle to be able to accumulate wealth. It would have been a lot more fun if I could continue as my state was 25 years ago, but my actions took that option away. It's not the system's fault. We make the best of what we have, and are definitely better off now than we were eight years ago.
So again, I don't see this as a system that is inherently redistributive. I see it as one that rewards certain behavior. While some of that behavior is easier for those with means, it still comes down to our individual decisions.
John
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 01:14pm PT
|
Capitalism is based on redistribution of wealth. The wealth is redistributed from those who create it to those who accumulate it.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 01:48pm PT
|
We have a financial system designed to redistribute wealth to people who generally have money already and who make lots of money.
Fixed that for you.
And, we have developed a political system that now perpetuates and encourages the financial inequalities.
Elect a champion of the oligarchy, someone like Trump or a Republican, and you will see the downward spiral accelerate. The rich will get richer, by design of the system. The poor will get poorer, not for lack of trying but for a system stacked against wealth-building of the poor.
Remember, several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a private developer could use eminent domain to take homes away from the poor in order to build a private shopping center so the developer could become rich.
Remember, a private corporation is now legally a "person" who, by gift of wealth, has more "rights" than a typical American who actually has a warm body.
America is being led into the shithole. People, you are witnessing, in your own lifetime, the downfall of America.
If you really hate America, then vote for a Republican.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 03:10pm PT
|
Couldn't disagree more, SLR. The policies of the Democrats have led to this massive inequality, by deciding that the government should be the enemy of business and employers. It should surprise no one that so few Americans have been employed.
If you want to be a friend of this country, elect politicians who don't care about political party or theories as much as support what has empirical evidence of working.
John
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 03:23pm PT
|
C'mon SLR, like the dollar democracy ain't representative.
;-)
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 03:28pm PT
|
JE..... you are correct again, thanks for the well thought out reply's.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 03:31pm PT
|
Elect a champion of the oligarchy, someone like Trump, Bush, Rubio or Hillary, and you will see the downward spiral accelerate.
Fixed that for you.
The oligarchy has done quite well under the present regime.
In fact, better than ever!
Big business and big government need each other.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2015 - 06:21pm PT
|
Yeah, you want trust one of these clowns economic policy. Never mind their party drove the U.S. and world economy into total collapse the last time they had the presidency.
Don't expect any challenges to the barrel of exaggerations and lies from the Fox softball throwers.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!