Half of America Shut off from Economic Growth (1 Viewer)

[RedmondLonghorn]

Like Murray argued, what if it is systemic and ingrained, like IQ? 

Then what to do about income inequality? 

That was the thesis of his book. It got railroaded by race and IQ concerns, but that was his larger point. What if you even controlled for whites only?  

The lazy and ignorant are going to end up getting the shaft, on average, under any sort of market-based system. I would call that a feature, not a bug, of the system.

I'm going to be really careful here, because this is a minefield of a topic, but I'd observe that certain types of people tend to exhibit a high degree of respect for education and a high level work ethic overall, even at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Those types tend to be more successful, on average, than those that do not exhibit respect for education or work ethic.

That is as it should be.

The question should be: how do you change cultural attitudes within groups where the unhelpful attitudes have become culturally ingrained to something more constructive? Telling them that the deck is stacked against them and that the whole system is unfair and will never serve them well no matter what they do is not helpful. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Items #3 & #5 are basically about people's feelings. I'm sorry, but I don't think making sure some people don't feel bad is an important consideration in designing tax policy or to introduce additional distortions into our economic system.

I figured as much, I just wanted to include reasons why I thought income inequality was bad. 

 

[moleculo]

Why do you feel that? I think identifying why they can't "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" would be a great first step in understanding the problem and the potential solutions.

I feel that arguing why people tend not to improve their lot in life is a dangerous subject that can bring us down a path that, frankly, I'd rather not go down, especially if one were to use economic situation as a surrogate for race, intelligence, religion, etc.  I'm not saying you would, but others will.

Further, I believe that peoples actions are likely a response to their environment.  Change the environment and you will see a different response.  Keeping the environment constant is a fine way to see people remain in their ruts.  By environment, I refer to governmental policies/regulations, local economic situations, etc.  "Why can't someone pull themselves up by their bootstraps?" completely ignores any environmental factors.

In short, I believe that it's a matter of nurture more than nature.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I really don't want to put words in your mouth so another question - are you saying that the people on the lowest end of the spectrum wouldn't be replaced once they move out of it?  If so, I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what is going on.  If we help some of the low income people get out of their plight doesn't mean they won't be soon replaced by someone else.

Somebody is always going to be on the bottom in any system except for Utopian Marxism, which doesn't and can never exist. 

I thought we agreed the idea was to see that the people at the absolute bottom have things better than they do now. 

If you think that absolutely requires giving them more stuff that they don't have to pay for, I am going to go ahead and disagree with you.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I feel that arguing why people tend not to improve their lot in life is a dangerous subject that can bring us down a path that, frankly, I'd rather not go down, especially if one were to use economic situation as a surrogate for race, intelligence, religion, etc.  I'm not saying you would, but others will.

Further, I believe that peoples actions are likely a response to their environment.  Change the environment and you will see a different response.  Keeping the environment constant is a fine way to see people remain in their ruts.  By environment, I refer to governmental policies/regulations, local economic situations, etc.  "Why can't someone pull themselves up by their bootstraps?" completely ignores any environmental factors.

In short, I believe that it's a matter of nurture more than nature.

I agree with a lot of that. And yeah, it is a ticklish topic. But it is also a very important one. Avoiding discussing it because of concerns over poltical correctness isn't helpful.

See my post a couple of slots up. 

I do think contantly reinforcing the notion that they can't do things because the system is "rigged against them" is counterproductive. It provides a very convenient excuse.

 

[rockaction]

The lazy and ignorant are going to end up getting the shaft, on average, under any sort of market-based system. I would call that a feature, not a bug, of the system.

I'm going to be really careful here, because this is a minefield of a topic, but I'd observe that certain types of people tend to exhibit a high degree of respect for education and a high level work ethic overall, even at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Those types tend to be more successful, on average, than those that do not exhibit respect for education or work ethic.

That is as it should be.

The question should be: how do you change cultural attitudes within groups where the unhelpful attitudes have become culturally ingrained to something more constructive? Telling them that the deck is stacked against them and that the whole system is unfair and will never serve them well no matter what they do is not helpful. 

True. He's a paleo and would argue that bourgeois values are very important. 

I'm just saying that there are more pieces at work here than even the traditional right (no, I'm not talking the alt-right) have brought to bear on the issue. Every serious free marketer and democrat acknowledges that income inequality is a problem, even if those problems are feeling-based. After all, what is government or economy if not a, um, Moral Theory Of Sentiments?  

I mean, that's the book after The Wealth Of Nations by Smith. 

de Tocqueville argues against inequality and sees the beneficence in Massachusetts Bay Colony socialism. 

It's going to be a hybrid. Always has, always will be. The methodology and the delivery and its coercion is what is important.  

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I figured as much, I just wanted to include reasons why I thought income inequality was bad. 

I know. We don't agree on a lot of this stuff but I never want to be dismissive towards your arguments. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Somebody is always going to be on the bottom in any system except for Utopian Marxism, which doesn't and can never exist. 

I thought we agreed the idea was to see that the people at the absolute bottom have things better than they do now. 

If you think that absolutely requires giving them more stuff that they don't have to pay for, I am going to go ahead and disagree with you.

I can agree with the 2nd sentence (although in my mind income inequality isn't just that - there's a lot of topics/areas within that concept).  I don't see how the 3rd sentence has to follow from that - unless "giving them more stuff" is what we categorize all solutions as.

 

[rockaction]

By the way, my broader point is that there have been arguments coming from the traditional right that have recognized income inequality -- simply because of inequality -- is a big problem. 

It's not going away. The best thing to do is discuss honestly and frankly how to deal with it. How coercive the measures? What are the measures? 

 

[fantasycurse42]

Some of these communities lack any kind of quality schools

I'm not in the mood to watch a depressing video, but this is near the core of the issue at hand IMO (along with a few other things, but this is certainly near the top). 

 

[AAABatteries]

Good timing with this article - I haven't even read it all yet but figure it might be a useful artifact in our discussion

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inequality-is-killing-the-american-dream/

 

[The Z Machine]

I think we can acknowledge that there isn't a whole lot of upwards mobility in this country without blaming poor folks for their plight.

A better question is what can be done about it?  Here are my thoughts:

1. tax all-income at the same rate as earned income - interest, dividends, inheritance, W2, etc.  It's silly that we complain about the rich getting richer, but this is exactly how our tax code is structured.  See: Warren Buffett.
   
2.  it's all about education.  The workplace of the future will require a more skilled workforce to be able to work with automated systems.  If the (D)'s can't make college free, can we at least make trade-school free?  There was a time in this country when not everyone went to HS, but now education is provided by the state thru 12th grade.  Moving forward, how about we provide education thru an associates degree?
   
3. Let's talk reform welfare.  If you are able-bodied and unemployed, how about doing something useful for the community?  Picking up garbage, cutting grass, painting, etc.  Not only is the community getting work done, but you are (re) instilling a sense of work, as well as helping encourage folks to get off the rolls.
   
4. we need to figure out how to encourage businesses in blighted areas (i.e. rust belt).  California is seeing so much tech-sector growth, how could we encourage some of that to go to, say, Buffalo?
   
5. single payer health care needs to be seriously considered.  
   
6. we should also think about the Basic Income Guarantee.
   

Sounds socialist to me.

 

[Slapdash]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I think #1 is a real issue, so I would have led with it too. It is a difficult one to deal with, as we both know.

Items #3 & #5 are basically about people's feelings. I'm sorry, but I don't think making sure some people don't feel bad is an important consideration in designing tax policy or to introduce additional distortions into our economic system.

Item #4 is about allocation of scarce resources, which is exactly the basis for economics. And market-based principals have proven themselves to be the most efficient economic system overall (not a perfect one, just the most efficient).

What do you think about #2?  That is the one that worries me the most.  Too much strain on the community ends up undermining the institutions and democratic government that enables the US to produce so much wealth in the first place

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

By the way, my broader point is that there have been arguments coming from the traditional right that have recognized income inequality -- simply because of inequality -- is a big problem. 

It's not going away. The best thing to do is discuss honestly and frankly how to deal with it. How coercive the measures? What are the measures? 

Duly noted. 

I guess I would say that while having very wide income equality isn't ideal, it isn't a big enough problem in and of itself to merit making wide-rangning changes to the economic/tax system that might reduce overall economic growth and/or incur higher levels of government debt.

 

[AAABatteries]

" In their new paper, the researchers tried to measure a different concept, absolute mobility: How likely is it that someone will earn more than his or her parents did? Unlike the relatively flat line of relative mobility, the trend for absolute mobility points clearly downward. Nearly all Americans born in the 1940s, regardless of income, could expect to out-earn their parents in adulthood (or live in households that did). But mobility fell sharply over the next 20 years: Just 70 percent of Americans born in 1955 out-earned their parents at age 30, and only about 60 percent of those born in 1960 did so. The decline has slowed since then, but it hasn’t stopped: Among Americans born in the early 1980s, barely half have managed to surpass their parents’ earnings. "

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

What do you think about #2?  That is the one that worries me the most.  Too much strain on the community ends up undermining the institutions and democratic government that enables the US to produce so much wealth in the first place

Yeah. I missed that one, though not purposefully.

I don't think it is as compelling an argument as #1, but I am not ready to dismiss it entirely either. 

I guess that depends on how we define communities to start with. In the real world, actual communities don't usually contain the ultra-wealthy and people at the opposite end of the spectrum.

The other thing that puzzles me about it is the phrase "so the people in the best position to help solve community-wide problems become disinterested in solving those problems". That implies that the wealthiest people wield disproportionate political power that they should be using for the good of the community. The earlier point suggested that economic elites should have less political power. So which is it?

Also, it isn't universally true, but a lot of the uber-uber-wealthy in this country do seem to be quite keenly interested in trying to solve problems for the less fortunates (see the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.).

 

[Capella]

I'm not in the mood to watch a depressing video, but this is near the core of the issue at hand IMO (along with a few other things, but this is certainly near the top). 

It's worth it. 

 

[Slapdash]

Yeah. I missed that one, though not purposefully.

I don't think it is as compelling an argument as #1, but I am not ready to dismiss it entirely either. 

I guess that depends on how we define communities to start with. In the real world, actual communities don't usually contain the ultra-wealthy and people at the opposite end of the spectrum.

The other thing that puzzles me about it is the phrase "so the people in the best position to help solve community-wide problems become disinterested in solving those problems". That implies that the wealthiest people wield disproportionate political power that they should be using for the good of the community. The earlier point suggested that economic elites should have less political power. So which is it?

Also, it isn't universally true, but a lot of the uber-uber-wealthy in this country do seem to be quite keenly interested in trying to solve problems for the less fortunates (see the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc.).

I took community there to mean a country since that is the level where most of the polices influencing inequality take place.  Also movement between states and cities within open markets like the US is pretty fungible.  IE:  If people were stuck in rural Wisconsin we would have to create different policies than if they can easily move to Chicago or Milwaukee where jobs are more accessible.  

 

[Gachi]

I think we can acknowledge that there isn't a whole lot of upwards mobility in this country without blaming poor folks for their plight.

A better question is what can be done about it?  Here are my thoughts:

1. tax all-income at the same rate as earned income - interest, dividends, inheritance, W2, etc.  It's silly that we complain about the rich getting richer, but this is exactly how our tax code is structured.  See: Warren Buffett.
   
2.  it's all about education.  The workplace of the future will require a more skilled workforce to be able to work with automated systems.  If the (D)'s can't make college free, can we at least make trade-school free?  There was a time in this country when not everyone went to HS, but now education is provided by the state thru 12th grade.  Moving forward, how about we provide education thru an associates degree?
   
3. Let's talk reform welfare.  If you are able-bodied and unemployed, how about doing something useful for the community?  Picking up garbage, cutting grass, painting, etc.  Not only is the community getting work done, but you are (re) instilling a sense of work, as well as helping encourage folks to get off the rolls.
   
4. we need to figure out how to encourage businesses in blighted areas (i.e. rust belt).  California is seeing so much tech-sector growth, how could we encourage some of that to go to, say, Buffalo?
   
5. single payer health care needs to be seriously considered.  
   
6. we should also think about the Basic Income Guarantee.
   

Welfare was reformed 20 years ago, now it's called TANIF (temporary assistance for needy families) and in some states you can only get it for 1 year. 

And all it did was create even more poverty. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I read an interesting study recently that concluded that the Scandinavian countries actually were so successful in spite of their heavy taxation and extravagant welfare states.

The study cited one underlying reason for this: the traditional Scandinavian culture of hard work and frugality, combined with those countries high degree of cultural homogeneity.

 

[AAABatteries]

Talking about BIG  - http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

"How about in the U.S.? The idea has not gotten much traction in Washington, although Bernie Sanders has expressed his sympathy for it — perhaps not too surprising for a self-declared socialist. But that’s the thing about the guaranteed income idea. You can see why a socialist, or just about anyone on the left, might like it — theoretically, at least; it’s a permanent financial safety net. But conservatives should also like it, again, at least theoretically, because it’s a way to shrink the welfare state by folding up a bunch of byzantine entitlement programs into one tidy check. "

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Talking about BIG  - http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/

"How about in the U.S.? The idea has not gotten much traction in Washington, although Bernie Sanders has expressed his sympathy for it — perhaps not too surprising for a self-declared socialist. But that’s the thing about the guaranteed income idea. You can see why a socialist, or just about anyone on the left, might like it — theoretically, at least; it’s a permanent financial safety net. But conservatives should also like it, again, at least theoretically, because it’s a way to shrink the welfare state by folding up a bunch of byzantine entitlement programs into one tidy check. "

I am not dead set against it for that reason. There is a nice efficiency argument towards getting rid of the administration of all these programs and just saying "here is your check".

You can also roll it into tax reform. Since everybody gets $X, it could essentially replace a bunch of tax deductions. 

So I do see some decent arguments for it.

The problem is that what happens when people blow their checks on dumb stuff and still are in dire straights? My answer is that they will have to learn not to do that. But there will be a hue and cry from some quarters to help protect people from themselves, etc..

 

[AAABatteries]

The problem is that what happens when people blow their checks on dumb stuff and still are in dire straights? My answer is that they will have to learn not to do that. But there will be a hue and cry from some quarters to help protect people from themselves, etc..

I agree that will happen but to me that's no different than what we have no - in a free country you have the ability to do what you want even if it's dumb.  If people or charities want to help people who are stupid and blow their money, more power to them (and I may even be one of those people contributing) but I'm good with the government giving out that one check and that's it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

We just had an election largely decided by white folks in middle America being angry about their lot in life and voting for a reality TV star because he promised them stuff.  Yet you're in here railing on liberals for whining and not picking themselves up by their bootstraps.  Are you this obtuse?  

I have not seen a better definition of the word or term "projection" in quite some time. 

Why shouldn't people try and pick themselves up by their bootstraps? Because it's painful and requires work? Your post reeks of laziness. 

Why don't you want people to have what you have? You're a lawyer? Did you work hard to get to that point or did mommy and daddy...and I know the answer, I know you're not made of money...yet. 

Why not encourage everyone to work hard and not accept victimization and government handouts?

 

[Dedfin]

I kinda wish LHUCKS was here so we could get his opinion on this.

 

[Politician Spock]

If anything the people who rail against income inequality are the ones making assumptions.

If the standard of living of those at the low end is high enough, what difference does how much the most successful people make? 

If you had a society where everybody made $5 a day and another where the most successful people made hundreds of millions of dollars and those at the other end made $50,000/year, which one is better off? The first one certainly has greater income equality.

If everyone made $5 a day, the prices of goods and services would reflect that, and you wouldn't have people starving.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have not seen a better definition of the word or term "projection" in quite some time. 

Why shouldn't people try and pick themselves up by their bootstraps? Because it's painful and requires work? Your post reeks of laziness. 

Why don't you want people to have what you have? You're a lawyer? Did you work hard to get to that point or did mommy and daddy...and I know the answer, I know you're not made of money...yet. 

Why not encourage everyone to work hard and not accept victimization and government handouts?

Who is opposed to encouraging folks to work hard? 

 

[rockaction]

Duly noted. 

I guess I would say that while having very wide income equality isn't ideal, it isn't a big enough problem in and of itself to merit making wide-rangning changes to the economic/tax system that might reduce overall economic growth and/or incur higher levels of government debt.

I'd agree from a policy perspective (I'm a conservative/libertarian) but I'd also argue that saving capital from itself was never an easily dismissed idea, even dating back to those that pretty much argued for the capitalistic system in the first place. 

What to do with those left behind, or, as Murray would say, losing ground?  

Regardless, major changes to the economic/tax system are not desirable to me, either, but arguments are made against our current system are made effectively and must be met with frankness and even ticklish answers.  

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

BIG with work incentives, but also a reduced or eliminated min wage. Would replace/encompass existing income support programs including SSI/SSD, TNF, Food Stamps, etc.

Basic Health Coverage - gov't pays directly for basic health plan or insures directly via Medicaid/Medicare. Private insurance companies can sell over the top for more comprehensive coverage direct to consumers. Employers out as middle men/proxy insurance agents.

Transition from income based to consumption and transfer based taxes for both individuals and businesses. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

If everyone made $5 a day, the prices of goods and services would reflect that, and you wouldn't have people starving.

Nobody is starving in the United States.

 

[Politician Spock]

Nobody is starving in the United States.

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Poor nutrition due to poverty isn't remotely the same as starvation.

Relative to countries where actual starvation is a problem, there aren't any poor people in the US.

If you are going to try to make a worthwhile point, don't destroy its credibility by exaggerating or just flat making stuff up.

 

[Politician Spock]

Poor nutrition due to poverty isn't remotely the same as starvation.

Relative to countries where actual starvation is a problem, there aren't any poor people in the US.

If you are going to try to make a worthwhile point, don't destroy its credibility by exaggerating or just flat making stuff up.

Go volunteer at a soup kitchen instead of arguing semantics. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Go volunteer at a soup kitchen instead of arguing semantics. 

It isn't semantics.

 

[Politician Spock]

It isn't semantics.

If everyone made $5 a day, what you see at soup kitchens wouldn't exist. Soup kitchens wouldn't exist. Charities for the poor wouldn't exist. 

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obviously we don't have starvation on the scale of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world. That's probably not a bar we should feel great about clearing.

The fact that we have hungry kids, elderly, and infirm in the wealthiest nation in the history of man is an abomination. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

If everyone made $5 a day, what you see at soup kitchens wouldn't exist. Soup kitchens wouldn't exist. Charities for the poor wouldn't exist. 

Yep. It would be a Utopian paradise, where everybody made the same meager amount of money, but nobody would be hungry. Just like North Korea. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Yep. It would be a Utopian paradise, where everybody made the same meager amount of money, but nobody would be hungry. Just like North Korea. 

No economic "ism" is perfect. Capitalism is great, but it suffers from flaws, one of which is it results in losers. Unfortunately when attempts are made to reduce the impact of those flaws capitalists typically play the fearmongering card and scream "SOCIALISM!!!" The "North Korea" response is a bit more rare though. Kudos on being different.  

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

No economic "ism" is perfect. Capitalism is great, but it suffers from flaws, one of which is it results in losers. Unfortunately when attempts are made to reduce the impact of those flaws capitalists typically play the fearmongering card and scream "SOCIALISM!!!" The "North Korea" response is a bit more rare though. Kudos on being different.  

It was an extreme example in response to an extreme example. 

I didn't think anybody would be stupid enough to suggest that place where everybody got by on a couple dollars a day would be better than a state of affairs where there is large inequality, but the minimum standard of living is quite good.

But you did. Congrats?

I am a free market guy, but I also recognize that the relative losers shouldn't be completely left behind. So I'm happy to engage in real discussion on the topic. But real discussion is undermined when people make outlandish claims to support their points. You did that. I don't apologize for pointing it out. Calling somebody out who is exaggerating for effect doesn't make me guilty of arguing semantics, it makes me guilty of arguing for accuracy. And you of the reverse.

Good day, sir.

 

[Politician Spock]

It was an extreme example in response to an extreme example. 

I didn't think anybody would be stupid enough to suggest that place where everybody got by on a couple dollars a day would be better than a state of affairs where there is large inequality, but the minimum standard of living is quite good.

But you did. Congrats?

I am a free market guy, but I also recognize that the relative losers shouldn't be completely left behind. So I'm happy to engage in real discussion on the topic. But real discussion is undermined when people make outlandish claims to support their points. You did that. I don't apologize for pointing it out. Calling somebody out who is exaggerating for effect doesn't make me guilty of arguing semantics, it makes me guilty of arguing for accuracy. And you of the reverse.

Good day, sir.

I was not attempting to evaluate the moral implications of a place where everybody made $5 a day. A simply pointed out what would not exist in such place. 

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Who is opposed to encouraging folks to work hard? 

Ok so we have something to start with? If we both believe hard work and intestinal fortitude will pay off then where is the major difference in our philosophy? Do you feel a moral obligation to try and help folks who are born into poverty or possible dark life due to economic hardship? Guilt got me into teaching but I have a different approach. Rather than lie to them I would prefer to tell our youngsters that they need to prepare...tell them and show them where I messed up and how they can avoid something similar. Instill good values in them and continually tell them you believe in them and you only want them to succeed and try to do their best in whatever their passions are...I'm all for artistic minded and thinking outside the box, love those types of students. 

What I can't  be part of is encouraging them to believe they have no chance because they are born poor. If you become educated and increase your value in the work place in whatever year it isn't you are currently living in, you will have success in this country almost guaranteed. It's not a pipe dream and it is very achievable to set you and future generations in your family on the road to prosperity in both monetary and life experiences. 

 

[humpback]

The first paragraph is about OUR (U.S.) income inequality.  The second paragraph is about income inequality as a concept.

The problem is in the first paragraph - our current income inequality is bad for those on the low end of the spectrum because their quality of life is poor.  The quality of life for people in Redmond's example (while still being income inequality) is not bad - that is why I said it's not in and of itself a bad thing.  Ours has reached a intolerable level and as mentioned (much more eloquently by fatguy) the uber rich have too much power in our country.

Very simply, income inequality can be reduced 2 ways- by increasing the incomes of those on the bottom or decreasing them of those on the top. My point is, those on the bottom have a poor quality of life because their incomes aren't high enough (among other reasons), not because others make more than they do. 

Income inequality dropped sharply after the dot.com bubble burst and the great recession- were those on the low end better off?

Like I said, I agree that the rich have too much power, but again, that isn't because of our income inequality- if we had lower levels, I'm fairly certain that those on top would still hold most of the power in our system.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Someone earning $500k shouldn't be in the same bracket as someone earning $50M

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

It takes 100 of that $500k individual to equal that 1 $50M individual - the best part is the guy earning $50M is using every loophole possible and prob paying at a lower rate than the 100 others that equal him.

That guy earning 50 million pays more in taxes than some towns. I think that is just fine. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

But you've been ok that government intervention has caused some of it?

If you are talking about congress passing BS laws that were bought and paid for by greasing palms, absolutely not.

If your definition of government intervention is that there is a cap on social security and that people get a mortgage interest deduction then I reject your conclusion that this is wealth caused by government intervention.

 

[AAABatteries]

Very simply, income inequality can be reduced 2 ways- by increasing the incomes of those on the bottom or decreasing them of those on the top. My point is, those on the bottom have a poor quality of life because their incomes aren't high enough (among other reasons), not because others make more than they do. 

You really think I would be harping on income inequality if everyone had a home, food and healthcare?   Look, I've already said income inequality has a lot of facets to it.  But I don't think anyone is arguing that we make everyone equal (income-wise) or anything close to that.  We think everyone deserves to have food and healthcare and a good education.  On the flip side, the low income earners are not only in that position because of income inequality.  Both are nuanced and multi factored.  What I am saying is that income inequality is a factor and there's things we can do about it.  Just like there's things we can do to help education and healthcare.  And yes, some people are lazy, some are criminals but there's a lot of other people out there that work there asses off to help make the companies that bring in fortunes for their owners - it's ok to look out for those people, they are our neighbors and one day it could be one of my kids or grandkids.

 

[AAABatteries]

If you are talking about congress passing BS laws that were bought and paid for by greasing palms, absolutely not.

If your definition of government intervention is that there is a cap on social security and that people get a mortgage interest deduction then I reject your conclusion that this is wealth caused by government intervention.

Definitely the former - there's laws, tax loopholes, subsidies, bailouts, greased palms (read: lobbying), govt waste and on and on.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

Ok so we have something to start with? If we both believe hard work and intestinal fortitude will pay off then where is the major difference in our philosophy? Do you feel a moral obligation to try and help folks who are born into poverty or possible dark life due to economic hardship? Guilt got me into teaching but I have a different approach. Rather than lie to them I would prefer to tell our youngsters that they need to prepare...tell them and show them where I messed up and how they can avoid something similar. Instill good values in them and continually tell them you believe in them and you only want them to succeed and try to do their best in whatever their passions are...I'm all for artistic minded and thinking outside the box, love those types of students. 

What I can't  be part of is encouraging them to believe they have no chance because they are born poor. If you become educated and increase your value in the work place in whatever year it isn't you are currently living in, you will have success in this country almost guaranteed. It's not a pipe dream and it is very achievable to set you and future generations in your family on the road to prosperity in both monetary and life experiences. 

No one is "encouraging them to believe they have no chance because they are born poor."

Where do you come up with this crap? 

 

[humpback]

You really think I would be harping on income inequality if everyone had a home, food and healthcare?   Look, I've already said income inequality has a lot of facets to it.  But I don't think anyone is arguing that we make everyone equal (income-wise) or anything close to that.  We think everyone deserves to have food and healthcare and a good education.  On the flip side, the low income earners are not only in that position because of income inequality.  Both are nuanced and multi factored.  What I am saying is that income inequality is a factor and there's things we can do about it.  Just like there's things we can do to help education and healthcare.  And yes, some people are lazy, some are criminals but there's a lot of other people out there that work there asses off to help make the companies that bring in fortunes for their owners - it's ok to look out for those people, they are our neighbors and one day it could be one of my kids or grandkids.

I have no idea what you'd be harping on, but I do know that you're doing an awful lot of projecting here. I've generally agreed with your view that we have many who aren't doing well and we should try and help them out, so you can drop all of the ridiculous straw men. I simply asked why income inequality is the reason for their struggles, and you still can't give any specific answer beyond it's "a factor".

Personally, I don't think it's ideal to have our current high levels of income inequality, but I think it's much more of a symptom than a cause.

 

[Otis]

:cstu:  

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

True. He's a paleo and would argue that bourgeois values are very important. 

I'm just saying that there are more pieces at work here than even the traditional right (no, I'm not talking the alt-right) have brought to bear on the issue. Every serious free marketer and democrat acknowledges that income inequality is a problem, even if those problems are feeling-based. After all, what is government or economy if not a, um, Moral Theory Of Sentiments?  

I mean, that's the book after The Wealth Of Nations by Smith. 

de Tocqueville argues against inequality and sees the beneficence in Massachusetts Bay Colony socialism. 

It's going to be a hybrid. Always has, always will be. The methodology and the delivery and its coercion is what is important.  

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LMD2vUErcYU