Income [in]equality - is it a bad thing? Why?

[MaxTheVool]

@Bone

This goes to what I mentioned earlier. I think the focus should be on minimum levels of opportunity - though hard to quantify. Equal opportunity is unrealistic and unattainable.

Look at the obstacles that a poor child with uneducated parents faces compared to a rich child with educated parents. Some of those obstacles are things that can be addressed by a government in a non-intrusive non-dystopian fashion. Some of them aren’t. I think we should do as many of the former set as we possibly can.

For instance, we should have public schools. Which we do have, through high school. But a generation public colleges and universities were VASTLY cheaper than they are now… we’ve taken a big step backward there.

I avoid moral and ethical frameworks in this discussion because they are not necessary, and each individual would differ. As a practical matter however, I think we are all better served if we all look out for our own self interests.

I think there has to be a balance. Clearly people look out for their own self interest, that’s pretty much a given. But, for instance, if someone gets a public education, then (presumably using skills partly learned through that public education) gets rich and can afford to send their kid to private school, and then starts voting against public schools at every opportunity because they no longer directly affect him or his children, that’s both short sighted and evil.

I’m not so sure that social mobility has decreased overall in recent times. Evidence suggests that it hasn’t.

Interesting. My uncle is a political scientist who is quite knowledgeable about such topics and I emailed him, and he agreed that that study is generally well respected, but he believes that leading indicators strongly suggest that things are now getting significantly worse.

If social mobility were decreasing would you see that as a problem?

It was rather flippant and in my head I had written more. I think it missed making the final draft. My point was meant to elaborate that on a global scale, the US is still dominant and quite competitive in terms of developing new technologies. Of course there is always room for more and better inventions but it’s a hard sell if you’re proposing (you’re not) some sweeping initiative to reduce income inequality for the promise of potential gains in the area of technological development and advancement. We’re already global leaders so the potential gains are not as persuasive as they would be if we were lagging behind in this area. And if you’re not proposing something to address it, then what’s the point really?

What’s the point of discussing and debating things on the internet? Umm, it’s fun and interesting and informative? On a slightly more practical level, it’s entirely reasonable to first debate “is X a problem… how much of a problem is it?”, and then if a consensus is reached that it is a problem, have another debate about what if anything could/should be done. (Although in practice the second debate frequently somewhat leaks into the first.)

Ultimately complaints about rising income inequality are unpersuasive since that gap alone is not sufficient to draw any conclusions. Consider two people, A and B. A earns 1,000,000 and B earns 20,000 - a gap of 980,000. Then, they both get a 10% raise. Boo yah for them! A now earns 1,100,000 and B earns 22,000. The gap is now 1,078,000, an increase of 98,000. I’d say this is a positive for both people even though income inequality has increased. I think of this whenever I hear the term income inequality.

The stat I’ve most frequently heard tossed around is what percentage of total national wealth is concentrated in the hands of the richest 1%, which I believe would not simply be explained by everyone getting 10% richer (unless I’m missing some weird math-y implication).

I can drop this then. I don’t think it’s a question of being over or under paid, just being paid what the market will bear.

I don’t think those things are mutually exclusive. There is some “correct” amount to pay a CEO in a theoretical sense. If you offer $1 million in additional CEO salary and get a CEO who is better and more motivated than you would have gotten from your previous salary offer and that CEO makes you an additional $5 million, then you should make that offer, and you should keep offering additional money until that gain stops happening. Then you should stop and that should be the price you offer to pay a CEO. Of course no one really knows what that amount is, so instead you end up in a situation where CEOs are paid what they’re paid by being compared to other CEOs of similar companies, and so forth…

I’m not saying that this is is something that could/should be addressed by government or regulatory intervention in any way, but if my suspicion is correct and CEOs are now paid WAY more than what a purely economic analysis would indicate, then it’s interesting mainly as an example of the way so many things work in a rich-get-richer fashion for various complex reasons.

[Voyager]

[quote=“John_Mace, post:80, topic:716226”]

Actually, we were closer to revolution then than now, even if it was still an exaggeration then. I think it’s “cute” that the youngsters on this MB feel that rioting in the streets is right around the corner. Hell, we actually had rioting in the streets back then (the 60s).

[/quote
Not just on the streets -right in front of the MIT Women’s Dorm. I was there. Poul Anderson was supposed to speak the day of our riot, when he finally got to he said that he lived in Berleley and thanked MIT for making him feel right at home.

But I really want to delve deeper into wolfpup’s thesis, which is that "the oligarchs’ have brainwashed people into believing things like "there’s no such thing as “‘poor’ but only ‘rich’ and ‘soon to be rich’”. I frankly call absolute BS on claims like that. Even on issues like Climate Change, it’s unclear to me that the vast numbers of deniers in the US got there by being brainwashed by “the Oligarchs” as opposed getting there the same way they got to a non-belief in evolution. And surely “the Oligarchs” aren’t the ones out there pushing anti-evolution views.

Americans are not like Europeans and we never have been. We don’t have the same high level of trust of government. That’s part of the American ethos, and if politicians play to that tune, it’s s tune that is already there-- not one planted by “the Oligarchs”.

Instead of Oligarchs would you accept their pet politicians and news media? And also we might dismiss the hyperbole behind this claim. But the Joe the Plumber thing was a perfect example of this - he might not have been poor, but his politics seemed to be based on an expectation of being rich some day at the expense of where he was then. Plus we saw Republicans saying that the cure for unemployment, even in the depths of the recession, was for the poor to just get a job.
Americans are very optimistic. We love success stories. And, through availability, when we think about start-ups we think about the winners who get into the paper and not the 90% who lose.
I think trust in government has less to do with it than fantasies of success. And I guess the worse off you are the more the fantasies resonate. Not many in my kids’ high school expected to get rich through sports.
Now, politicians don’t create this attitude. But they do propagate it and try to make policy around it. And that is where it hurts.

[wolfpup]

@John_Mace

But I really want to delve deeper into wolfpup’s thesis, which is that "the oligarchs’ have brainwashed people into believing things like "there’s no such thing as “‘poor’ but only ‘rich’ and ‘soon to be rich’”. I frankly call absolute BS on claims like that. Even on issues like Climate Change, it’s unclear to me that the vast numbers of deniers in the US got there by being brainwashed by “the Oligarchs” as opposed getting there the same way they got to a non-belief in evolution. And surely “the Oligarchs” aren’t the ones out there pushing anti-evolution views.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you deny the reality of the kinds of information control that I cited in #60, or do you deny that these things have a major impact on public opinion? Or how about this one, which has been cited before? If I’m just full of hot air or paranoia, then that Princeton study must be even more deluded, because it goes even further than I do.

Look, I don’t claim that the wealthy and corporations have the same kind of ironclad control of public opinion as Kim Jong-un has over his people, where it’s undeniably Orwellian and most people tend to believe, at least to some extent, that they live in one of the best countries in the world and are fortunate to have such benevolent leadership. And many continue to believe it even as they starve to death – it’s quite literally Orwellian cognitive dissonance.

I don’t claim that the influence of the oligarchy in the West, especially the US, is anything like that, but there are elements of commonality in the way that information is manipulated and distorted. Fox News really exists, and people really watch it – some watch no other news outlets. The Koch Brothers are real, and they really do control hundreds of millions of dollars in political spin funding, and there are thousands just like them with exactly the same interests. People are constantly voting against their own best interests because of those folks. That’s really my only point and I’ve given you some cites that are worth thinking about.

And I take issue with your comparison between climate change denial and evolution denial. Climate change denial generally falls into the same category as other Republican economic ideology that seeks to promote maximum growth and profitability at any cost to other environmental and societal factors, such as pollution, climate instability, droughts, and floods, and advocates preferential tax treatment for those who need it least because they are, after all, the “job creators”! All of which is widening the gap between rich and poor while trashing both our environment and the financial health and stability of much of society. It’s the result of the plutocracy looking after themselves.

I think that social conservative issues like opposition to abortion and gay rights and evolution denial are entirely different and largely stem from religious convictions. The economic and social conservative ideologies have strangely come together as the wealthy plutocracy and evangelical zealots band together under the Republican banner, becoming odd bedfellows for entirely different reasons and with entirely different objectives. The only thing they really have in common is an appeal to those who lack critical thinking. Look at the red states where those views hold widespread appeal. They are generally the states with lower education levels, lower economic output, more blue-collar workers and fewer knowledge-based professionals. Those are the ones who buy into both the economic mythologies of the oligarchy and the social conservative nutcases.

[Bone]

@MaxTheVool

Look at the obstacles that a poor child with uneducated parents faces compared to a rich child with educated parents. Some of those obstacles are things that can be addressed by a government in a non-intrusive non-dystopian fashion. Some of them aren’t. I think we should do as many of the former set as we possibly can.

I agree. The key question then is, what activities fall into which buckets and is any given activity a net gain for the goals trying to be achieved, without a net negative on other competing goals. And combine that with what minimum level of ‘opportunity’ we are striving for.

For instance, we should have public schools. Which we do have, through high school. But a generation public colleges and universities were VASTLY cheaper than they are now… we’ve taken a big step backward there.

And here’s where I disagree. While I think it a worthwhile endeavor to provide education, this is not to say the provider and payor must be through government, either federal or local. The requirement, payment mechanism, and delivery mechanism need not be tied together. I favor vouchers myself.

I think this does go afar from your OP discussing income inequality however.

I think there has to be a balance. Clearly people look out for their own self interest, that’s pretty much a given. But, for instance, if someone gets a public education, then (presumably using skills partly learned through that public education) gets rich and can afford to send their kid to private school, and then starts voting against public schools at every opportunity because they no longer directly affect him or his children, that’s both short sighted and evil.

You actually think it’s evil? Does this evaluation depend on the original person getting rich? If they had a modest income and lifestyle but still voted against public schools would they still be evil? And what if they vote against public schools because they believe there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes? Is that still evil?

If social mobility were decreasing would you see that as a problem?

Generally, yes. Decreasing social mobility is a negative, IMO.

The stat I’ve most frequently heard tossed around is what percentage of total national wealth is concentrated in the hands of the richest 1%, which I believe would not simply be explained by everyone getting 10% richer (unless I’m missing some weird math-y implication).

I’m not persuaded why this is a negative in need of a solution that would be a net positive, assuming that mobility is at a sufficiently great enough level, [minimum levels of opportunity]. Why is bad that rich folks get richer? Is there some set amount of wealth that once achieved all additional wealth is seen as a negative?

I don’t think those things are mutually exclusive. There is some “correct” amount to pay a CEO in a theoretical sense.

…

I’m not saying that this is is something that could/should be addressed by government or regulatory intervention in any way, but if my suspicion is correct and CEOs are now paid WAY more than what a purely economic analysis would indicate, then it’s interesting mainly as an example of the way so many things work in a rich-get-richer fashion for various complex reasons.

I truncated the middle portion of this section.

I don’t think this is quite right. CEOs, and everyone else generally, are paid what the market will bear. As a group they cannot be paid way more than an economic analysis would indicate because the economic analysis is defined by the pool of CEOs who are paid whatever rate they are paid - they are paid exactly what an economic analysis would indicate.

[wolfpup]

@Bone

And what if they vote against public schools because they believe there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes? Is that still evil?

If they had such a belief, it would not be evil, it would just be stupid. But that’s rarely the real reason for opposition to public schools. The real reason is usually some combination of social, cultural, or religious stratification, most insidiously to make sure that what kids are taught doesn’t stray from whatever the parents decree to be acceptable dogma, say by introducing unacceptable concepts like evolution or climate change. And that is evil.

@Bone

Why is bad that rich folks get richer? Is there some set amount of wealth that once achieved all additional wealth is seen as a negative?

It’s not anybody getting richer that’s the problem, it’s the disparity in income and wealth, as per the title of this thread. And it’s a problem because it leads to social strife and an unhealthy society, and because it’s fundamentally unjust. Studies have shown that people in countries with a relatively more equal income distribution are happier and lead better lives than in countries with a wide disparity, even when the more egalitarian countries are poorer. This is all the more acute when the same economic philosophy that tolerates a wide income disparity also commoditizes and subsumes to the almighty dollar the basic essentials of life – so that you have a small group of super-wealthy not just enjoying obscene consumerist excess, but also privileged access to much better health care and to preferential treatment under the law. You end up with a fundamentally stratified, disconnected and conflicted society.

@Bone

I don’t think this is quite right. CEOs, and everyone else generally, are paid what the market will bear. As a group they cannot be paid way more than an economic analysis would indicate because the economic analysis is defined by the pool of CEOs who are paid whatever rate they are paid - they are paid exactly what an economic analysis would indicate.

That’s wrong for two reasons. First, it assumes that there is some impartial “economic analysis” that takes place. There is not. The “economic analysis” is performed by the same parties that are its beneficiaries – a small incestuous group that inhabits CEO positions at one company and directorships at another, and vice versa, and all belong to the same country clubs. At this level there is virtually no correlation between executive compensation and performance. And if the CEO is totally hopelessly incompetent, he’ll just be gently eased out under a golden parachute of severance riches that most of us can only dream of.

Secondly, this bogus “economic analysis” you speak of was exactly the same many decades ago when CEO salaries were relatively nominal. Why did they then, relatively suddenly, shoot through the roof? Is it because CEOs suddenly become terrifically productive, for which there is no evidence? Or might it have something to do with the fact that this sudden largesse toward CEOs coincided exactly with big cuts in maximum personal income tax rates, so that plundering the company treasury for cash became worthwhile? Who do you think is ultimately paying for this? It’s us – the consumers and the taxpayers.

This isn’t about CEO salaries being high, this is about CEO salaries being obscene. Back in 1988 there was a Hollywood writers’ strike; at that time, residuals owing to some nine thousand members of the Writers Guild that year totaled $58 million. The prior year the Disney CEO Michael Eisner made $63 million. He could have paid off all nine thousand writers out of his own pocket and still had a comfortable $5 million salary (good money 27 years ago!) but I guess that would be wrong. The Exxon CEO who retired a few years ago was sent off with a severance package worth almost $500 million. Did Eisner make all this money because of his brilliance? At the time, Euro Disney was in the hole for over $4 billion, and Eisner was eventually sacked in 2004 (well, kicked off the board, and then resigned the next year).

Here’s another one for your “economic analysis”. About three years ago Target decided to move into the Canadian market. It was a business case study in incompetent bungling – they arrogantly stated how things were going to be run, refused to listen to advice from those who knew the market, and basically did everything wrong. Three years later they are packing up and going home, having sustained $5 billion in losses and screwing their suppliers in the process. (Meanwhile Wal-Mart Canada is thriving and just announced a huge expansion.)

The genius CEO at Target corporate responsible for this utter fiasco was being paid $20.6 million a year for his expertise, though his salary was cut last year as things unraveled and then he was sacked. When I say “sacked”, of course, I mean he was given $61 million to go away. This is more than the combined total of the severance of all 17,600 staff in the Canadian stores, all of whom will lose their jobs, and none of whom is responsible for what happened.

There’s only one rationale I can think of for of any of this, and it was perfectly articulated by Mel Brooks in History of World Part I: “It’s good to be the king!” But that seems like a really primitive way to run a society.

[Bone]

I’m not sure you are following this line of discussion. Was your criticism of an ‘economic analysis’ directed at me? As to the rest - nice rant bro.

[wolfpup]

@Bone

I’m not sure you are following this line of discussion.

I’m pretty sure I am.

@Bone

Was your criticism of an ‘economic analysis’ directed at me?

Not really “directed at you”, no, but you can surely see all those parts where I quoted you. Just pointing out why I strongly believe all those things you said are all quite wrong. Perhaps some might want to read it to understand why. You are certainly not under any obligation to, yourself, or to respond to it.

[Bone]

I see where you quoted me - yet your criticism was not directed at me. In your effort to point out error I can’t determine what point you are objecting to. I think it was Target or Monty Python. Can you identify specifically which parts you think are wrong and why you think so?

[wolfpup]

Did you not say the things I quoted you as saying? If I didn’t interpret your meaning correctly, then please correct my understanding.

1. You made several statements that appeared to be critical of the public school system and specifically asked if it was “evil” to “believe [that] there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes [than public schools]”. That’s the statement I responded to, indicating that such a belief was absurd.
   ** Do you or do you not believe it? Do you support public schools or not? **

2. You ask why it’s bad that rich folks get richer. You raised a rhetorical question implying that the rich getting richer isn’t a problem. I clarified the problem of income disparity, which happens to be the central issue in this thread.
   Do you or do you not believe that income disparity is a problem?

3. You stated that CEOs are paid what the market will bear according to an “economic analysis”. I described how this alleged analysis is, in effect, performed by the CEOs themselves, and that CEO salaries have skyrocketed ever since marginal tax rates on high incomes were dramatically reduced. **MaxTheVool **stated that CEOs are being paid these exorbitant amounts essentially because they are gaming the system, and not because they contribute a corresponding value, and I completely agree. I gave a couple of examples of incompetent CEOs who were grossly overpaid by any possible rational measure, because I thought it would be illustrative and even amusing, but there are so many examples that one could write a book about it.
   **Do you or do you not believe that CEOs in recent decades have enjoyed enormous increases in compensation even though there has been no corresponding increase in their value or productivity? Do you acknowledge that in the same period ordinary workers have not? **

[Bone]

@wolfpup

1. You made several statements that appeared to be critical of the public school system and specifically asked if it was “evil” to “believe [that] there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes [than public schools]”. That’s the statement I responded to, indicating that such a belief was absurd.
   ** Do you or do you not believe it? Do you support public schools or not? **

Here’s why I think you weren’t following this line of discussion. See here:

@Bone

While I think it a worthwhile endeavor to provide education, this is not to say the provider and payor must be through government, either federal or local. The requirement, payment mechanism, and delivery mechanism need not be tied together. I favor vouchers myself.

In other words, I support public education. I think there are different means to provide it and in some circumstances, our current public school system is not the best way to do so. Are you able to grok the nuance?

2. You ask why it’s bad that rich folks get richer. You raised a rhetorical question implying that the rich getting richer isn’t a problem. I clarified the problem of income disparity, which happens to be the central issue in this thread.
   Do you or do you not believe that income disparity is a problem?

Again, this is another question that leads me to believe you weren’t following this line of discussion. See here:

@Bone

Ultimately complaints about rising income inequality are unpersuasive since that gap alone is not sufficient to draw any conclusions. Consider two people, A and B. A earns 1,000,000 and B earns 20,000 - a gap of 980,000. Then, they both get a 10% raise. Boo yah for them! A now earns 1,100,000 and B earns 22,000. The gap is now 1,078,000, an increase of 98,000. I’d say this is a positive for both people even though income inequality has increased. I think of this whenever I hear the term income inequality. That measure alone is not sufficient to make any judgment so when that measure is used to draw conclusions it’s unpersuasive. I think mobility is a much more important topic myself.

No - I don’t think income inequality or disparity is a problem in and of itself. There could be other factors that would tip the scales but the disparity or inequality itself is not sufficient to be informative. In my example provided if you tell me you think the latter state is worse than the former that’s fine - we won’t have common ground on that topic.

3. You stated that CEOs are paid what the market will bear according to an “economic analysis”. I described how this alleged analysis is, in effect, performed by the CEOs themselves, and that CEO salaries have skyrocketed ever since marginal tax rates on high incomes were dramatically reduced. **MaxTheVool **stated that CEOs are being paid these exorbitant amounts essentially because they are gaming the system, and not because they contribute a corresponding value, and I completely agree. I gave a couple of examples of incompetent CEOs who were grossly overpaid by any possible rational measure, because I thought it would be illustrative and even amusing, but there are so many examples that one could write a book about it.
   **Do you or do you not believe that CEOs in recent decades have enjoyed enormous increases in compensation even though there has been no corresponding increase in their value or productivity? Do you acknowledge that in the same period ordinary workers have not? **

The term “economic analysis” was introduced by MaxTheVool. He stated there is a correct amount to pay CEOs in a theoretical sense. I contested that assertion yet you seem to think I beleive in this economic analysis. I don’t.

I think CEO compensation has increased over the near term (10-20 years). Whether or not it’s enormous depends on your perspective. This phrasing is loaded and not useful. I doubt you could show that there have been no corresponding increase in value or productivity. Good luck providing a cite for that. My assertion would be that the very increases you decry are evidence of increased utility provided by said CEOs. In other words, they were paid an amount - that amount is a near perfect reflection of the utility they are contributing. This applies to the CEO as well as the ordinary worker. Utility is not objective - it is an amount that is reflected between voluntary transactions between willing participants.
See **Max **says this:

@MaxTheVool

What’s the point of discussing and debating things on the internet? Umm, it’s fun and interesting and informative?

And I believe him. But for you, I think this is a more accurate summation of your views:

@wolfpup

If they had such a belief, it would not be evil, it would just be stupid.

You think people who disagree with you are stupid. Like I said - cool story bro. That’s me being dismissive.

[protoboard]

@Velocity

I agree with a lot. Also, some income inequality is actually *necessary *for society. If brain surgeons are paid the same as fast-food workers, then few people, if any, would put in the many years of grueling study to become a brain surgeon.

I’m not entirely sure about that. If college were free, and everyone made a fairly decent wage regardless of their field I’m sure some people might just want to be brain surgeons because the work is attractive. I don’t think kids dream of certain careers thinking about the money. I wanted to be a pizza man because I figured a job around pizza would be awesome.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bone

And here’s where I disagree. While I think it a worthwhile endeavor to provide education, this is not to say the provider and payor must be through government, either federal or local. The requirement, payment mechanism, and delivery mechanism need not be tied together. I favor vouchers myself.

But it seems like you would still view the current state as worse than the state from 30 years ago, in that 30 years ago we had A mechanism to help poor gets get good public educations which has been lost and not replaced by anything. I’ve never heard vouchers discussed wrt college, and I dislike them (at least the versions of that proposal I’ve heard) wrt elementary education, but if that’s a system which makes it less likely that a talented and ambitious and smart kid from a poor background will fail to reach their potential solely for lack of money to pay for college, I’d be all for it.

I think this does go afar from your OP discussing income inequality however.

I think I was pretty clear in my OP that my largest single concern is equality of opportunity. I’d rather live in a society where doctors make 100x as much as garbage men, but children of garbage men are just as likely as children of doctors to end up as doctors; than a society in which doctors make 10x as much as garbage men but everyone is stuck in their social and economic class from birth.

You actually think it’s evil?

I think that a total lack of empathy and a lack of desire to help others is a great working definition of evil.

Does this evaluation depend on the original person getting rich? If they had a modest income and lifestyle but still voted against public schools would they still be evil? And what if they vote against public schools because they believe there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes? Is that still evil?

I’m not saying that voting against public schools is evil, and all of your points are reasonable. I’m saying that someone who decides to vote for or against public schools PURELY for selfish reasons, that is, they vote consistently against them, then they have their own child, then they vote for funding elementary schools, then middle schools, then high schools, then start voting against them all again; is evil, or at best acting in a selfish and evil fashion. Not to mention short-sighted.

I’m not persuaded why this is a negative in need of a solution that would be a net positive, assuming that mobility is at a sufficiently great enough level, [minimum levels of opportunity]. Why is bad that rich folks get richer? Is there some set amount of wealth that once achieved all additional wealth is seen as a negative?

Well, that’s part of why I started this thread, to discuss this very question. And I do think that there are real-but-hard-to-really-quantify problems involving things like actual cohesion of society that are exacerbated by greater and greater wealth gaps. For most of the OP, I think that wealth or income inequality is just a symptom or related issue, but I do think that just plain disparity is bad as well.

Obviously it’s hard to draw parallels between small groups of people and entire nations, but imagine a family in which there are 4 adult children, who earn between 50 and 100K per year. Now imagine another in which three of the children earn between 50 and 100K per year, and one of them is Bill Gates. Which is more likely to be able to get along and be a functional and stable family group, able to equitable and fairly make decisions about their aging parents, etc?

I don’t think this is quite right. CEOs, and everyone else generally, are paid what the market will bear. As a group they cannot be paid way more than an economic analysis would indicate because the economic analysis is defined by the pool of CEOs who are paid whatever rate they are paid - they are paid exactly what an economic analysis would indicate.

I think it’s entirely possible for “what the market can bear” to be entire economically “wrong”, with the obvious example being anything in the middle of a bubble. There was a period around 2007 or so when houses were being sold for WAY WAY WAY more than they “should” have been. And all sorts of bad shit resulted.

Granted, I don’t know sufficient economics to really properly define what I’m talking about, let alone argue convincingly that it applies to CEO pay, but I think one has to be a little over-trusting of the invisible hand of the market to just say that “what the market can bear” is in some sense automatically correct and healthy.

[wolfpup]

@Bone

Here’s why I think you weren’t following this line of discussion. See here:
In other words, I support public education. I think there are different means to provide it and in some circumstances, our current public school system is not the best way to do so. Are you able to grok the nuance?

You’re saying you support public schools as long as parents have a choice to not support them and send their kids elsewhere. IOW, you don’t support public schools. Fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t say I’m not following the line of discussion. I myself do support public schools, and happen to believe that basic elementary-level education isn’t some commodity that can or should be bartered on the free market like competing dish detergents. Voucher programs cater either to those who want their kids indoctrinated into fringe ideologies or beliefs, often in the form of home schooling, or the wealthy who know that they’ll always be able to win the competition for the most exclusive and expensive private schools.

And I take particular issue with the statement that “there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes [than public schools]”. Sure, it’s possible to have good and bad schools under any system, but everything else being equal, an integrated school system large enough to be able to afford the best educational administrators and set the best curricula is going to be more effective than some tiny private hole in the wall. The only reason public schools are sometimes problematic and elite private schools for the wealthy sometimes excellent is because of funding, and public schools sometimes have funding issues precisely because of funds being siphoned off by things like voucher programs and general conservative clamoring against public education.

@Bone

No - I don’t think income inequality or disparity is a problem in and of itself. There could be other factors that would tip the scales but the disparity or inequality itself is not sufficient to be informative. In my example provided if you tell me you think the latter state is worse than the former that’s fine - we won’t have common ground on that topic.

Your example is silly and completely misses the point about the nature of income and wealth inequality that’s been much discussed by economists like Thomas Piketty and the many others who write about it. What is generally meant by income inequality is a systemic state of affairs that gives the wealthy far more opportunity to increase their wealth than ordinary people, and tends to create a growing gap between the super-rich and everybody else, as measured by metrics like the Gini coefficient. The US has one of the worst Gini coefficients in the industrialized world, and getting worse every year. If you don’t think this is a problem I don’t know what to say.

@Bone

I think CEO compensation has increased over the near term (10-20 years). Whether or not it’s enormous depends on your perspective. This phrasing is loaded and not useful. ** I doubt you could show that there have been no corresponding increase in value or productivity. Good luck providing a cite for that.** My assertion would be that the very increases you decry are evidence of increased utility provided by said CEOs.

(emphasis mine)
“Enormous increases” is not a loaded or useless statement when CEO compensation increases are compared against company revenues or the compensation of ordinary employees.

As for showing that there’s no corresponding increase in value, that isn’t hard:

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Or this one:
An analysis of compensation data publicly released by Equilar shows little correlation between CEO pay and company performance. Equilar ranked the salaries of 200 highly paid CEOs. When compared to metrics such as revenue, profitability, and stock return, the scattering of data looks pretty random, as though performance doesn’t matter. The comparison makes it look as if there is zero relationship between pay and performance.

@Bone

You think people who disagree with you are stupid. Like I said - cool story bro. That’s me being dismissive.

That’s not what I said. You asked the hypothetical question “And what if they vote against public schools because they believe there are more efficient options that provide better outcomes? Would that be evil?”. I said that such a belief isn’t evil so much as stupid. Because it’s not a matter of philosophy but outright ridiculous to believe that a hodgepodge of different school systems is going to be more efficient and produce better overall outcomes than a properly funded integrated school system that can afford to hire the best administrative professionals, curriculum planners, and education policymakers, and that has the economies of scale to be able to establish special schools or special classes when needed. Try explaining to the international conglomerates who are constantly merging into even bigger conglomerates how smaller is more efficient.

What you’re being dismissive of are real stories I cited about real things that actually happened. Being dismissive of reality without comment isn’t really a persuasive debating strategy, FWIW.

[Bone]

@MaxTheVool

I think I was pretty clear in my OP that my largest single concern is equality of opportunity. I’d rather live in a society where doctors make 100x as much as garbage men, but children of garbage men are just as likely as children of doctors to end up as doctors; than a society in which doctors make 10x as much as garbage men but everyone is stuck in their social and economic class from birth.

Sure - this speaks to mobility. I’m not sure I agree with the calculus you’re making but we both agree mobility is vital.

I think that a total lack of empathy and a lack of desire to help others is a great working definition of evil.

I’m not saying that voting against public schools is evil, and all of your points are reasonable. I’m saying that someone who decides to vote for or against public schools PURELY for selfish reasons, that is, they vote consistently against them, then they have their own child, then they vote for funding elementary schools, then middle schools, then high schools, then start voting against them all again; is evil, or at best acting in a selfish and evil fashion. Not to mention short-sighted.

Ok - that’s not how I would define evil but I don’t really think that’s important here. I’m not sure I agree with this description either though - temporal support and then none or opposition. Consider when you have a kid in elementary school - you may donate time or money to the elementary school, or even the classroom specifically. You want your kid to be provided for so you’ll volunteer, do fundraisers, book fairs, auctions, etc. while your kid is there. Are you going to continue to do so after they are in middle school? Possibly but I’m guessing that support follows your kid. People do this to help THEIR kid. Is that selfish? Of course, but only to the extent that everything is selfish. Is there more virtue in personally donating to a class, or voting so that everyone else is required to pay for that class?

And further, a person can vote against school funding (bond measures I think are the avenue you’re talking about since other funding is general fund dollars or appropriated through the legislature) while at the same time supporting a class, school, or student directly. That fits your hypothetical but doesn’t seem at all evil or immoral to me.

Well, that’s part of why I started this thread, to discuss this very question. And I do think that there are real-but-hard-to-really-quantify problems involving things like actual cohesion of society that are exacerbated by greater and greater wealth gaps. For most of the OP, I think that wealth or income inequality is just a symptom or related issue, but I do think that just plain disparity is bad as well.

From your OP, you stated:

I don’t mind people being rich. Heck, I like that. If you get super-rich and want to buy sports cars and yachts, good for you, the system works.

That seems in conflict with the idea that plain disparity is bad. I think the goal of equality of opportunity is a fools errand. It cannot happen due in part to people’s innate differences in talent, combined with the draconian measures necessary to ensure everyone starts on the same footing. Equality is great for RTS games, but not realistic for real life. Minimum opportunity is attainable.

Obviously it’s hard to draw parallels between small groups of people and entire nations, but imagine a family in which there are 4 adult children, who earn between 50 and 100K per year. Now imagine another in which three of the children earn between 50 and 100K per year, and one of them is Bill Gates. Which is more likely to be able to get along and be a functional and stable family group, able to equitable and fairly make decisions about their aging parents, etc?

I don’t think there is enough information here to make that evaluation. Do you? Do you think a person being orders of magnitude wealthier than another is sufficient to determine that they are not able to make equitable and fair decisions with regard to their family or cohorts? ‘You have so much money that you cannot be fair’ - that’s how I’m interpreting your example. Would the converse be true as well, that a person that has too little money would not be able to make equitable and fair decisions with regard to those who have vastly different amounts of wealth?

In your example, if everyone has an equal vote, that would seem fair all other things being equal. But yes, it is hard to draw parallels between families and entire nations.

I think it’s entirely possible for “what the market can bear” to be entire economically “wrong”, with the obvious example being anything in the middle of a bubble. There was a period around 2007 or so when houses were being sold for WAY WAY WAY more than they “should” have been. And all sorts of bad shit resulted.

Granted, I don’t know sufficient economics to really properly define what I’m talking about, let alone argue convincingly that it applies to CEO pay, but I think one has to be a little over-trusting of the invisible hand of the market to just say that “what the market can bear” is in some sense automatically correct and healthy.

Again, this isn’t a great parallel. Without going into the housing bubble discussion in a lot of detail, there were many factors in play that impacted the market creating the situation that resulted, none of which would be considered the invisible hand. In any case, barring some kind of fraud, I don’t think the price agreed to by a willing buyer and seller in a free market can be wrong. It’s not ‘right’ either - it just is.

---

@wolfpup

You’re saying you support public schools as long as parents have a choice to not support them and send their kids elsewhere. IOW, you don’t support public schools.

Can you read my mind? Quick, what am I thinking?

What you’re being dismissive of are real stories I cited about real things that actually happened. Being dismissive of reality without comment isn’t really a persuasive debating strategy, FWIW.

You thought I was debating with you? And here I thought you could read my mind. Not as cool of a story, bro.

[wolfpup]

@Bone

Consider when you have a kid in elementary school - you may donate time or money to the elementary school, or even the classroom specifically. You want your kid to be provided for so you’ll volunteer, do fundraisers, book fairs, auctions, etc. while your kid is there. Are you going to continue to do so after they are in middle school? Possibly but I’m guessing that support follows your kid. People do this to help THEIR kid. Is that selfish? Of course, but only to the extent that everything is selfish. Is there more virtue in personally donating to a class, or voting so that everyone else is required to pay for that class?

You don’t seem to see the difference between volunteer work and charitable contributions versus essential baseline funding for quality public education, which is a social responsibility.

@Bone

Can you read my mind? Quick, what am I thinking?

You’re thinking that social responsibility should be optional.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bone

Is there more virtue in personally donating to a class, or voting so that everyone else is required to pay for that class?

Thinking about that question led me down an entire interesting path of ideas, which is why it took me a while to respond.

So, should the US have national parks? Well, we’re a representative democracy. So at some level the answer to that question is that we should have national parks if the majority of the population thinks we should have national parks. And I suspect that if we polled all Americans, a majority would support having the national park system. On the other hand, what if we polled all Americans about each individual national park, one by one? I suspect only a handful would even be familiar enough to most Americans to get majority support. This is obviously a tangent, but it relates to the question of voting purely selfishly. What if people had the ability not to just to vote for funding of public schools, but for each individual public school, and each individual grade. Then if people voted purely selfishly we’d end up with no public schools at all, because no individual school would get voted for by a majority of the voters in the state, because no individual school would be attended by children of a majority of voters. So if the majority of voters had children and would (purely selfishly) vote for public schools for their own children, whether or not there ended up being schools would depend on how subdivided the ballot measures were.
OK, end of tangent, I just thought it was interesting.

And further, a person can vote against school funding (bond measures I think are the avenue you’re talking about since other funding is general fund dollars or appropriated through the legislature) while at the same time supporting a class, school, or student directly. That fits your hypothetical but doesn’t seem at all evil or immoral to me.

Again, the thing that I think is evil/immoral is evaluating proposed governmental actions purely through a lens of “how does that proposal affect ME”, with absolutely no empathy for how it affects other people. There’s really no analogy between that and deciding whether to volunteer at your child’s school. It’s not like you could volunteer at every school in the state even if you wanted to. (Here’s a vaguely reasonable analogy… some guy owns a few acres of land near a school, and he tells the school that they can take the science classes on nature walks through his land. Good for him, right? But then the moment his own children have graduated he rescinds the offer. Clearly within his rights but definitely douchey.)

From your OP, you stated:

I don’t mind people being rich. Heck, I like that. If you get super-rich and want to buy sports cars and yachts, good for you, the system works.

That seems in conflict with the idea that plain disparity is bad.

It’s essential that people have the potential to get filthy rich if they work hard and build the proverbial mousetrap. I’m totally convinced that that basic model has driven enormous swaths of human progress. (Although it has also led to plenty of abuses, which in my ideal world is one of the things that government helps to alleviate.)

But that incentive was certainly present and working like gangbusters at previous times in the past decades when the percentage of total wealth that was concentrated in the hands of the the richest 100 Americans was much smaller than it is now. So clearly it’s possible for things to be different than they are now.

I think the goal of equality of opportunity is a fools errand. It cannot happen due in part to people’s innate differences in talent, combined with the draconian measures necessary to ensure everyone starts on the same footing. Equality is great for RTS games, but not realistic for real life. Minimum opportunity is attainable.

You keep saying that, and I don’t disagree. But I think we’re currently failing miserably at providing a minimum opportunity for poor kids. In particular, I think we’re failing worse now than we were 20 years ago, although it’s a bit unclear to me if there is data that really proves this one way or the other.

‘You have so much money that you cannot be fair’ - that’s how I’m interpreting your example.

No, not that at all, or at least not principally. Instead, I was going for something like “your life experiences are so different from each other that it will be hard for you to communicate and empathize with each other so that you can work together effectively as a group” or something like that. (Although when the difference in life experience is a massive difference in wealth there’s likely to be some jealousy from one side and some condescension from the other side.)

In any case, barring some kind of fraud, I don’t think the price agreed to by a willing buyer and seller in a free market can be wrong. It’s not ‘right’ either - it just is.

Again I’m not an expert economist, but in the case of paying a salary to a CEO, there is a “right” salary, which is the salary which maximizes company profits. So if you offer $1M more per year and therefore get a better candidate, and he does an awesome job and makes you $2M more, then offering that increased price was “right”. If he instead only makes you an extra $100K, or in fact loses you money, then the increased price was wrong. Of course you can never really determine these things without the ability to communicate with alternate universes in which you made the other decision.

But THAT, vague as it is, is the RIGHT amount to pay your CEO. Any connection between that and the current method for CEO compensation calculation is coincidental at best.

[Voyager]

@Bone

That seems in conflict with the idea that plain disparity is bad. I think the goal of equality of opportunity is a fools errand. It cannot happen due in part to people’s innate differences in talent, combined with the draconian measures necessary to ensure everyone starts on the same footing. Equality is great for RTS games, but not realistic for real life. Minimum opportunity is attainable.

Equality of opportunity is not equality of result. If a race is held between a guy in top shape and a guy who is 50 pounds overweight who hasn’t exercised in years, we know who is going to win. But if the lanes are clear, they have equal opportunity. There is no excuse for putting hurdles in the lane of the second guy - which is what our society does.

[Buck_Godot]

@Shodan

I don’t think it would either. OTOH, there are 526 billionaires in the US. Taxing each of them $100 million, and redistributing it to the other 300 million of us gives each of us a little more than $175. I doubt that will achieve much towards income equality.

Regards,
Shodan

For people on the low end of the spectrum, getting $175 can make a big difference to their life style. For example it can mean the difference between a working car and having to take the bus. Possibly more than the loss $100 million made to the life styles of any of the billionaires. Meanwhile it is positively affecting 300 million people, while only negatively affecting 526. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Not that I would propose this exact scenario, it was meant as an illustration of concept. I’m just pointing out why all things being equal, a society in which wealth is more evenly distributed is going to be happier than one in which there is great wealth disparity. Which seems to be the question in the OP. I leave it up to those more qualified to determine how best to practically address the issue.

[Bone]

@MaxTheVool

What if people had the ability not to just to vote for funding of public schools, but for each individual public school, and each individual grade. Then if people voted purely selfishly we’d end up with no public schools at all, because no individual school would get voted for by a majority of the voters in the state, because no individual school would be attended by children of a majority of voters.

I don’t think this is how it would work at all. There are many areas where sufficient demand exists that individuals acting alone and in their own self interest can support the provision of a given service. I think education is one of those services. Society surely has an interest in ensuring all individuals have opportunity to be educated so in the event there isn’t sufficient demand then government can step in and prop up the market for education.

Again, the thing that I think is evil/immoral is evaluating proposed governmental actions purely through a lens of “how does that proposal affect ME”, with absolutely no empathy for how it affects other people.

That’s fine as a working definition but that rarely if ever is this the case. There’s a difference between ‘absolutely no empathy’ and weighing competing priorities differently. In your example about nature walks, that can still be the case and not trigger your criteria - the land owner simply makes an evaluation that they value privacy greater than providing use of the land.

The point I’m trying to make is that your characterization of what constitutes evil or immoral is actually quite broad when you describe what would fall under those auspices, but when you focus on quantifying the criteria more specifically they examples of evil acts actually occurring are fleetingly rare.

You keep saying that, and I don’t disagree. But I think we’re currently failing miserably at providing a minimum opportunity for poor kids. In particular, I think we’re failing worse now than we were 20 years ago, although it’s a bit unclear to me if there is data that really proves this one way or the other.

Are we? Social mobility as highlighted upthread is not all that different than it was 20 years ago. I agree that lack of opportunity in underserved neighborhoods is a problem. I don’t think that problem is aided in any way focusing on income inequality and using that as a boogeyman is more of a appeal to populism rather than an effort towards improving the situation.

No, not that at all, or at least not principally. Instead, I was going for something like “your life experiences are so different from each other that it will be hard for you to communicate and empathize with each other so that you can work together effectively as a group” or something like that.

Doesn’t this work both ways then? Extreme wealth can be the source of the disparity in experiences but it is not sufficient by itself, nor is wealth the only thing that can lead to this type of disparity. Voting normalizes everyone’s influence to enact policy change. This is the way everyone no matter what their experience works together as a group.

Again I’m not an expert economist, but in the case of paying a salary to a CEO, there is a “right” salary, which is the salary which maximizes company profits. So if you offer $1M more per year and therefore get a better candidate, and he does an awesome job and makes you $2M more, then offering that increased price was “right”. If he instead only makes you an extra $100K, or in fact loses you money, then the increased price was wrong. Of course you can never really determine these things without the ability to communicate with alternate universes in which you made the other decision.

But THAT, vague as it is, is the RIGHT amount to pay your CEO. Any connection between that and the current method for CEO compensation calculation is coincidental at best.

That’s not quite correct. You are assuming the goal of hiring a CEO is to maximize company profits. The goal is more correctly stated in maximizing utility. That often takes the form of profits, but there could be other goals, not to mention non-profit companies. Being good corporate citizens, executing the company mission, personal prestige, etc. Companies can value these things differently and as a result, there is no “right” amount in any measurable sense. The amount paid to a CEO is that which is agreed upon. The fact that it is agreed upon by both parties makes it right by definition. If a person is willing to do a job for say, $100 and a person is willing to pay that other person $110 for that job, what is the “right” amount, all other things being equal? My contention is there is no right amount, just what is agreed upon.

---

@Voyager

Equality of opportunity is not equality of result. If a race is held between a guy in top shape and a guy who is 50 pounds overweight who hasn’t exercised in years, we know who is going to win. But if the lanes are clear, they have equal opportunity. There is no excuse for putting hurdles in the lane of the second guy - which is what our society does.

Even with no hurdles placed in front of anyone, opportunity will not be equal. Someone 7’ tall is going to have a better shot at getting into the NBA vs. a person who is 4’8". A person born to parents who highly value education will have more opportunity than one who is born to lazy meth addicts.

[wolfpup]

Funny thing, this story about a new study on CEO compensation that just came out echoes my earlier comments exactly:
Some corporate boards are exclusive networks of corporate acquaintances and cannot be trusted to keep CEO pay in check, according to a study by researchers at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University in Toronto … people who make up these boards are often CEOs of other companies themselves and are more likely to receive higher compensation packages because of this exclusive network," Song said.

… High CEO pay takes resources away from other areas of the company, including investment and employee pay, as well as shareholder returns. “If executives of corporations receive a higher compensation, they may be taking the company’s revenue from the shareholders’ pockets and paying it to themselves,” Song said. Her study involved researching the behaviour of people who belong to exclusive networks, like the tight circles that make up many boards of directors.

… Such arrangements are not always obvious conflicts of interest, because the CEO of company A may sit on the board of company B and the CEO of B on the board of C and the CEO of C in turn on the board of A.

“You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours” is how she describes it.