I understand that this video has been making the rounds in certain corners of the Internet and generating a lot of discussion — mainly those who believe that income inequality is a bad thing (an assertion that seems uncontroversial to me, but I know there’s been a lot of debate here and elsewhere about whether it’s really true, whether it’s meaningful if it is, and what to do about it).
What do you think of the information presented therein? Do you believe it? Is it meaningful if you do? If so, in what way, and if not, why not?
If the video is to be believed, we haven’t known about this for years now. It says that most people have a mistaken idea of income inequality in the country.
I have no audio at work but judging from the graphics, this is nothing new.
Netflix has a plethora of videos that say the same thing.
I don’t believe income inequality is a bad thing. But come on man, those numbers in the video go beyond the pale. If ya’ put the carrot too far in front of the horse, he isn’t going to want to chase it.
This is nothing new, although i’ve seen a few of those documentaries on netflix. Although, i’m curious about the alleged public misconception, that was new to me. (not that American ignorance could ever be “shocking,”)
The part that outrages me is what that kind of money can (and does)buy you in Washington, in an effort to perpuate, and even improve, the mechanisms that make this possible.
From deregulation of the financial markets to epa non-enforcement to Supreme Court Justices, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If every billionaire family was in the philanthropic mold of the Gates’, this would be a great nation. But unfortunately, the Koch’s seem more like the rule than the exception.
I’m trying not to rant, but where in the Constitution does it outline the framework of a plutocracy? Or is it oligarchy? I apologize for my ignorance of misrepresentative government naming conventions.
The problem is that when this empire falls, the whole world comes for the ride.
There is an underlying premise of the video, and most types of “fairness” thinking regarding income distribution. It assumes that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the country and that we can shuffle it around. It assumes that the rich having more money somehow makes the poor have less.
These assumptions are wrong. The reality is that wealth is created. It’s only limited by what people create through their achievements.
Bill Gates is in that terrible one percent, and him creating all that wealth through Microsoft doesn’t make someone on the other end of the graph more poor, except by comparison.
My question is where those lines are drawn. The video shows percentages and pretty looking colored bars, and all sorts of feel good stuff like “Where we think it is” and “Where we think it should be” and “Where it actually is”, without tying it to anything concrete, or showing any kind of historical or any other context.
And Debaser has a point- it’s not a zero-sum game. The money supply has generally gone up pretty drastically over the past 40 years, which even accounting for inflation, means that there’s more money to go around, and that those percentages are misleading at best.
While i don’t matter-of-factly disagree with your assessment, I am very curious how you would defend the premise that wealth is just “created.”
I don’t think the argument is simply a 5 year-old “that’s not fair” temper tantrum, I contend that it is based on a premise that our current mechanisms for wealth creation are detrimental to society as a whole.
There is not argumentation in the video at all just question begging. There is not one person in the country qualified to decide how wealth should be divided, yet the “ideal” distribution is presented as a meaningful concept to compare reality against. I doubt the ideal distribution would even be possible in a mordern economy. There is no evidence presented that wealth inequality hurts anyone yet wealth inequality is assumed to be bad. The only actual conclusion you can reach from the video is that people are bad at guessing the wealth distribution, which makes sense because no one’s life is affecting by the wealth distribution. It is just an exercise in pure envy. Sad that anyone would find this relevant to anything.
This is not about income inequality, it is about wealth inequality. There is a difference.
Prior to some trust based re-allocation, my parents had a lot of “wealth” tied up in non-income producing land.
Other levels of wealth are due to the stock market climb of recent years (especially the anti-inflation Fed that has pushed investments into stocks to get any level of decent return).
Many people have no concept of wealth. This is your home, your 401k, your IRA and other investments. Zuckerberg of Facebook fame has a wealth of 14+ billions of dollars, but only takes an income of $1 per year (last time I checked). That would knock him up to the top of the food chain in wealth.
So are the Waltons. As is Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.
Actually, everyone’s life is affected by wealth inequality. Check out places like Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paulo in Brazil. Wealthy people live in walled homes and gated communities while the vast majority of poor people live in the surrounding shantytowns or “favelas”. The danger with wealth inequality is not “poor people will get jealous”. It is that the wealthy will effectively make themselves a separate class of people seprated by walls, private schools, private security, private health care while the regular working people struggle with substandard infrastructure.
I’m not Debaser, but examples of wealth creation are not difficult to come by.
I have a widgit; you have a whatzit. I want your whatzit more than my widgit; you want my widgit more than your whatzit. We trade. Each of us comes out wealthier than before, because each of us has something we value more than what we had. Wealth, in other words, has been created.
Okay, thank you, simple enough. Now let’s take that example one step closer to reality, and see where some objections lie. I want your widgit, but my whatzit isn’t worth as much as your widgit. But, i’ll have another whatzit later. I trade you my current whatzit for your widget, with the promise to give you my other whatzit later. My two whatzit’s will be worth more than the widget, but because i want the widget now, its worth more to me, and since you have lots of widgets, you can wait for my second whatzit without hurting your quality of life.
That’s not a problem of income inequality, but of poverty, which isn’t the same at all. If the rich people suddenly lost 50% of their wealth, the poor would not be better off, but the income inequality would have been improved by 2x.
Sure wealth is created. Who cares. The thing that conservatives forget is that wealth and GDP are a means to an end not the end itself. The goal of creating wealth is to produce prosperity. It is only the ability of wealth to improve the well being of its owners that it is a societal good. An extra $100 a week to someone working 2 jobs to by some new clothes or to go out to a movie once a month or build ups some savings so that if their car breaks down they can still make it to work, is doing a heck of a lot more good than $100,000 sitting around on someones spreadsheet, keeping score between the richest and second richest man in the world.
There is no reason why we can’t have both wealth creation, and better distribution so as to maximize prosperity rather than just GDP.
