Income Inequity is A Bad Thing Because....

Great Debates
21

erislover, your opinions are so irrational they’re amusing. Thanks for making my point about the logically perverse thinking of righties and libertarians!

You can carry on in the Pit if you like, but don’t expect me to join you. Arguing with libertarians is usually more futile than arguing with Christian fundamentalists: they’re so stuck in their blind, dogmatic doctrines that it would be easier to convert the Pope to Mormonism!

Enjoy ignoring these references…

George Davey Smith et. al., “Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: I. White Men,” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 486-496.

George Davey Smith et. al., “Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: II. Black Men,” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 497-504.

Gopal K. Singh and Stella M. Yu, "US Childhood Mortality, 1950 through 1993: Trends and Socioeconomic Differentials, "AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 505-512.

C. Wayne Sells and Robert Wm. Blum, “Morbidity and Mortality among US Adolescents: An Overview of Data and Trends,” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 513-519.

Editorial, “The Big Idea,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pg. [985].

George A. Kaplan et. al., “Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pgs. 999-1003.

Bruce P. Kennedy et. al., “Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pgs. 1004-1007.

Richard G. Wilkinson, “Income distribution and life expectancy,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 304 (January 18, 1992), pgs. 165-168. See also footnote 11, below.

Robert J. Waldmann, “Income Distribution and Infant Mortality,” THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS Vol. 107 (November 1, 1992), pgs. 1283-1302.

Sheldon Danziger et. al., “How the Rich Have Fared, 1973-1987,” AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Vol. 79 (May, 1989), pgs. 310-314.

McKinley L. Blackburn and David E. Bloom, “Earnings and Income Inequality in the United States,” POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Vol. 13, No. 4 (December, 1987), pgs. 575-609.

Johan Fritzell, “Income Inequality Trends in the 1980s: A Five-Country Comparison,” ACTA SOCIOLOGICA Vol. 36 (1993), pgs. 47-62.

Edward N. Wolff, TOP HEAVY; A STUDY OF THE INCREASING INEQUALITY OF WEALTH IN AMERICA (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1995). Although this is a study of wealth inequality, chapter 6 deals with income inequality.

“Up, down and standing still,” THE ECONOMIST February 24, 1996, pgs. 30, 33.

George Davey Smith, “Income inequality and mortality: why are they related?” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pgs. 987-988.

22

ambushed
Frankly, I’m not sure taking you to the pit would solve anything. Instead, I will lay out some of the points I was hoping you would address in my post instead of the one question regarding the studies.
[li]You said, “Take one of the most obvious social harms arising from the vast income inequality in our country: our national health.” I mentioned that income disparity exists in countries which have health care platforms that you wouldn’t call a disgrace. You failed to address this point.[/li][li]You said that the wealthy paying the high cost of medical care drives prices up for the rest of us. I mentioned that paying high prices does not cause prices to climb. I suggested that the problem was not enough people quantitatively were paying for it, whatever the cost was. You failed to address that point.[/li][li]You said, “It never ceases to amaze me how stupefying credulous so many low- and middle-class economic conservatives and libertarians are! Apparently, they don’t realize that they’ve been duped to believe that what is good for the rich is good for them. How astonishingly naive!” This comment has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not income disparity is or is not a problem. If I knew you as a poster I might let it slide, but since I don’t I have to wonder if you actually have any opinions at all or if you simply spew hate out in some ignorant, twisted political xenophobia. I reserve my judgement. You also failed to address that this comment is useless in the debate.[/li][li]You said, “What liberals like me want is NOT “wealth re-distribution”, it is fairness and opportunity re-distribution!” I mentioned that in a meritocracy creating a fair and universally opportunistic work environment will not eliminate income disparity due to different levels of ability in workers. You failed to address that point.[/li][li]I further went on to mention that the only way to decrease the wage gap was through active methods. You failed to address that point.[/li][li]I mentioned that your fevered opinion on the matter was a matter of perspective and that even lowly, libertarian infested America (I wish it was libertarian infested) did pursue some forms of wealth distribution and definitely has pursued equal opportunity in the workplace. You failed to address this point.[/li]
Now, while I certainly do like to read, I must say that if I wanted to debate with them I wouldn’t be on this message board. I would write “letters to the editor” in the magazines for Eris’s sake. No, instead I am on the SDMB. Debating with you, though I use the term “debating” somewhat loosely. I should mention that so fervently denouncing political leanings don’t really lend credence to an economic argument, but then a man of your obvious character probably already knew that.

23

It seems like everyone is saying that income inequity is bad because the poor can’t afford stuff that the rich can. That stuff could be houses, BMWs, food or health care:

and so on.

I think people are missing the point. Income inequity is not bad just because some people are poor. Thats like saying income inequity is bad because there is an inequity of income. Its circular reasoning.

The reason that income inequity is bad is that it creates an instability in society. There will always be poor people but if a huge percent of the people can’t afford health care, food, and housing while a small percentage lives like kings, at some point those poor people will rise up and then everyone’s unhappy. The rich are unhappy because all their nice stuff has been destroyed and the poor are unhappy because they are now just as poor, but with different masters.

There is a fundamental diference between rich people and everyone else. Most wealthy people become that way because they know that the way to become wealthy is to acquire assets that make money for them. They invest in real estate or start their own businesses or invent stuff.

The rest of the world just goes to work for them, hoping that the company or the government will give them a little extra money or a little extra benefits or just won’t lay them off outright. Then if the people don’t get more money, they call their bosses cheap or crooked or greedy.

I always laugh when I get into these discussions because there are always people who are like 'yeah but I still think they should still pay more". My response is always “why should they? If you will work for $15 an hour, why should they pay you $16 just because you want a nicer house/car/etc”.

There will always be inequality of wealth because there will always be people who take risks and there will be people who just want to play it safe with a ‘secure’ job as a wage-slave. If you are going to rely on the job market to pay your way in life, expect to make market wage.

24

Guns, Germs and Steel indirectly suggests that high levels of inequality can be detrimental in terms of the types of products produced. For example, China (historically) had high levels of wealth inequality, and spent a lot of effort and ingenuity in developing ways of making luxury goods for that market. Europe, on the other hand, (historically) had a relatively flat wealth distribution and concentrated on bulk goods, commodity trade and mass production. You can guess which was the better choice. It is likely to still be the better choice.

A different theory (my own half-baked idea) is the idea of viewing the future talent pool as a bet the present makes with the future, coupled with an S-shaped payback curve. For example, say we want X physicists (or other high-skill professional) in the next generation. The higher on the wealth curve, the more likely a child is to grow up to become a physicist. Training, opportunities, etc. make this intuitively likely. Now, as a society (in this thought experiment) we’d like to maximize our chances of getting X physicists. The best way would be to maximize the number of potential physicists by getting as many children into a position where the odds favor them becoming physicists - that is by making them as well-off as possible. This is counterbalanced by the diminishing returns encountered at the top of the wealth distribution. So our hypothetical society’s best bet for the future is to try and keep as many people as possible on the steep portion of that curve, given the resources available. We would expect to find (and Guns, Germs and Steel indirectly supports this finding) that a society with a few wealthy and a mass of poor will end up with fewer high-skill professionals, and will fall further behind in total wealth generation as time passes.

25

Indeed I have. And I wish I could give them the treatment they deserve also.

Briefly, Matt’s assertion here represents a classic fallacy in regards to foreign invesment in most cases. I thought about trying to write an concise explanation of why but after two tries of ever less coherence, I will simply ask the concerned to pick up a good economics text, say one by Krugman to learn a bit about international exchanges. The shortest thing I can add here is that capital controls such as implied above introduced by Kim will be welfare destroying in the long run, such has been the emperical experience.

Otherwise erl, thanks for a balanced set of points on wealth inequality. I may yet wax nostalgic for libertarians.

26

Erislover, we have to stop meeting like this!

“Fairness and opportunity re-distribution”, while not words I would use myself, is not the same thing as a meritocracy. No one is saying the most able worker should get the best stuff. We (or at least I) am saying that every worker should have the best opportunity to do the best kind of work that they can do, and compensated for giving what they can, even if that is not the same as another worker. After all, where is Bill Gates if there is nobody to clean his office for him?

And msmith537, I am glad you have such an understanding of the fundamental differences between rich people and poor people. Now, would you kindly tell me how I can invest the $50.00 I have in savings in assets that will make money for me? You have missed the point that in order to make investments, you have to have…ummm…something to invest.

Luckly, you have said something that I do agree with. Income (and power) disparity does cause civil unrest. I can’t figure out how that is a bad thing, because perhaps that unrest will create a world where humans are treated with dignity (as opposed to as commodities) and they will finally be able to experience true self-government and freedom.

27

What you said in your original post was:

Quoting from the website I linked:

The “safety net” you speak of doesn’t always reach everybody.

Starving to death is just an extreme form of hunger. There are very real, severe problems caused by even mild lack of food.

People who have enough to eat don’t request emergency food assistance. Even when eligible, you didn’t because you had enough to eat. That you didn’t need help when you were eligible doesn’t mean that others who are eligible don’t need help. Your “safety net” argument applies here only if you assume that A: everyone who needed help knew how to apply for it and B: everyone who applied for help got all that they need. I don’t think that either is a safe assumption.

Students only get this assistance during the 180 days they go to school (200-210 if they attend summer school). This means that this form of support, which supplies up to half their nutrition (and I have students who sometimes get all their food at school on some days), is absent for more than half the year.

We have children suffereing from mild to severe malnutrition in the US. This interferes with their education, physical development, and in some cases, brain development. Even if they do not starve to death, they are being deprived of an equal opportunity to succeed.

We’re a long way from having a “society in which everyone has enough,” even if we’re just talking about food.

28

Exactly. I didn’t think it was presumed that we were removing the meritocratic elements, merely tempering them.

I wasn’t aware we were discussing the opposite. No problem though.

Cleaning his own office. The opposite question does not have the same answer.

Hmm. A large part of the desires of mankind involves luxuries. Luxuries are best found in a prospering economy. Economies cannot prosper in a state of civil unrest.

Apart from that I’m not sure that self-government and equal opportunity go hand and hand. They might even be mutually exclusive. While I do like to think of a beautiful anarchistic state filled with free-lovin’ on SDMB poster’s lawns… I digress :smiley:

collounsbury, this is a proud moment for me. I have yet to say something Randian and stupid. You have taught me well.

29

He’s still a billionare except that now he’s a billionare with a dirty office. Unless you are the guy who runs the company, you have two options:

A) Work for whatever the boss is willing to pay you
B) Quit

How much money do you spend on beer, cigarettes, CDs or other useless stuff? If you put $50 a month into a mutual fund or IRA it adds up quick.

Michael Dell started with $1,000 in his garage. Now he’s a billionare. Now its not realistic to expect everyone to be the next Michael Dell. But who’s fault is it that you only have $50? Should I give you money out of my pocket just because I have more?

Simply destroying a system without any plan on putting a better one in its place just creates anarchy and distruction.

How would you create a system where people aren’t business comodities? Say I get a great idea for a new service (lets call it ‘widget polishing’. I put some money together and open up a widget polishing company. I don’t have enough to pay for it by myself so I get some investors.

Now lets say the demand for widget polishing is so great that I could easily hire 10 polishers to go around town. So I hire these 10 graduates from the local college. Why should I pay these guys any more than the minimum posible wage necessary?

30

Tell that to a couple of monks. Whether or not the desire for stuff is innate or not is another debate. Regardless, the process of civilization involves moving beyond our animalistic states and on to a higher plane of humanity. Murder, xenophobia and humping everything that moves (on Gaspode’s front lawn!) are innate to humanity, but for the sake of civilization and the greater good we try to control these urges. Just because it is natural doesn’t mean it is good. Hemlock is natural. Socrates didn’t take to well to it.

I believe that the only way to have true freedom is to have self governing communities where everyone participates positively in governing their collective lives (and resources). In such a case, luxeries would become irellevent, because we will achieve what we really want (freedom) as opposed to some half-arsed substitute (stuff). Short of that, I believe I would settle for erislovers anarchic lawn-fornification leauge.

I’m a bad person to ask. I can’t afford rent. I eat peanut butter and jelly three times a day. I took a net loss of $1,000 this summer and wiped out my savings. Beyond that is the haunting specter of ten thousand dollars worth of student loans. I know this isn’t the appropriate place for a whine-a-thon, but the point is asking me, and others like me, to invest is insane.

To toe the party line, I am not going to destroy this system. This system will destroy itself, and the whole world will change. Our paradigm will shift. Nothing will be the same. Communism isn’t a philosophy, it is a prophecy. Perhaps a silly one, but it is easier to obtain than, say, the second coming of Christ. We all gotta dream of a better place…

Read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx.

31

I disagree. I think it involves accepting and dealing with our animalistic state in context with the other stuff that comes with being a unique, conscious species.

Isn’t that what every country tries to do in some form or another? Especially so with wealth redistribution.

The important thing here is that luxuries do not necessarily take the form of material goods. Free time itself is considered a valuable commodity. And yet, a very good way to gain free time is through the efficient use of material goods. Such a tangled web!

THANK YOU!!! I have been searching for such a thing for quite some time now. Ahh, perfection at last.

Ack ack ack :froths at the mouth: Must…hold…back…Rand…

32

There are 250 million people in the United States. How would you divide them into self governing communities? Would all 10 million New Yorkers take an active roll in the governing of New York City? What about major public works like dams and highways? How should those be managed? Should the 25% of the population that doesn’t starve to death all live on communes spread out through the woods?

and…

I prefer Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. Not much to do with economics, but fairly practical for the business world. I also recommend "The Millionaire Next Door’ by Thomas J. Stanley Phd and ‘Rich Dad, Poor Dad’ by Robert T. Kiyosaki.

Choosing not to read the entire Communist Manifesto, I instead decided to check out this site - http://www.marxists.org.

While it doesn’t make me an expert, I think I get the gist of it and the idea horifies me. Under a communist system, there would be no Bill Gates or Henry Fords changing the world because what’s the point? Why develop anything new since you wont see a dime of it? What was the last great Russian invention since Sputnik?

Communism requires a large central government to management. And as everyone knows, a large government is the most incredably wasteful beurocracy there is. Prestige for Government managers is based on the size of their budgets and the number of heads in their departments.

Communism also promotes laziness. The whole concept is based on the idea of government acting like some giant Robin Hood, stealing all the hard earned money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Why work harder than the least common denominator if I can’t be fired and the government will take care of all my needs?

Communism is an unstable system. There is no way to distribute everything according to everyones need. As soon as I have something that you ran out of, the potential for trade happens and then BANG!!! we’re capitalists again.

Communism is a hypocritical system too. I know it preaches something about no classes and a government run by the proletariet, but that’s irrelevent. As soon as you place one group in charge of another, regardless if its slave owner-slave, landowner - serf, capitalist - proletariate, or Party beurocrat - everyone else you have created a class society. And that class society will then modify the rules so that it can both benefit from their position of power and maintain thir position. A communist worker is more of a commodity than any capitalist worker. Instead of working for a board of directors, they just work for the Party.

Guess that communism thing is really working out for you. You probably should have studied business instead of philosophy.

Not to sound callous, but why should I care? If through a combination of luck, hard work, and planning, I enjoy a relatively comfortable lifestyle (not wealthy mind you, but comfortable), should I be oblidged to sacrifice so that you can enjoy a higher standard of living? It’s a cruel world. You can dream of a better but prepare yourself to live in this one.

33

Heh heh heh…ha ha ha ha ha…ho ho hoho…hee hee hee hee…bwa ha ha ha ha ha!! No seriously, tell us what you really think. Oh, you were being serious. Never mind.

Marc

34

Communism is distinctly opposed to income inequality, in theory.

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” or some such nonsense.

I also have to point out that “Poverty” is a relative term. I’ve travelled extensively throughout the world and the United States, frankly, doesn’t come close. To be fair, I’d say our claims of the highest standard of living aren’t entirely true either. To my way of thinking, borne out by my observations, “Poor” means no shoes, not two cars, cable TV, VCR’s, Stereos, closets full of clothes. The number one health problem with the “Poor” in America is obesity

What we have done, here in the US, is best described by the statement “A rising Tide lifts all boats”; I guess we’ll keep redefining “Poor” up, but let’s be realistic about it. (Maybe the “poor” can only connect to the Straight Dope at 14,400 baud) The number of people in the US who are the true, abject dirt poor what am I going to eat tonite is
comparatively small. Not much consolation if you’re in that boat, though. I’m also unclear as to why Health Care is a “Right”; just where do these rights end, anyway? Do I have a “Right” to free Car Care as well? Does an individual have any responsibility to provide for their own future?

Health care costs exploded and track quite perfectly with the advent of Medicare, Medicaid, etc… starting in 1965. Health care providers started being reimbursed by, guess who, the Federal Government. It’s been a mess ever since. If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it’s free.

We’re the most generous nation to ever populate the planet, and we’ve got half the world hating us to prove it. Oh Well.

35

I tried reading The Communist Manifesto one time but I had difficulty following the plot. I think maybe it loses a lot in the translation and should be better read in the original.

Regarding hunger in America, IMHO that is a vastly exagerated claim. As has been pointed out several times in other threads, America has the fattests “hungry” people in the world. Maybe if some kid does not get enough to eat it’s because his mamma is eating it all before he can get to it. Food in the US is incredibly cheap and plentiful and if you cannot feed yourself you are in very bad shape.

Just for the heck of it I did a calculation: I live in DC which is not cheap, compared to the rest of the country it is expensive. I just checked my accounts for the last few months and I have been spending a tad over $3 on food, under $100 a month. I am a big guy and I am probably eating more than is good for me. Eating less would certainly be more healthy for me. A kid could probably eat on $2 a day a healthy, nutritious diet.

Then, you can go down to the fish market by the water front and see people buying crabs and lobster with food stamps…

What those “poor” need is not more money from social programs, what they need is a dose of common sense injected in vein.

36

There is your first problem. I suggest you read it at some point, even as an academic exersise. Whatever your opinion about communism, the Communist Manifesto is one of the most important documents of modern times. I think you will find that it is not at all what you think. Even if it does not make you a believer, it will certainly give you something to think about.

Tell that to Linus Torvalds. Why did he develope Linux when he “does not see a dime of it”? Why do David B and Gaudere spend their time moderating these boards when they are not paid for it? Much of the Internet (though certainly not all of it) has been created by unpaid labor. Without that unpaid labor it would not be the wonderful tool that it is now.

Heck, even rich people do unpaid labor. It is called a hobby. Some of those hobbies even have social benefits. I know people that have turned vacant lots into skate parks. I know people that have spent their time creating public art.

It is a fallacy to believe that wealth is the only motivating factor in innovation. If everyone did labor they enjoyed and was good at, and no one lived in fear of povery, I think that people would work harder and better- not for their own good directly, but for their own enjoyment and the good of the community.

Read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx. In communism, except for a very brief revolutionary period, there is no government. None. Think of it as anarchy without all the food and weapon stockpiling. Come back when you have a better understanding of Communism.
.

Kind of hard to do, considering there is no government, and there is no such thing as rich, poor, stealing, owning, or even giving. Your simplistic view of Communism is common, but very inaccurate. Take a real look at it and try to understand it. I know it is a lot to wrap your head around, but it is worth it, if not just to get an understanding of a new idea. I just wish there was another pinko here to help me out, as I am hardly any sort of authority on the subject.

Tell that to a monastary. I don’t think many of them have a problem with illicit trading of hair shirts and rosaries. Of course, a Communist society would be very different than a monostary, but it still proves that there can be non-trade based societies.

Read up boy! There is more to Communism than “something about no classes and a government run by the proletariet” There is no government! There is no power that is seperate from the workers. No party. Nothing. I’ll give you a hint: Russia was not a prime example of Communism. Does that help?

Seems to me that I am not the one that is behind in my studies, considering that you don’t seem to have a grasp of one of the most wold altering ideas of the modern world.

I admit, it is kind of hard to be a lone commie, just like it is hard to be a lone pacifist. It is the old prisoners dilemma. Do we trust each other and all gain, or do we distrust and get what we can? I guess the answer is wait and see. Remember, Communism is a prophecy, and if it is going to happen it is gong to happen despite what you and I think about it.

Obviously at least one person close to you does not believe that. I don’t think your parents chucked you out the door and into the street when you were born, cruel world or not. Compassion can happen, and there is no good reason why this world has to be cruel.

Luckly, Communism has a place for you, too. Really, be as callous as you want. Become the controller of labor. Heck, enslave workers! Things are going to get worse before they get better. I invite and encourage you to gleefully join the bourgousie. That will only hasten the revolution (if it comes, which I say is about fifty-fifty), and hopefully bring us all closer to a better time.

37

So you believe that if death does not result, there is no starvation? Do you also believe that everyone who is hungy has applied for, and recieved, free food? And that it was there for them everyday?(people do need to eat everyday)

And as Number Six said, the OP said the poor do not starve, it said nothing about starving to death.

38

Linux is a toy for computer nerds. How can you compare that to the impact that corporations like Microsoft, Dell, and Apple have had on the computer industry. Sure you would still have advances in science and industry. It would just take 10 times as long.

What are you, high? The Internet was originally created by the government as a way to communicate in the event of a nuclear war. It didn’t take off until people saw the commercial potential of it. Without the people at companies like AOL, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Amazon, and Netscape the Internet would still be professors and college kids emailing term papers and porn to each other with 28.8 modems. And I haven’t even talked about the companies that built the physical infrastructure.

Remeber when your guidance coucellor asked you what you would do if you had a million dollars? Your answer supposedly indicated your future career interests. The question was bullshit because if everyone had a million dollars, no one would work in a factory or clean toilets.

[/quote]

Why don’t you just explain it to me? If nothing else, it would show me that you actually understand how such a system would work instead of just having romantic notions of hippies living on communes.

So who handles such public services like law enforcement, fire and emergancy medical services, road and public works construction and maintenance?

In business school and consulting we have a thing called an ‘elevator speach’. Basically it means a 30 second summary of your idea or concept. They call it an elevator speach because it is the speach you would give if you got caught in the elevator with your client and he/she said “ok, tell me about your plan”.

Why don’t you give me your elevator speach on ‘What Communism is and How it Can Actually Work’?

I understand it. Basically everyone owns everything. If you need to use my car to go score some weed you can just go and borrow it. (More accurately, it would just be THE car, not mine in particular). But say I need the car to go buy hemp pants? Well now I’m SOL because the cars gone. Communism doesn’t work if there are 10 of us who needs a car and only 4 cars. Under capitalism, the 4 people who are willing to pay the most get the 4 cars. Everyone else can just borrow them if I feel generous.

Problem with communism is that if there are any shortages of anything, you go back to hoarding and black markets. Say I borrow the car, but instead of returning it, I hide it. Now say that I see you need a car. I now come to you and say ‘I’ll drive you where you want to go, but you have to give me a loaf of bread and keep your mouth shut’.

A monastary is a little different from a country of 250 million people. First of all, a monastary is not a closed system. If one of the monks injures himself, does he go to a regualr hospital or does he just die? If the monastary catches fire, do they try and put it out with buckets of sand or do they call the local fire department?

Besides, if the communist society would be so different from a monastary, why even use it as an example?

Education is only useful if you can apply it to something. You could be the most educated person in the world, but if you only have $50 in your pocket, what the hell good is it?

Like the prisoners dilema, communism is an unstable situation. My incentive is always to feign cooperation with you so that you pick trust and mutual gain and then abruptly stab you in the back for even greater personal gain.

It has to be cruel because no one has the right to anything that comes at the expense of someone elses labor. Regardless if its food, health care or a new car, someone has to work to create it which means its got to be paid for.

39

For interested parties, The communist Manifesto does have some interesting things to say.

Marx’s inability to see that people of different economic and social classes can coexist without hatred is amazing. Furthermore, the idea that those who have power necessarily use it to oppress runs contrary to the idea of compassion that is often claimed by those of Communist leanings.

Briefly:
Because the idea of pure Communism relies on perfect distribution of resources there must be a body set up to determine what these resources are and how to distribute them. There must be a central body concerned with informing all citizens of their civic duties because people cannot, on their own, interact with enough other people to accurately determine what someone three states over needs. Furthermore, resources are not universally located to begin with, so there definitely needs to be a group set up to oversee the extraction of natural resources.

This is a government.

In order to act on the implications of a communist state, the government needs the power to dictate actions of its citizens who cannot know the situations of areas outside their realm of experience (because they are a little busy, you know, working). As well, because it cannot be guaranteed that all citizens will agree with what constitutes need and what constitutes luxury, and will likely have differing opinions with the government, the government must be able to control people who disagree with the majority of the state’s citizens.

This is a government with power.

A government with power can only act if it gives this power to the persons who comprise the government. This is, in Marx’s terms, a class of people who have power.

Communism does not remove class, except in the degenerate case where all citizens of the state both agree with the government’s decree and actively support it. That is a pipe dream. Because of that, applied communism necessarily creates a class of people with concentrated power.

This does not mean communism is bad alone, it merely states that any goal which needs humans to carry it out will inevitably fall prey to the excersize of power in one form or another. The solution, then, is to not expect such high standards from citizens and government alike, and to limit the power of the body which uses the power. This can still be done with communistic leanings in mind. This has not been done successfully with communistic leanings in mind, except possibly for China. In a few years we’ll know for sure if China has, in fact, accomplished this. But it certainly didn’t accomplsih this without creating a class of citizens with power.

Finally, Marx seemed to make a connection between the necessity of struggle and oppression in a way that even Rand may have appreciated.

Silly Marx, struggle is an aspect of life, not of government or social structure. Social structure arises from the struggle to survive!

IMO, of course.

Marx also said something that struck me as interesting. He blamed the following on the bourgeoisie: “In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes.” Yes, people have unlimited wants and needs. This is a function of being human, not of companies and wealthy people.

In fact, it is this very facet of human nature which makes wealth redistribution such a sticky subject, and possibly why we are here in the first place. Because humans have unlimited wants and needs (not simultaneously, merely once all existing wants are satisfied new ones crop up) setting a “living wage” is an impossible thing to do with consistency. That is, this floor cannot be static, or the ones who are sitting on it will soon not be satisfied with their possessions, and the whole situation will start again.

IMO, the best thing a country can do is aim to equalize opportunity while keeping a meritocracy. This allows movement between classes. though it does allow people to fall down in social and economic standing, it also allows people to rise as well. How much opportunity can be equalized while retaining meritocratic elements is a pretty good question. I can’t answer it.

40

I don’t necessarily see inequality, in and of itself, as being immoral.

It’s opportunity: the general (public’s) perception of opportunity, real or imagined, that I see as the key.

If just about anyone is capable of becoming more wealthy than their “starting point” (through industry, ingenuity or plain thrift), and everyone basically knows it, then there isn’t really anything immoral with having rich-middle-poor divides.

When they cannot, or perceive that they cannot, or the divides between categories becomes too difficult to breech, then, maybe, you have an argument for some immorality, some basic wrongness, being inherent in the system.

Overall, education is the ladder by which people can climb upwards, but must have the basic opportunity present to be effective. What’s the use of having an I/T degree if there are no I/T jobs to be had?

Plus, nutrition plays a key role in development, right? How well will malnourished children be able to pay attention in class? What will their retention level be like without the proper nutrition to develop mentally? IS that level of nutrition available to everybody (I’d say yes, if less reliance is placed upon processed food items, or perhaps more emphasis is placed upon proper, balanced diet).