Why is unequal wealth distribution “unfair”?

[erislover]

@DrCube

Could you explain what you mean by this? And why don’t people just say they’re against unfair market manipulation instead of rich people in general?

If I think such manipulation is pervasive, then I guess you can say I am against rich people. But really that is simplistic and the answer lies here:

I’m aware that greater wealth bestows greater power… [Y]ou can’t wish away the fact that some people are better than others and in turn more powerful. All you can do is make sure that power is obtained and used fairly, honestly and legitimately.

If I knew of some way of making sure, then I would have no problem with rich people. But instead I think it is a problem. I have nothing against rich people. I don’t think they’re assholes or jerks or anything. Well, OK, maybe Microsoft. (He says, posting from Windows.)

As I said in my first post, there may be practical reasons for taking power in the form of wealth away from those at the top and spreading it around to the lower classes. You can argue that it is necessary to discourage the accumulation of power by a select few. But you can’t argue that it is fair; not when that wealth and power was obtained honestly.

I claim that, on the whole, not all wealth is obtained “honestly”. But please notice that you conflate many levels of discourse in that phrase. I am not accusing any particular person, or all people, of behaving dishonestly, at least not in the sense that the word implies. A monopolist extracting rents isn’t being dishonest, and people paying their rates aren’t, generally, doing so unwillingly. Nevertheless, income from rent-seeking behavior is not “honest income”. It is the result of manipulating economic conditions in one’s favor. The word “honest” is just not very good. “Fair” is also quite suspect. All these words carry a moral tone and I’m just not going to go there, nor do I see why anyone would want to, if they are trying to make a point about economic behavior. If we want to make a moral point, we can drop the faux-economic talk; if we want to make an economic point, we can drop loaded rhetoric.

We don’t live in a free market. Everyone has massive incentives to rig the system, but wealthy people have most of the power, and I think the system, by and large, is rigged in their favor. To the extent the system is not rigged by subconscious fiat, things like unbalanced information rarely tilt in the “little guy’s” favor (he might save money on car insurance, but only because someone else is taking it in the ass; he might be lazy at work, but only if someone else is picking up the slack). This is not a matter of people being bastards, it is a matter of taking advantage of an opportunity. Rectifying this problem by creating a better free market would not eliminate rich people, and I don’t want to eliminate rich people. But if you ask me whether it is prudent to fix the free market, or implement some kind of progressive taxation, I’ll say “The latter until we’re sure of the former.” And if we’re asking whether unequal wealth distribution is unfair, the answer is, “Yes,” but this does not imply that equal wealth distribution is fair, because the antecendent to that clause is really a logical conjunction of a great deal of assumptions about economic existence. (Unequal and not free market and…)

Sure, in a free market we’d all be making what we’re due and men would be paying for sex, but we’re not. Now what?

[gonzomax]

@DrCube

No, it was more like a lot of people said “Wow, that is awesome! Here, let me give you some money for one of those.”

No. I expect that if the rich really were dirty and heartless leeches as you say, people would refuse to give them money in the first place. That is not to say that white-collar crime and fraud don’t happen. But bitch about crime and fraud and I’ll support you. Bitch about the rich simply because they’re rich and all you are is jealous.

Again, I’m saying that Wal-Mart never should have gotten as rich and successful as they are if they haven’t been providing valuable goods and services all along. Wal-Mart competed with other retailers all along and prevailed. They didn’t get that way by screwing over their customers and treating their employees like slaves, or else nobody would work for them or buy from them. They became successful because they provided enormous amounts of value to society.
People fuck over other people every day and get away with it. Fine. Certainly, there are currently ways that people can lie, cheat and steal their way to the top.

So why don’t you bitch about the lying, the cheating and the stealing, instead of just bitching that they’re at the top?

A ‘fair’ government should ensure that nobody builds their wealth through dishonesty and coercion. Not that nobody builds any wealth at all.

Walmart got there by being one of the first and strongest to move to China. They have created a city of suppliers there where one did not exist. They had no allegiance to American workers or the tax system. They forced suppliers to move or get cut off. If you define that as a success,good for you.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@erislover

We don’t live in a free market. Everyone has massive incentives to rig the system, but wealthy people have most of the power, and I think the system, by and large, is rigged in their favor.

Agreed, but I’ll add that the system can be gamed by middle class sharpies as well. Those who subscribe to Consumer Reports, pay their credit cards off every month, read the fine print and staying alert to opportunities to refinance their home can suck in a fair amount of cross-subsidy from everyone else. Heck, 401Ks and limited liability provide means to extract the benefits of ownership without the costs of oversight.

All of this is by way of agreement: while it would be a huge error to conduct policy without reference to introductory economics, perfect markets exist only in the imagination.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@RTFirefly

So for me, the question is, what’s the ‘sweet spot’ where the wealth your economic system produces is a widely shared as possible, without cutting noticeably into people’s incentives to improve their skills, get better jobs, start new businesses, generate new wealth?

You can argue about where the ‘sweet spot’ is, but you can only agree or disagree with my values.

Where is the ‘sweet spot’? I’d say Northern Europe. They seem to have gotten it about right (a “fair” distribution of national wealth and services along with more than enough incentive for citizens to create jobs, start new ventures and generate new wealth).

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Dogzilla

But 300-400%? And I don’t get a measly 5% bonus next year because some fatcat has a billion dollar golden parachute? :dubious: No. Fatcat can suck it. There’s adequate compensation for value added to the profitability and growth to the company and there’s some asshole getting filthy rich on my back.

If the CEO is making 300 times as much money as you are wouldn’t that be 30,000% instead of 300% ?

[erislover]

@Measure_for_Measure

Agreed, but I’ll add that the system can be gamed by middle class sharpies as well. Those who subscribe to Consumer Reports, pay their credit cards off every month, read the fine print and staying alert to opportunities to refinance their home can suck in a fair amount of cross-subsidy from everyone else. Heck, 401Ks and limited liability provide means to extract the benefits of ownership without the costs of oversight.

Yeah I was thinking about this actually. If median family income in the US is $48,000, then “rich” is definitely relative. Hell, I’m rich by those standards. In this sense, a lot of union workers could be seen to be part of the problem. (I never know how to feel about unions. I hate thinking about it. Drives me crazy.)

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Sateryn76

Anyone can end up poor. The ones that remain are unwilling to put in the effort to get out of there - excluding the ones with real personal medical problems or a family member’s medical problems that prevent working.

(bolding mine) And for those folks–the one’s with real medical problems? Should we (the federal government) give them access to affordable health care and perhaps a small stipend so that they can survive? Or would you propose…

@Sateryn76

Food stamps forever?

Yes, food stamps forever. But not much more than that.

[foolsguinea]

@erislover

Yeah I was thinking about this actually. If median family income in the US is $48,000, then “rich” is definitely relative. Hell, I’m rich by those standards. In this sense, a lot of union workers could be seen to be part of the problem. (I never know how to feel about unions. I hate thinking about it. Drives me crazy.)

median != mean

In a society with a massive slave/prole class & a tiny wealthy class, the median could be next to the bottom in income. If you want an average income as cutoff, mean is better.

[gonzomax]

We just allowed a couple trillion dollars of tax money be given to wealthy thieving bankers. They looted hard and steady for the last 8 years. Now we gave them a going away present . We are so stupid. Scare the sissy American people and they buckle. Tell them we need to go to war against Iraq because they have a bomb and we will kiss you for taking our money and our rights. Tell us the economic system will collapse if we do not give trillions to those who have been looting us ,we will thank you for robbing us. The American people are an embarrassment. Gutless punks. We are dumb enough to argue in behalf of the rich ,who are laughing at us. They waant to scare us ,so they can loot bus. The answer is NO. Quit fighting for the right to be sheep.

[erislover]

@foolsguinea

median != mean

In a society with a massive slave/prole class & a tiny wealthy class, the median could be next to the bottom in income. If you want an average income as cutoff, mean is better.

The mean is distorted by outliers, which is why the median is often a better measure of central tendency for things like income.

[gonzomax]

@Sateryn76

To your first point - I do not disagree with your concept of America, although I think that there were other purposes that were considered more important, like freedom to worship. In any case, I dispute the idea that these were supposed to be provided by the government.

The other side of the “they took our jobs” argument is the indisputable fact that, by moving manufacturing and other jobs overseas, they enriched the lives of the poor and middle class by provided them with the ability to buy cheaper goods and services. Some people will say “Oh, that’s just stuff” but the ability to have stuff is very important to the mental well being of most people, especially children.

And, no, crime, foreclosures and such are not the problem of any corporation. Individuals make their own choices, and should suffer the consequences of poor choices. Losing a job or being poor are no excuses for acting like an irresponsible jackass.

I did not say they took our jobs. Our corporations moved there for cheaper labor, no environmental costs and short term profits.
The Chinese did not build a better anything. We did not go there because they built a better mousetrap. We moved for short term quick profits. The country is paying for the decision . More unemployment, less taxes collected, more foreclosures,more alcoholism and drugs are all our problems.
Claiming that all who lose their homes are irresponsible jackasses says more about you than them. There are a lot of stories with every foreclosure. All different.

[DrCube]

@gonzomax

Walmart got there by being one of the first and strongest to move to China. They have created a city of suppliers there where one did not exist. They had no allegiance to American workers or the tax system. They forced suppliers to move or get cut off. If you define that as a success,good for you.

It might help clarify my position if I say that I think a market with borders is a very bad (not free) market. If the Chinese can make my goods cheaper, I have no qualms about sending off work to be done there. If Mexicans can come into the US and provide cheaper labor than a native, good for them. I really don’t see how cheap goods and labor are bad things. Comparative advantage and all that.

So you aren’t going to make me hate Wal-Mart because they don’t hold “allegiance to American workers or the tax system”. They provide me with more goods on my meager paycheck than any other store in this country could. I’m very happy with Wal-Mart and will cheer every time they drive down prices further. Screw the suppliers. If they were better at supplying, they’d still be in business.

The only time it backfires is when we use Chinese toothpaste and it is full of lead or something. In other words, it may be risky to import cheap goods from China, but it isn’t unequivocally bad. It demands better risk assessment, not wholesale xenophobia.

[jackdavinci]

@DrCube

It might help clarify my position if I say that I think a market with borders is a very bad (not free) market. If the Chinese can make my goods cheaper, I have no qualms about sending off work to be done there.

Then I guess you won’t mind when you lose your job when it’s outsourced to China too.

Or that your community will consist of people in dead end retail jobs who can’t afford to buy homes or support families.

Or that the reason labor is cheap elsewhere is because they don’t have the same protections for their workers that we do.

[DrCube]

@jackdavinci

Then I guess you won’t mind when you lose your job when it’s outsourced to China too.

Yeah, I’ll mind. But I would deserve it. If somebody else is better at my job, then they deserve it and not me.

Or that your community will consist of people in dead end retail jobs who can’t afford to buy homes or support families.

No. My “community” will consist of an efficient worldwide distribution of goods and services, bringing down prices and raising everyone’s standard of living. Explain to me again how this is bad?

Or that the reason labor is cheap elsewhere is because they don’t have the same protections for their workers that we do.

This is a legitimate concern that foreign workers are subject to unsafe conditions and exploitation, but I don’t think it is the reason labor is cheap elsewhere, or at least not the whole reason. Chinese labor is cheap because the Chinese demand lower wages for their work, partly because their standard of living is lower. Raising their standard of living (by offering better jobs) and petitioning their government for more protection is the answer, not isolationism and xenophobia.

[mazinger_z]

@jackdavinci

Then I guess you won’t mind when you lose your job when it’s outsourced to China too.

Or that your community will consist of people in dead end retail jobs who can’t afford to buy homes or support families.

Or that the reason labor is cheap elsewhere is because they don’t have the same protections for their workers that we do.

Please. Are you against software, too? We are increasingly seeing jobs either replaced by software, robots or other automation, or finally, outsourced to a different country. If you can’t stand progress, get out of the way.

[foolsguinea]

@erislover

The mean is distorted by outliers, which is why the median is often a better measure of central tendency for things like income.

OK, so you want to just cut the 64% of the economy that’s in 4% of the populace’s hands out of all measures, then?:dubious:

[erislover]

@foolsguinea

OK, so you want to just cut the 64% of the economy that’s in 4% of the populace’s hands out of all measures, then?:dubious:

What? All I said was that given median income in the US I am probably “too rich” compared to someone, that I’ve knowingly or unknowingly gamed the system for personal benefit at someone else’s cost. That’s all.

[jackdavinci]

@mazinger_z

Please. Are you against software, too? We are increasingly seeing jobs either replaced by software, robots or other automation, or finally, outsourced to a different country. If you can’t stand progress, get out of the way.

If the software and robot repair jobs aren’t all outsourced to other countries, I’m fine with them.

And if progress means a return to 16 hour work days and child labor, then count me out for that.