# Will the disparity of weath distribution destroy America? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068 "2011-04-12T09:28:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068/281 "2011-05-20T16:22:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I have no problem with increasing productivity. My point is that labor should share in the increased productivity otherwise there is ultimately noone to buy the products of that improved productivity. I still don’t see why. If productivity means higher profits it makes sense for management to increase wages as a means of retaining and poaching better staff. But as a general rule wages are by the free market, if there are lots of technicians that can do the work why should a more productive factory pay their employees more than a less productive one if productivity is the result of improved technology? If a guy’s job is to photocopy stuff, and the business buys a new copier that works faster, the guy is more productive. But not because he’s better, but because investment in capital increased productivity. So if the company is making more money from increased copies why should the copy guy get more than market wage compared to all the other copy guys at all the other companies? What if I have a farm hand that plants corn for me. If I buy higher yielding seeds, does he deserve more money for planting the improved product? Or do I deserve more for my investment? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That’s not the opposite of what I want. I have no problem with an industry employing fewer and fewer people as long as those fewer people earn salaries commensurate to their productivity. Okay, and if their individual productivity remains the same, but through technology the company productivity improves, can we pay them the same? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because the doctor will make even more. You would see a world where capitalists have the ability to provide a lot of products that noone can afford to buy. If that was the case they wouldn’t be very good capitalists. When I market a product I have to pick my target audience. Before the recession people bought lots of crap on credit so you could charge them more. You’ll notice that since the recession businesses are marketing cheaper products. Not the same product for a lower price, but a lower priced product. It is up to the capitalist to find the market, not hire a bunch of people to create the market. That was the type of bullshit they did back when mining companies owned the town, the stores, the houses. If people want the product they can earn income and buy the product. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In this case the money earned by labor is ultimately the source of demand. Unless you think we can have an economy based on providing goodies to the capitalist segment of society and those that provide services to the capitalist segment of society… If that were the case, there wouldn’t be a market for high end luxuries. Levi’s has a brand of jeans they sell in Walmart for $10 and a brand they sell in Bloomingdales for $100. Both made in the same sweatshop. We’ve been through this before. If I come up with a way to increase your productivity, why do you feel entitled to the gains? It might even mean your job gets easier. This is something I do all the time with my staff, and most of the time it’s rearranging how their work station is laid out. But all that aside: right now most people are paid a wage determined by the market, and they are okay with that. It means they get to show up, do their job, and go home. Very few people want to be paid as a function of profits because they quickly learn that some months there aren’t profits. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068/282 "2011-05-20T21:20:04Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I still don’t see why. If productivity means higher profits it makes sense for management to increase wages as a means of retaining and poaching better staff. > > But as a general rule wages are by the free market, if there are lots of technicians that can do the work why should a more productive factory pay their employees more than a less productive one if productivity is the result of improved technology? > > If a guy’s job is to photocopy stuff, and the business buys a new copier that works faster, the guy is more productive. But not because he’s better, but because investment in capital increased productivity. So if the company is making more money from increased copies why should the copy guy get more than market wage compared to all the other copy guys at all the other companies? > > What if I have a farm hand that plants corn for me. If I buy higher yielding seeds, does he deserve more money for planting the improved product? Or do I deserve more for my investment? > > Okay, and if their individual productivity remains the same, but through technology the company productivity improves, can we pay them the same? > > If that was the case they wouldn’t be very good capitalists. When I market a product I have to pick my target audience. Before the recession people bought lots of crap on credit so you could charge them more. You’ll notice that since the recession businesses are marketing cheaper products. Not the same product for a lower price, but a lower priced product. > > It is up to the capitalist to find the market, not hire a bunch of people to create the market. That was the type of bullshit they did back when mining companies owned the town, the stores, the houses. If people want the product they can earn income and buy the product. > > If that were the case, there wouldn’t be a market for high end luxuries. Levi’s has a brand of jeans they sell in Walmart for $10 and a brand they sell in Bloomingdales for $100. Both made in the same sweatshop. > > We’ve been through this before. If I come up with a way to increase your productivity, why do you feel entitled to the gains? It might even mean your job gets easier. This is something I do all the time with my staff, and most of the time it’s rearranging how their work station is laid out. > > But all that aside: right now most people are paid a wage determined by the market, and they are okay with that. It means they get to show up, do their job, and go home. Very few people want to be paid as a function of profits because they quickly learn that some months there aren’t profits. Emac, stop! Think for a minute. As productivity increases and fewer and fewer people have jobs and fewer and fewer people who have jobs see their wages rise … WHERE IS THE MARKET FOR THE GOODS? Who will buy them? You are completely not addressing that critical issue. It’s a matter of economics, not fairness. The point being made is that attitudes like yours will kill the economy. Now you may not believe that, but you need to explain why. There will ALWAYS be a market for luxury goods, because the people at the top are always the last to suffer when an economy goes south. But suffer they will, eventually, because the middle class is our big economic driver. Are you REALLY content with seeing it disappear? IOW, at what point along the graph do you want to think about changing things? I’m thinking … not anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068/283 "2011-05-20T21:48:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Emac, stop! Think for a minute. As productivity increases and fewer and fewer people have jobs and fewer and fewer people who have jobs see their wages rise … WHERE IS THE MARKET FOR THE GOODS? Who will buy them? The first part does not match the second. And this is very important so I hope you’ll read carefully. If necessary we can start a new thread to flesh this out. You have a very serious misunderstanding of the relationship between supply and demand; and between producers and consumers. Stephen King is an author, his job is to write stories. It it up to him to write stories that people will pay for. Does that make sense to you? It is NOT King’s job to figure out how to employ people so they can buy his books. that’s not his role. So then, how does he have a market? Who will buy his books if no one has a job. Not his problem. The people that want to buy his books need to figure out how they’ll afford it. Most of us trade our time for cash so we can buy things. See how those that want things trade what they have (time) for what they want (cash). You have so massively confused what you consider to be a critical issue. The guy making widgets does so because he thinks there is a market for his widgets. It is unlikely that his business plan is to employ enough people that they’ll all buy his widgets. He would have to employ a damn lot of people to have any meaningful sales volume. The job of a factory is to produce things, not to create jobs. The answer of "who will buy things’ isn’t part of that equation. My attitude is that increased productivity is good for the economy. Your attitude is that we shouldn’t increase productivity is it means someone might lose their job. Which do you think is worse for the economy? Nearly everyone in the US used to be employed on farms, now we produce more food but using a fraction of the staff. But some how people are employed. Who is buying that food if everyone was laid off??!?!?!!?! The role of business is to produce things people want to buy. It’s up to those people to figure out how they’ll earn money to buy those things. Do you get that? Business figures out what people want, and people figure out how they’ll pay for it. You’ve got this backwards notion that first businesses should employ people, and then those people will have money, and then the business can make stuff to sell to them. Do you not earn income? Is this concept that foreign to you? > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > the middle class is our big economic driver. Are you REALLY content with seeing it disappear? IOW, at what point along the graph do you want to think about changing things? I’m thinking … not anytime soon. And what, prey tell, would you change? Prevent companies from firing people? Prevent companies from increasing productivity? Have you even bothered to think this through? You very happily accused me of killing the economy, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. The role of business is to come up with things for people to buy, stop. They are not a charity, or a babysitting service. If people want to buy stuff they are free to earn income how ever they see fit within the confines of the law. It’s not up to the business to figure that out for them. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068/284 "2011-05-23T14:51:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Emac, stop! Think for a minute. As productivity increases and fewer and fewer people have jobs and fewer and fewer people who have jobs see their wages rise … WHERE IS THE MARKET FOR THE GOODS? Who will buy them? You are completely not addressing that critical issue. It’s a matter of economics, not fairness. The point being made is that attitudes like yours will kill the economy. Now you may not believe that, but you need to explain why. > > There will ALWAYS be a market for luxury goods, because the people at the top are always the last to suffer when an economy goes south. But suffer they will, eventually, because the middle class is our big economic driver. Are you REALLY content with seeing it disappear? IOW, at what point along the graph do you want to think about changing things? I’m thinking … not anytime soon. When I said lifeboat ethics had moved from liberal Malthusian thought to take up a new home in the halls of Capitalism, this is what I meant. Start with “fuck the poor, we can live without them” and you’ll know what you’re dealing with. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068/285 "2011-05-24T16:33:31Z")
> **[10 Countries With The Worst Income Inequality](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/10-countries-with-worst-income-inequality_n_865869)** > > 10 Countries With The Worst Income Inequality \ We are behind Chile, Mexico and Turkey. But I have faith we can beat them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-disparity-of-weath-distribution-destroy-america/578068.md?page=14)