Please respond to the poll before proceeding.



Now, I'm not sure that Booker's bolded assertion is accurate, but in truth, I haven't really seen any other reasonable explanations for the phenomena at hand.

Questions to explore:

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

2} If so, why is it a problem?

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

The poll is interesting. One thing to consider if you answered with option #2 is that if you make half as much as those around you, you'll be struggling to keep up with the cost of living that will be based on the average American's ability to pay.


1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

Yes. However, perhaps not for the same reasons as most. Consider the U.S. Manufacturing boom. My father was one of the last generation that truly benefited from this. At that time, blue collar workers could make very good wages and live a nice upper middle class existence. However, as more and more people made more money the costs of goods and services went up as well. This had a huge impact on the "have nots" in our society and it slowly caught up with my father's generation as well. Now, as my generation and many others often find ourselves not doing nearly as well as our parents we are struggling with the cost of living that is as high as it is, in part, because of the wages our parents once earned.

2} If so, why is it a problem?

When a minority of the population makes significantly less they struggle all the more because of the costs of goods and services which are determined, in part, by the average incomes (basic supply and demand).

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

None directly. Income redistribution simply doesn't work. We've tried it for generations and the problems still exist (though not quite to the same degree as decades ago). Downsizing the government and eliminating programs that haven't worked (in all areas not just this one) could go a long way to reducing the cost of government, which could reduce that burden on our lowest earners. However, that is assuming that the Congress would handle this newly available funding in a responsible manner that is in the interest of the public in general and not limited to their political backers (which I believe is highly unlikely).

side note: I often wonder what would happen if American wage earners took a 50% across the board pay cut. It would be hard at the beginning but it's possible that the costs of goods and services would fall as a result (supply and demand again). Of course there are real ramifications for people with this. For example, if the value of your home drops dramatically you'll still be stuck with the original mortgage. It is also hard to believe this would actually work when you consider the costs of goods and services haven't plummeted even though the average wage in America has. Also there is Congress, and the history of subsidies and the like which throws a monkey wrench into the situation as well.

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

I think mass commercialization is more to blame for discontent than inequality of income. People are happy if they feel comfortable and adequately compensated. They become unhappy when they compare themselves to their neighbors and can't afford what the Joneses have. That's kind of human nature. We become accustomed to comforts and luxuries...imagine for a moment being thrown back in time and into the shoes of some person of the nobility class (richest) during the middle ages. I don't think the poorest American today would be happy. No running water, no toilets, sharing the house with farm animals, no sanitation or hygiene to speack of, ect. We have become accustomed to running water as a necessity rather than a privilege and our expectations have changed accordingly. We aren't happy with anything less than the worldwide web at our fingertips, cable television, a functioning air condition and car to use whenever we like. If a person was taken from making a bare subsistence living in subsahara Africa and given a very impoverished American tenement they would likely be very happy indeed. On the other hand, an affluent person would probably be very unhappy in my home (which makes me very happy and most Americans would probably like very much).

Basically, we are a nation of spoiled brats. We want everything yesterday. Children want the toys they see on television and parents will happily pay for them on credit. A woman my mother-in-law worked with was stunned to be fired for charging 3000 dollars worth of toys on her business credit-card. She really felt entitled to do so at her employer's expense. My mom in law has worked with hundreds of people and told me that most of them feel this same sense of entitlement. And they all are in debt up to their eyeballs. They don't even know how much their own cars cost, only the payments month to month.

I read an article in Good Housekeeping a while back entitled "Money envy". It referenced one family that went from being the richest in a lower class neighborhood to the poorest in an upper class neighborhood. When they were poor, even with two children, they had managed to save a ton of money via frugality and bought this dream home. They were happy. The husband started making very good money and they joined the country club, made rich friends, sent the kids to expensive camps, yadda yadda....They began spending money like water trying to have everything the neighbors did (and growing increasingly discontent and miserable), and eventually found themselves six figures in credit-card debt with no way out.

For a personal anecdote, I was very very happy 12-13 years ago when I couldn't afford to buy a 15 dollar CD except on holidays and birthdays, lived in a 300 dollar a month studio with my husband, worked as an English teacher in downtown Korea, and had to walk to the laundrymat with a sack of clothes on my back. Today I would not like that lifestyle as I have become accustomed to "better". If I had to go back I probably wouldn't be as happy unless I readjusted my expectations accordingly.

2} If so, why is it a problem?

See above.

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

There is only one policy that I would change. I would address the issue of universal healthcare. No person in this country should have to go into debt because he/she or their children get sick. It might impact our military reenlistment, but that's not the way to get a person to serve his/her country.

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?
In and of itself, not dreadfully.

I've got a different read on this than most I suppose, though Mrs. P's factors play into my own concerns somewhat.

The focus on income inequality is currently mostly a case of political positioning.

Every wants to court the "middle class." Typically life isn't very hard for the middle class (except in ways like health care, where other options are never discussed widely) so focal points for discontent must be found.

The right chooses taxes, the left income inequality.

Both are old tricks in the populist toolbox.

Now just like taxes income inequality has the potential to be a problem, it could stoke discontent and anger at the "ultra"-rich (count the use of qualifiers in this thread as it goes on )...
..but that's rather unlikely.

I rather think it a shame the left has lost it's focus on the poor in order to garner votes, but it was inevitable I suppose.

What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?
Reform and improve public education and increase the numbers of students able to attend college.

It is a problem, significant? I'm not sure. Income inequality is really no different that any other inequality. I'm tall, my friends are shorter than I am. Is their height inequality a significant problem? Only if I put the beer too high for them to reach Mrs Pigpen addressed managing expectations which is a large part of the problem.

I put it this way. Poor people spend way too much time trying to look rich. You see this with kids, mostly. It's the 1994 Corolla rusting away to nothing with the exhaust cracked under the drivers seat with chrome, spinning hubcaps and a bra. Trust me that 150USD could have been better spent repairing the exhaust. The need to "look cool" however, won out. This also shows it's head in large flashy jewelry like earrings the size of license plates. Listen, no one should come to me for fashion advice, really, but I'm thinking when I see those earrings that that money probably could have been better spent or saved.

And there's the crux of income inequality. The poor, very concerned with making it day to day (or if they're lucky pay check to paycheck) don't save money. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty. When the bouncing ping pong balls don't suddenly drop a cool million in your lap you have to make a plan.

Which brings us back to my original point: Income inequality is no different than any other inequality. There's some comedian who's line is "You can't fix stupid." That's a little harsh but it gets to my point. There's a pretty good chance you won't be poor if you do the following.

Go to school. Complete High School, maybe even college.
Don't get arrested, ever.
Don't become a parent prematurely.
Don't become addicted, to anything.

If you can accomplish those 4 simple things your ability to stay out of poverty will be greatly increased. I'm not saying doing the above is going to make you a millionaire, I'm just saying it'll increase your chances of not being poor.

Well it's a talking point problem and a real problem if you've done all the right things and are still in the have nots. There are people who went to school, stayed out of trouble and are still in a cycle of poverty that they can't escape. For those people, and those who are doing all the right things to escape poverty (saving money, looking to get a better position, etc) and can't - the inequality is maddening and leaves them feeling hopeless. A desperate man is dangerous, a desperate man with nothing to lose is deadly.

It's to those people, the ones who haven't sabotaged their own lives, that the Government owes (that's right I said owes) a hand.

I'm not sure there's anything the government can do that it hasn't already tried. Education is number one. Get the kids early enough to get them to understand that education equals success. Not just monetary success. Don't teach them some Utopian world where people aren't graded - we all are, nearly constantly. Don't stigmatize vocational studies. (One of the things I like about shows like American Chopper is that it shows you that everyone's a genius at something.) I think if the US can get the educational system under control, away from the NEAs, unions (and don't freak out teachers I still think you need a union) and Department of Education and back into the the hands of Educators the US would stand a much better chance of making poverty a non issue.

When the US Educational system is consistently churning out people who can read and write and add and think through problems you'll see a sharp decline in poor people. Not every person has to be a professor, or scientist. A mechanic with some business acumen won't (likely) be poor.

The complaints over income inequality are related rather weakly to actual concern over poverty.

The primary cause of income inequality has been the skyrocketing income of a small percentage of the rich.

Poverty continues to decline.

It also continues to exist, which is a problem a bit removed from this debate.

I always say people run too early to the "bling" and "vocation" bandwagon because it's an intellectually easy one-two punch.

Translated: The poor are stupid and need to find jobs within their intelligence means.

Of course people don't really realize that's what they are typically arguing, but if you follow it to its logical end, that's about it.

Does that mean that people within vocations are stupid? Only in the collective subconscious of our classist society, but then why is vocational education an especially attractive solution for the children of the poor?

Think it through...

My understanding of the poverty rate is that is has been essentially flat since around 1970. It does not seem that the very poor are getting substantially wealthier as a group.

graph

I'll come back and make my argument about the slow growth in wealth for the middle class in this time period as well.

Fair enough, my point was there has been no serious rise in poverty that would cause income inequality.

The major point has been, as I said, a case of the rich getting richer, not anyone else getting poorer.

Frankly, that does not concern me. I'm all for combating poverty, I see little reason to combat wealth or lose our minds worrying about a middle class which can generally take care of itself.

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

I do. I think maldistribution of income can be a very serious problem very important themes of reasons. 1st I believe that democracy itself if part of a historical period that is directly related to the rise of a middle class between poor laborers and peasants and wealthy land based aristocrats. We are nearly entirely middle class by this definition today, if our economic interest tend to be spread farther and farther apart so to, I believe will our political interests.

Second, I believe that the American economy has ceased to be dependent on supply and has become quite dependent on demand. If a larger percentage of our national income continues to go to the top 5 and top .1 percent of our society, that money will turn into capital more and consumption less. This trend could create an unstable economy that will lead to a crash. As spoiled as we are, I believe our national prosperity is directly dependent on the increasing thirst for stuff (consumerism) that has a hold on American society. (But we could become more inspired consumers, more books less beef jerky)

2} If so, why is it a problem?

see above

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

First, I believe that income from investments should never be less taxed than income from labor and services. Capital should never be taxed at a lower rate than wages and salary. Also, I believed we have been duped as a society (quite effectively) into believing that we have a progressive tax structure. However when you factor in payroll taxes (taxed on the first dollar at 15% of wages and capped below $100,000 of income) and tax shelters and write-offs and strategies that allow those with the most wealth to pay less than it would appear they would based on the tax charts, and a low rate of taxation on capital gains compared to the tax on salaries I think the system is actually regressive for many.

So first I would roll the services we pay for from payroll taxes and pay them out of our national income tax system. This would hopefully help out small businesses and employees in removing these hidden costs from the price of employing people are being employed. It would also help those who are self-employed.

I believe a floor should be placed below which nothing is paid in taxes. After that point a flat rate would probably be sufficient (taxing all forms of income at that rate) to stem some of the distribution. Probably though, a stepped progressive structure would be required to stop the continued spreading apart of the layers of our middle class society.

I am not advocating the 40s or the 50s rates but if you look at economic production from those decades it would be hard to argue against a steep progressive tax rate as being beneficial for American society.

There, I've wandereded into the place that can be branded by neo-cons as class warfare.

The gist of your reform is to tax the wealthy back into the middle class and take that money to make the poor middle class?

Ahh, mediocrity isn't that what we all strive for? No, of course it isn't. There are already tax brackets that pay nothing BTW.

The real question is, who is this middle class? See I'm thinking I'm middle class but as it turns out I'm in the top like 3% of income earners - which is blipping ludicrous - trust me I'm not. Is 40K/PA middle class? 80K/PA middle class? 150K/PA? What is middle class? There are millionaires and billionaires amongst us. I ride the train with people who make 7 figures per annum! Same train - you'd hope that if you were making over a million per year you'd at least get a special train. Let me assure you (as I write from a spa in Palm Desert CA (I'm here on business and I work for a travel agency, that's how)) those people are pikers compared to the money down here!

So who is the middle class? Who are we saving?

When I see extreme wealth I don't wonder how they got it... I wonder how I could get it, and if I need it.

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

Income inequality is always significant problem in any country. Not just for economic reasons but also for social and cultural reasons. Look no further than the French Revolution for an example of what happens when an incredible amount of inequality is perpetuated in an oppressive system. What is important in a system that has income inequality is that people are able to improve their economic conditions without state impediment. If people have an equal opportunity to succeed and attain wealth, than the end result will not be the same as France 1789. In today's America, I do not think that income inequality is as big a problem as people are truly making it out to be. The gap between the rich and poor is very skewed due to many things such as an influx of illegal immigrants, the increase of out-of-wedlock families, and a transitioning global economy. Another problem is with the amount that the poor consume as was pointed out earlier. The poor do not save and they do not invest. Instead of investing their money in a secure financial venture such as treasury bonds, they spend it on material goods that may improve their leisure.

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

I apologize if I sound like the Ron Paul website, but cut taxes and stop spending billions on a foreign policy that only leads to failure. Put more money into the hands of the people and balance the budget by cutting spending. Furthermore, inflation is one of the biggest problems facing the nation's poor and most have no idea what it is. It decreases the value of money and causes prices to rise. People who are poor do not even realize they are being taxed. If the value of the currency goes up, prices will go down and they will be able to have more purchasing power.

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem? Nope. Just the opposite, in fact. It is a symptom of economic success, and is in fact the driving engine of capitalism. As has been pointed out by others here, income inequality is a 'problem' because it makes it harder to keep up with the Jones'. That then becomes the reason for the Smith's to seek ways to make more money. If that reason didn't exist, our economy would have no reason to grow. Let's consider the opposite for moment: pure income equality. If everyone made the same, what reason would there be for anyone to work harder, invent new things, become more productive, etc. etc. Such a situation has been a resounding and utter failure everywhere it has been tried. We shouldn't be complaining about income inequality...we should in fact be striving for it. It is a sign of a growing, vibrant economy.

For those examples cited of past social unrest...these were all caused when the rich got rich at the expense of the poor. That's not really possible in our economy. If the poor/middle class don't have the money to buy goods and services, then no one is going to get rich selling them. The rich can only get rich when there's lots of money around to spend. How much money would Bill Gates have right now if no one could afford computers? None...he'd be as broke as everyone else. Our democratic system would also prevent this. If the majority of people were being taken advantage of in such fashions, they'd vote people into office that would rectify the problem.

I'm not sure that social inequality, on it's own, is particularly a problem. No country has removed it entirely, although it's noticeable that Scandinavia has vastly lower levels of inequality than Anglo-Saxon economies, does have a redistributive taxation system, and yet somehow Scandinavian businesses manage to struggle by (poor Nokia - how much bigger they would be if it weren't for all that nasty anti-capitalist stuff *ahem*).

I think that lack of social mobility (on which the USA and UK score comparatively poorly) and lack of mixing between social groups (ghettoisation of the top - in gated communities, exclusive apartment blocks, etc - and bottom - in, well, ghettoes) are more of an enemy to social cohesion and the overall healthiness of society.

Social inequality may well be good for the economy - most people speaking up for it here have concentrated on that aspect - but, coupled with the other two factors I've mentioned, I think it is a deeply unhealthy thing for society as a whole, because ultimately it fragments that society completely. If you take away all links that the rich have with the poor, you end up ignoring them. That can be sustained for long periods, as history shows, but it always ends badly for the rich people doing the excluding (it's generally how revolutions start).

No. Every developing nation creates greater income inequality as income rises for all because the most productive and hard working people will always make more. And some people value their time more than just the pursuit of income.

?

It is not.



We have a steeply graduated income tax structure now. The top 50% of the income scale pays virtually all the taxes. How much more we can skew this is open for debate.

I applaud your thoughts on this one, but I think you're missing a mountain of information about our economy and why we are here today.

Frankly, in 1942 there weren't 100 choices for a hamburger in Boise Idaho. There weren't 25 autmotive shops, etc, etc, etc. It was definitely a supply driven market. Someone invented something that people might buy or produced the same, and whammo- people bought it.

Not the case at all today. The market and innovation come directly from consumer desire. My buddy just bought a Tundra that has a tire pressure sensor. Why? Because people don't like to check their tires. I'm sure that enough people said "Hey- Toyota, I don't like to get out in the heat of Texas summers to check my tires". Then Toyota said, Ford doesn't do this... we should. Whammo- tire sensors.

Why is this pertinent? Well, first of all a progressive tax for the top 1, 5, 10, or 15% statistically cannot and will not change the overall well being of the bottom 1, 5, 10, or 15% even if the income is redistributed.

Check this out. I like this link.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Ok, so let's just say we made the 35% tax bracket 40% for people that make $500K or more, 45% for people that make $1M or more, and finally 50% for those over $2M. Make sense? You're talking about a 15% swing. What happens? Under current IRS conditions, you end up with the people who make $2M or more finding brand new ways to hide money, find loopholes, and decrease taxable income. So, if I make $2M in true dollars, I open 10 real estate agencies across the nation that truly only break even. I keep my actual dollars. HOWEVER- I amortize and/or depreciate EVERY asset in the bldg's that I own. I don't plan to ever replace them. THEN I expense all the gas I ever use. Then I expense any meal that talks about houses, a % of my mortgage as office space, my condo in a couple of towns as "office space", my gas to get there and back, etc. Get the picture?

Business exemptions can be HUGE.

The point is that the people that get hurt by the progressive tax (and hell- the current tax structure) are people like me. People probably not unusual to this board.

Go back to the link. Neither my wife nor I make a ton of money seperately, although we do well. We're in the upper end of the 33% bracket. Can we afford "shelters"? Nope. Do we have golden chalaces to drink from and ruby slippers? No way. We have a decent house, a couple decent cars, and a HUGE IRS contribution. We paid in last year enough nearly to support a Dallas Teacher.

Neither of us came from money, and neither of us is rich. Why us?

What the progressive tax does is hurt the upwardly mobile. These people built America. The idea that if I work hard, if I can be educated, an entrepreneur, an innovator... I do better is what made us.

Taxation outside of a similar contribution as a % of income is basically socialism in action and absurd in a capitalist society. Tell me what the Founding Fathers and the people who Built America thought about income tax. You realize the federal first income tax levied in 1913 was 1-7%?
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

Seriously. The flat tax not only would change the overall taxation of the average American family, but also increase the tax base and wealth of a nation.

The poor would lose a few bucks, and the richest people in America couldn't find loopholes. Did I mention that the billions of dollars it takes to collect taxes would be shredded into oblivion?

Oh... one more piece. Sure, it's from Heritage but the sources are all linked. These aren't op ed pieces but facts y'all.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

From the opening post:

Over the 30 years prior to 2003, top-quintile earners saw their real incomes increase by two-thirds, versus a quarter for those in the middle quintile and a fifth among the bottom earners.

Real incomes for the bottom quintile, i.e. "the poor" increased 20% over the last 30 years.

Aevans I agree with most of the argument you post here. I believe that the country would be better off with a flat tax system than the one we have today. I agree that the problem with the high end is that there are loopholes and that those in the Upper Middle Class tend not to have enough wealth and revenue to use the tax breaks that are out there or afford the tax experts that have the expertise to get around the system. So they get hammered and they don;t have the political clout to get un-hammered. The best example of this is the Alternative Minimum Tax which is creeping downward rapidly from being the tax it was intended to be on the hyper-rich using loopholes to avoid taxation to one that is denying more and more middle income workers the recent tax cuts.

But we need to roll the payroll taxes into the system to get rid of those regressive taxes. And we need to stop distinguishing classes of income. Income based on capital should be considered the same income of a dollar of wages.

And I believe the nature of capitalism is to funnel wealth to the top of the scale. If our system does this I think it is fair to add a more progressive element to redress this. Otherwise we risk creating a neo-feudalistic society where the heirs of Sam Walton are the lords and the army of minimum wage employees are the serfs.

I don't agree that we weren't a consumer economy in the 40s.







Yet the measurement of poverty in the country remains about the same as it was when the gains against poverty ended right about the same time the war on poverty ended.

This is because the Temple of the Fed continues to increase the money supply and make inflation rise. The value of our currency has gone down dramatically and while this does benefit our exports, it is a tax on the poor and middle class Americans. Real wages may be up, but the prices of goods keep going up right along with it. If we did not print as much fiat money, the value of our currency would go up and we could afford to purchase more goods.

I hear your concerns, but I think it's mostly because most people don't understand how loopholes, predominantly business taxes work.

Let's use an example of what could happen with myself. My wife and I pay in the 33% tax bracket before deducts. Much of my income is bonus based (about 25%) so it gets hit pretty hard.

We've done the research. I've done some serious considering about taking the real estate online courses and exams in Texas, but not to sell houses regularly- to get the tax breaks. The courses, exam, and a business license would cost me about $1000 total. HOWEVER- I can write off the exam and the courses. THEN, my house is about 2000sq ft. If I used my office as a "home office", then I get to write off a % of my mortgage. That would amount to the % of the sq ft that the office occupies, so roughly $300/month. Then, I can write off any meals I buy in the company of someone that might be in the housing market in which I discuss business. This could be let's say 2x/week at $25. Then, all gas that's business related and usage of my truck that is applicable. Let's say we'll be conservative and say another $200/month. Internet service, my cell phone, etc all can be deducted. THEN, if I sell only a house or two annually, I get to keep the money but still show a loss on paper (not to mention depreciation of assets that I would've owned anyway, etc). I'd venture to state I'd have better than $10K in deducts without even trying to abuse the system.

Get my drift? If a working family has 2 jobs paying about what I make, they can't afford to drop the money or time on ventures like these. NONE THE LESS, I'm not RICH! People that make a couple times what we do have the time and money to find more lucrative loopholes.

A flat tax at 10-15% wouldn't give the rich anyway to hide money. Make it on all income. That includes wages earned, profit, and capital gains. The uber-rich right now also can hide money in other ways such as tax deferrment, etc. Where can people like you and I hide money? under the mattress I suppose.

Once again, I agree with this assessment and understand your point. I agree with you about positive effects and loopholes.
I would put a floor under a flat tax.

Yet I also believe that a progressive system still might be necessary. I am willing to go flat without loopholes and see how it works out first. (previous payroll tax and floor modifications applied to this)

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

2} If so, why is it a problem?

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?


1) I think this question looks at the issue from the wrong perspective. If there is freedom, there will be income inequality, as people are differently motivated. It is a truism. Therefore, your number 1 begs the question.

2) It's not, really. The only time income inequality becomes a real problem is when the underclass cannot improve its lot through the means available, i.e. hard work, acquiring new skills, etc. That said, we do hold out an unrealistic expectation, perpetrated by Madison Ave, that we can all be rich and well-to-do. We cannot. There is nothing wrong with living small, and we need to let people understand that any honest work is to be valued and not constantly pick at those who do a good days' work at a mundane job.

3) No policies should directly address this non-issue. What the govt should do is put the tools in place that allow motivated individuals to improve their lot in life. Access to schools and training is key here. (While we spend more per pupil on secondary education than any other nation, we do not necessarily get the results our spending suggests we should, but that is another thread.) If unmotivated individuals are unable to improve their lots in such circumstances, then they get what they deserve. Freedom comprises both the freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.

Obviously, those who are crippled or handicapped in some way will need special assistance and fall into a unique category.

How people forget the past...

the serfs top tax rate was 33% the lord could demand as much as 1/3 of the serfs products and labors

by the time you add federal, state, and local taxes and fees many people are paying well in excess of 33%

Nothing in my studies of history has ever shown a static level of rent obligations for the serf class. On top of having very limited freedoms, my understanding of serfdom, especially the type that reemertged in the east half of Europe after the 14th century, was that the level of obligations imposed by the lords steadily increased as the technological backwardness of the region held those countries back.

I remember being taught that the labor obligations of the serfs alone began to comprise four, five, and as many as six days a week of labor owed to the lord.

On top of this a landed estate was a "company" town from which the lord usually got a tax or fee or benefit from anything that happened.

I did find some sites that promoted this "you are worse off than a serf" perspective. They were anti-tax 20th and 21st century American sites. They were not produced by professional historians.

I briefly researched this and could find no definitive online source one way or the other.

There is one small difference: in medieval times, serfs had to remain serfs; today, people can move up the chain.

Yes, our taxes are obscene, but our govt spending is more obscene. Reel in govt, reel in taxes.

The general view among liberals is that economic inequality is socially undesirable because it makes people miserable

Baloney. The general view among liberals is that income inquality is a symptom that something has gone wrong with the economy, which has widely been supposed to result in moderately equitable results.

I don't join in this position. I think that disparities of income inequality are the normal and necessary result of the capitalist system (which I do not equate to the mere existence of markets, by the way). How wide these disparities are depends on how much power resides in the working class.

The starting point of progressive political activity can hardly be to wonder if it's a good thing when a few who do essentially no work have millions, while millions work their tails off for a pittance. If anyone is happy with the widespread prevalence of that outcome, they are either one of the privileged few, or a fool.

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

Yes.

2} If so, why is it a problem?

It is a symptom of an economic system which exploits the labor of many for the enrichment of the few. This can be ameliorated, but there is no way to eliminate it so long as power is principally held by those whose incomes derive from ownership, as opposed to labor.

The poor are poor because the rich are rich,
The rich are rich because the poor are poor,
It makes no difference which preceded which,
Where wealth is power, poverty is sure.


Or, as "Big Bill" Haywood said, "Show me a guy who has a million bucks, and I'll show you a million guys short of a buck."

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

Government is not an independent force in society. Under capitalism, government is to some significant degree "the committee of the ruling class." As such, its principal concern is to ensure the continued enrichment of those already possessing money and power.

Since the 19th century, the working class has had its ups and downs, but in general, enjoyed more power during during the middle 20th century than before or since. During that time, the high degree of organization among the workers translated into relatively better outcomes in the labor market and better policies from government, notably Social Security and the minimum wage. Not by coincidence, this was also an era of comparatively reduced income inequality. With the decay of the organization of the working class that has proceeded from economic developments and political events since 1970 or so, less market and political power has been in the hands of the working people, and the exploitation of man by man has proceeded apace. A consequence of this is that levels of equality characteristic of the era of the robber barons have re-emerged.

So it is somewhat idle to ask what government policies are necessary, when what is necessary is to reorganize the working class. Highly desirable now would be policies that made it easier to organize unions. But a union is a fundamentally subversive institution, and it would be a mistake if labor organization always proceeded in strict obedience to rules rigged by the owners.

Ultimately only the radical separation of the wealthy from the basis of their power, their ownership of the means of production, is capable of ensuring a tolerable economic outcome for the vast majority. This does not mean the end of private property, nor does it necessarily imply the end of the market system, the destruction of which was a characteristic and ultimately fatal Soviet mistake. But it does imply the eventual diminishment of equity markets, as more social capital is owned socially. The meaning of "ownership" changes in that context, of course.

Government will continue to be the "committee of the ruling class." The question is, which class?

Maybe I ought ask if I (or someone) can teach a class on the history of the US economy, and why ownership as opposed to labor = income.

The fact of the matter in the US is that a large portion of the rich people came from entreprenurial ventures. Here are the top 5 richest Americans.
1. Bill Gates- remember who started this company? Oh yeah, he and his friends.
2. Warren Buffet- began buying and selling stock at 11
3. Sheldon Adelson- dad was a cab driver
4. Lawrence Ellison- didn't even finish college
5. Paul Allen- did we mention Microsoft?

No Rockefellers. No Kennedys. If labor paid as ownership did, why would anyone invent? Why would anyone stick their necks out for a start up? Why would anyone leave the comfort of their company to work from their garage and start a company (i.e. 1/2 the large companies in the US!)?

If I can pack boxes for Dell, why on earth should I learn to program computers?

Wealth will always be power. This is true in the US, China, or the rainforests of Costa Rica. Socialists and liberals should learn to live with it.

Well, the fact is that in spite of these "entrepreneurial" examples, most wealth in this country is inherited.

Second, you mistake the wealth that these people enjoy for the product of their labor.

As for those who speculated in financial assets:

Returns to holding such an asset, and hence the stream over time of holding any given portfolio of assets, are widely understood to be a random walk (the product of Brownian motion). Under such a regime, a small portion of those who speculate in assets will eventually emerge as billionaires (why don't they eventually lose their money? Because they stop speculating.) This may be wonderful for them, but it hardly demonstrates "entrepreneurship."

Also, financial speculation is a zero sum game. For every speculator who makes a billion, there are a billion dollars of losses on various balance sheets around the country, and numerous bankrupt, less lucky speculators.

As for those slightly more legitimate "entrepreneurs" such as Bill Gates, a good case can be made that as technical advances occur, opportunities for making vast sums are there for early takers. That these opportunities fall to some is not evidence of their creative powers. I am sure that Bill Gates is an imaginative man, but really, IBM needed an operating system for its PC, and they decided to contract it out, you know? Someone had to win that contract, and considering what happened to the PC afterward, the rest of Gates's fortune was largely implicit in that. If Gates hadn't been there, someone else would have.




You are mistaken that most technical progress comes from lowly inventors. How did we invent the atom bomb and nuclear power, for example? How do we invent new drugs? Nor, contrary to appearances, was most of what we understand about computers contributed by people working in their garages.

These days, large teams of people work together to produce most key technical advances. They work for salaries, of course, and under a socialist system they would still do so. It is only that the money would be put up by the public or by organized industry, not by private owners.

But in any case, I am not against rewarding creativity, which is a form of labor -- only against giving people claims to income based on how much wealth they own.

Your programming example is a rather bad one, considering that most or many of the world's most important software was designed by people working for salaries, or working for nothing at all?



China is no example of a socialist society. But yes, I fully agree that wealth will always be power. That's why for democracy's sake, we shouldn't allow great wealth to become conctrated in a few hands. That is precisely why socialism would be a good thing. But, as I have said, socialism won't come about by arguing about it, only by increased organization of the working class.

What socialists should do is for us socialists to decide, eh? But at least dumping Bush and getting a fairly progressive Democrat into power would be a first step. As for the liberals, I can only hope that they will eventually become socialists.

No one's labor in the United States is exploited. Consider many of the usually cited examples of this, such as automobile manufacturing or steel making. You can't make the wages these people make and be considered 'exploited' in any definition of the term. Further, each and every one of them is free to find a better job any time. Why don't they? Because they can't find a better job, indicating the one they have is the best. How can having the best job available be considered being exploited? How, in our system, can one not have the best job available? Anyone is free to quit at any time, to move to a new market, even. Anyone who doesn't chose not to do so--meaning they decided the job they had was the best available. Having the best job available is hardly being exploited.



This is also a false analogy. A more accurate phrase would be "Show me a guy who has a million bucks, and I'll show you someone who provided one million dollars worth of productivity." No one has to lose in this equation. Consider the example earlier of Bill Gates and Microsoft. Microsoft created thousands of millionair employees, and also provided beneficial software to millions and millions of people. Bill Gates won, his employees won, and those who purchased his product won (or else they would have decided to purchase something else). No one is short those millions at all in this scenario.



Why? Unions are primarily responsible for the outsourcing of jobs so prevalent today, as their tilting of the labor market has created an incentive for employers to seek labor elsewhere. If one is paid more than his labor value dictates, then that labor need will ultimately be satisfied somewhere else. I'm not sure how workers have benefited from that.



Not true. In fact, by definition, the vast majority have a tolerable economic outcome. If they did not find their current situation tolerable, they would stop providing their services for it. There's not one single person posting or reading on this board, at least here within the US or Europe, that couldn't switch jobs if they chose to do so. Therefore, everyone here clearly finds their situation tolerable, or they would switch to a better job. No one here ever need think "I can't tolerate this anymore" without immediately submitting one's resignation, and finding a different job. Not necessarily their ideal job, but a 'more tolerable' one certainly. No one is ever guarenteed their ideal job, although capitalism is certainly geared to provide it, as in capitalism any job one is most suited to should that which you would provide the most value to, and thereby by paid the most for.

Yes and the “teams” are usually well paid and have good working conditions. Many have “stock options” as well and do one hell of a lot better than their counterparts in any Socialist society that ever existed on earth – or is likely to.



The idea that the government (public as you say) could put up money and organize the creation of the types of products and services we have today is an illusion. The millions of decisions needed to bring a new drug, computer, car etc. to market cannot be made by any group of bureaucrats sitting in DC or anywhere else. The premise is just not workable – this is why the SU literally developed no drugs for example, and had few “consumer goods”.

The bureaucrats in the SU could never even figure out how much toilet paper to make and as a result few people could get any! People spent hours a day waiting in line at stores to get poor quality, ill fitting cloths and goods.

This failed system will never happen here – ever.

Great idea. Because the wealth and comfort in the United States was created by raging socialists. Your ability to type whatever absurd thoughts you'd like came directly from Socialists.

Socialism rewards what again? Nothing. That's right. You can be fat and lazy, and receive the same as someone who works their fingers to the bone. Remember how well it's worked as a system to date?
OOPS- I forgot. Not one real success story. Not even marginal success.

The fact, Vladimir, is that most ALL major production in the United States began with small business. Ford? Yep- start up company. Boeing? Microsoft? Start ups. All "garage" companies. Maybe in small buildings, basements, or whatever. All start ups.

Look at the Fortune 500 companies. Heck- take the top 10. Walmart, Exxon, GM, Chevron, Conoco, GE, Ford, Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG. Who in that 10 was established by the government? Which of those companies weren't, at some point, started by entrepreneurs? I'll help you with that. None.

We'll use Walmart as an example. He started in retail with JC Penney, and eventually opened his own five and dime. Sam Walton, guess what?, started his own business with his own money. Now it's one of the largest employers in the world.

Your idea that working "FOR" someone is better isn't always going to ring true. If that were the case, there would be no one to work "FOR".

Give me a company. I'll give you a "start up" story. Go ahead. Good luck.

Good point – and then we could look at any Socialist “workers paradise” and see if we can find great products designed and built there.

Ok lets go – cars – no, TVs – no, consumer goods in general well no. Drugs – none. How about weapons – some and many copied from the west.

How about houses for everyone? Well no – just big ugly buildings with people packed in. Some paradise.

And if you didn’t like it you could protest – and get shot.

The fact is, generally the only people who believe in Socialism are people who never worked for say the Post Office or the Gas Company (monopoly) and then a typical corporation – so that could see the difference.

AEVANS


How about the military branch of our government. Is it successful? I guess the military is just full of fat, lazy people. Let's see.

Free medical for member and family members: check
Free housing: check
Tiered structured pay system: Check
Food allowance: Check
Paid by need (i.e. a married e-4 get a little more money than a single e-4): Check
Work for profits: X

Our own little socialist dictatorship. yet surprise surprise people still excel... who'd have thunked it.

The fact is capitalist nations such as ourselves depend on oppressive behavior of foreign governments and socialist ideas threaten our way of life. Why do you think we battle it in every clime and place?? Because if people aren't there for us to exploit where would corporation go to outsource the work.

That is why we still embargo Cuba. Cuba socialist revolution has no real effect on us, but the socialist idea of equality would have a dominoe effect on nations in central and south america.

The question is if Socialism is such a failure than why do we fear it enough to go to war. After all if we just leave it alone... it'll fail right

1} Do you think income inequality in America (or Canada, the UK, Denmark, i.e. the First World) is a significant problem?

2} If so, why is it a problem?

3} What gov't policies should be pursued to redress income inequality?

Good Lawd, if we're looking to Ford Motor Co. and Microsoft as our shining examples of innovative product development, we're screwed. Ellison didn't invent the relational database either. All Ford did was create the mind-numbing factory job that automation has taken over, and Gates resold an OS developed by someone else. He programs in BASIC for criminy sake. Hint: Get a compiler.

Out of curiosity, what's the second world?

Anyway, I don't mind if the CEO makes a bajillion times more . I do mind when the CEO outsources my job to somebody overseas or down in S. America. I don't mind if my job is cut for whatever reason, but I do mind when innovation does not create enough new jobs.

Government could fund R&D for innovation. Not the one we have now, but maybe off in the future. However, a crisis has to happen first to motivate change. Enough standards of living need to take dives. Maybe that's happened, it's hard to tell with the bogus economic info out there.

So okay capitalism, would you please start working? How's about doing something dramatic like developing alternative energy. We're getting tired of the same old song & dance routine. We know you think you're beautiful, but we can't help noticing that you're drunk (with power) and sucking on a crack pipe (kinda kidding, you look bad).

Don't forget.... I'm a vet.
Know what else? There are missing elements of your argument... well, mostly starting with the argument.

The military is a government supported service to the people, to the nation. It's necessary, but not socialist. It doesn't present sustaining income or goods with the workers earning the same. Oh- I just made a POINT!

Socialism requires income equality. Wanna know something great? A Colonel makes numerous times what a Private does. A Cpt makes more than a Sgt. Get it? Your notion about a tiered pay structure is ridiculous. It missed the idea of socialism completely.



EQUAL distribution of wealth.

Furthermore, the military doesn't produce wealth or goods that provide sustenance for the nation or its people. What you're suggesting is that people all should live in government housing, have uniforms issued instead of clothing, etc.

Funny thing is that in the military, people still drive cars. People still get paid differently based upon education and performance. People still own material wealth (don't have to live on base, etc). It's not socialism really at all. The "rank and file" society that you discuss is most prevalent in the military. The politics is as thick or thicker than any office I've ever worked in or been to.

When I got out of OCS and was assigned to NAS JRB in Ft Worth, they nearly explicitly told us not to hang out with our NCO's. We do it anyway, but think about it... there is an Enlisted Men's club and an Officer's club. Is that anywhere close to equality?

Ever been on a military installation Droop? Where do the officer's live? In bigger houses, on the nicer side of base.

Funny enough, in the company I work for, I have people that work for ME that live in better houses and drive better cars. Earlier in my career, I had sales people that worked for me that even made as much/more money. That's NEVER true in the military. It's a class-structure beyond structures.

If I go to have a beer or go to lunch with one of my sales guys/gals (which happens often), no one cares. Sometimes I even put it on the company card. If I go into the O club on any base or Army post nationwide, I can walk right in, while a Sgt can't. Guess we'll have to sneak off post to have that beer.... equality alright.

OH, OH... and what else? Remember that pilots get flight pay. You can't even argue that people in the same pay grade are paid the same. Furthermore, what about Spc's in the Army and Cpl's in the Corp? A Cpl can live in NCO housing, while a Spc can't? I could go on for days...

Oh, and did I mention that what you're advocating is that the janitor and the CEO of companies live in the same type of house? Make the same money? Drive the same car? (or don't have one?)

Again- socialism has never worked. It's never even been successfully implemented. Go for it... another example please?

I guess people in Soviet Union didn't have TVs (or were they all Western-built? ), did not have ANY cars. We already went through toilet paper and clothing in another thread. And yeah, of course, the most popular automatic weapon in the world is not AK-47, designed and manufactured in USSR...

And don't forget, some of the most famous medical and scientific discoveries and advances were made by "socialist workers". Check out the Nobel Prize list for the past 80 years...

And, aevans, even in the most hard-core "socialist societies" such as Cuba, USSR, etc. there's never an equal pay. A better factory worker always gets more, be it in USSR or United States. My grandfather was working at Quality Control at the factory in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad), he was telling me of some guy who was making 800 roubles a month after all the incentives (my father's salary was 150 roubles and my mom's was 120 per month). So, what is your point? Insentives to work better existed ALWAYS, even in socialist societies. I think you're mixing up Socialism and Communism, really....

Remember which scientific discoveries and medical advances? Compare them to capitalist societies. It's sincerely a pennance.

If people in the USSR made more, that's not equal pay. Equal compensation is at the heart of socialism. What you're saying is that the USSR, and even Cuba, weren't pure socialist societies.

Furthermore, one of those two nations is still 3rd world and the other reverted to a pseud-capitalism in order to survive. Not really good examples.

I'm not mixing up socialism and communism, but I believe that rather you are.

Here's a good definition of communism:


Another for socialism:


I won't go into the differences, as that would take an hour. However- the basic difference resides in equal distribution of wealth. Communism doesn't necessarily rely on this notion, and in the USSR and Cuba, there are and were very stark contrasts in wealth. Privatization can be argued to have caused more issues, but that's basically because of the instability of the Russian economy and it's governmental intervention into what should've been open markets.

The basic statement that I'd like to make about this situation is simply that income inequality in a capitalist society hasn't ever been proven to be beaten by a "wannabe" socialist/communist society. Neither has communism been able to spurn relative wealth. Poverty in pre-and post communist Russia is and was rampant, and Cuba is as bad or worse.

We don't even want to discuss N Korea or China.

Certainly the small “incentives” you discuss were meaningless on any scale that makes a difference. In the “they pretend they pay us, and we pretend we work” society inefficiency was the order of the day. No consumer goods, no toilet paper, no private homes (Party Leaders only), long lines to get any products, pollution, injustice, the KGB.

You CANNOT run a society and make the billions of decisions small and large business make every day from a bunch of buildings in Moscow. Not only was there little real freedom there but people had nothing compared to the west. They could not even harvest crops at times because the badly made machines to do so were broken and there were no parts. So they would force millions to move to the country and do it by hand and still the crop output was a fraction of what it should have been.

You cannot make an argument that Socialism as it has been practiced anywhere can light a candle to capitalism. The stark difference between East and West Germany that we saw in 1990 is a perfect example. The West side modern and prosperous and the East a polluted disaster with factories that had to be torn down and rebuilt.

Socialism has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried. Time to leave it to the dust bin of history.


Sure there were smart people in Russia but they were stifled by layers of bureaucracy and a sick system that did not allow them the freedom to really make a difference.

Actually I was one of people who replied that I want to make $50K if my neighbors are making $25K.
My reply had actully been based on cost of living calculations.
If my neighbors are making $25K, that means that it is possible to live on $25K - the price of the "consumer basket" is lower.
If all my neighbors are making $200K, then the prices will correspond to the income level of the majority of residents. Money is only worth something when you can purchase goods on it. $60K in Connecticut is much more than $90K in Manhattan.



Define "small". The six-fold salary difference is meaningless?
And please, stop the nonsence about toilet paper. Also, no private homes? You are only partially right... since private homes were allowed in towns with population of 10,000 or smaller I believe. So, all rural residents owned their own homes.

And how many people got that level of “incentive”? Not many and then exactly what could he do with it? Could he invest it in a business that “did it better” than the dump he worked at? Could he buy a car, a TV, or any of the thousands of thing we take for granted here? Of course not – and if he was told to pack up for a trip to the country to pick crops he was gone.

And the toilet paper example is perfect because it shows how poorly the Russian economy met the peoples needs. Some moron in Moscow decided you had one sheet per and they had other priorities.

I remember seeing filthy disgusting housing the coal miners lived in – most without even doors – and when they had riots the government would “fly in” consumer goods from the west to shut them up for a while.

We have friends who came from Russia and there is nothing you can tell me about the disgusting system there to justify it.

Have you seen the movies Citizen X or The Lives of Others?

Do you really expect me respect my opponent (read: you) if you don't provide any respect to yours? Why do you think the factory my grandfather was working at was a "dump"?



He had a car, so apparently he could.




My family had a TV at a salary that was much smaller than his, so I can only assume that he could, too.




800 roubles can go a long way. Don't forget, EVERYTHING was available at the black market, which is at some way is equivalent of a free market system. So, the answer is yes... the guy could afford many things.



Fascinating read, but has nothing to do with truth.
Enough. If you feel the need to justify your positions and opinions with made-up facts and fantasies, be my guest.

This is not about “respect” for your grandfather or anyone else. No direspect was intended sir. It is well known that the factories in East Germany were old outmoded and poorly run and maintained – that is why the east tore most of them down. The Russian economy I general was a disaster.



Nice to know you family there was part of the privileged few. Most did not have cars and TV. One woman I know from East Germany told me they had so little that at Christmas they exchanged a piece of fruit (like a banana) as a gift. The standard of living in Russia, black market or not was close to Third World.

The shortage of toilet paper (and most consumer goods) is well documented by people who lived there. Two friends, (psychologists) – went to a meeting in Moscow in 1988 and were clearly told to bring toilet paper. They reported the shortage and told stories of restaurants with a table outside the restroom with single sheets – you were allowed to take one.

Apparently your family had the money and resources to buy on the black market many of there things. Most Russians didn’t.


During our Fulbright orientation session for Romania in 1983, we had been warned about the difficulty of finding many of the basic consumer commodities to which we had become accustomed. In order to cope with the absence of fresh green vegetables during the long winter, we arrived with several kilograms of alfalfa seeds, which made Romanian customs officials suspicious but allowed us (and others) to eat fresh sprouts all winter. In order to make sure we had enough toilet paper to last the year, we ordered a box of 100 rolls of Scott tissue in the first of our three orders to Peter Justesen that the U.S. Embassy allowed us during our time there.
We split that order with two other Fulbright households in Bucharest and we never ran short.
It wasn’t that our bums were too delicate for the coarse Romanian toilet paper. It’s just that the latter was rarely available.
Public toilets were never stocked with paper
. Instead, you paid a small fee to the attendant at the entrance, and received in return a few inadequate squares of paper to use

http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2007/08/1...et-paper-tales/



Watch the movies Have you seen the movies Citizen X or The Lives of Others if you want to see Russia pre 1990.