![inequality_3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nKkLfmx.jpg "inequality_3[1].jpg")
Why is wealth inequality a bad thing? I always see people talking about "muh 1%" but I've never seen anyone say why It's bad.
Because they believe some people having so much more than others is unfair.
If you have so much money, the decisions you make influence a lot of people. Therefore if you're a dumb asshole who got lucky like most of the one percenters (especially since most of them were born into it), you might have a very bad influence on a lot of people by making shit decisions.
WE HAVE COVERED THIS 1,000,000 TIMES
>>1127313
Agreed. Rich people are evil as fuck. Most of them inherited their money too.
It would be fine to be poor, AND safe. If the poor could buy regular food, live in a shitty home but at least pay for it, have a phone, have a decent paycheck that pays for necessities like insurance, bills and health (not the best but at least you get checkups). Poor clearly means no Lexus cars, 2nd floor homes, multiple cars, new electronics every year, trendy food and clothes. Just basics, then being poor would be fine, but only IF being poor was safe.
However, being poor isn't safe at all. Things cost too much, and they're always at risk for some shit or another because of that. If they're at risk, social programs cover it bc we don't want a 2nd depression to hit us. So then that danger gets carried to the taxpayers through welfare of emergency room bills.
To cover the safety nets, the taxpayers have to pay more to cover it. When it comes to taxes 20% to someone earning $30K a year is a lot compared to someone earning $300K a year bc we're buying the same essential things more or less (insurance, healthcare, phones, food).
So why people are mad the super rich is bc the basic paycheck hasn't increased at all in the last 30 years, BUT the price of things has gone up. To keep up we're working more and taking loans. We word more = more health issues = less ability to work = more use of safety nets.
If the top decided to work better and pay more, honestly not a lot I'm not asking for a $300K salary for everyone. Look at In N Out or WinCo, they're people get paid $12-$20 and they WELL OFF, then things would be fine. But this isn't the case for like 99% of companies.
It's the super simple gist of it, but here you go.
>>1127307
Wealth inequality isn't bad in itself, so long as it's at a reasonable level it's actually a good thing. People start getting mad when 90% of people haven't seen a pay rise in 30 years while the top 10% have been making twice what they did 10 years ago for those same 30 years.
Now, contrary to popular conception, this anger isn't about there being wealth inequality. This is a strawman, since people just want to share in the gains - they don't mind being poor as much as they mind feeling like they're getting poorer. Because they are, in a relative sense.
>>1127374
>However, being poor isn't safe at all. Things cost too much, and they're always at risk for some shit or another because of that.
Like what, you entitled shit?
I compared my eastern Europe country with USA once. Food and utilities cost the same, clothing is cheaper, rent costs proportionally less in US, yet average household income is 5-8 times less here.
How do you people fail to survive with 1000$/month is fucking beyond me. Are you aware that 100$ telephone and 100$ cable bills, iPhones and no roommates living aren't necessary for survival?
Seriously, unless you are unemployable and homeless USA is one of the best places (after welfare teat countries) to be poor in.
Someone could die of poverty, while greedy riches are choosing what to buy
>>1127325
You're very misinformed. With the rise of technology and globalization the number of truly wealthy people in the world created their own wealth and outnumber people who inherited their wealth by more than half and it continues to increase.
>>1127307
It isn't inherently a bad thing, but I guess the reasons for this are mystery and class warfare.
Mystery because the average worker cannot wrap his head around the idea of somebody making money without """working""". In public discussions about this you often see rhetoric about "hard work" and are given examples of cashiers, fast food workers, janitors etc. It is interesting to note how physical labor is the measure of economic worth for these people and how this mindset extends well into the middle class these days. Making money with something not tangible is mysterious and therefore suspicious - take a look at analysts, financial advisors, strategists and everyone dealing with stock exchanges. Those people just sit in chairs all day, not moving any heavy objects and claiming to make money with thoughts - put them away with their devilish inventions!
The other one is more obvious and it's class warfare and personal greed. If we just removed those greedy 1%, their entire money (that they all store in cash under their bed - remember, the average man thinks in crude physical terms) would belong to us now! All those billions upon billions, split up among the hard working people. Everyone of us would get around 500 dollars. Finally we would be free.
>>1127307
It's not bad for a tiny subset of people to have, effectively, _all_ of the money and property?
>>1127440
This is a naive and poorly thought out argument. No one in the middle or lower classes equates work purely with physical labor. The more sophisticated argument is whether or not there is any economic justification for the wages or income of the top 1%. It's fairly clear to see that adding an assembly line worker could produce X more units and Y more revenue to a company and thus justify his salary, but a CEO manages and makes long term decisions with so many variables that it's impossible to untangle his input. When the common worker looks at his salary and stock options, almost always set by a remuneration board composed of other CEOs, and sees it can be several hundred times his salary, he has reason to think it's more the result of a boy's club and less of a well functioning market.
Because most of the wealth inequality in the US is a product of corporate welfare and tax advantages directed towards the wealthy rather than being the result of a purely meritocratic system
>>1127459
I have not made an argument; I laid out the two main reasons why many people think of wealth inequality as a problem. The rest of your post is empty rhetoric that I will ignore.
>>1127307
Gee, what could go wrong with rampant centralization?
Inequality isn't the bad thing, it's the excessive inequality that threatens to lock bottom classes into inescapable shittiness enforced by authoritarianism. The fear of "inequality" is the same as the fear of forced egalitarianism, the fear of degeneracy of mankind due to inept/indifferent dictatorship.
>>1127472
Would you break down corporate welfare entirely?
Wouldn't that subject upstart entrepreneurs further into the whims of already established power players?
>>1127440
>>1127459
Not an expert here. But you both have points.
I agree that MOST of your dumbfuck americans (i am american too) or really morons around the globe are going to work manual labor or jobs like cashiers, janitors, etc... And you're right, our society tells us to hate the 1% for what they have. There is also the notion like you said that "if we got rid of them WE would all be rich" and as you already stated the side effects would be negligible.
I personally believe that our society, culture, and economy are all fundamentally flawed. Our society tells us that we're all going to be rockstars, we're all going to be dentists and lawyers and stock traders. Our cultures tells us to disassociate ourselves with 'fuck-ups' and failures (basically any blue collar job). Today our culture tells us that if you AREN'T a stock broker or a Doctor or a lawyer, that's because you're stupid and lazy and you deserve that job.
The issue with this is that based on the numbers, we just simply CAN'T all be dentists and bankers. If I have a small town of a thousand people. There are ALWAYS going to be more cashiers and janitors than there going to be Doctors, etc... That's just how the cards fall. So in a system that's going to inevitably produce that result, why do we condition kids to assume people are fuck ups for NOT being the mathematical exception?
Black American culture is even worse. They pretty much ONLY idolize Rappers, singers, athletes, and criminals. Your odds of becoming a successful rapper or NFL player are retarded. So they resort to the crime and drug dealing idolized in the music of their culture. Then they blame the system for jailing them up because they wanted to get rich for pretty much no work.
Truly successful people typically have some spark of intellect and/or the ability to grind and work their ass off in some combination of quantities. The reason for the 1% is because few people are smart enough and few people work hard enough to get ther
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQi6xJ3-7l4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Inequality
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0
PRE-ORDER THIS FUCKING BOOK
http://www.amazon.com/Equal-Is-Unfair-Misguided-Inequality/dp/125008444X
>>1127513
Nice shilling, faggot.
Now I'm gonna keep pirating it until your client goes bankrupt.
How does compound interest work?
A larger and larger portion of wealth will continually be accumulated in a smaller amount of hands. In the early stages this might not be a problem but over the long run placing more control in fewer hands will probably cause efficiency problems and cause any system to crumble.
>A distinguishing feature of a system with centralized control is a high degree of rigidity of the structure, because adaptation, to both random changes and changes caused by the evolution of the system and of the environment, does not take place in the individual parts of the system but only in the central control point. Centralized control permits stabilization of a system over a long period, suppressing both fluctuations and evolutional changes in the individual parts of the system without reconstructing them. However, in the final analysis, this may be damaging to the system because contradictions between the unchanged structure of a system with changes associated with evolution increase to global dimensions and may require such a radical and sharp reconstruction as would be impossible within the framework of the given structure and would lead to its disintegration.
>>1127516
kek
also,
>he doesn't respect IP
literally a thief
>>1127544
It's funny that we lock up thieves but give bankers who fleece the public purse hundreds of millions, no?
>>1127307
Okay you have the GDP and wealth inequality.
>If GDP increases and inequality stays the same everyone gets richer by the same percentage.
>If inequality increases and GDP stays the same the rich get richer, the poor get poorer
>If inequality increases and GDP increases the rich get richer and the poor stay the same
See why increasing inequality might be bad?
>>1127546
>implying that means you should flout the law
>implying you would be correct in doing so
>implying it will not be theft if a million people do it
>>1127532
>10% interest
bulllshit
>>1127554
>strawman.jpg
if you want to critisize the book, at least read it first.
Here's a thought.
What would happen if you were only allowed to be rich to a certain amount by law.
You could only have 10mil, not more. If you got more, the rest would go to people that didn't have money. Obviously you would first steer your money to own family members but after that it would go again to poorer people.
I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm just too lazy to think into this.
>>1127584
Everythin that's worth more than couple tens of millions would be hard to build. You want to build a new tower in manhattan? You better pool hundreds of investors and good luck with the management.
Or do you mean companies can have more? So I can have 100$ in my pocket but have 50% share in a billion dollar company? Anyways it seems like it has a lot of holes.
>>1127584
It gets rid of innovation because people see a ceiling. People who produce above that are punished, and they try to minimize their loss, which results in lower production.
>>1127388
Bottom line: If you're poor in the US, you're fucking retarded.
>>1127590
I meant more like, companies could have money but if the company would be worth 1bil, you could only own as many % as 10mil.
If the company vaule would go up by 10%, then you wouls have to sell and spend 1mil during that year or some bullshit.
>>1127591
Would it really if companies would grow but you yourself could only have 10mil.
I mean wouls you stop working on something you enjoy only because you had 10mil?
>>1127516
>pirating a book you were never going to buy
Nice business acumen,faggot
I think that people are too focused on the idea of either the lazy welfare queen or alternatively the inheritance of a billion dollar fortune to actually see the problems with both a truly egalitarian society and one with ridiculous levels of inequality. The problem with having so much money and influence in the hands of a few is that they can work the system to increase their relative power and wealth at the loss of others. Look at Shillary's campaign for instance, having millions of dollars thrown at you so you will represent interests ultimately leads to a less efficient society as governments pander to the corporations. Alternatively the perfectly egalitarian society lacks incentives to innovate as you all have alluded to. Inequality with social mobility is okay but entrenched disadvantage makes the whole system worse.
>>1127607
that happens only when the government dips its grubby fingers in the economy by force
>>1127599
>Would it really if companies would grow but you yourself could only have 10mil.
Yes.
>I mean wouls you stop working on something you enjoy only because you had 10mil?
Yes, because you see a ceiling. People who are comfortable with 1 million aren't the people who make 10 mil. And the richest people in the world are in for it for the money. Buffett is in for the money, Gates is in for the money, Eric Schmidt is in for the money. They do it because it makes them rich, not because they like the job (not that they'd do something they dislike for money). Their primary incentive is to make money, and make more from that. And while doing so they set up industries and stuff. And this runs the economy. When the governemnt interferes with force in the market (ie taxes, bs regulations) it complicates the process for EVERYONE and makes it harder for the smaller producer and not the larger ones to earn money. It gets rid of starting incentive and makes it hard to start a new company because every investor is worried that everyone's gnna shell mediocre products because there's a ceiling.
Also, an income cap directly corresponds to a profit cap.
>>1127307
Because it leads to a misallocation of resources and lower standard of living for those who are poor.
>>1127307
If the difference between poor and rich was only a few orders of magnitude, it would be one thing.
Its bad because it deprives the poor of the basic resources needed to be happy, it causes poor people to unnecessarily suffer. And anyone who grew up around very rich people knows that unless you raise your kids very strictly it makes the rich people suffer from being spoiled their whole life.
Basically its wellbeing and suffering, in most cases, being really rich doesnt do much for your wellbeing, while beings poor really makes you suffer
>>1127563
I did. That's why it's so much bullshit. You completely missed the point of the comic. What would capital "produce" without labor? Answer: jack fucking shit.
>>1127325
Only 20% of millionaires inherited their money Uncle Fagson. Don't be mad at people because they are more successful than you.
People want to be able to buy cheap shit. In order to offer cheap shit, you need cheap labor. In order to have cheap labor, you need poor people.
If everyone was willing to spend $40 on a T-shirt, wealth inequality would be solved. But fatty mc fucktits wants to go shopping every week at walmart to buy a bunch of cheap shit he doesn't need, and that's why we have wealth inequality. You want change? Vote with your wallet. Whining about income inequality is just them wanting to be handed a higher income for their zero-skills, zero-intelligence, on-the-phone-the-whole-time "labor".
As someone who grew up in grinding poverty--anyone with the slightest intelligence can easily get out.
>>1127388
I agree with you, anon. I am American, live in an expensive state on the east coast, and spend less than 10k a year. I live comfy. Top quality food, buy things for myself now and then, shit's great. "Poor" people here just throw their money in the trash because they're goddamned fucking morons, and are usually lazy and/or have a drug problem.
>>1127516
>if I pirate 1000 copies, that's 1000 copies they didn't sell, and at $20/book, that's $20,000 I just made
You wouldn't download a car?
>>1127760
Evidently, you did not. It took them a decade to set everything up, and they had to fly in machines and stuff to repair the land. Also, it was a private resort owned by the richest man in the world. It was already well furnished.
Don't lie.
>>1128007
Now I know that you didn't read it. Galt's Gulch was a relative handful of people hiding in a small mountain valley. Remember, Dagny crashed her fucking plane, and not only didn't die but didn't do any damage to the non-existent factories, skyscrapers, and schools.
But for the sake of argument, where do you think all those machines you say were flown in came from? Did they spring forth from a stack of dollar bills laying in a vault? Or did, gasp, an evil labor construct them?
Nevermind how throughout the entire book, big business was in bed with the state. Really shows how many people completely missed the point when they thump their bible in worship of big business.
>>1128038
YOU didn't read it. And I mentioned in my post that they had to fly in machines and stuff, and everyone there worked.
Tou call it a bible because you haven't read it.
>>1128038
And dagny luckily crashed in an open field near the farmer's market. There WERE factories and chimneys there, that detail is in a paragraph of that chapter. Also, there were no skyscrapers because there was no need for them there.
>>1128038
>Big business was in bed with the state
except the good ones weren't.
>>1128038
>non-existent factories
There were a few smokestacks and chimneys, and a couple of thousand people lived there, what do you expect?
>no skyscrapers
same as above
>no schools
there were just three children there, and one was a teenager.
>>1127307
It isn't, having poverty at the level we do is bad though. Poor people = crime. We should want our nation's to be wealthy and number 1. Greed has just blinded us to national competition and all we care about is building individual wealth. That's why I always try to help if people are willing to help themselves.
I think if you have money you should try to help your fellow man through investments and mentorship. Government has no right to redistribute wealth though.
>>1128065
Government should and could manage wealth distribution by Keynesian method followed correctly ie. not some retarded Obama Stimulus Package.
In that sense state/government/ruling body can pick things that are too costly for a private venture and invest. A private investor would lose out if he gains no profit, a state would lose nothing if he gains no profit as long as its citizens are employed and spending the money invested.
>>1128069
It's still stealing and theft, whatever you call it.
>>1128082
It is not "stealing" if it helps the general economy. Honestly it is a much better alternative then creating welfare queens and forcing people to crime. Make people work, enable them to take active part in economy, ride the multiplier.
>>1128043
Where did the machines come from? Just admit that they did not magically appear from a stack of dollars and physical labor had to build them. It's not difficult, unless your hook nose is getting in the way.
>no, YOU!1
But, hey, maybe somebody read it _to_ you and you've confused that with reading it yourself. I call it a bible because it's mindlessly thumped just like the real Bible.
>>1128057
>>1128046
A few thousand people in a country of, at the time of its publication, 172 million.
>>1128055
A ridiculous minority of them, and even then many _were_ in bed with the government until it stopped serving them, just like in real life.
That's the most objectionable part about the book. People don't read, or understand, it. Some salesman on the radio tells them it's a story about rich superheros who know and do everything fighting the evil government and that's all the further they go. They never stop to think about the average person in the background being fucked by this temper tantrum between the gibsmedats in bed with government and the gibsmedats with a 100-page-long ultimatum. They never ask how much of "government" is contracted out to private sector fuckups because it disrupts the narrative about how big business always right and blameless.
>>1128105
The "greater good" isn't a valid excuse. The fact is there is none. The government should not be interfering in the economy. It's always stealing if you take it by force.
Also, it's never going to help the economy.
>>1128110
>Just admit that they did not magically appear from a stack of dollars and physical labor had to build them.
I never denied that, retard
>It's not difficult, unless your hook nose is getting in the way.
>>>/pol/
>someone read it to you
I read it myself and understoof it just fine, thank you.
>>1128110
>many _were_ in bed with the government until it stopped serving them, just like in real life.
Give me ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of someone who was cooperating with the gubmint willingly and was invited to the gulch.
The book doesn't say that ALL people who make money are good - only those that do it through honest means are, and those were the people who were allowed in the gulch.
You're from /pol/ and shitposting, and you haven't read the book.
>>1127554
I really don't understand how people can say that Atlas Shrugged is a shit book yet completely misunderstand the book to such a ridiculous intent.
>it's a story about rich people bitching that they aren't appreciated and are lazy
>>1128268
Ayn Rand is highly misrepresented.
>>1127491
>Your odds of becoming a successful rapper or NFL player are retarded.
I don't know man, have you heard the quality of alot of hip hop music today? You don't have to be that talented to be a famous rapper.
