Of all the lib terms, the ones I despise the most are “tolerance, diversity, social justice and income inequality”. “Giving back” is another.
Can I make a blasphemous statement? Blasphemous to liberals anyway.
I am in favor of income inequality. I think it’s right and proper for surgeons to earn more than hired help at fast food places. I think teachers should earn more than janitors. I think that small business people, who work hard to build up their businesses, and create jobs for others, should earn more from the business than their hired help.
In this whole inequality meme, I have yet to hear a liberal say exactly what is wrong with inequality. I have yet to hear anyone indicate what policies they want to fight this alleged problem of inequality.
all jobs do not pay equal, and do not require the same study, training, risk and importance, therefore income inequality is an expected normal outcome between people working in different jobs.
big cities have a wider array of jobs across the spectrum, so bigger differences in income are, again, an expected normal outcome.
Let’s measure income inequality between the Washington political class and the ordinary American
Ban big cities.
In a free society with a modern division of labor economic system,economic inequality is beneficial because it has a positive effect on the incentive to produce and the means to production, which leads to economic progress and higher standard of living for all in the long run.
damn progressives and their divisive cities.
It is not surprising that the top 10 cities in income inequality are all run by Democrats, and the bottom 10 are all (I think but not sure) run by Republicans.
I have an idea.
All the libs and their politicians should take part in a pilot program. All Dimrats and their voters are to be paid the same amount per month.
Leave the rest of us out of it.
See how far that goes.
The problem is not inequality the problem is lack of movement in the economy. The more the upper tier flex their spending power the greater the opportunity for others to move up the “economic ladder”. There are no incentives in place to get the truly wealthy to use their money in ways that create new opportunities for everyone else.
Would love to see a % breakdown of D vs R for each city added to the chart. Maybe use 2012 general election results.
Those who complain about “inequality” never mention how much Oprah or Mick Jagger earn or how little their stage help is paid. Nor do they complain that Matt McGloin, the quarterback for the Los Angeles Raiders has a $108 million contract while one of his team’s cheerleaders just sued the team over her pay of $5 per hour. It is hardly news that over 40 university presidents have pay packages that exceed $1 million, or that the heads of 11 charities in the US are paid over $1 million while their volunteers are asked to donate their time and money.
So who exactly has the income that is proof of “inequality”? Times up: Apart from just railing against “the wealthy” as a nebulous group that excludes all rich liberals, they only complain about business leaders who earn a lot of money. Now why would that be?
“Income inequality” joins Peak Oil and Global Warming as frauds of the left that are really aimed at advancing ideological agendas rather than advancing prosperity and liberty.
Liberals are only interested in the liberty and prosperity they can coerce from others.
Why would this be so hard to understand?
Liberals usually are the largest population section of any urban area.