What do people think about income inequality?

[PoliSciStudent]

Greetings, all! I'm new here and hope that I will not offend anyone by confessing at the outset that my personal political leanings are probably farther to the left than is the norm in this forum, but I promise, I'm not here to be disruptive or disrespectful of anyone.

I am a graduate student in political science and would honestly like to hear the views of conservative thinkers on a point which has been troubling me with respect to the direction our country is heading, namely the widening gap between rich people and poor people.

According to the US Treasury Department, the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth in the US. That's honestly not just some liberal's opinion, that's really true, you can check the statistics yourself if you don't belive me. Flip that around and that means that the remaining 98% of us have only 20% to go around amongst all the rest of us. In the last three years, the income of the wealthiest .001% has increased by 600%, in other words, for every $10 million/year they were making before, they're now making $60 million/year.

I read in another article that 5 of the 12 wealthiest individuals on earth are from the Walton family which owns Wal-Mart. At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives? I've read studies which suggest that Americans by and large don't mind extremes of personal wealth as, this being the land of opportunity, we harbor some hope of one day rising to those lofty summits of affluence ourselves, so don't feel we should judge others for achieving that to which we ourselves aspire. Does that sound about right to you all? Anyone have any thoughts?

[JoJo Gunn]

No poor person ever gave me a job. Life ain't fair. Who "should" things be any different?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

My first trip to the Brno institute of geophysics in
1971, was the first time I saw people who were smart,
educated and hard working and very poor.
My trip to Armenia later showed how under employed
people in a former communist country.
My driver was a mechanical engineer and my translator
was a physicist.

[MEG33]

If you study poverty ,you understand that we have richer poor in this country,we also have the extremely rich.I have never judged someone for being extremely wealthy...

Think how many people are working because of Walmart and ,despite the resentment about Chinese imports,all the money saved by the shoppers.

Without the wealth created by business owners,jobs would cease to exist.Viva la entrepreneur

[Igthorn]

Welcome to Free Republic - Keep coming back.

I'm a long time lurker and seldom post, but I couldn't resist commenting on this.

Name any country, nation or culture that has embraced redistribution of wealth and has continued to advance.

One thing well meaning socialists or communists always forget is that people will always be people. In a capitalist society greedy power hungry individuals tend to gravitate toward business as their way to power. In business you still have to satisfy your customers (sell a decent/needed product). In a government controlled society those greedy, power hungry people still exist - but government is their only road to power. Once in power there are no checks and balances.

One of the efforts to redistribute wealth here in the US is the estate tax - so called the millionaire tax. An estate valued at over 1 mil is subject to HEAVY taxes. Here in Ohio this is destroying family farms 260 acres, farm buildings, farm equipment may provide a reasonable income but if you try to leave it to your kids they are going to have to come up with a real hefty cash tax payment because of the value of the property.

[gracie1]

Yes, there are very rich people in this country. There are also very poor people. This is true in any country. Go to the most poverty stricken country on earth. I'll bet you the ruling elite live a lifestyle far above the common man, there is just less of them to enjoy what little wealth there is in that nation.

Now let's look at those described as living in poverty by the government here. Many of them live a comfortable life when compared to those living in poverty in other nations. Things like clean running water, public education, indoor plumbing, reliable food supply are nonexistent in some countries. Yes, there are those who live on the streets who lack all of these simple needs. But overall, I'd rather be poor in this country, then south America, Asia or Africa (BTW, I HAVE been poor!).

In many countries a person born into poverty has no opportunity to improve his life. He has no access to education or training to earn a better living. His only option is to somehow make his way into the power elite, usually the military.

In this country there is free public education, foodstamps, unemployment insurance, housing assistance, & medicaid. A person born into poverty has more of an opportunity to rise thru society then in many other countries. But you need to apply yourself, get good grades, stay away from addicting substances and other aspects of criminal life.

You are responsible for yourself. What you make of yourself depends on you. Blaming others only makes you a whiner. So what if some guy in New York is a billionaire. Taking his money and giving it to someone else is useless, because the person you are giving it to has no appreciation for it, as he did not have to earn it.

There are no guaranties in life.

[PoliSciStudent]

"Think how many people are working because of Walmart and ,despite the resentment about Chinese imports,all the money saved by the shoppers."

With respect, the numbers don't seem to bear that out. Studies done by state labor departments have typically found that when a Wal-Mart moves into a community, for every 1 job they create, they displace 3-5 local jobs, jobs which typically paid better and offered things like health care and other benefits. In other words, Wal-Mart destroys more jobs than it creates and the jobs it creates are less well compensated.

On the other hand, I do certainly agree that wealth is needed to generate jobs and that individual financial incentive plays a key role in driving business - although I may not be as conservative as some here, I'm be no means a Communist, either! :-) At the same time, I have to ask how much incentive there has to be to get the job done. In Europe, CEOs typically earn between 10 and 15 times the average salary of their workers. I dunno, that seems like a bunch of extra money to me. I'd sure be more motivated and work harder if I could increase my earnings by 1,000-1,500%, wouldn't you? In the US right now, the average CEO compensation package is over 400 times that received by their employees. 400 times?! Does one really need to make that much more than everyone else in order to be motivated?

[MeekOneGOP]

A hypothetical:

Let's say that all the wealth in the U.S. was divided equally amongst all U.S. citizens. Those that gained from this 'redistribution of wealth' would obviously be those that were the poorest. Those who gave the most would have been the richest, of course.

How many years before your percentages of the wealth distribution in the current period were back ? It would happen. There are some folks that are more driven to accumulate wealth than others are. You can bet that the majority of those that gained would squander theirs over time and those that had the majority of the wealth before would be back to where they were again.

The free market works best. Socialism, so tempting to so many, is a loser for ALL under the system except a select few at the top.

I'll take the Free Market System, thanks.

Oh ! Welcome to FreeRepublic.com, btw ...

[MEG33]

The stockholders and the board must take care of that,as it is they who have a voice in the matter.

Surely you would not suggest government control over salary?

[PoliSciStudent]

Thank you very much for your thoughts (that goes for everyone here, by the way).

I agree completely with you that it's definitely better to be poor here than to be poor in many other countries. There's no doubt about it, even poor people here have a very high quality of life relative to someof the world's poorest countries. I guess my stumbling block is that we aren't one of the poorer countries on earth, we are indisputably the richest. And here's the rub, there are many countries, all of whom are poorer than we are, in which the quality of life for the average earner, is higher.

Take myself for instance. I'm fairly bright, I've worked hard, gotten good grades, stayed away from addictive substances, never had any trouble with the law, in other words, I've played by the rules. I've also lost my job, have no health insurance, and am having to borrow $20,000/year to make my tuition payments. Now, if I were living in Europe, not only would I not be paying tuition, I would actually be receiving a modest stipend to cover my living costs while I was in school. In addition, I'd be covered by a public health plan, which admittedly would probably not provide quite as good a coverage as the private insurance I could opt for if I wanted to spend the extra money on it, but at least I would have something, which, compared to the nothing I have right now in our wealthy US, sounds kind of like a step up to me.

I don't know, I hear what you're saying and partially agree with you, but I'm not sure it's fair to compare the quality of life in the US to that which prevails in the worldest poorest countries. Of course life in the US is better than life in Afghanistan, that's not saying anything, they're two totally different countries. The question in my mind is how do we compare with other similarly prosperous countries? That is to say, let's compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

As for appreciating the value of money, I can't help but feel that, if anything, the working poor in this country who often have to work multiple jobs just in order to make ends meet, would be more appreciative of the value of an earned dollar than some billionaire who rakes in millions simply by clicking a button and selling a bunch of stocks.

[gracie1]

Does one really need to make that much more than everyone else in order to be motivated?

Another aspect is the freedom of choice. If CEO salaries really bothers you, don't contribute to their wealth. Don't consume their products. Contact the shareholders and board of directors and put pressure on them.

But I have to ask this question: why does it bother you? If a person is rewarded extremely well for risk taking and being a good steward of the resources of the corporation, why is that a problem?

A wage earner will earn far less comparatively, but risks far less as well. An entrepreneur risk far more comparatively, and stands to earn far more in return.

[Freebird Forever]

At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.

Please cite your source & provide a link. The above sounds like Bravo Sierra.

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?

My first full time job paid $3.25 / hour. I desired a better lifestyle, so I improved my marketability through education, work experience and responsible decision making. If someone does not want to "plateau" at the starting Walmart wage, there are many avenues available to achieve their goals.

I've read studies which suggest that Americans by and large don't mind extremes of personal wealth

To covet the wealth / property of another is a nonproductive act. It wastes time and mental energy better spent on improving one's own lot.

this being the land of opportunity, we harbor some hope of one day rising to those lofty summits of affluence ourselves

The immigrant / emigrant ratio is highly skewed in favor of the former. Native-born Americans are not the only folks who aspire to a more affluent lifestyle. If someone doesn't believe that they can make a successful life in the US, it's a big world and there are boats, planes, etc. leaving every day.

so don't feel we should judge others for achieving that to which we ourselves aspire.

I don't believe anyone of meager means who (legally) elevates their standard of living should be adversely judged for doing so. They should be held up as role models for others who wish to emulate their success.

[junkbond]

My time is not your commodity.

[gracie1]

I've been in your situation. But I did not stay there for long. I had small children and had to have some kind of insurance coverage. At one point I had a choice of a very low paying stressful job with health coverage and good paying low stress job with no coverage. I held out as long as I could and when I couldn't take it anymore I bolted for the better paying job and prayed no got sick or seriously injured.

But I didn't stay there for long. As soon as I completed school and got some credentials I took a benefited job.

I think what I'm trying to say is if you make life too comfortable, people may not be motivated to move up. Sometimes its easy to just do what's barely required.

Cheer up, if your as bright as you seem to be there will be a job for you somewhere. It may not be exactly what you thought you wanted, but life is a journey and as Scarlet said "tomorrow is another day".

[MEG33]

Read Marx..I think you may like his ideas.

[MEG33]

...Marx...From each according to his ability,to each according to his need.

[workerbee]

the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth in the US. That's honestly not just some liberal's opinion, that's really true, you can check the statistics yourself if you don't belive me. Flip that around and that means that the remaining 98% of us have only 20% to go around amongst all the rest of us.

Yeah, and the top 5% or so are also paying about 80+% of the taxes. That's honestly not just some conservative's opinion, that's really true, you can check the statistics yourself if you don't believe me. Flip that around and that means that the remaining 95% or more aren't paying very much for the myriad services and handouts they receive.

Does this sort of thing not bother liberals?

[Hank Rearden]

Look at it this way: when's the last time a bum with no money offered to hire you?

[grellis]

At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.

Misleading. I know the same is done at Target and my bet is that the same is being done AS A SERVICE by many other employers. At Target, new hires are routinely informed of programs available to low-income families so they can have health coverage until they are eligible for the company's health package after their 90 day probationary period.

[PoliSciStudent]

Trust me, I have read Marx, you can't study political science without having to read a lot of his stuff. He definitely got a hell of a lot wrong, but he had some interesting points nonetheless.

Speaking of reading, I have 1,000 pages to get through before class on Monday, so should probably get to work. But thank you all for your input, I really appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me, it's been educational.

Have a good weekend!