What do people think about income inequality?

[SaveTheChief]

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 mean no offense by the following, but in a hypothetical sense I want you to think about this on a personal level.

You have the choice. Are you going to use your talent, your education, your gifts, to pull yourself up and become successful, or are you going to whine about it and complain that there are others who have worked hard to deserve their income while you have done nothing for yourself? How about others? If you were to work hard and become successful and wealthy, do you believe it is possible for others? Would that change your outlook?

[FourPeas]

A true tale of two men:

Both came from middle class families. Neither went to college, nor was ever encouraged to do so. Mr. A worked the night shift at Burger King to fund his way through technical school, Mr. B started working at a factory. Mr. A got a job repairing stereos and on his own time through hard work and study soon learned how a new-fangled thing called a computer worked. Mr. B continued working at the factory and developed the habit of taking parts of his work home, like an occasional tool.

Mr. A continued working and studying on his own time, eventually becoming an executive at a Fortune 500 company making a six figure salary. Mr. B's factory eventually closed and he was offered two years of free education, health benefits and 50% of his yearly wages. For those two years, Mr. B layed around in his underwear and rented dirty movies while Mrs. B found a job. Currently, Mr. B is stocking grocery shelves making $12/hour. Both men are approximately 50 years old.

Income redistribution? No.

[wtc911]

You say Marx made interesting points. What were they and why do you find them "interesting"?

[radiohead]

Two more books -

The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy, by Sowell

[Rebelbase]

"the working poor in this country who often have to work multiple jobs just in order to make ends meet, "

Deluxe cable package, DVD rentals, credit card payments, ATM Fees, car payments, etc...that is why they are the "working poor"....fithy stinking rich compared to 3rd world poverty.

[Scenic Sounds]

Do you have an intellectual basis or theory that would justify an opinion that rich people, as a class, do not deserve what they get?

You're hinting at the French Revolution, aren't you? ;-)

[Minuteman23]

We are promised equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I read somewhere a long time ago that if you pooled all the money in the world and gave everyone his fair portion of it, the same people would eventually wind up being rich, and the same being poor. With minor exceptions (like inheritance), I agree. Some people know how to succeed and others don't.

[grellis]

Son, if you think it is so great on the other side of the pond, why don't you pack just your bags and move over there?

BWAHAHAHAHA! Because the government does not yet subsidize overseas travel!

[wtc911]

Do you realize that you are complaining because you have to pay for your own education? Why in God's name would you object to making that investment in your own future?

[imawit]

Do you really really really want to study this ?

If you do, you really need to be studying it from the stand point of the individual !

What makes one succeed and what doesn't. Yes there are socio-polital hurdles that may be different between individuals. But, there are still those in each class of individual who succeed and those who don't.

I would not waste time on this site getting socio-political BIASED opinions. I would put together a study of the factors, socio-political, educational and personal ability and see what are the most common factors for success and those for failure. Then you will have something with FACT behind it to go for.

You'll get nothing by this exercise except narrow skewed opinions which will give you nothing to go for.

If you truly, truly care and want to do something about it, then do a proper fact finding study, NOT a populous opinion poll. Where's the socio-politcal-environment-education-ability quotient in that ??????

[Chris Talk]

Sending anything human to public schools is child abuse.

[SamAdams76]

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.

I have a hard time believing that Wal-Mart signs their new employees up for food stamps. Sounds like one of those urban myths to me. Maybe somebody here who works for Wal-Mart can confirm this for us. I believe one of us is a Wal-Mart manager.

Anyway, the "living wage" issue has always irked me. How is a "living wage" defined? I don't believe it ever can. Some people can squeak by on a $20,000 salary. Others consider anything below $100,000 a year an insult. Depends on the individual. In a country where even welfare recipients have TVs, DVD players, home computers and designer clothing, how should poverty be measured?

But let's just say, for the purpose of argument, that all of us were liberals and we wanted to institute a "living wage" for all Americans. What would that living wage be? $10 an hour? $20 an hour? Why stop there? Why not make the minimum wage $50 an hour, then poverty would be eliminated, right?

Well not exactly. Let's take the lower example and raise our minimum wage to $10 an hour, which many liberals would tell you is pretty close to that elusive "living wage." That's nearly twice the current minimum wage.

OK, but of course it doesn't stop there. What about all the people who were making $9 an hour or $8 an hour? We'd have to raise their salaries too. But it wouldn't be fair to just raise them to the new minimum wage to where they are making the same as people at the entry level. So you would have to boost their salaries proportionately so that they maintain their pecking order. So you'd have to pay them in the $14 to $15 range .

Ok then, we are finished right? Well, not exactly. What about all the people who were making $10-15 an hour? Are we going to give all the people making less than them big raises and leave them at the same pay rate? That would cause a mutiny. So we have to pay them more too. And on and on and on. Bottom line is that if we raise the minimum wage by about $5 an hour, then we have to raise just about EVERYBODY's salary by about $5 an hour.

This would result in a gigantic increase in the cost of labor in our economy.

Now there are apparently some liberals out there who have the notion that business owners and stock holders are going to just take it in the pants and accept lower (or no) profits. But that's just not going to happen. The business owners are simply going to raise the price of their goods and services to protect their profit margins.

The net result of that will be that whatever big raise we all get will very quickly be offset by the rising prices of goods and services. So those who were at the minimum wage are now sitting pretty at $10 an hour. But suddenly, they realize that a Big Mac and fries costs them $8 instead of the $4 they used to pay. (Remember that everybody at McDonalds is now getting paid nearly twice as much now). Prices at Wal-Mart must now increase so that Wal-Mart can make their new payroll. So everybody ends up paying more for everything and suddenly, those making "only" $10 an hour are having trouble making ends meet again.

But the bad news doesn't stop there. Faced with skyrocketing labor costs, companies begin moving their operations offshore at even a faster pace or they simply cut jobs, forcing those left behind to work even harder. Millions of jobs are lost and now our taxes must rise to pay for all the millions of new people on the welfare roles.

Welcome to Europe.

[FLCowboy,]

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

People who work for Wal-Mart's low wages aren't to be pitied, as you imply, but rather, should be encouraged to use that job as a stepping stone to something better.

You imply the owners of Wal-Mart are taking advantage of their workers. Perhaps, just as Wal-Mart owners take advantage of their suppliers by forcing down their costs. These lower costs translate to lower prices. Care to guess who benefits from the lower prices?

Wealth is not a right, as you imply, but rather a result of what each of us has the ability, and right, to do. That is, go out and make something of ourselves. I admit the starting gate may be skewed, but millions of examples of poor men becoming rich are around you.

Am I bothered that Wal-Mart employees are on the low end of the wage scale? No, because when there are fewer people reaching out for those jobs than jobs available, then the wages will rise. Take time out from your political science studies to study the science of economics. Further, study the economies of countries where individual wealth is not permitted, versus the ones that do allow it. (Also include those countries where taxation rates are so high on high income that people no longer achieve to be wealthy in your studies.)

Government does not create economies. They only effect them by their policies.

[ThinkDifferent]

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.

Do these studies account for what is done with the money saved by Walmart's customers?

[NCLaw441]

First, wealth is not static. There is no "pie" to divide. That is, wealth can be created, unlike matter. In order for some to have wealth, it is a misconception (intentional on the part of the liberals) to state that others must lose the same amount. That is my first observation.

My second observation is that unless unethical or illegal means are used to create or earn wealth, no one is harmed; to the contrary, the creation or earning of wealth by one benefits all, especially in these days of high taxation.

My third observation, and last for this post, so I can some others' thoughts, is a corollary of the first two: taking wealth from those who have it does not increase the wealth of those who do not. Taxing the rich at confiscatory levels does not increase the plight of the "have-nots" unless that wealth is directly redistributed to them, and even then, the amounts are so small in comparison to the numbers of those who "need" the wealth, that there is precious little that would be distributed. It does make liberals feel better though.... which is SO important. Sarcasm off.

[Protagoras]

Who owns the wealth? What part of what I own rightfully belongs to you? Is wealth a zero sum game?

Those are the questions you need to ask yourself and answer to yourself before you can move on to the question you are now asking.

[cyborg]

I just got that book. What is it like?

[Teacher317]

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.

A very intelligent way to introduce yourself around here. Troll-Zotting is a major sport in these parts. Does anyone know who is #1 in the standings this week? ;^)

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.

A graduate student who hasn't heard the other side's positions yet? What kind of school did you do to?!?

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.

Okay, first, that statement's impact depends entirely upon how the term "wealth" is defined. Define it, then you can get intelligent feedback.

Hypothetically taking it to mean "accrued assets" such as savings and capital: For most of us, home-ownership is the primary wealth asset, and few own their home outright. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if 30% of all home-owners are in a negative-wealth position, owing more on the home than it is apraisal value ("buried").

(Note, the "poor" typically aren't homeowners, skewing those percents even further.)

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.

Poppycock. I'd be overjoyed if it were true, but it isn't. Cite the source of your information on that one. But again, if it is true, that is a GOOD thing. Nations with wealth growth don't lose 50,000 people in a 6.0 earthquake. Nations without it do. Long live rampant wealth growth in America!

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.

Good for them. The Wal-Mart family doesn't have to CREATE those jobs, you know. They can sit on that wealth and spit on pictures of Karl Marx 24-7 if they so desire. The employees should be HAPPY that those jobs are there. If they are not HAPPY with the job offer, they are under ZERO obligation to accept it. It is called Freedom, and I'm sorry that you liberals despise it so.

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?

The disparity? no. The incessant questioning of it as if it is a bad thing, to be abhorred? Lawsy, yes! (Check out Cuba, Soviet Russia, China, and any other nation that re-distributes its assets with a goal of minimizing disparity. You'll find poverty, decay, disillusionment, death, and oppression. No, thanks. If you want that, you're free to go there. Why must liberals take the one bastion of Freedom and make it like every other place? I thought, once again, that you valued Diversity?!?

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?

Not a bad statement. "The American Dream" has lured hopeful people from around the world for centries. It is not a uniquely conservative-American notion.

Hope inspires. Regulated and controlled livelihoods do not.

[CurlyDave]

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.

I don't know if you have taken economics yet, but if you have you should realize that this is exactly the way it should work.

Wal-Mart is not in the business of creating jobs. Wal-Mart is in the business of distributing consumer goods. The compete with other distributors of consumer goods (Target, Sears, etc.). If they are more efficient at their business than others they will be able to offer lower prices and they will gain market share.

How is their efficiency measured? Well, the bottom line is that it is measured by comparing the amount of goods they distribute to the resources they consume to do it. Resources are things like capital (land, buildings, vechcles, etc.) and labor inputs.

If Wal-Mart is more efficient than other distributors they will require fewer inputs, which in this case means less labor. It just stands to reason that when Wal-Mart starts distributing consumer goods in a community, the overall labor for this activity will decrease. There will be fewer jobs.

Short-term it would be much more comfortable for the displaced workers if Wal-Mart never showed up on the horizon and they kept their inefficient jobs. Long-term, the entire country is healthier and more competitive with Wal-Mart because we can divert that labor to more productive uses.

[GoredInMich]

Well, lots of people your age are idealistic, and wanting to "change the world"..........good luck.

Wait till you get your first "real" paycheck, and you see that some dude named FICA flat out took 12% of your money, without your permission. That, my idealistic young friend, is wealth re-dsitribution, a-la Karl Marx.

I am glad that you are actually thinking about this kind of stuff......most people don't give a damn....and the more you think it through, the more likely you are to escape from "the dark side", where you currently reside.

Welcome to FR, nonetheless