U.S. income inequality worst since 1928

[Jacob]

That said, I'm not sure I understand the significance you place on the difference between "it doesn't matter" and "it's the best of worlds" in this particular scenario.

This is a real head scratcher.

How so?

[Ideologue]

I wonder what the income disparity is for Canada, UK or other nations of people on Languish? Have other advanced economies kept the disparity between rich and poor more in check over the same time frame?

They have.  I don't have time to look it up right now, or probably ever, but they have.

[Admiral Yi]

How so?

To use Joan's excellent term, they're orthoganal.  I'm totally indifferent to which team wins the Stanley Cup.  It does not follow from this that the Bruins winning is the best of worlds.  It's nonsensical to claim that there is no material difference between the two statements.

[Jacob]

How so?

To use Joan's excellent term, they're orthoganal.  I'm totally indifferent to which team wins the Stanley Cup.  It does not follow from this that the Bruins winning is the best of worlds.  It's nonsensical to claim that there is no material difference between the two statements.

That's a pretty tortured metaphor

In any case, as I understand it you're on record as saying that two separate phenomena are positives: rich people are getting ever richer and that's a testament to freedom and potential of capitalism in generating wealth; and poor people have it better than poor people have ever had it before. You've made those comments when we've discussed income inequality in the past, and you've generally made them to argue against taking action to lessen income inequality.

You have not, it is true, said that this is the best of all possible worlds. You have, however, consistently argued against taking action to address income inequality, and those arguments seem to be predicated on things being better than they were before. As such, the distinction between what you argue and the Panglossian "best of all worlds" (with an implicit "possible" between "all" and "worlds") seems to be more a matter of rhetoric than substance.

[The Minsky Moment]

Would be interesting to see what the trends are if post-tax transfers are included.

[Admiral Yi]

That's a pretty tortured metaphor

In any case, as I understand it you're on record as saying that two separate phenomena are positives: rich people are getting ever richer and that's a testament to freedom and potential of capitalism in generating wealth; and poor people have it better than poor people have ever had it before. You've made those comments when we've discussed income inequality in the past, and you've generally made them to argue against taking action to lessen income inequality.

You have not, it is true, said that this is the best of all possible worlds. You have, however, consistently argued against taking action to address income inequality, and those arguments seem to be predicated on things being better than they were before. As such, the distinction between what you argue and the Panglossian "best of all worlds" (with an implicit "possible" between "all" and "worlds") seems to be more a matter of rhetoric than substance.

It's a perfectly apt metaphor.

I can't recall ever claiming the poor have it better than they've ever had it.  My principle argument against redistribution has always been that whether Warren Buffet makes another zillion dollars or not, my life does not change in the slightest.  My other principle argument against redistribution is property rights (cue Razz on slavery).  We shouldn't be in the business of grabbing someone else's legitimately acquired wealth just because we want it.

[Valmy]

It's a perfectly apt metaphor.

I can't recall ever claiming the poor have it better than they've ever had it.  My principle argument against redistribution has always been that whether Warren Buffet makes another zillion dollars or not, my life does not change in the slightest.  My other principle argument against redistribution is property rights (cue Razz on slavery).  We shouldn't be in the business of grabbing someone else's legitimately acquired wealth just because we want it.

So you would be in favor of it if it could be demonstrated it impacted your life in someway?  The second one we just need to come up with a reason to grab somebody else's legitimately acquired wealth for some reason other than just because we want it.  Since we grab people's legitimately acquired wealth for all sorts of reasons besides that already that strikes me as rather weak.

I am not in favor of redistribution for its own sake but I do think having huge shares of the nations wealth in the private control of just a few individuals is not a good thing, especially since our system is so much about leveraging money into political power and influence.  But I would prefer we concern ourselves with the economic and political facts that create that situation and think about what we can do about them rather than just taking the money from the rich people.  That is not a real solution as a lot of them will probably just take their money and run.

[Berkut]

That's a pretty tortured metaphor

In any case, as I understand it you're on record as saying that two separate phenomena are positives: rich people are getting ever richer and that's a testament to freedom and potential of capitalism in generating wealth; and poor people have it better than poor people have ever had it before. You've made those comments when we've discussed income inequality in the past, and you've generally made them to argue against taking action to lessen income inequality.

You have not, it is true, said that this is the best of all possible worlds. You have, however, consistently argued against taking action to address income inequality, and those arguments seem to be predicated on things being better than they were before. As such, the distinction between what you argue and the Panglossian "best of all worlds" (with an implicit "possible" between "all" and "worlds") seems to be more a matter of rhetoric than substance.

It's a perfectly apt metaphor.

I can't recall ever claiming the poor have it better than they've ever had it.  My principle argument against redistribution has always been that whether Warren Buffet makes another zillion dollars or not, my life does not change in the slightest.  My other principle argument against redistribution is property rights (cue Razz on slavery).  We shouldn't be in the business of grabbing someone else's legitimately acquired wealth just because we want it.

I really don't understand how the discussion about income inequality (and its growth) always seems to come down to redistribution.

The one has only a slight relationship to the other, and if growing income inequality is in fact a problem, the problem did not come about because there was less redistribution, nor can it be solved by more redistribution, at least not in any real and practical sense.

The rich are not taking more and more of a share of the nations wealth because they are not taxed enough. We could double their taxes, and the trend would continue.

The wealthy and their share of the tax burden is a separate issue. The fact that the rich are getting richer suggests that they can likely afford a greater tax burden, but that isn't the same thing.

[Tonitrus]

The banking/finance world needs more George Baileys and less Mr Potters.

[Berkut]

My principle argument against redistribution has always been that whether Warren Buffet makes another zillion dollars or not, my life does not change in the slightest.

The problem is that we would like your life to change in the slightest. We would like it if people like you and me got to see our incomes rise over time as productivity and output increases across the board, rather than just the wealthy enjoying those benefits while the rest of us sit around happy that things are actually getting worse for us.

Or, to put it another way, my argument is that Warren Buffet getting another billion dollars doesn't actually help Warren Buffet in the least, except to allow him to increase his High Score relative to the other super rich. He would say the same thing, actually.

Lastly, long term there is a very real effect on you. Your ability to influence and control your society and government is being eroded away by the fact that you (and people like you) have less and less control over the wealth of the country you live in. This is in fact a very real problem.

[Grallon]

... We shouldn't be in the business of grabbing someone else's legitimately acquired wealth just because we want it.

Perhaps you should ponder the distinction between legality and legitimacy. 

History teaches us that when social mobility declines, and I believe this is an indicator of such a phenomenon, the cohesion of the affected society begins to falter.  In fact I would say this is symptomatic of a general trend to 'thirdworldize' the advanced economies and bring most of us down to Indian or Chinese levels - all for the benefit of tiny minority of parasites. 



G.

[Admiral Yi]

The problem is that we would like your life to change in the slightest. We would like it if people like you and me got to see our incomes rise over time as productivity and output increases across the board, rather than just the wealthy enjoying those benefits while the rest of us sit around happy that things are actually getting worse for us.

I would like to see those things too.  But I don't see how they would happen if Buffet didn't make that zillion dollars.  I don't see how my real wages would rise if computers had never been invented and so much human work automated.

[Admiral Yi]

Perhaps you should ponder the distinction between legality and legitimacy. 

I have. 

[The Brain]

It would be horrible, just horrible, if people with STEM degrees and other experts make more and more money and other people are reduced to being their servants. What a fucking nightmare!

[Valmy]

I would like to see those things too.  But I don't see how they would happen if Buffet didn't make that zillion dollars.  I don't see how my real wages would rise if computers had never been invented and so much human work automated.

Isn't that a rather ridiculous and extreme position?  The idea is not that computers and automation are bad, they are very good, but life is not super simple back and white.  There are some consequences to it that do have some problematic impacts that need to be addressed, not just destroy all computers luddite like.