[NO-SPAM] Income Inequality

[Super Buu]

Pinky- The greatest privilege of all is a smart parent. I know because my mother is an incredibly smart and savvy lady, and it's her upbringing that I thank for allowing me to make money and pay taxes that can help out kids that won't be getting the same privilege - and will probably make more dumb decisions as a result. No, I don't believe in an entirely deterministic world. But you would have to be very naive to think that public education 'evens out the wrinkles'. We don't all get the same opportunities. Someone who goes to a better school has a much better chance of securing a good future - fact. And someone who lives in a rich country has infinitely better opportunities than someone with a poor one.

There is always going to be the opportunity to prevail despite being put into incredibly hard circumstances. There are always going to be people who waste their opportunities and squander the help they get. That's life. But that doesn't make inequality a non-issue. That conclusion is a total cop-out that makes a gigantic leap in logic. It assumes that a 5% chance of success is the same figure as 50% chance because they both have a legitimate chance of succeeding. That is the foundation of your argument.

I suspect that you're not really dumb enough to believe that. My guess is that - and you're not alone in this - your resentment of your own prior circumstances fuels a spite towards people who make weak decisions in similar circumstances, and end up with worse results. But I believe you oversimplify human nature, and massively discount the privileges you received that others did not. Have some gratitude - you weren't as bad off as you think.

[Mr. Zhu]

the real problem was how every other house dealt with the same situation. my friends, some of whom werent on welfare and had two working adults in the house, would get their water cut off, get kicked out of their rentals, and any number of other bullshit because they were dumb and wasteful. so yes, your blanket statements about the poor poor pitiful poor are just junk moralisms that pay no heed to what actually goes on in the real world

i have plenty of sympathy for the truly poor who are better than their circumstances, but they are few and far between. i reserve the right to give no sympathy to idiots who engage in a LIFESTYLE that keeps them poor, and yet cry for more handouts as if thats what ails them. this includes idiots who dont get a decent education because they decided african american history was an interesting major but completely ignore that its not a marketable skill, and then take to the streets crying about the super rich keepin em down. its not my fault that people are increasingly sitting in ivory plastered funhouses to the tune of 20k a year.

Wow.. You wanna talk about the real world? Fact is at least half of the babies born in third world countries don't live through birth because of malnutrition. Fact is at least 70% of the babies that survive eventually starves to death.

You're hilarious in your typical American thinking in that you think the USA is the world, fuck that, income inequality is an international issue in every country in the world and some more than others. The "idiots who engage in a lifestyle that keeps them poor" are the few and far between, not the ones that are literally scouring in sewers looking for food and trying to survive.

Let me tell you a story, I went to the Dominion Republic in my senior year in high school to help a certain community build a school. While we were there we brought many things to them that they would consider "luxuries" when in fact it was really just bottled water and some candy. Anyway, it was kinda my fault when I gave my favorite little kid a little souvenir to remember me by and I witnessed him get attacked by another little kid because of that. The kid that assaulted him were from the same community that we helped feed and I recognized him. To that little kid there was no problem to assault that kid and take his souvenir and he adults completely unsympathetic because in Dominion Republic it's literally whoever can hurt or kill the other wins the souvenir which was a small thing, yet it was like the Holy Grail to them. It makes me sad to see there are places in the world that things are this way because of their living conditions.

Meanwhile... Some idiot sits inside his air-conditioned office, sipping his premium coffee and typing up some blog that's telling people to get an education har har.

In China, even many intellectuals who have great education gets abused by corporate giants into becoming poor. The gap in the rich and the poor in China is ridiculous to compare, and all of the peasant class people are just as hard-working if not more. They're not poor because they've decided to purchase i-gadgets or be "wasteful" whatever that means, they're poor because of their government and local/international corporate giants abusing them. (Insert comment about the irony of China being a communistic nation).

Sure, sometimes there are the hobo on the street that got there for smoking crack, but you take those and look at the people that are suffering in third world countries and you realize that there's a jackass in the world but there are entire nations too poor to feed its people. I know I may have flown off the track a little bit about the income thing with my Dom republic story, but it just grinds my gears that Pinky can be so insensitive and so arrogant to say that all poor people are poor by choice.

[Vad]

Don't condemn the successful for being successful. That is all.

[Anzekay]

I'm totally not going to get fully into this discussion, but I did want to share this. If there is even a shred of truth in the numbers in this article, then I have to say it's pretty depressing.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/20/1...k-out.html

[Jarka]

Don't condemn the successful for being successful. That is all.

Income disparity and privilege have nothing to do with condemning the successful for being successful.

If, in all situations, we've got five people (who have equal education) with differing work ethics, and Adam happens to be the hardest working, there should be no reason why we shouldn't applaud him for being the most successful and tell the other four to work harder.

The way society works today, that is not the case.

Maybe it's Adam and Boris. Boris is a recent immigrant from Bulgaria. He might have the same advanced degree and drive to work, but hiring managers pass him over because there could potentially be communication issues or the "hassle" of dealing with a work visa. Or, they may offer him lower salaries than Adam because hey - it's not like he knows what his position should be, he's used to the Lev. Even if he did, eventually he'd have to accept a presented salary because it's the highest he's been offered.

Maybe Carl works just as hard and has the same education as Adam, but Carl is a wheelchair user. Even though the building itself is handicap accessible, it would be too hard to make sure the day to days of the office are available for him. I mean, what if he has to present at a meeting? It would be soooo hard for people to see him over the table. Heaven forbid he have to go to a conference - yikes! Looks like Adam is just "better suited for the position." Eventually Carl has to accept a lower salary because it's the highest he's been offered.

Then there's Denzel. Same education, same work ethic as Adam, but he happened to be born black. Sure, maybe he'll get hired because the HR sure does love diversity, but he'll likely be making considerably less than Adam would - after all, he's lucky we've got affirmative action to get him hired, so he should just accept the lower pay we offered.

Eliza has a pretty good shot at being hired, but in America today, that means she makes 80% the salary of Adam despite the equal education and work ethic. A man with a doctorate makes $20,000 more than a woman per year. Of course, maybe she might possibly get pregnant and be forced to leave the company for a whole two months an average of twice in her life, so I guess that makes it fair. Again, she's going to be forced to accept the lower salary because that is what is being offered.

I've studied social issues in the workplace pretty in-depth. I'm not making this shit up. If you weren't lucky enough to be born a cisgendered, straight, able-bodied, able-minded, American, white male, you are at a severe disadvantage in the workplace and society. There is nothing wrong with you if you were born this way. However, THAT is the main privilege in America today. Look at the leaders of Fortune 500 companies. How many fit that description (or an overwhelming majority of them)?

I could go on for hours about the little things you might never notice, being in a position of privilege, that can hinder a minority from becoming successful. Add in Imposter Syndrome, a direct result of BEING a minority, and there's one hell of a marathon to run when good ol' Adam just gets to jog a lap around the stadium.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with being privileged. Nor is there anything wrong with being successful. However, it must be understood that it is by no means a level playing field. In addition, there are way too many people who have furthered their success by stepping the backs of those who are disadvantaged.

(Yes I am aware that there are certain things that minorities get slight advantages in. But overwhelmingly, they are disadvantaged. I wouldn't sever my spinal cord just so I can get a better parking spot)

[Super Buu]

Don't condemn the successful for being successful. That is all.

I haven't read a single post in this thread that does that. Have you?

[Vad]

I haven't read a single post in this thread that does that. Have you?

Not directly no. The direction of the thinking does.


I hate society as a whole so you'll never see me rallying against you Jarka. Or against anything you did Mr. Zhu. I'd be sitting on the sidelines hating everyone until we all got our shit together and realized...

That there is only human existence. Not black human existence or minority human existence.

[Super Buu]

Not directly no. The direction of the thinking does.

If it's not in the text, I'm gonna say you're reading into it.

I hate people who are successful and use their power to make the world a worse place for the less privileged. It may not be the intention, but this is very often the case. Value is not infinite. If you spend millions on frivolous shit, whether or not you earned it, in real terms you are denying other people the opportunity to live and eat. You can argue all you want that you 'deserve' it. You're still making a choice that is incredibly selfish and amoral.

I love people who are successful and use their power to make the world a better place for everyone. If you are rich, you have that power. Bill Gates alone is estimated to have saved millions of lives through the money he's donated that has helped develop vaccines for kids in third world countries. If you have the power to do that, and you instead choose to keep it to yourself: fuck you. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to say.

[Jonathan Meer]

And you don't have to be Bill Gates to give either.

[Waffuru]

Just as an aside, I don't believe Pinky can view this forum so don't expect any response from him.

[Jarka]

Not directly no. The direction of the thinking does.


I hate society as a whole so you'll never see me rallying against you Jarka. Or against anything you did Mr. Zhu. I'd be sitting on the sidelines hating everyone until we all got our shit together and realized...

That there is only human existence. Not black human existence or minority human existence.

But diverse existence and experience is a beautiful thing. We all have completely different perspectives and can bring in unique input to situations solely due to our differences from one another.

Growing up black in America is different than growing up white, even in situations where Adam and Denzel are raised with the exact same circumstances. The tiny conflicts that Denzel faces as a direct result of his skin color - conflicts that Adam might not realize exist - help shape who he is. These sorts of conflicts exist for any sort of group divergent from the main part of society and are a part of the very nature of minority/majority relations.

I want to live in a world where we lose the oppression and the hatred and the stringent class and social divides are gone. That would be a utopia. Thing is, though, that's never, ever going to happen. Pretending like it will just snap into place one day won't get any change made, either.

That is why we have to understand that it's not a punishment for being successful. It's an acknowledgement that people are not provided the same circumstances to achieve, even at just the social levels (I didn't even get into any specifics on economic disparity, which can be even more deterministic than demographic groupings). It's the process of trying to remove the handicaps that are in the way of success for those who aren't lucky enough to be born into a family that can afford to send them to the best schools and meet the right people.

And, as Mr. Zhu brought up, that's just viewing it from a lens focused on the USA (and, in many circumstances, Canada/the UK/AU as well, although USA seems to be the worst with this sort of stuff out of the bunch).

[Jonathan Meer]

Well shit. Moved back into the Asylum, with a caveat thrown into the title/first-post.

[Pinky]

Nothing in what you've said here is inconsistent with what I've written, or believe.

I believe there should be a safety net, provided by our society, to ensure people don't fall through the cracks. That safety net should be mapped to people who genuinely need it. People who don't need it shouldn't get it.

There are places of genuine need in our world, and that need can be met with money, and it is immoral to be extravagantly wealthy in light of that need.

EDIT: Not to sidetrack, since I think this is really a red herring, but when someone says 'You remind me of someone', they are implicitly making a comparison. That's how it works.

Joe, you remind me of a bloated child rapist.

money is not a magical solution that cures bad decisions. having it or lacking it is a result of decisions. also you're talking about money as if the superrich are keeping it in a huge vault ala scrooge mcduck. their real wealth is investments, that creates products and services and jobs for people to work. the more you take away from that the less needs get met. also the more you reward something the more you get of it. rewarding people for being poor is - again - not a cure for poverty. walter williams wrote a bit on the first thanksgiving that drives this point home http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewi...l_nonsense

the same is equally true for punishment - punishing people for being exceptional is blatantly wrong and aggressively counterproductive on more levels than i care to count. the worst of it is that this idea is traced back to marx's ideas about product value being an inherent fixture of the product itself. if you dont adhere to that then you lose on this point entirely

and you're the one that couched your talking points in terms of economic classes, rich vs poor, and wealth envy. if you dont want to be lumped together with typical class warriors then you should stop talking like one.

[Jonathan Meer]

1) 'Rewarding people for being poor'/'Punishing people for being exceptional' is about the most obscure and twisted description of what's being discussed here. Since your argument hinges on it, I'll address it.

'Reward' implies a gift given due to some virtue. Being poor is not a virtue. Therefore, the concept of 'rewarding people for being poor' is nonsense.

'Punishment' implies a penalty given due to some vice. Being exceptional is not a vice. Therefore, the concept of 'punishing people for being exceptional' is nonsense.

2) Money does not match up perfectly with a person's work ethic, or actual work output.

I point you to the Waltons.

3) Investments are not the fundamental drive of the economy. The demand of the populace is the fundamental drive of the economy.

4) The ad hominem is a distraction; I'll be ignoring those from here on out.

[Pinky]

Wow.. You wanna talk about the real world? Fact is at least half of the babies born in third world countries don't live through birth because of malnutrition. Fact is at least 70% of the babies that survive eventually starves to death.

You're hilarious in your typical American thinking in that you think the USA is the world, fuck that, income inequality is an international issue in every country in the world and some more than others. The "idiots who engage in a lifestyle that keeps them poor" are the few and far between, not the ones that are literally scouring in sewers looking for food and trying to survive.

Let me tell you a story, I went to the Dominion Republic in my senior year in high school to help a certain community build a school. While we were there we brought many things to them that they would consider "luxuries" when in fact it was really just bottled water and some candy. Anyway, it was kinda my fault when I gave my favorite little kid a little souvenir to remember me by and I witnessed him get attacked by another little kid because of that. The kid that assaulted him were from the same community that we helped feed and I recognized him. To that little kid there was no problem to assault that kid and take his souvenir and he adults completely unsympathetic because in Dominion Republic it's literally whoever can hurt or kill the other wins the souvenir which was a small thing, yet it was like the Holy Grail to them. It makes me sad to see there are places in the world that things are this way because of their living conditions.

Meanwhile... Some idiot sits inside his air-conditioned office, sipping his premium coffee and typing up some blog that's telling people to get an education har har.

the US used to be the same as the rest of the world. what set us apart was that we respect personal property, and people built intergenerational family fortunes because of that. targeting people for having things is the foundation of economic redistribution - its a regressive cultural problem not an economic one

In China, even many intellectuals who have great education gets abused by corporate giants into becoming poor. The gap in the rich and the poor in China is ridiculous to compare, and all of the peasant class people are just as hard-working if not more. They're not poor because they've decided to purchase i-gadgets or be "wasteful" whatever that means, they're poor because of their government and local/international corporate giants abusing them. (Insert comment about the irony of China being a communistic nation).

stop jumping into the middle of the story. china backed mao. they had the chance to get another kind of govt after he died, but voted to continue on. again its a cultural problem that they are slowly learning to deal with. for instance, tigermoms are not categorized by economic class, its a cultural phenomena that has carried all the way over here. this obsession with money as the simultaneous root of evil and cureall is bizarre

[Pinky]

1) 'Rewarding people for being poor'/'Punishing people for being exceptional' is about the most obscure and twisted description of what's being discussed here. Since your argument hinges on it, I'll address it.

'Reward' implies a gift given due to some virtue. Being poor is not a virtue. Therefore, the concept of 'rewarding people for being poor' is nonsense.

'Punishment' implies a penalty given due to some vice. Being exceptional is not a vice. Therefore, the concept of 'punishing people for being exceptional' is nonsense.

2) Money does not match up perfectly with a person's work ethic, or actual work output.

I point you to the Waltons.

3) Investments are not the fundamental drive of the economy. The demand of the populace is the fundamental drive of the economy.

4) The ad hominem is a distraction; I'll be ignoring those from here on out.

no, my actual point was that poverty is largely a choice not happenstance. but since your point hinges on the idea that poverty is about luck rather than choice i understand why you dodged it entirely.

trying to split hairs by telling me what i meant by reward/punishment is just sad. when people decide to give you something for a specific reason its a reward; when people take your stuff away for a specific reason its a punishment. if you cant handle my points then its not my problem

investments are what produce products/services to meet demand... ug

[Super Buu]

no, my actual point was that poverty is largely a choice not happenstance.

Every time I even think about reasoning with Pinky in the future I'm going to try and remember this line. Chris I suggest you put your time towards something worthwhile.

[Sigfried Hunin]

This, as is most problems in society, a problem of both luck and choice. Its the conversation of nature/nurture all over again, but on a societal scale. People born into poverty are clearly and irrefutibly diposed to ALSO becoming impovrished, due to both their circumstance and the choices that they make.

At the absolute depths of the argument lies the question of whether or not we can place blame for a person's choices in life on their situation or hold them ultimately responsible. THAT argument has raged, and will rage, at naseum for as long as we misundersgand the complexity of the relationship between the human mind and the world around it. in the end, we can once again say that some combination of a person's situation and character have an effect on the choices they make.

In either scenario, the best way to end poverty to create an environment where there is no (and I mean that in an absolute sense) excuse or reason to BE impovrished. I believe there are those, for reasons of personal choice or their raising (back to societal nature / nuture) will be impovrished, but then we can say for certain that they chose it. When that happens all we'll have to debate on the topic is the nature of choice and free will.

[Jonathan Meer]

I'm not dodging your points. I'm addressing them as I understand them. There's a lot of obscuring rhetoric that makes it difficult to get at your actual argument.

I don't know the actual statistics on choice vs happenstance for poverty, and honestly, I don't particularly care. The fact is, there are indeed people who are impoverished, through no fault of their own, and this is a problem that needs to be resolved as far as is reasonably possible.

Of course, we're only talking about the US, here. My original comment about the immorality of making and keeping more than $100,000 a year was more with reference to world hunger/thirst/healthcare, etc.

I'm splitting hairs on your rhetoric because it's flat false, and I have no idea what you're trying to get at by putting it in those terms, so I was left with nothing else but to show why it's false.

Your follow-up definition is one I've never heard before (except maybe with some poetic license, which certainly doesn't have any place in rational argument). My doctor gives me a vaccine because of reasons X, Y, Z. It doesn't make sense to call that vaccine a reward or punishment. Further, some 'givings' are actually punishments (chickenpox), and some 'taking aways' are actually gifts (removing the handcuffs).

The fundamental issue is, you haven't stated your position in anything resembling clear and straightforward prose, and digging through the false rhetoric is a chore.

Investments are not what produce products and services. The drive and creativity of small/large business is what produces products and services. Investments certainly play a part in the development of businesses to meet user demand, and are particularly helpful in getting a business going in the first place, but investment without user demand is wasted.

Returns on an investment are a product of economic growth, not an instigation.

[Pinky]

I'm not dodging your points. I'm addressing them as I understand them. There's a lot of obscuring rhetoric that makes it difficult to get at your actual argument.

I don't know the actual statistics on choice vs happenstance for poverty, and honestly, I don't particularly care. The fact is, there are indeed people who are impoverished, through no fault of their own, and this is a problem that needs to be resolved as far as is reasonably possible.

Of course, we're only talking about the US, here. My original comment about the immorality of making and keeping more than $100,000 a year was more with reference to world hunger/thirst/healthcare, etc.

like i responded to the other guy, other places carry their own baggage but it always comes back to choice. it doesnt matter if its individual choice or the popular culture, its all about choice trends.

I'm splitting hairs on your rhetoric because it's flat false, and I have no idea what you're trying to get at by putting it in those terms, so I was left with nothing else but to show why it's false.

Your follow-up definition is one I've never heard before (except maybe with some poetic license, which certainly doesn't have any place in rational argument). My doctor gives me a vaccine because of reasons X, Y, Z. It doesn't make sense to call that vaccine a reward or punishment. Further, some 'givings' are actually punishments (chickenpox), and some 'taking aways' are actually gifts (removing the handcuffs).

The fundamental issue is, you haven't stated your position in anything resembling clear and straightforward prose, and digging through the false rhetoric is a chore.

funny that you call my point false and try to refute it with false analogies. stop changing the context around minor words and pretending that its insight; the context is the substance, and youre ignoring it. having to stop and deconstruct your aggressive meanderings is an unwelcome chore, too.

Investments are not what produce products and services. The drive and creativity of small/large business is what produces products and services. Investments certainly play a part in the development of businesses to meet user demand, and are particularly helpful in getting a business going in the first place, but investment without user demand is wasted.

Returns on an investment are a product of economic growth, not an instigation.

i wanna say i'm being trolled, but its so consistently off the point that this might actually be the way you communicate