The true extent of wealth disparity in the USA

Post Reply New Topic

No, I'm a Fordist, because that system has been proven to work in the real world.

Why should I even bother arguing with you. These message board debates never go anywhere. Both sides just become more deeply ingrained in their beliefs.

You're right, I'm wrong..... there, are you happy?
You have successfully made me feel stupid.

I totally agree.


If you must know, I'm not happy. (thanks for asking)

It wasn't my intent to make you feel stupid, but to make you smarter.

If I upset you or hurt your feel-bads, allow me to apologize. Sometimes I'm a douche.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddOk6kUXioA[/youtube]
I am sorry!

while laughing up their sleeves at their own hypocrisy all the while.

I'm actually the one who makes myself feel stupid.
I'm not skilled at all in the art of debate. I may have things all works out in my head, but when it comes time to put things into words, I fail and get frustrated and angry.

Thing is, the capitalism/communism/socialism debate is one based on belief. It's like arguing religion.

It is funny how people on message boards around the world continue to get into heated debates that never go anywhere.

I should probably stick to lighter topics. Message board debates upset me too much. I hate being wrong.

I'm convinced that getting into heated internet message board debates is a sign of poor character and insanity...

you are not the only one. far from it. step in my shoes and get a shock.


it is an old bit of folk wisdom, that in polite society/mixed company one should not discuss contentious subjects.


it reminds me of dogs barking at each other.


no sir, don't think "wrong" but instead "different" as in different life experience. and only if you put others up on some kind of pedestal do they hurt you when they of their hard clay fall down onto you- IOW [I like using silly metaphors to express things I have trouble couching in proper words] people will disagree on everything, nothing new under the sun, don't take it personally, that is the way the creator designed things for reasons known only to the creator. but I have found that even with anodyne topics that one's basic philosophy [right or left] leaks in. certain peoples are just not compatible together. I am an audiophile and even among audiophiles, sociopolitical considerations come into play, and we have to maintain separate camps.

I like the first part of the video - it visualises statistics well, which is a useful and important skill.

It falls prey to common misconceptions about wealth, though. Firstly, it talks about "working hard". "Do you really think the CEO works 380x as hard as the average worker?" Probably not, but who cares? That's irrelevant to how much they get paid! Think about it: if you hired a carpenter to build something for you and they guy worked really hard for a whole week, but ended up building nothing, how much would you be prepared to pay him? People pay for value created, not for work. It's a such a simple, fundamental idea, but people get it wrong all the time, especially when they are the ones who "worked hard" and "deserve" some money. That CEO gets paid 380x as much, because he delivers 380x as much value as their average worker - or at least so the board of directors believe. (Of course, they might be wrong, but that's between them and their shareholders, from whose pockets the CEO is paid.) If you want that kind of money and you can do what the CEO does - great, do it! And if you want to do it for less money I'm sure nobody will complain. (By the way, "what the CEO does" includes convincing the board to hire him, so make sure you can do that, too. )

The more subtle, but greater misconception is this whole idea of "distributing" wealth. It's based on the assumption that the total amount of wealth in the world is fixed, which is false. It's also a poorly chosen word, because it's easy to confuse "distribution" in the statistical sense with "distribution" as in "let's share the existing wealth between people". The former is a meaningful concept, but the latter is like a doctor in a hospital saying "let's distribute some blood sugar from the patients that have too much of it to the patients who have too little of it". The fact that some people have a lot of wealth is not a problem (except maybe psychologically). The fact that some people have too little to live comfortably is a problem. The "distribution" is merely a side-effect of this. I'm not going to argue that the two are completely independent, of course, but it's fundamentally misguided to look at the problem as "the poor are poor, because the rich are rich", which is basically what "wealth distribution" suggests.

For what it's worth, this is a map of the class distribution of London made by Richard Florida and his crew at the Martin Prosperity Institute. This blog post uses some urban sociology jargon (which he created), but you get the idea by reading the blog post.

I just post this to show that it's not just in the U.S. where there's wealth disparities. Indeed, Florida is very interested in U.S. income inequality, and has created similar maps for the 12 largest U.S. metros.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like the USSR is the only example of communism to have ever existed on the planet, and that communism was the sole reason for its failure.

Communism had nothing to do with the USSR. The USSR was never Communist.. it was an Oligarchy, run by Lenin and Stalin (oversimplification, I know, but basically true). They used the idea of Communism to get support from the masses (revolt against the Czar, etc) and once they were in power, acted exactly like the Czar they had deposed.

So no, There has never been a large Communist state. The best example of Communism working long term is a Kibbutz, by the way. They have been around for centuries, and work very well.

Personally, I don't believe Communism can be practiced on a large scale. just as I don't think Capitalism can (and is not.. The USA, for example, is a corporatist economy and government, not a capitalist democratic one).

It really doesn't help anyone to blindly throw labels around like they are information.

“People pay for value created, not for work. It's a such a simple, fundamental idea, but people get it wrong all the time, especially when they are the ones who "worked hard" and "deserve" some money. That CEO gets paid 380x as much, because he delivers 380x as much value as their average worker “
FMX
You are being sarcastic right? The fact is that the elites have stolen value from those that create it. Just one example, the latest economic crisis was caused by Wall Street and yet their profits continue to climb while we pay for their losses. In other words they have destroyed (not created value) and have been rewarded for that. Why? Because Wall Street and the banks control the government. It is not because CEOs are good at creating wealth. Many companies have dramatically declined in value and yet the CEO that caused the decline is rewarded.
Work ( both creative and manual) creates value. The elites merely bet on our productivity. We do not need them to create value.

Then start your own company.

UMM workers have formed their own companies.
Here is a little history lesson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
I realize that after I won our last two debates, you have been gunning for me. But attacking without ammunition only makes you look desperate and foolish.

Not to mention that the very CEOs who drove the banks into the ground got bonuses and pats on the back.

One thing about these debates that *is* useful, is that it keeps us from being in echo-chambers where we're only exposed to the facts and points of view that we, and those who agree with us, are supported by.

Have you started your own company yet?