Ultra-Rich: Divest Heavily or Get Eaten

[Trausti]

People = his workers. You're pretending 7 days isn't a week.

Being payed a decent wage for productive work at market value (wealth generated) is not the same as ''simply distributed to the people,'' which is what you said.

That is your Strawman.

How do you know the worker is not getting market value? If the worker is free to leave and work somewhere else?

 

[DBT]

People = his workers. You're pretending 7 days isn't a week.

Being payed a decent wage for productive work at market value (wealth generated) is not the same as ''simply distributed to the people,'' which is what you said.

That is your Strawman.

How do you know the worker is not getting market value? If the worker is free to leave and work somewhere else?

The whole 'free to leave and work somewhere else' thing has been thoroughly debunked. If there are limited vacancies in your field, in your town or city (relocating may not be an option), going somewhere else may not be possible.

Any given industry, retail, engineering, construction, etc, generally pays similar rates, therefore being 'free to leave and work somewhere else' in order to increase your pay rate is a fantasy.

If a Barista, for instance, is 'free to leave,' move down the road and work in another cafe, how is that going to improve his income if the cafe's in his town pay similar rates?

 

[Swammerdami]

Put it up for a vote:

Resolved: That wealth and income inequality are too high in the U.S. and around the world, that this is bad for society and bad for the economy, and that public policy should find ways to reduce this inequality.​

and I will vote Yes. Obvious ways to reduce inequality are (1) free healthcare, subsidized education and childcare, other "safety nets;" (2) more progressive income tax rates, and estate taxes; (3) other governmental incentives, e.g. tax on financial transactions, promotion of environmental protections, public investments.

So I agree in principle with the progressive posters in this thread. However I'm afraid that many of the specific comments are wrong-headed.

The topic of wealth inequality is intricate. A very interesting starting point is Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-first Century. He shows two "Fundamental Laws of Capitalism":

β = α/r = s/g​

where β (=6) is the ratio between total wealth and annual income, α (=0.3) is the share of national income which accrues to capital (or wealth more generally), r (=.05) is the average annual return on capital, s (=.12) is the savings rate and g (=.02) is the real economic growth rate. (The numeric values shown in parentheses are just typical examples.) The first equality above is a tautology; the second equality is valid only in the long term or asymptotically. These equations were well known before Piketty, but he shows their workings in detail,

Piketty's book is full of ideas and historical graphs. One thing you'll learn is that the recent hike in wealth inequality (which can appear as a hike in β) is not a recent aberration but rather a reversion to the mean: the amount of wealth worldwide was dramatically reduced for over half of the 20th century, mainly due to the devastations of two world wars.

Wealth that could have benefited both workers and consumers, higher pay and lower prices....if naked greed was not the driving force in the high end of town.

There can be no wealth without workers selling their time, skill and effort....more often than not, for too low a price. It is the workers who make it possible.

Thereby creating a two tiered society, those at the top with most of the world's wealth and power, with vast numbers of people struggling to make ends meet.

We can support improving income distribution without the peculiar moralizing. Do you think the prevalence of "greed" (or even "naked greed") is clearly greater at higher income levels?

Rachel Maddow has a higher income than most CEOs. Do you apply your pejoratives against her? How about Tom Hanks who, AFAIK, insists on being paid when he performs in a film?

Not so much lately but in his earlier years [Warren Buffett] did leveraged buyouts costing generally at the expense of the workers.

I believe you, but specific examples would still be nice. BTW, leveraged buyouts are not automatically evil; sometimes they are beneficial to all stakeholders. Even when bankruptcy is a likely outcome, one can argue that the efficiency of "creative destruction" is at work.

Apparently when you "take away" money from the rich, you just then throw it in the garbage instead of using it and it goes nowhere. lol

I might agree with Mr. Floof, but would prefer a more objective phrasing. Wealth of billionaires like Buffet depends in part on high savings, low growth, and low interest rates. See Piketty's Laws above. Although wealth inequality is the long-term threat, it is current spending that impacts short-term priorities directly. As explained, Buffett is a VERY peculiar example to use for those arguing that income spent on caviar would be better spent on baby food.

You're basically saying that rich people are more likely to spend money in ways that benefit the poor, than the poor would if you allowed them means to elevate themselves out of poverty.
It's a tired, extremely old argument that has failed virtually every test to which it has been put throughout history.

Charitable deductions from income and wealth taxes may be a good idea, but the rational government chosen by the community is the best arbiter for community spending. (Unfortunately, several important nations lack rational governance, but that's a topic for another thread.)

 

[fromderinside]

Dig up and Kill Adam Smith.

 

[Swammerdami]

Right-wingers who cite Adam Smith (who has a high opinion of some government regulation and a low opinion of corporations) for their mistaken views on economics have in general NOT actually read Adam Smith!

 

[Elixir]

You're basically saying that rich people are more likely to spend money in ways that benefit the poor, than the poor would if you allowed them means to elevate themselves out of poverty.
It's a tired, extremely old argument that has failed virtually every test to which it has been put throughout history.

Giving money to the poor ends up with current qualify of life spending, it's the equivalent of giving a man a fish.

Citation needed.
(I know of counter-examples, within my own family!)

 

[Worldtraveller]

You're basically saying that rich people are more likely to spend money in ways that benefit the poor, than the poor would if you allowed them means to elevate themselves out of poverty.
It's a tired, extremely old argument that has failed virtually every test to which it has been put throughout history.

Giving money to the poor ends up with current qualify of life spending, it's the equivalent of giving a man a fish.

Citation needed.
(I know of counter-examples, within my own family!)

That's not how it works. When LP expresses his opinion, he doesn't need to back it up with facts, or evidence. When someone else presents actual evidence, it's religious thinking.

Glad I could help.

I will note, for the record, if he weren't a mod, I would have put him on ignore a long time ago for his idiocy.

 

[DBT]

We can support improving income distribution without the peculiar moralizing. Do you think the prevalence of "greed" (or even "naked greed") is clearly greater at higher income levels?

It's not moralizing to point out that greed exists. If an individual amasses greater wealth and power than some nation states, greater wealth than a large percentage of the rest of the worlds population, that clearly qualifies as greed. He could have paid his workers far more, he could have charged less for his goods and services, given more to charity, paid higher taxes instead of seeking to reduce them, etc.

greed
noun [ U ]
''a very strong wish to continuously get more of something, especially food or money:''

 

[Swammerdami]

We can support improving income distribution without the peculiar moralizing. Do you think the prevalence of "greed" (or even "naked greed") is clearly greater at higher income levels?

It's not moralizing to point out that greed exists. If an individual amasses greater wealth and power than some nation states, greater wealth than a large percentage of the rest of the worlds population, that clearly qualifies as greed. He could have paid his workers far more, he could have charged less for his goods and services, given more to charity, paid higher taxes instead of seeking to reduce them, etc.

greed
noun [ U ]
''a very strong wish to continuously get more of something, especially food or money:''

Did you read my whole post? You don't comment on Rachel Maddow's greed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Citation needed.
(I know of counter-examples, within my own family!)

That's not how it works. When LP expresses his opinion, he doesn't need to back it up with facts, or evidence. When someone else presents actual evidence, it's religious thinking.

Glad I could help.

I will note, for the record, if he weren't a mod, I would have put him on ignore a long time ago for his idiocy.

LP always gets hit on this. However, hardly anyone on this forum consistently supports their assertions with links or evidence.

 

[ZiprHead]

Citation needed.
(I know of counter-examples, within my own family!)

That's not how it works. When LP expresses his opinion, he doesn't need to back it up with facts, or evidence. When someone else presents actual evidence, it's religious thinking.

Glad I could help.

I will note, for the record, if he weren't a mod, I would have put him on ignore a long time ago for his idiocy.

LP always gets hit on this. However, hardly anyone on this forum consistently supports their assertions with links or evidence.

Citations?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you know the worker is not getting market value? If the worker is free to leave and work somewhere else?

The whole 'free to leave and work somewhere else' thing has been thoroughly debunked. If there are limited vacancies in your field, in your town or city (relocating may not be an option), going somewhere else may not be possible.

Any given industry, retail, engineering, construction, etc, generally pays similar rates, therefore being 'free to leave and work somewhere else' in order to increase your pay rate is a fantasy.

If a Barista, for instance, is 'free to leave,' move down the road and work in another cafe, how is that going to improve his income if the cafe's in his town pay similar rates?

The basic problem here is you are defining "fair" as "what you think they should get, whether they are worth that or not".

Businesses do pay similar wages because they are all responding to the same economic pressures. If you're actually being underpaid, move. If you just want more, up your value.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A growing concentration of wealth at the top end, where a small percentage of the nations or worlds population have more than the rest combined is a case of taking more than you give. It doesn't matter whether or not Buffett lives a frugal lifestyle.

[Citation needed]: "growing".

It's strange that you ask. You have ignored everything that has been provided. It's like its invisible to you.

Your evidence for "growing" simply looks like tax avoidance/evasion. The rate "dipped" for a while when the tax code strongly favored leaving money in a business rather than taking it out. When the tax code no longer favored that things went back to normal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The topic of wealth inequality is intricate. A very interesting starting point is Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-first Century. He shows two "Fundamental Laws of Capitalism":

β = α/r = s/g​

where β (=6) is the ratio between total wealth and annual income, α (=0.3) is the share of national income which accrues to capital (or wealth more generally), r (=.05) is the average annual return on capital, s (=.12) is the savings rate and g (=.02) is the real economic growth rate. (The numeric values shown in parentheses are just typical examples.) The first equality above is a tautology; the second equality is valid only in the long term or asymptotically. These equations were well known before Piketty, but he shows their workings in detail,

Piketty's book is full of ideas and historical graphs. One thing you'll learn is that the recent hike in wealth inequality (which can appear as a hike in β) is not a recent aberration but rather a reversion to the mean: the amount of wealth worldwide was dramatically reduced for over half of the 20th century, mainly due to the devastations of two world wars.

And note that the dip also coincides with an era where not paying money out to the owners was strongly favored in the tax code--and there was no way the IRS could catch any appreciable portion of those who reimbursed personal expenses as if they were business expenses.

 

[DBT]

We can support improving income distribution without the peculiar moralizing. Do you think the prevalence of "greed" (or even "naked greed") is clearly greater at higher income levels?

It's not moralizing to point out that greed exists. If an individual amasses greater wealth and power than some nation states, greater wealth than a large percentage of the rest of the worlds population, that clearly qualifies as greed. He could have paid his workers far more, he could have charged less for his goods and services, given more to charity, paid higher taxes instead of seeking to reduce them, etc.

greed
noun [ U ]
''a very strong wish to continuously get more of something, especially food or money:''

Did you read my whole post? You don't comment on Rachel Maddow's greed.

There was no need to comment, I include anyone in the super wealthy bracket, movie stars, sports stars, bankers, developers, etc. The issue is wealth accumulation at the top.

 

[DBT]

How do you know the worker is not getting market value? If the worker is free to leave and work somewhere else?

The whole 'free to leave and work somewhere else' thing has been thoroughly debunked. If there are limited vacancies in your field, in your town or city (relocating may not be an option), going somewhere else may not be possible.

Any given industry, retail, engineering, construction, etc, generally pays similar rates, therefore being 'free to leave and work somewhere else' in order to increase your pay rate is a fantasy.

If a Barista, for instance, is 'free to leave,' move down the road and work in another cafe, how is that going to improve his income if the cafe's in his town pay similar rates?

The basic problem here is you are defining "fair" as "what you think they should get, whether they are worth that or not".

Businesses do pay similar wages because they are all responding to the same economic pressures. If you're actually being underpaid, move. If you just want more, up your value.

The wealth being generated through production and providing services determines fair distribution of income. As it stands, workers are not getting their market share. I have already provided pages and pages of information and stats. Why do you ignore it?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Did you read my whole post? You don't comment on Rachel Maddow's greed.

There was no need to comment, I include anyone in the super wealthy bracket, movie stars, sports stars, bankers, developers, etc. The issue is wealth accumulation at the top.

You honestly equate a banker with a movie star or sports star? The average banker in the US makes less than $70k a year. Banking isn't a very good industry anymore.

 

[RVonse]

How do you know the worker is not getting market value? If the worker is free to leave and work somewhere else?

The whole 'free to leave and work somewhere else' thing has been thoroughly debunked. If there are limited vacancies in your field, in your town or city (relocating may not be an option), going somewhere else may not be possible.

Any given industry, retail, engineering, construction, etc, generally pays similar rates, therefore being 'free to leave and work somewhere else' in order to increase your pay rate is a fantasy.

If a Barista, for instance, is 'free to leave,' move down the road and work in another cafe, how is that going to improve his income if the cafe's in his town pay similar rates?

The basic problem here is you are defining "fair" as "what you think they should get, whether they are worth that or not".

Businesses do pay similar wages because they are all responding to the same economic pressures. If you're actually being underpaid, move. If you just want more, up your value.

There is no way for labor to up it's value anymore because the Republicans have taken away their unions.

 

[Swammerdami]

Did you read my whole post? You don't comment on Rachel Maddow's greed.

There was no need to comment, I include anyone in the super wealthy bracket, movie stars, sports stars, bankers, developers, etc. The issue is wealth accumulation at the top.

Did you read my whole post? You don't comment on Rachel Maddow's greed.

There was no need to comment, I include anyone in the super wealthy bracket, movie stars, sports stars, bankers, developers, etc. The issue is wealth accumulation at the top.

You honestly equate a banker with a movie star or sports star? The average banker in the US makes less than $70k a year. Banking isn't a very good industry anymore.

Ms. Maddow must be making EIGHT-digit figure of annual income by now.

The reason there was "need to comment" is that you spoke of the rich in almost pejorative terms, as though you were blaming their "greed." I wanted to understand this better.

I'll admit that I was slightly startled when Google presented me with her annual salary. But, I thought, so what? ... Maybe she makes big donations to pro-Democracy PACs. Does she?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem here is you are defining "fair" as "what you think they should get, whether they are worth that or not".

Businesses do pay similar wages because they are all responding to the same economic pressures. If you're actually being underpaid, move. If you just want more, up your value.

The wealth being generated through production and providing services determines fair distribution of income. As it stands, workers are not getting their market share. I have already provided pages and pages of information and stats. Why do you ignore it?

You have produced pages and pages of elephant-ignoring.

There are now a large number of jobs building the means of production and those jobs generally pay a lot better than the jobs using those tools. You "cherry" pick the jobs that are doing poorly and stick your fingers in your eyes about the problems with your data.