Wealth Redistribution or Wealth Return?

[Bomb#20]

More later, but - why did you pick the GM worker making 90k/yr and not the walmart worker making $18,000?

Because Mary Barra was the specific CEO somebody called out by name upthread and accused of parasitism.

Are you trying to hide a conclusion?

Nope. Are you? None of your arguments in the OP relied on the difference between one company and another or the difference between one non-entrepreneur CEO and another. Your arguments purported to show that redistribution is automatically return of wealth to rightful owners and such CEOs are automatically parasitic based on their being rich and not making everything themselves and not being able to do so, and your premise that labor is "where it was earned". All that applies to GM every bit as much as Walmart. So if your conclusions are only true of Walmart but not of GM then your arguments are wrong.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't really get the animosity towards "CEOs" who make obscene amounts of money. Sure, it's a bit corrupt how they are selected, and maybe their compensation is often not justified. But the number of these people is small compared to the total population. They're outliers, and even if their salaries and bonuses sound like big money to us little people, they're a drop in the bucket for the companies they run.

Redistributing (or "returning") the CEO salaries to all employees would average to nothing. Walmart CEO makes $25 million a year, but the company has 2.1 million employees - that's a whopping 12 bucks per employee per year.

Studies show, that when it comes to income equality, discrepancy between top 1% and the rest isn't the problem, it's the discrepancy between bottom and top 10%. If there's need to address societal problems with e.g. progressive taxation, it's not the handful of super-rich that should be targeted, but the upper-middle class.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether or not a particular CEO is also an entrepeneur is an empirical question. There is nothing inherent in position of CEO that is necessarily entrepeneurial in nature.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

Progressivism is about improving the human condition, so, of course it is about advancing the interests of workers, since they are humans.

So is progressivism of course about advancing the interests of CEOs? Or are CEOs not humans?

Yes to both. But not all humans share all of the same interests.

There may be disagreements about what advances the interests of workers, but progressives believe they are advancing the interests of workers while more conservative observers disagree.

But how they see themselves is not what's at issue. Everybody is the hero of his own narrative. But GM workers making $90K a year are apt to be in progressive policies' "redistributed from" column, not in their "redistributed to" column.

If one makes the obtuse assumption the every member of a group must share the same specific interest in the precisely the way, you make a valid point.

 

[Bomb#20]

The question is not properly framed as did the poor people have wealth that the rich stole from them and us now being redistributed back to the poor.

Well, I answer the questions asked. If you think Rhea is asking the wrong question, I agree with you.

The question is whether the wealthy became wealthy by unfairly suppressing wages for ( poor) workers.

Some did, some didn't. We have to treat people as individuals to answer that question, not just recite canards from folk-economics a hundred and fifty years past their sell-by date.

The question is what is fair and just for those who have most benefited from the system to contribute to the welfare of those who have not faired as well.

Yes, that's a much better question. The point of asking "Is redistribution really a return of the wealth TO the rightful owners?" is to get people to prejudge your question instead of thinking about it rationally.

We do not all start on an even playing field. We do not all have the talents and abilities that corporations want at that moment.

Quite right. Who prospers and who winds up poor always comes down to luck, one way or another.

Corporations tend to see labor as disposable: as soon as they don’t need you—or can ship a job to somewhere the labor costs and costs to comply with environmental protections are lower.

Certainly. Hey, I got laid off once. But then, laborers tend to see their employer as disposable as soon as they don't need it, or can get a new job somewhere the pay is higher or the working conditions are better; and they tend to spend their money on products made where the costs to comply with environmental protections are lower. If corporate selfishness is a reason to increase the amount the lucky have to spend on helping the unlucky, why isn't laborer selfishness equally a reason to decrease it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Decades ago, a CEO had a salary about X 60 that of an average employee. Now it has crept up to about X 350 that of an average worker. Plus bonuses, big perks, golden parachutes et al. Yes, there has been wealth redistribution. To the robber baron class.

Wealth redistribution is a buzzword the drives MAGATs crazy. Marxism! Socialism Robber baron capitalism is a better framing phrase. Vulture capitalism, income equality.

Actually, the change hasn't been nearly that dramatic. Rather, what we are really seeing is consolidation. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is highly related to the number of workers in the company. As you get fewer, bigger companies you would expect the overall ratio to change.

 

[Elixir]

Decades ago, a CEO had a salary about X 60 that of an average employee. Now it has crept up to about X 350 that of an average worker. Plus bonuses, big perks, golden parachutes et al. Yes, there has been wealth redistribution. To the robber baron class.

Wealth redistribution is a buzzword the drives MAGATs crazy. Marxism! Socialism Robber baron capitalism is a better framing phrase. Vulture capitalism, income equality.

Actually, the change hasn't been nearly that dramatic. Rather, what we are really seeing is consolidation. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is highly related to the number of workers in the company. As you get fewer, bigger companies you would expect the overall ratio to change.

Why? I would absolutely NOT expect that. I’d expect turnover to become a problem that grows with the number of employees, and exposure to damage from it to grow as well, which I would expect to result in increasing lowest level pay to help with retention. I see no reason that ANYONE should be salaried at hundreds or thousands of times the rate paid to entry level, yet competition for what is apparently a vanishingly small number of people qualified to run large corporations, has run their pay up to that point.

 

[Politesse]

I’m reading an article that mentions “Wealth Redistribition” as an outcome of progressive policies and it got me wondering; Is it a redistribution of wealth from its “rightful” owners, or is it really a return of the wealth TO the “rightful” owners?

There is no such thing as a "right" to ownership, except insofar as a person can convince others that they have such a right. The collusion of a government helps.

Redistribution often follows the lines of other "rights" that take precedence over personal ownership, even in the most aggressively capitalistic of societies. Food, lodging, and clothing are redistributed to children by their parents for instance, and their continued guardianship of said children is partially dependent on their ability to prove that this redistribution is happening, even if they are by no means compensated for it. Spouses have rights to some kinds of redistribution from their spouses, especially in case of divorce. The government has a right to tax you, and if you break the law, the government has the right to fine you, take your property in forfeit, and redistribute it as they see fit.

Do workers have a right to redistribution of the wealth they have generated, perhaps if the disparity becomes too obvious? I don't know your situation, but in my country, answering yes to this question in any capacity makes you a "Marxist" (and perceived enemy of the state to most). State welfare is acceptable, at least to Democrats and other "liberals", if it is framed as a sort of noblesse oblige from the state, a kindly gift offered out of empathy and pity. To frame it as a right is to make a claim that very few Americans are willing or inclined to acknowledge, out of terror that it will hurt their self-interest if applied consistently rather than haphazardly.

 

[Rhea]

And lets us not mention the century long war on labor unions. Still ongoing as far as legal to do that.

Yes, this is part of the “recovery” argument. When Companies felt it was acceptable to rip people off if you could instead of paying them for what they contributed.

And that’s an issue that I know some will argue. “If I *can* rip them off, I *should* rip them off, because failing to rip them off when I could have, is failing to maximize my money, which is - immoral, right?”

The idea that being just and paying people commensurate with whatt they provided to you is a failing, somehow. “I realize you gave me $5 in value, but if I can bully you into letting me pay only $3, I haven’t done anything wrong, yah? I haven’t harmed society and left you needing public care that you would not have needed if I paid you for the value you gave me. I mean a society where I can pressure you into giving me your lunch money is a good society, right?”

 

[Rhea]

Because Mary Barra was the specific CEO somebody called out by name upthread and accused of parasitism.

No, he accused her of receiving gender favoritism.

 

[Rhea]

Who prospers and who winds up poor always comes down to luck, one way or another.

It is not “luck” that corporations have supported and even proposed laws that take away workers’ ability to level the field. It is not “luck” that the health care system in the USA ties your health to corporations, and it is not “luck” that worker wages have not kept up with inflation. It is deliberate, and should not be allowed, let alone supported by laws.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Toni]

Who prospers and who winds up poor always comes down to luck, one way or another.

It is not “luck” that corporations have supported and even proposed laws that take away workers’ ability to level the field. It is not “luck” that the health care system in the USA ties your health to corporations, and it is not “luck” that worker wages have not kept up with inflation. It is deliberate, and should not be allowed, let alone supported by laws.

To be fair, I think that employers supplying health care has had unintended adverse consequences of what was intended to be a benefit to attract good employees.

 

[Toni]

I’m reading an article that mentions “Wealth Redistribition” as an outcome of progressive policies and it got me wondering; Is it a redistribution of wealth from its “rightful” owners, or is it really a return of the wealth TO the “rightful” owners?

There is no such thing as a "right" to ownership, except insofar as a person can convince others that they have such a right. The collusion of a government helps.

Redistribution often follows the lines of other "rights" that take precedence over personal ownership, even in the most aggressively capitalistic of societies. Food, lodging, and clothing are redistributed to children by their parents for instance, and their continued guardianship of said children is partially dependent on their ability to prove that this redistribution is happening, even if they are by no means compensated for it. Spouses have rights to some kinds of redistribution from their spouses, especially in case of divorce. The government has a right to tax you, and if you break the law, the government has the right to fine you, take your property in forfeit, and redistribute it as they see fit.

Do workers have a right to redistribution of the wealth they have generated, perhaps if the disparity becomes too obvious? I don't know your situation, but in my country, answering yes to this question in any capacity makes you a "Marxist" (and perceived enemy of the state to most). State welfare is acceptable, at least to Democrats and other "liberals", if it is framed as a sort of noblesse oblige from the state, a kindly gift offered out of empathy and pity. To frame it as a right is to make a claim that very few Americans are willing or inclined to acknowledge, out of terror that it will hurt their self-interest if applied consistently rather than haphazardly.

You're both Americans.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no such thing as a "right" to ownership, except insofar as a person can convince others that they have such a right. The collusion of a government helps.

Do you feel the same way about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness too, or are you singling out ownership as different from other rights? Do you think a slave had no right to run away to a free state or Canada except insofar as he could convince others he had such a right?

The government has a right to tax you, and if you break the law, the government has the right to fine you, take your property in forfeit, and redistribute it as they see fit.

So if a doctor performs an abortion in Oklahoma you think the government has the right to fine her? What evidence is there for it having any such right?

Do workers have a right to redistribution of the wealth they have generated, perhaps if the disparity becomes too obvious? I don't know your situation, but in my country, answering yes to this question in any capacity makes you a "Marxist"...

You appear to be taking for granted that it's the wealth "they have generated", as though the supervisors and shareholders and suppliers and customers and inventors and cops and soldiers and doctors and lawyers and whatnot didn't help generate it too.

(and perceived enemy of the state to most). State welfare is acceptable, at least to Democrats and other "liberals", if it is framed as a sort of noblesse oblige from the state, a kindly gift offered out of empathy and pity. To frame it as a right is to make a claim that very few Americans are willing or inclined to acknowledge,

Where are you getting your statistics? Framing it as a right is very popular with a huge subset of the American people.

out of terror that it will hurt their self-interest if applied consistently rather than haphazardly.

Oh for the love of god! The people who reject your theory of rights reject it because we think it's asinine, not because of whatever goofy psychology it pleases you to make up and impute to us.

 

[Bomb#20]

Because Mary Barra was the specific CEO somebody called out by name upthread and accused of parasitism.

No, he accused her of receiving gender favoritism.

He accused her of that too; but "As an example of the corporate overpaid CEO, Mary Bara did not invent anything nor did she have any ideas of her own." is an accusation of parasitism, not gender favoritism. He was making the same kind of accusation as your OP's exclusion of CEOs from the "people who actuially made the thing" set and the "where it was earned" set accusations.

 

[Bomb#20]

Who prospers and who winds up poor always comes down to luck, one way or another.

It is not “luck” that corporations have supported and even proposed laws that take away workers’ ability to level the field.

In the first place, what "taking away" are you talking about, and when have workers ever had the ability to "level the field"? And in the second place, whether a given person is one of those in a position to persuade the government to enact his wishes into law or is one of those who has to put up with whatever the government throws at him comes down to luck, one way or another.

It is not “luck” that the health care system in the USA ties your health to corporations,

What Toni said.

and it is not “luck” that worker wages have not kept up with inflation.

Well, that at least is true. It isn't luck. It isn't anything. Worker wages have kept up with inflation.

Median inflation adjusted earnings U.S. 1979-2021 | Statista

In 2021, the usual median hourly rate of a worker's wage in the United States was 17.02 U.S.

www.statista.com

You're believing disinformation from people who think wages ought to have grown at least as fast as the economy and who move their goalposts accordingly.

 

[Politesse]

There is no such thing as a "right" to ownership, except insofar as a person can convince others that they have such a right. The collusion of a government helps.

Do you feel the same way about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness too, or are you singling out ownership as different from other rights? Do you think a slave had no right to run away to a free state or Canada except insofar as he could convince others he had such a right?

Only insofar as all rights are social constructions. I don't see the rights your mention as strongly analogous to one another. I doubt that you do either. I mean, do you really think your "right" to life is of similar quality or importance as your right to pursue happiness?

If your point is rather that all rights are somehow magical, universal and/or inherent, it seems odd you would directly quote a historical document in attempting to describe what ought to be natural and obvious truths in that case.

The government has a right to tax you, and if you break the law, the government has the right to fine you, take your property in forfeit, and redistribute it as they see fit.

So if a doctor performs an abortion in Oklahoma you think the government has the right to fine her? What evidence is there for it having any such right?

The government claims that right, and no one who has the power to gainsay them opposes such. Ergo they have it, as much as any entity has a right.

Do workers have a right to redistribution of the wealth they have generated, perhaps if the disparity becomes too obvious? I don't know your situation, but in my country, answering yes to this question in any capacity makes you a "Marxist"...

You appear to be taking for granted that it's the wealth "they have generated", as though the supervisors and shareholders and suppliers and customers and inventors and cops and soldiers and doctors and lawyers and whatnot didn't help generate it too.

No, but you wrote all that. Perhaps you can explain why most of the people you mention aren't paid for their share of the labor at all, and others only a miniscule portion, if people possess some sort of natural right to ownership of property?

(and perceived enemy of the state to most). State welfare is acceptable, at least to Democrats and other "liberals", if it is framed as a sort of noblesse oblige from the state, a kindly gift offered out of empathy and pity. To frame it as a right is to make a claim that very few Americans are willing or inclined to acknowledge,

Where are you getting your statistics? Framing it as a right is very popular with a huge subset of the American people.

I have not cited any statistics, merely observing the general tenor of politics. Out of curiosity, I tried to look around for said statistics before typing out this response, but couldn't find any. Apparently none of the major polling institutions have bothered to ask. Unsurprising, considering the lack of a politically significant Marxist movement in the US.

out of terror that it will hurt their self-interest if applied consistently rather than haphazardly.

Oh for the love of god! The people who reject your theory of rights reject it because we think it's asinine, not because of whatever goofy psychology it pleases you to make up and impute to us.

I have not advanced a "theory of rights", nor have I accused you of having a psychology. If you prefer to be seen as mindless, you are free to portray yourself in such a fashion.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I think this is best looked at from the beginning. You didn't just materialize as a CEO. You were someone with an idea.

Progressive taxation? Definitely. Pass it on to heirs? Definitely not. But this "you didn't build that" shit is just wrong. The person with the idea that eventually became a publicly traded company did build that. They surely made some critical hires along the way that helped build that but these hires did not start a company, did they? The person with the idea did. The person that went in debt up to their eyeballs. The person who put their family's livelihood on the line. The person who spent years getting four hours of sleep a night worrying about the company and the employees livelihood. The person who missed so much of their children growing up.

So now you're old and the company is doing fine. And someone is saying, you didn't build that. That the company doesn't need you to function. Well, yeah. That's what a successful company is, and you built it into that.

So, do you not believe in families passing wealth down to the next generation?

Should a family not be able to pass the family home/store/silver/company/farm/what have you to the next generation?

Lots and lots of people live for years on 4 hours of sleep—not just owners or entrepreneurs or CEOs. Lots and lots of people give up time with their families, work back breaking hours —multiple jobs, even, just to keep that family fed and housed. Their labor makes CEOs wealthy. They hope to keep their own families fed and housed and healthy. Their families’ livelihood is on the line with every decision and every whim of the CEO.

Currently we have a class of billionaire ‘entrepreneurs’ who basically act as unelected potentates, and they’re aiming to claim space as their personal kingdoms. Without any input or checks and balances of the people who provide all the infrastructure that allowed them to amass their enormous wealth.

I do not believe in passing down most wealth. A cursory look shows it is $12 million and change can be passed down tax free. After that the tax amount varies up to 40%. I don't think any adult child deserves such a sum of money simply because of "family". The recipient has done nothing but be born.

Looking at family businesses, depending on how the business is structured and laws vary state to state, but it actually looks like taxes are currently more of a burden than I would like to see. I don't think a business should be burdened by the government due to the passing of the owner. That employees jobs should be put at risk because the owner dies and the family cannot afford the tax burden created because of it.
I think a family business might be passed down tax free but put on something like a twenty year appreciation schedule so if the heir(s) want to sell it within that 20 year time frame, the earlier they sell it, the greater the tax burden.

 

[Toni]

I think this is best looked at from the beginning. You didn't just materialize as a CEO. You were someone with an idea.

Progressive taxation? Definitely. Pass it on to heirs? Definitely not. But this "you didn't build that" shit is just wrong. The person with the idea that eventually became a publicly traded company did build that. They surely made some critical hires along the way that helped build that but these hires did not start a company, did they? The person with the idea did. The person that went in debt up to their eyeballs. The person who put their family's livelihood on the line. The person who spent years getting four hours of sleep a night worrying about the company and the employees livelihood. The person who missed so much of their children growing up.

So now you're old and the company is doing fine. And someone is saying, you didn't build that. That the company doesn't need you to function. Well, yeah. That's what a successful company is, and you built it into that.

So, do you not believe in families passing wealth down to the next generation?

Should a family not be able to pass the family home/store/silver/company/farm/what have you to the next generation?

Lots and lots of people live for years on 4 hours of sleep—not just owners or entrepreneurs or CEOs. Lots and lots of people give up time with their families, work back breaking hours —multiple jobs, even, just to keep that family fed and housed. Their labor makes CEOs wealthy. They hope to keep their own families fed and housed and healthy. Their families’ livelihood is on the line with every decision and every whim of the CEO.

Currently we have a class of billionaire ‘entrepreneurs’ who basically act as unelected potentates, and they’re aiming to claim space as their personal kingdoms. Without any input or checks and balances of the people who provide all the infrastructure that allowed them to amass their enormous wealth.

I do not believe in passing down most wealth. A cursory look shows it is $12 million and change can be passed down tax free. After that the tax amount varies up to 40%. I don't think any adult child deserves such a sum of money simply because of "family". The recipient has done nothing but be born.

Looking at family businesses, depending on how the business is structured and laws vary state to state, but it actually looks like taxes are currently more of a burden than I would like to see. I don't think a business should be burdened by the government due to the passing of the owner. That employees jobs should be put at risk because the owner dies and the family cannot afford the tax burden created because of it.
I think a family business might be passed down tax free but put on something like a twenty year appreciation schedule so if the heir(s) want to sell it within that 20 year time frame, the earlier they sell it, the greater the tax burden.

I don't entirely agree about family not being able to inherit family property above $12M. For one thing, there may be many heirs to divide an estate. For another, I've seen some well placed property balloon in price in recent years. Supposing one such property were a family home well situated on a lake or in an expensive city--a family could lose their ability to retain something that is of important sentimental value to them--to a real estate speculator who could care less that is where 3 generations of couples said their wedding vows, for example.

 

[Bomb#20]

And lets us not mention the century long war on labor unions. Still ongoing as far as legal to do that.

Yes, this is part of the “recovery” argument. When Companies felt it was acceptable to rip people off if you could instead of paying them for what they contributed.

And that’s an issue that I know some will argue. “If I *can* rip them off, I *should* rip them off, because failing to rip them off when I could have, is failing to maximize my money, which is - immoral, right?”

The idea that being just and paying people commensurate with whatt they provided to you is a failing, somehow. “I realize you gave me $5 in value, but if I can bully you into letting me pay only $3, I haven’t done anything wrong, yah? I haven’t harmed society and left you needing public care that you would not have needed if I paid you for the value you gave me. I mean a society where I can pressure you into giving me your lunch money is a good society, right?”

Have you considered the merits of listening to people who disagree with you, instead of just making up words to put in their mouths?

You are applying creationist economic reasoning, the sort people went in for two hundred years ago back when economics was still part of philosophy -- and that's fine, your option, to each her own. What isn't fine is that you are taking for granted that the people who disagree with you believe in all the exact same nonsense from early-modern-era folk-economics that you believe in, and you are constructing opinions for them by trying to imagine what would need to be going on in a person's mind in order for him to disagree with you about who ought to get what while simultaneously agreeing with you about all your unexamined economic premises. This leads you to make believe your opponents are cartoon villains.