What level of income/wealth inequality is ideal and how much is too much or can there ever be too much?

[ksen]

The US is a capitalist nation. The world is getting increasingly more capitalist evey year.

I think everyone agrees that income/wealth inequality is inherent in the capitalist system.

My questions are: Given that we are going to be capitalistic for the foreseeable future what do you think the ideal level of income/wealth inequality should be?

Or do you think that the level of inequality is unimportant and whatever it is, it is?

If you think there is an ideal level and/or the gap can get too wide what would you propose be done to bring the gap back closer to your ideal level? Anything?

If you think there is a point where "something" should be done but you also fall into the camp of thinking government is generally incompetent what mechanism could you envision that would work to bring the level of inequality back down to more "normal" levels?

 

[dismal]

Well, let's imagine a 2 person society. What's better wealth of (Person A, Person B) = (2,2) or (10,3)?

How would you determine such a thing?

 

[ksen]

I'm asking your opinion about the society we live in right now.

It's ok to say that you think there is no problem with income/wealth inequality.

This isn't a setup thread.

 

[dismal]

I'm asking your opinion about the society we live in right now.

It's ok to say that you think there is no problem with income/wealth inequality.

This isn't a setup thread.

You asked what level of society is ideal.

I asked how you would determine such a thing.

 

[ksen]

Yes, I know you did. So I directed you back to the subject of the OP.

If you feel you can't answer the questions that's ok too.

 

[NobleSavage]

As long as everyone has their basic needs meet and can live a good life, I'm not too concerned with those at the top.

 

[dystopian]

My questions are: Given that we are going to be capitalistic for the foreseeable future what do you think the ideal level of income/wealth inequality should be?

I think that at the very least, people should be able to take care of their basic needs and have enough extra money to participate fully in the full range of normal social behavior. As for the upper end, I don't think there's an exact point where it becomes too much... but when you're gold-plating your toilet bowls or buying yachts the size of skyscrapers, you've probably got way too much money.

If you think there is an ideal level and/or the gap can get too wide what would you propose be done to bring the gap back closer to your ideal level? Anything?

I believe a Universal Basic Income is the only viable option long-term; and pretty much inevitable.

 

[Togo]

There's lots of tools for wealth redistribution. I could certainly be paying more tax, for example. I think there are some benefits to a little inequality, but not nearly as much as we have now. If you want inequality as an incentive to perform, then all you need is noticeably more than your neighbour, not several times more.

 

[dismal]

Yes, I know you did. So I directed you back to the subject of the OP.

If you feel you can't answer the questions that's ok too.

So, we're going to discuss what level of inequality is ideal but not how such a thing should be determined?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

3.5 billion. And when you go over that it all gets taken away and you have to find something new to do with yourself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think the question can be answered.

1) I don't think we have enough data.

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

 

[dystopian]

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

Why on earth would you think this? The outrage over wealth inequality is about a lot more than having enough food on the table of the poor. More important than that is the lopsided power dynamic; which becomes *more* important, not less, the more a society has to divide. Our current levels of inequality concentrate the majority of power in the hands of a few, often at the expense of the many. If a group of a 100 people taken together have only a 1000 dollars to divide a day, then it's just unfair if one have them has more than the others, but while it gives them greater luxury it doesn't afford them all that much more power compared to the others. If however, that same group of people has a trillion dollars to spend a day, with the majority of that going to a single individual; then even though the 99 others may have quite a bit of money to spend themselves, the power dynamic in the group becomes completely slanted towards that one individual with the biggest share. This, is the real problem with wealth inequality in our current economic system. Wealth inequality affords the elite so much power and influence compared to everyone else, that almost any opposition to their policies is doomed from the start.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't think the question can be answered.

I just did.

1) I don't think we have enough data.

We do.

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution

 

[Nice Squirrel]

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

Why on earth would you think this? The outrage over wealth inequality is about a lot more than having enough food on the table of the poor. More important than that is the lopsided power dynamic; which becomes *more* important, not less, the more a society has to divide. Our current levels of inequality concentrate the majority of power in the hands of a few, often at the expense of the many. If a group of a 100 people taken together have only a 1000 dollars to divide a day, then it's just unfair if one have them has more than the others, but while it gives them greater luxury it doesn't afford them all that much more power compared to the others. If however, that same group of people has a trillion dollars to spend a day, with the majority of that going to a single individual; then even though the 99 others may have quite a bit of money to spend themselves, the power dynamic in the group becomes completely slanted towards that one individual with the biggest share. This, is the real problem with wealth inequality in our current economic system. Wealth inequality affords the elite so much power and influence compared to everyone else, that almost any opposition to their policies is doomed from the start.

Oh come on now, it not like two brothers have undue influence on the United States government or something.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think that at the very least, people should be able to take care of their basic needs and have enough extra money to participate fully in the full range of normal social behavior. As for the upper end, I don't think there's an exact point where it becomes too much... but when you're gold-plating your toilet bowls or buying yachts the size of skyscrapers, you've probably got way too much money.

If you think there is an ideal level and/or the gap can get too wide what would you propose be done to bring the gap back closer to your ideal level? Anything?

I believe a Universal Basic Income is the only viable option long-term; and pretty much inevitable.

How would a universal basic income be implemented? Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

 

[NobleSavage]

How would a universal basic income be implemented?

By force.

Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

Don't be silly, UBC is not for the 3rd world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) The more a society has the less important the distribution becomes.

Why on earth would you think this? The outrage over wealth inequality is about a lot more than having enough food on the table of the poor. More important than that is the lopsided power dynamic; which becomes *more* important, not less, the more a society has to divide. Our current levels of inequality concentrate the majority of power in the hands of a few, often at the expense of the many. If a group of a 100 people taken together have only a 1000 dollars to divide a day, then it's just unfair if one have them has more than the others, but while it gives them greater luxury it doesn't afford them all that much more power compared to the others. If however, that same group of people has a trillion dollars to spend a day, with the majority of that going to a single individual; then even though the 99 others may have quite a bit of money to spend themselves, the power dynamic in the group becomes completely slanted towards that one individual with the biggest share. This, is the real problem with wealth inequality in our current economic system. Wealth inequality affords the elite so much power and influence compared to everyone else, that almost any opposition to their policies is doomed from the start.

What's important from a standpoint of society is that those at the bottom have enough to meet their needs. The more society has the higher the average and thus the bigger the swing that can be tolerated while still ensuring the people at the bottom have enough.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why does the "basic minimum income" have to be FREE to the recipients? Why couldn't they earn it?

I believe a Universal Basic Income is the only viable option long-term; and pretty much inevitable.

How would a universal basic income be implemented? Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

By force.

Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

Don't be silly, [Universal Basic Income] is not for the 3rd world.

It's totally arbitrary and irrational to dictate that Universal Basic Income is not for the 3rd world.

The moral doctrine that the haves are required to provide UBI to the have-nots cannot logically be restricted to one country, because the "have" countries are obligated by the same logic to provide UBI to the "have-not" countries.

And even if this logic is followed and it becomes possible for the "have" countries to do this, there is the further logic that humans are required to provide UBI also to other species. I.e., the "have" species, humans, are morally obligated to take care of those animals which are suffering and need a basic minimum living standard.

Until some solution is found to this moral dilemma, there is no logic to morally obligate the "haves" to provide something free to the "have-nots".

So a better solution to the inequality problem is to find a way for the "have-nots" to earn something, so they are helped and brought up to a minimum level, while at the same time doing something in return for it, so that it is not free.

If the thinking were redirected away from the free-benefits approach to this approach of having the recipients do something in return, i.e., to earn their UBI, then a solution is made possible. Because the result would be something productive from the "have-nots" to reimburse the "haves" so that everyone benefits, and so the "haves" would also benefit, and all would be served, rather than only some at the expense of others.

And this could be a political solution, or a private one other than a business- or market-economy solution. The private market approach already takes care of most of the needy, but if this is not enough, then there might be a non-market approach which would work by extending the benefits to a much larger number of the needy, who would do something productive in return, so it's not free.

The only drawback would be that there would be still be a small number of humans unable to be productive and earn their way.

But we should be willing to accept a system which extends a "basic minimum income" to the vast majority who can be productive, though still leaving out a small number of humans who are totally dysfunctional and thus unable to do anything productive.

This left-out group might be small enough to be served by charity groups such as we have now. Just as there are charities that care for abandoned animals.

What is the moral difference between humans who have no functionality whatever and animals? Why is the state obligated to take care of all dysfunctional humans any more than it is obligated to take care of all distressed animals?

What makes humans superior to animals if not their ability to perform as humans? such as to think? How is a human without this ability any more of value than an animal?

 

[dystopian]

How would a universal basic income be implemented?

I don't know; there are much smarter people than I who have plenty of ideas on it, ideas that are beyond the scope of this thread. I do know that it is the only way to deal with increased automation and the only way to ensure a balance in inequality.

Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

No; it would do the exact opposite. Third world countries have higher birthrates precisely *because* of poverty, not despite of it. The link between increased income (and everything that comes with it) and decreased birthrates has been well-established.

 

[dystopian]

How would a universal basic income be implemented? Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

By force.

Secondly, wouldn't that encourage even more over population in third world countries?

Don't be silly, [Universal Basic Income] is not for the 3rd world.

It's totally arbitrary and irrational to dictate that Universal Basic Income is not for the 3rd world.

The moral doctrine that the haves are required to provide UBI to the have-nots cannot logically be restricted to one country, because the "have" countries are obligated by the same logic to provide UBI to the "have-not" countries.

And even if this logic is followed and it becomes possible for the "have" countries to do this, there is the further logic that humans are required to provide UBI also to other species. I.e., the "have" species, humans, are morally obligated to take care of those animals which are suffering and need a basic minimum living standard.

Until some solution is found to this moral dilemma, there is no logic to morally obligate the "haves" to provide something free to the "have-nots".

What kind of nonsensical reasoning is this?

There's no logic to morally obligate the haves to provide something to the have nots because that somehow means they have to do it for ALL the have nots? Sorry, no, but that makes no sense. It's like saying; "Sorry, I can't help you, mr.pedestrian who just got run over by a car right in front of me... because if I'd help you I'd then have to help all the people who got run over by cars everywhere, and I just don't have the time for that! Sorry, you can't morally obligate me from helping you not bleed out."

Helping *some* of the have-nots is obviously better than helping none.

So a better solution to the inequality problem is to find a way for the "have-nots" to earn something, so they are helped and brought up to a minimum level, while at the same time doing something in return for it, so that it is not free. If the thinking were redirected away from the free-benefits approach to this approach of having the recipients do something in return, i.e., to earn their UBI, then a solution is made possible. Because the result would be something productive from the "have-nots" to reimburse the "haves" so that everyone benefits, and so the "haves" would also benefit, and all would be served, rather than only some at the expense of others.

Except that is impossible, because there will never be enough jobs for that. There aren't enough jobs for it now, and there certainly won't be enough jobs for it in the future as the inevitable march of automation continues to make jobs obsolete. That also wouldn't be a UBI: A UBI is guaranteed income one is entitled to *no matter what*; as soon as it comes with the string of 'you need to work for it' attached, it stops being UBI and becomes *salary*.

The only drawback would be that there would be still be a small number of humans unable to be productive and earn their way.

Small number? You are severely overestimating the number of jobs that could realistically be created to employ people in order to provide a reasonable income for everyone. The only way you can create enough employment to make the number of unemployed people a 'small number' (relatively or in absolute terms), is splitting workloads so much that it is no longer economically tenable for an industry to pay a living wage to each of the workers. If the haves are willing to cut their efficiency and income that much, they might as well *keep* the efficiency, and cut their income so the non-employed get a decent income. Your demand that people "earn" their UBI would be horrible for everyone; it may 'feel' "fair" to you, but it isn't in anyone's interest to do it that way.

This left-out group might be small enough to be served by charity groups such as we have now. Just as there are charities that care for abandoned animals.

You cannot possibly be naive enough to think the whims of charity could ever replace, morally or practically, a guaranteed income.

What is the moral difference between humans who have no functionality whatever and animals? Why is the state obligated to take care of all dysfunctional humans any more than it is obligated to take care of all distressed animals?

What makes humans superior to animals if not their ability to perform as humans? such as to think? How is a human without this ability any more of value than an animal?

This is the reasoning of a psychopath. Those of us who actually have empathy, do *not* define a person's value by whether or they are more productive than animals; and do not accept such reasoning to justify kicking the weakest of us into the gutter.