Do you think there is a finite amount of wealth?

[Conaeolos]

Secular Talk

Find the latest breaking news and information on the top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, and more. For in-depth coverage

seculartalk.net

Claim specifically: 3:28-3:59.

There's a ton here I disagree with, and I very much would celebrate every rags-to-riches stories. Income mobility after-all is far more important than most breakdowns. Most egregious however to me, is the suggestion, wealth is finite. I very much would argue capitalism works despite downsides such as consumerism & inequality of outcome, because it creates more wealth in an economy than any other market environments. More people having billions helps connected people in material-poverty by increasing the amount in circulation - the exact opposite as what was stated. This is quite a leftist board: do many here agree with Kyle that the reason America isn't a meritocracy is there is a finite amount of wealth? If so, can you break it down different from him for this skeptic.

One point I do agree is the covid-19 crisis has seen by legally mandated redistribution from average Americans to the corporate-class. I do not however think either the story of which he's basing his anger (e.g. DoorDash, AirBnB) are
examples of this issue in which we agree.

Other, sub-conflicts:

Meritocracy
One's 'working hard' is meaningless if the demand for their skills is so low they make minimum wage or below. Low-skilled labor should be done by entry-level or alt-level people(young/old people, high-earner who needs base money) who do not rely on wages to make a living. For people who find themselves in dire-straits in a capitalist free market, maybe due to addictions or a health complication, yes I think there should be a safety-nets maybe even sans work. This should be minimal. Poverty isn't going to disappear.

CEO Compensation
A good CEO verse a bad CEO can mean the difference between shifts in wealth in the billions, practically infinite new revenues & losses. The idea their compensation should be in line with an always in demand employees, such as say a secretary or trades person is insane to me. A secretary doesn't create value in the millions, paying them so is destroying the effective distribution of resources not is worsen our already bad selection processes.

Productivity / wages
Most productivity gains today are due to increases of technology which requires high capital-investment. People who create that technology are extremely well compensated. Diverting funds from high capital-investment technology to increase standard employee wages beyond market will only destroy wealth as it's inefficient-management. The gains for employees is in increased buying power as higher-productivity lowers prices.

Redistributive Policies
Redistribution is bad when it takes from high-effective use to low-effective use. It good only as a safety-net for those who can not compete within the market. So far example, if I produce by the market millions in value and buy a yacht creating a whole niche industry that would otherwise not exist that is infinitely better than my employees spending the same on more food, cars & entertainment (which in case you miss puts all the power into big-industry players hands).

but, but, but what about education? well, a teacher can only produce what the market will allow. So although, they are often very valuable to those who by their instruction gain knowledge that increases one ability to produce value(hence well paid). If say, instead they were teaching Joe Average to be a middle-manager (a good job) but joe lacks the underlying personality, network and opportunity to be a middle-manger. The education is actually a debt not an asset for Joe. Overing educating is a huge problem in our society, unless we change what we teach.

Progressive income tax
If you have $1,000,000 and make $100,000 verses you have $100,000 and make $1,000,000. Shouldn't both be equal?
High income tax is a great way to generate a lot of tax revenue but it comes at the cost of income mobility & creating a classed society.

Wealth tax
This would destroy an economy by destroying a lot of its wealth.
When someone is worth $1,000,000,000 it's because they own shares.
If they had to liquidate all those shares, they'd would not actually have $1,000,000,000 because no one would buy that amount of shares at that share price.
This is literally a plan to burn wealth for no gain.
Income tax produces far more tax-revenue than you could ever extract from the wealthy. We're talking fractions of a fraction.

45% of Wealth Inherited
I am motived most by what I can get for my children. My max net-worth will likely be on my death-bed. I'm not doing it for me, assuming many more are like me, death taxes would kill more economic libido more not less.

 

[ataraxia]

Secular Talk

Find the latest breaking news and information on the top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, and more. For in-depth coverage

seculartalk.net

Claim specifically: 3:28-3:59.

There's a ton here I disagree with, and I very much would celebrate every rags-to-riches stories. Income mobility after-all is far more important than most breakdowns. Most egregious however to me, is the suggestion, wealth is finite. I very much would argue capitalism works despite downsides such as consumerism & inequality of outcome, because it creates more wealth in an economy than any other market environments. More people having billions helps connected people in material-poverty by increasing the amount in circulation - the exact opposite as what was stated. This is quite a leftist board: do many here agree with Kyle that the reason America isn't a meritocracy is there is a finite amount of wealth? If so, can you break it down different from him for this skeptic.

Agree with almost all of what you say here. The reason the industrial revolution and capitalism created the modern world is that we aren’t all fighting for the same sized pie. That’s why we had so many wars and bloodshed in the past- it at at least a lot more than now, thankfully. Now, we have learned to grow the pie.

But with that being said, I think a basic social safety net for the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens of a society should always be provided.

These are the rights laid out by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948: the rights to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare. This not only creates a more humane society, but also creates a more politically stable and economically prosperous environment for capitalism to thrive. It is a worthwhile public good and investment. In everything else, we can let the free market and capitalism do its magic.

 

[Razoo]

Socialism and capitalism need each other???? Perhaps

 

[Conaeolos]

These are the rights laid out by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948: the rights to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare. This not only creates a more humane society, but also creates a more politically stable and economically prosperous environment for capitalism to thrive. It is a worthwhile public good and investment. In everything else, we can let the free market and capitalism do its magic.

On initial impression it’s hard to disagree, yet, an effective-system or guiding principles should still hold even as you change the inputs. We in America inherit an extremely wealthy country, and so can afford to experiment and be wrong. To pushback however, what if we take a country in the opposite condition. Say Nigeria (a country of 200 million people). Her tax-revenues are about $32.7 billion and certainly a stark contrast to our 7.03 trillion on 331 million people. That said, if you apprise the country by American standards a lot of wealth is simply untapped.

the rights to food

As contrasted to America is the problem even worse distribution or worse supply? Answer supply. Demand being far above supply, distribution is downstream.

-Government would go bankrupt just trying to provide this as a right.
-Foreign subsidized food would wipe out local producers who not can’t sell at market rate; making short-term gains for long term loses
- the most effective solution is one where government or natural-market incentivizes top-highest yielding producers with say free unclaimed land, status or meaningful ROI. (Note: agriculture is their fastest growing sector)

clean water

Again:
-Government would go bankrupt just trying to provide this as a right.
- Foreign subsidized purification systems would be helpful but likely wouldn’t be enough for a long while.
- governments could set up each village or city a model & responsibility to provide clean water. If they fail they’d get X punishment succeed X privilege.
- Private water would work eventually but due to supply compared to demand in the short term it would be prohibitively expensive with most choosing illnesses over the burden

shelter

Again:
-Government would go bankrupt just trying to provide this as a right.
- foreign ownership would push up land values helping some get houses being associated with the new wealth but leaving most priced out.
- To increase the supply and push down prices you incentivize the henry fords of housing. You also need a structures like mortgages in America as most must look at housing as a monthly cost not total cost.

a basic education

Again:
-Government would go bankrupt just trying to provide this as a right.
-foreign unlikely to account for the reality of Nigerian society. Like you see today in foreign educated elites apply foreign systems for the Nigerian context and distain/reject local culture.
- to gain a local intelligencia by which knowledge can be created and distributed; you must first realize say 2% of the anonymous locals are smarter than 99% of the first-world. That’s 4 million people. Create a system by which those 4 million can be identified and given rewards for applying their creativity. They’ll do the rest.

access to healthcare

See above.

My pushback being. Seeing these things as rights to be provided for by the government just because we can afford them is a failure to imagine the bigger potential. What is true of Nigeria by our standards is true of us to our potential; Social-safety nets and humanitarian goals must always imho attempt to be surgical not reactionary.

 

[Individual]

Progressive income tax
If you have $1,000,000 and make $100,000 verses you have $100,000 and make $1,000,000. Shouldn't both be equal?

Assuming the first number represents wealth and the second income, then I would also assume the wealth is what has been accumulated from previously earned and taxed income.

Three persons earn $50,000 one year. The first worked 1,000 hours, while the second worked 2,000 hours, and the third worked 4,000 hours. Is taxing their income equally fair?

A great many jobs exist ONLY because there are those who can afford and are willing to purchase their products.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but IMO the bulk of what we are calling wealth is in the form of property such as residences (personal and rental), and the stock market, NOT much in cash currency.
Rather than a wealth tax which IMO would be very complicated , a simple Federal sales tax on all stock market transactions would be much easier to implement.
A primary residence should, IMO, should remain taxed based on the original purchase price reassessed for tax purposes only when ownership changes resulting from inheritance or sales.
The elderly shouldn't have to move simply because they can no longer afford the property tax after they retire. Rental property would be reassessed periodically as done currently.

Government provided safety net programs should exist and be funded ONLY at the State and or local levels of government, where the people providing the funding are able to exert more control over them.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is, "Is there a finite amount of debt that can be accumulated?"

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is a finite amount of resources, a finite amount of human labor, a finite amount of breathable air and potable water, and a finite amount of "treasure" but wealth can be generated out of a combination of things that are not considered valuable when viewed separately, therefore wealth is generally accepted as almost infinite for all practical purposes.
Access to the means of creating or acquiring it however, is very much finite, mostly for political reasons.

 

[Conaeolos]

Access to the means of creating or acquiring it however, is very much finite, mostly for political reasons.

I follow till your last point. Could you expand a tad with an example.

 

[iguanaman]

Agree with almost all of what you say here. The reason the industrial revolution and capitalism created the modern world is that we aren’t all fighting for the same sized pie. That’s why we had so many wars and bloodshed in the past- it at at least a lot more than now, thankfully. Now, we have learned to grow the pie.

But with that being said, I think a basic social safety net for the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens of a society should always be provided.

These are the rights laid out by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948: the rights to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare. This not only creates a more humane society, but also creates a more politically stable and economically prosperous environment for capitalism to thrive. It is a worthwhile public good and investment. In everything else, we can let the free market and capitalism do its magic.

It's has never been the amount of wealth that is the problem. It is how the wealth is distributed that has become unsustainable. More and more of the profits from a society are going to fewer and fewer people. This puts a huge strain on capitalism and growth. We cannot have a healthy economy without growth and it is slowing alarmingly. A V-8 firing on 2 cylinders is not going to last long. We are choking and sputtering into a breakdown in America and China has the fastest growing middle class in the world.

 

[Conaeolos]

I would also assume the wealth is what has been accumulated from previously earned and taxed income.

Yes, it’d be post-tax in some way.

Three persons earn $50,000 one year. The first worked 1,000 hours, while the second worked 2,000 hours, and the third worked 4,000 hours. Is taxing their income equally fair?

Yes, assuming no-one cheated. The market had a reason to give each their rate. Person 1 is the most valuable hence the most incentivized. Income tax remaining the best generator of tax-revenue (compared to alternative tax forms) with the lowest costs per additional percent. Costs being: lower income mobility and a higher cost of labor. So being taxed as a rule isn’t naturally fair but on the balance if considered a cost of citizenship a progressive tax could be quite fair.


I’m think your idea here is progressive taxes verse flat produce less incentive to work? I would agree but argue that’s a good thing. You want people working more productively not more hours. There is a point however when a rate becomes punative and that’s anticapitalist nonsense.

Rather than a wealth tax which IMO would be very complicated , a simple Federal sales tax on all stock market transactions would be much easier to implement.

Sure but we understand most stocks are indirectly owned by average people? Funds are the biggest players even as the ROI is redirected by middle men. So one sales tax is like any other sales tax which is regressive targeting poorer people not richer and producing little revenue. Sales taxes producing 7.5% of total tax-revenues as an example.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is, "Is there a finite amount of debt that can be accumulated?"

I’d say probably not, but servicing the debt eats at our natural growth in tax revenues with economic growth. The problem is more what that’s being spent on. Let me explain:

Imagine your given a loan for $5,000,000 that’s a game changer for your average budget. If invested in ventures with aftertax ROI higher than the intrest rate. You’re wealthy for the rest of your life even as the loan grows indefinitely. Up your lifestyle to the point you shift that equation your on the clock. Most people choose the clock and we live in a democracy.

For a government:
Much of social spending & nationalization is lifestyle and infrastructure, milltary etc are investments with ROI. It’s obvious not that clean cut of course as say education could be a venture or could be a feel-good program. So could public health or welfare. Military could be draining the best minds from the private sector or providing jobs for types the private-market can’t use as effectively.

We’re a mix. There are some public roles which would exist either way, with them we’re just using a centralized method of payment. There are also public roles imagined up that are net-negatives taking away talent, capital and distorting natural market forces

So our debt is a finite problem only as long as our future is less than our obligations plus equivalent lifestyle spending. That is our current lot, but doesn’t have to be. Would just need to start seriously evaluating on ROI instead of feels. And like the personal, with ROI comes lifestyle, so no just because something is feels and not an ROI investment doesn’t mean it needs to go — it just means it needs to be sustainable.

 

[Individual]

I follow till your last point. Could you expand a tad with an example.

I received an alert showing you responded to a post I made, but when I click on it I see you've quoted Checkerboard Strangler NOT me. Perhaps a bug in the Forum app?

 

[Conaeolos]

It's has never been the amount of wealth that is the problem. It is how the wealth is distributed that has become unsustainable. More and more of the profits from a society are going to fewer and fewer people.

Are you sure? That top group has a very high growth rate as the story kyle is referring to was documenting

This puts a huge strain on capitalism and growth.

So you’re questioning if the most efficient mangers of scare reasources are still getting incentivize or if because say the 45% inheritors points to a classed society? I’d still see the problem there as progressives taxes. You’ll have to clarify why capitalism is breaking due to disperse outcomes.

We cannot have a healthy economy without growth and it is slowing alarmingly. A V-8 firing on 2 cylinders is not going to last long. We are choking and sputtering into a breakdown in America

I can sympathize but we sure see the problem differently.

and China has the fastest growing middle class in the world.

with quality still far below and with a huge demographic bomb in their future. That aside. Is not the biggest issue with china that we offshore our dirty industries? Or do you see that as an issue at all?

 

[Conaeolos]

I received an alert showing you responded to a post I made, but when I click on it I see you've quoted Checkerboard Strangler NOT me. Perhaps a bug in the Forum app?

No, I had combined the post following with the other by accident than went back to finish and split into two.

 

[iguanaman]

Are you sure? That top group has a very high growth rate as the story kyle is referring to was documenting


So you’re questioning if the most efficient mangers of scare reasources are still getting incentivize or if because say the 45% inheritors points to a classed society? I’d still see the problem there as progressives taxes. You’ll have to clarify why capitalism is breaking due to disperse outcomes.


I can sympathize but we sure see the problem differently.


with quality still far below and with a huge demographic bomb in their future. That aside. Is not the biggest issue with china that we offshore our dirty industries? Or do you see that as an issue at all?

If wages here keep up their 40 year trend we will soon be making the cheap junk for the Chinese to buy. GM already sells more cars in China than here. Their middle class wages are increasing much faster than ours.
When I sat "it" is unsustainable I mean our middle class is on the chopping block. Can you see why of growth is slowing? Our middle class has not had a raise in 40 years. Who do you think drives our GDP? Hint: it is NOT the richest 1% buying million $ cars.

 

[Conaeolos]

If wages here keep up their 40 year trend we will soon be making the cheap junk for the Chinese to buy.

Before China that’s what media said about the Japanese. China has a lot of issues(different from ours), the biggest of which is their age pyramid. I wouldn’t be conceding our economic future so quickly.

GM already sells more cars in China than here. Their middle class wages are increasing much faster than ours.

As would be predicted in a market with more potential customers and lower safety standards (meaning lower prices).

Are Americans having more issues getting cars? I would think the bigger issue is for a lot of urban people - cars are more expensive than uber & renting for long trips; so more and more arw saving money skipping the expense. And with auto-driving like is built on the model 3 (ubers well your at work) those prices are looking like they’re going to get insanely attractive. So not sure car’s are what to follow.

When I sat "it" is unsustainable I mean our middle class is on the chopping block.

You got to be careful with things like middle class, as they’re often relative so it’s hard to adjust for changes. It’s a fact our poorest are richer and our top-income has never been so large(and growing). Both of those things would shrink the middle class neither is particularly negative.

Now, basic rent in Bay Area as I understand it was some $2800+ / mo last I checked and obviously the labor market is resistant to new-entries; making a good lifestyle especially difficult for anyone considered general or low-skilled. Debt in our culture out of control. Etc etc

So, how are you suggesting we put pressure on the buying power / average income? As I mentioned in my first post under progressive tax. Higher taxes will likely hurt this pattern not help.

Can you see why of growth is slowing? Our middle class has not had a raise in 40 years. Who do you think drives our GDP? Hint: it is NOT the richest 1% buying million $ cars.

Sure and if cars only came out of germany, japan & korea we wouldn’t have so many 1%. We all just be a little bit poorer. I am not seeing your vision there.

I do accept the problem-result though: the middle class needs more income & wealth. Love it. Keep going...how are they getting there? Or alternative, what’s an example of a should-be middle-class job that’s underpaid?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Assuming the first number represents wealth and the second income, then I would also assume the wealth is what has been accumulated from previously earned and taxed income.

Three persons earn $50,000 one year. The first worked 1,000 hours, while the second worked 2,000 hours, and the third worked 4,000 hours. Is taxing their income equally fair?

A great many jobs exist ONLY because there are those who can afford and are willing to purchase their products.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but IMO the bulk of what we are calling wealth is in the form of property such as residences (personal and rental), and the stock market, NOT much in cash currency.
Rather than a wealth tax which IMO would be very complicated , a simple Federal sales tax on all stock market transactions would be much easier to implement.
A primary residence should, IMO, should remain taxed based on the original purchase price reassessed for tax purposes only when ownership changes resulting from inheritance or sales.
The elderly shouldn't have to move simply because they can no longer afford the property tax after they retire. Rental property would be reassessed periodically as done currently.

Government provided safety net programs should exist and be funded ONLY at the State and or local levels of government, where the people providing the funding are able to exert more control over them.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is, "Is there a finite amount of debt that can be accumulated?"

Your point about three folks each making the same amount of (gross) income is interesting. The current federal income tax bases their taxation due (on that identical $50K income amount) on how and upon who that income was later spent rather than the level of effort (which you expressed as hours worked) required to earn (generate?) it. IMHO, progressive tax (bracket) rates suck since an identical amount of (itemized) tax deductions benefits those with higher incomes more than those with lower incomes (many of which can’t manage to benefit from itemizing their deductions at all).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Secular Talk

Find the latest breaking news and information on the top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, and more. For in-depth coverage

seculartalk.net

Claim specifically: 3:28-3:59.

There's a ton here I disagree with, and I very much would celebrate every rags-to-riches stories. Income mobility after-all is far more important than most breakdowns. Most egregious however to me, is the suggestion, wealth is finite. I very much would argue capitalism works despite downsides such as consumerism & inequality of outcome, because it creates more wealth in an economy than any other market environments. More people having billions helps connected people in material-poverty by increasing the amount in circulation - the exact opposite as what was stated. This is quite a leftist board: do many here agree with Kyle that the reason America isn't a meritocracy is there is a finite amount of wealth? If so, can you break it down different from him for this skeptic.

One point I do agree is the covid-19 crisis has seen by legally mandated redistribution from average Americans to the corporate-class. I do not however think either the story of which he's basing his anger (e.g. DoorDash, AirBnB) are
examples of this issue in which we agree.

Other, sub-conflicts:

Meritocracy
One's 'working hard' is meaningless if the demand for their skills is so low they make minimum wage or below. Low-skilled labor should be done by entry-level or alt-level people(young/old people, high-earner who needs base money) who do not rely on wages to make a living. For people who find themselves in dire-straits in a capitalist free market, maybe due to addictions or a health complication, yes I think there should be a safety-nets maybe even sans work. This should be minimal. Poverty isn't going to disappear.

CEO Compensation
A good CEO verse a bad CEO can mean the difference between shifts in wealth in the billions, practically infinite new revenues & losses. The idea their compensation should be in line with an always in demand employees, such as say a secretary or trades person is insane to me. A secretary doesn't create value in the millions, paying them so is destroying the effective distribution of resources not is worsen our already bad selection processes.

Productivity / wages
Most productivity gains today are due to increases of technology which requires high capital-investment. People who create that technology are extremely well compensated. Diverting funds from high capital-investment technology to increase standard employee wages beyond market will only destroy wealth as it's inefficient-management. The gains for employees is in increased buying power as higher-productivity lowers prices.

Redistributive Policies
Redistribution is bad when it takes from high-effective use to low-effective use. It good only as a safety-net for those who can not compete within the market. So far example, if I produce by the market millions in value and buy a yacht creating a whole niche industry that would otherwise not exist that is infinitely better than my employees spending the same on more food, cars & entertainment (which in case you miss puts all the power into big-industry players hands).

but, but, but what about education? well, a teacher can only produce what the market will allow. So although, they are often very valuable to those who by their instruction gain knowledge that increases one ability to produce value(hence well paid). If say, instead they were teaching Joe Average to be a middle-manager (a good job) but joe lacks the underlying personality, network and opportunity to be a middle-manger. The education is actually a debt not an asset for Joe. Overing educating is a huge problem in our society, unless we change what we teach.
[...snipped to make room for reply]

One problem with “safety net” assistance for lower wage workers is that it effectively lowers an already low (hourly) wage. Assuming that a (low wage) worker can make $10/hour by working at some McJob and that each additional $2 of (reported) income reduces their “safety net” benefits by $1 then adding extra hours of McJob work nets them only $5/hour - which is below the federal minimum wage.

A low wage worker (qualifying for “safety net” assistance) would be much better off not working ‘on the books’ (taking additional McJob hours) and instead doing chores (becoming self-employed) for ‘off the books’ cash (which would not reduce their “safety net” perks).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I follow till your last point. Could you expand a tad with an example.

Flat wages for nearly four decades compounded with skyrocketing healthcare and higher education costs for starters.
My generation benefited enormously from state university and community college tuition being the equivalent of couch change, and tiny bachelor pad apartments that were affordable even at minimum wage pay.
There was just "a hundred times" <<---(casual reference) more upward mobility in my time, too.
State socialism demands equal outcomes, but we're not socialist, we're egalitarian minded, and egalitarianism centers around equal opportunity instead.

 

[Deuce]

There is not infinite wealth because there is not infinite anything on this finite planet.

 

[Conaeolos]

Flat wages for nearly four decades

Okay, let suppose as an example someone has chosen the career-path of a Secratary. Demand will always exist because people like me must hire organized friendly well spoken intermediaries because we’re disorganized & often appear rude. Most people do fine without. Demand is relatively flat.

Supply pressures will be minimal as the main skill quality is personality which although rare is still plentiful. Schooling is quite irrelevant but let’s be generous to your point and say we’d currently require a 2 year degree to be confident in their communication skills. High school after all often fails to prepare graduates in core skills like business communications in 2020.

The only wage pressure I can note since 1980 this person has faced is downward as foreign firms often aided by the internet pitch virtual assistants sometimes 24hr at ~3,600 / yr & the amount of interested people with prerequisites has only increased (I assume based on high rates of education).
According to a quick google search the median wage for a Secratary in the US is $40,170 ($12,719 in 1980). The median income of the US as a whole is $43,206. Making this a good example of a job where you’re saying we should seeing more income growth. The median income in 1980 was $11,656, so actually secretaries have see real wage growth despite now by the new relative standards it’s gone from an above average job to below average job.

compounded with skyrocketing healthcare and higher education costs for starters.

Okay, I am not sure how you can compare health-costs as the medicine available today is far better than 1980; but, in principle we can agree these have grown beyond inflation.

In our example, the education prerequisite of 2yr post-secondary cost between $7,600-17,600 excluding private tuitions, this comparing to about standard $1,600-2,300 in 1980 which is $5,000-7,200 in today’s terms. That is quite a hike, on the other hand, in the less educated 1980 economy would not that 2 years be less likely to be a requirement? In so, would not this create a current disincentive for people from this career path, which we’ve shown will be unlikey to be one’s best career option.

tiny bachelor pad apartments that were affordable even at minimum wage pay.

Rents and monthly payments haven’t actually changed that much outside specific regions where demand is far higher than the norm. This due to vastly different interest rates between 1980(prime 20%) and today(prime 3.25%).

But just so I understand your suggesting we need more low-cost housing?

There was just "a hundred times" <<---(casual reference) more upward mobility in my time, too.

I’d question the methodology on that. Mobility from what to what? The amount in the top incomes has grown faster than any other a -> b.

State socialism demands equal outcomes, but we're not socialist, we're egalitarian minded, and egalitarianism centers around equal opportunity instead.

I can respect that. So what is your suggestion for this hypothetical Secratary example. How in a market with higher supply and flat demand can their wages go up? By how much should their wage go up?

 

[Conaeolos]

There is not infinite wealth because there is not infinite anything on this finite planet.

Brazil & Nigeria are both large countries flush with natural resources. Both have similarly sized populations. Our typical quick measure of wealth(GDP) makes Brazil work with $1.8 trillion & Nigeria $448 billion. Brazil than is said to have 4.5x as much wealth. Are you saying this is due to the natural resources differences?

I can agree if you have 100 acres and 100 people. If one person has 2 acres the other 99 must have less. But if you have 100 acres and 1 person produces from it 1000x more food units per acre as the other 99. Even if that single person owns the 99 acres and the others share just one plot. Everyone is wealthier and better off than if had we split it evenly.

I am hence confused how some like kyle in the original post view wealth as finite even if the ‘means’ by which we can produce wealth is finite.

 

[Irwin Corey]

“Most egregious however to me, is the suggestion, wealth is finite.”

It may be egregious; but it’s a fact. Every Econ 101 text book begins with this statement: “Economics is the study of how to meet unlimited demand with LIMITED RESOURCES. If that’s not on the first page it’s certainly in the first chapter.

Your Meritocracy paragraph is functional nonsense in a society where so many good paying “upper-level” jobs have been shipped overseas and all that is left are low paying entry-level and service jobs. There are so many people in our society working jobs they are overqualified for because they can’t find jobs in their field.

CEO Compensation is immoral, what all you conservatives are AGAINING about is a time when most people worked for a man that sat in an office above the shop or sales floor and made, maybe, 10 or 20 times what his workers did. Not an exponential number that is unfathomable

Productivity / wages: I worked in IT and, yes, my job was to make sure that our people had the best tools we could afford to do their jobs. But, they could and did do their jobs, with or without and sometimes in spite of technological advantages. I've always said there is no such thing as unskilled labor; if you doubt that go out in the field with a illiterate migrant worker and work side by side harvesting. He/She will out do you 10 to 1 without breaking a sweat while you work your ass off ruining more produce than you harvest.

Progressive income tax was the bargain the wealthy made when we adopted the Federal Reserve and the income tax, that would pay the interest on the debt the Fed intended to create. They are reneging on that bargain because they've found it's cheaper to buy politicians than pay taxes.

A wealth tax prevents the situation we’re in, where we, as a nation, are moving inexorably toward plutocracy. Nobody cares how many cars or houses a wealthy preson has, but in the richest society it shouldn't be the case that a wealthy person has so much wealth that they get richer in spite of their best efforts to spend, while there are people that live hungry without health care and shelter. It's not unreasonable to expect the wealthy to contribute back to the society that made them or their ancestors rich in the frist place.

 

[ataraxia]

Brazil & Nigeria are both large countries flush with natural resources. Both have similarly sized populations. Our typical quick measure of wealth(GDP) makes Brazil work with $1.8 trillion & Nigeria $448 billion. Brazil than is said to have 4.5x as much wealth. Are you saying this is due to the natural resources differences?

I can agree if you have 100 acres and 100 people. If one person has 2 acres the other 99 must have less. But if you have 100 acres and 1 person produces from it 1000x more food units per acre as the other 99. Even if that single person owns the 99 acres and the others share just one plot. Everyone is wealthier and better off than if had we split it evenly.

I am hence confused how some like kyle in the original post view wealth as finite even if the ‘means’ by which we can produce wealth is finite.

I think the concern is that too much of extremes of wealth and poverty (too high a GINI index, as economists might say) may be socially and politically destabilizing, among many other potentially very dangerous dysfunctions and pathologies.

“Effects of income inequality, researchers have found, include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods,[1] a lower population-wide satisfaction and happiness[2][3] and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption.[4]For the top 21 industrialised countries, counting each person equally, life expectancy is lower in more unequal countries (r = -.907).[5] A similar relationship exists among US states (r = -.620).[6]


2013 Economics Nobel prize winner Robert J. Shillersaid that rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere is the most important problem.[7]

The economic stratification of society into "elites" and "masses" played a central role in the collapse of other advanced civilizations such as the Roman, Han, and Gupta empires.[8]”

Effects of economic inequality - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The economic stratification of society into "elites" and "masses" played a central role in the collapse of other advanced civilizations such as the Roman, Han, and Gupta empires.[8]”

Effects of economic inequality - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I give up.
I just got the "economist version" of the old Indian observation about a white man cutting off one end of a blanket, sewing it to the top of the blanket and telling everyone this blanket is now longer.
Or how "medicine is better now than in 1980"... <<<---- ( @Conaeolos )
Really? So if I break my leg in a car accident, it's going to be magically knitted together in five minutes?
No, it's still going to be put in a cast for six weeks, JUST LIKE IN 1980, only now I will get a bill in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
It is impossible to argue with people who believe in illusions, and my daughter is paying off 48 thousand bucks in student loan debt that did not exist in my time. She just moved into her first place of her own...at AGE 26.
I had my own apartment at age nineteen, and I was paying rent and living on the salary of a dishwasher WHILE going to college.

It's crystal clear to everyone except "economists" that cost of living is way higher, wages are depressed, and costs of essentials such as healthcare and higher education (latter drives upward mobility) are unattainable by a growing number of Americans, and of course today one in six of us are facing FOOD INSECURITY.

But you can find an economist who can put together an illusion for every political ideology, they make them in a factory.
Oh and....your 5G is killing us and COVID is a hoax and the Nashville explosion was a missile strike, did I leave anything out?

 

[ataraxia]

It's crystal clear to everyone except "economists" that cost of living is way higher, wages are depressed, and costs of essentials such as healthcare and higher education (latter drives upward mobility) are unattainable by a growing number of Americans, and of course today one in six of us are facing FOOD INSECURITY.

But you can find an economist who can put together an illusion for every political ideology, they make them in a factory.
Oh and....your 5G is killing us and COVID is a hoax and the Nashville explosion was a missile strike, did I leave anything out?

I am not quite sure I understand. What economist has said the opposite of what you are saying? The article I posted was not addressing that issue, just the issue of economic inequality and its problems. The problem of stagnant wages and rising cost of living is a somewhat tangential problem (and one which I agree is a big problem as well, btw).

 

[Conaeolos]

many good paying “upper-level” jobs have been shipped overseas and all that is left are low paying entry-level and service jobs.

Like what for example? Do you mean foreign ownership (e.g. Toyota vs Ford) or actual roles?

There are so many people in our society working jobs they are overqualified for because they can’t find jobs in their field.

So you agree with my controversial position we over-educating our young ;-)

I am curious, I would put the responsibility for that truth on each overqualified person as their free choice. To some extend media & culture. You put it on society & government. Do you suggest than we take away more individual choices to prevent this going forward? If not, how do we create the demand for the high-paying jobs these people do qualify? Please provide a hypothetical example.

CEO Compensation is immoral...10 or 20 times what his workers did. Not an exponential number that is unfathomable

Umm, are you suggesting that factories back then produced billions in wealth credits in which to distribute? CEOs today effect corporate revenues & losses in the billions. An average worker barely generates more than they did in 1950 except by way of capital-intensive technology. They are paid what a market would expect. A market is just as happy to keep that at 10-20; but, how to do so without making everyone a lot poorer is where you lose me.

I've always said there is no such thing as unskilled labor... He/She will out do you 10 to 1 without breaking a sweat

Good reason for them to demand to be paid by their output not input(hours) unlike you or me ;-)

We agree unskilled labor means no-skill is demanded not that those who choose it possess no skills. It’s foolish though to evaluate too much on skill, after-all even supposing we live in a nation where everyone had the potential and even hypothetically was trained to be a high-class surgeon. The limited demand would still mean there would be those doing unskilled-labor even if terrible at it like you or I.

They are reneging on that bargain because they've found it's cheaper to buy politicians than pay taxes.

Your suggesting another form of taxation? We are welcome to reform. I have floated the idea for example of waiving taxes for everyone below say $65,000. That is much less cost to the government than most social programs, but I’ve never heard that from the left. I also accept we could higher our top-income rates but as I shown that comes at the cost of wealth mobility. You suggesting a better goal is to get the maximum amount of people in the middle class?

A wealth tax prevents the situation we’re in...It's not unreasonable to expect the wealthy to contribute back to the society that made them or their ancestors rich in the frist place.

Still not following. So inequality is worse than having a growing amount of total wealth for everyone? Let’s suppose I have no issue with the morals. Let’s suppose I was on the bottom of the wealth index. I still don’t get the mechanics of how I’d be better not worse off.

If you force people with shares worth billions to sell off and take a fraction of that worth. You would not raise very much tax-revunue. You would burn a lot of that wealth not redistributed it. Companies would no longer be able to sell nominal amounts of shares to raise billions of dollars for capital-investment campaigns (they must sell tons of them) and literally there is less wealth to share for even me on the bottom of the food supply. I agree it would be more equal, but of a smaller total wealth.