• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is inequality good or bad?

If you notice when the subject of income inequality comes up the right always redirects the topic to the poor. There will always be poor people just like there will always be rich people.

This topic is not about either of them. It is about the middle/working class American. The backbone of America. The largest consumer base in the world.

Since the Reagan administration America's middle class has been in decline. They have not participated in the economic growth that the wealthy have. Everyone knows the reason. Mitch is going to protect the wealth of the wealthy by whatever means necessary.
If there's one thing the right hates more than the poor, it's the middle class. According to them, if the middle class is being hollowed out, it must be because most Americans are a bunch of lazy takers who don't want to work! You've heard it in this thread, no amount of wealth inequality could ever be a bad thing.
 
The OP mistakenly confuses, at least by implication, economic growth with economic well-being. As if it is good for the economy to have income disparity while ignoring that such is not good for most citizens of the country. That the US GDP continues to grow, as it has, while so does the wealth gap exemplifies that fact. The PPP growth, the growth in avg GDP per capita, does not mean everyone’s share of the GDP commensurately grows. In fact, over the yrs, it has fallen. It’s the same with unemployment. When unemployment is low, that is certainly better than when it is higher. But that does not mean the avg American is doing just fine considering the fact of low wages and the avg family not able to accumulate savings/wealth.

Of course, capitalism is a competitive system in which there can never be parity. In fact, if purely capitalistically competitive, those at the bottom would starve to death and could not afford any form of insurance to save them from life threatening events. As it is, 40% of the labor force makes less, on avg, than the proposed $15/hr MW targeted by 2026. The other implication of the OP being that lower wages is better for the economy and higher wages not. Which, in effect, is the direction it has been taking for the fact wages have not kept pace with productivity since the mid-70s and the direction since Reagan towards a more regressive tax system has not, especially proven with the Trump tax giveaway to the rich and large corps, been used for growth or employment/wages but rather to buy-back stock and fatten wallets. So, if you want to keep moving money away from the avg American towards the highest income levels and the large corps, with no benefit to anyone else, vote Republican/conservative.
 
The subject of the thread is income inequality. Check the title, reread the OP. Your inability to even address any of the OP's or my points is noted. Try harder to stay on topic. Literally no one here claimed everyone should go to college and that's not the topic.

ONE of the many points made by the OP is that even the people we want to go to college either can't afford it or are saddled with such debt they don't have the disposable income to buy "skeptic llc's" widgets. Income inequality in America is harming our economic growth and hurts our competitiveness internationally.
Just wages and salaries?
Any idea of the total number of jobs requiring a college education that exist in the U.S. and how many are unfilled?
And the same question about high paying production jobs?
I find it difficult to resolve issues in a rational way without taking into account ALL the variables and both the positive and negatives consequences relative to any changes being proposed.
 
The OP mistakenly confuses, at least by implication, economic growth with economic well-being. As if it is good for the economy to have income disparity while ignoring that such is not good for most citizens of the country. That the US GDP continues to grow, as it has, while so does the wealth gap exemplifies that fact. The PPP growth, the growth in avg GDP per capita, does not mean everyone’s share of the GDP commensurately grows. In fact, over the yrs, it has fallen. It’s the same with unemployment. When unemployment is low, that is certainly better than when it is higher. But that does not mean the avg American is doing just fine considering the fact of low wages and the avg family not able to accumulate savings/wealth.

Of course, capitalism is a competitive system in which there can never be parity. In fact, if purely capitalistically competitive, those at the bottom would starve to death and could not afford any form of insurance to save them from life threatening events. As it is, 40% of the labor force makes less, on avg, than the proposed $15/hr MW targeted by 2026. The other implication of the OP being that lower wages is better for the economy and higher wages not. Which, in effect, is the direction it has been taking for the fact wages have not kept pace with productivity since the mid-70s and the direction since Reagan towards a more regressive tax system has not, especially proven with the Trump tax giveaway to the rich and large corps, been used for growth or employment/wages but rather to buy-back stock and fatten wallets. So, if you want to keep moving money away from the avg American towards the highest income levels and the large corps, with no benefit to anyone else, vote Republican/conservative.

If you read my whole answer (instead of skimming it), you would have seen that although low wages are good for a developing economy marketing itself as a cheap exporter, it's not good for a country like the US because it means that people can't afford to go to college. The implication of my answer is that the US should direct more taxpayer money towards education to nurture the highly skilled workforce that we need. The fact of the matter is that 28% of Americans make less than $15 an hour while people who can do STEM jobs (which tend to pay well) are in demand.
 
If you notice when the subject of income inequality comes up the right always redirects the topic to the poor. There will always be poor people just like there will always be rich people.

This topic is not about either of them. It is about the middle/working class American. The backbone of America. The largest consumer base in the world.

Since the Reagan administration America's middle class has been in decline. They have not participated in the economic growth that the wealthy have. Everyone knows the reason. Mitch is going to protect the wealth of the wealthy by whatever means necessary.

View attachment 67327113

View attachment 67327115

View attachment 67327116
It would be nice to see a graph showing a comparison of the tax dollars paid by the top 1% and the bottom 90% over the same period of time.
Also, how may households pay $12,000 or more per member in Federal taxes each year?
 
Just wages and salaries?
Any idea of the total number of jobs requiring a college education that exist in the U.S. and how many are unfilled?
And the same question about high paying production jobs?
I find it difficult to resolve issues in a rational way without taking into account ALL the variables and both the positive and negatives consequences relative to any changes being proposed.
Why don't you write up a report using all the facts and numbers so we can have a discussion then.
 
Why don't you write up a report using all the facts and numbers so we can have a discussion then.
I would if I could find a source of the data.
But you ignored the question I asked about the words you used in your post, stating "The subject of the thread is income inequality.", asking "Just wages and salaries?"
To answer the threads title question, "Is inequality good or bad", the answer IMO is that it is neither good or bad but simply natural.
 
Last edited:
I would if I could find a source of the data.
But you ignored the question I asked about the words you used in your post, stating "The subject of the thread is income inequality.", asking "Just wages and salaries?"
To answer the threads title question, "Is inequality good or bad", the answer IMO is that it is neither good or bad but simply natural.
No one is saying everyone should make the same, but we've gotten to such an extreme that it is a real problem and is holding us back economically.

So if Amazon continues to gobble everything up and drive everyone out of business so that they own 95% of the economy, they have almost all the wealth and they pay their workers starvation wages because they can and no one else is hiring. Is that "natural" to you? Explain to us why it's a good thing to have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few while millions starve and live in crushing poverty. Would that scenario be good for our country and our economy?
 
No one is saying everyone should make the same, but we've gotten to such an extreme that it is a real problem and is holding us back economically.

So if Amazon continues to gobble everything up and drive everyone out of business so that they own 95% of the economy, they have almost all the wealth and they pay their workers starvation wages because they can and no one else is hiring. Is that "natural" to you? Explain to us why it's a good thing to have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few while millions starve and live in crushing poverty. Would that scenario be good for our country and our economy?
You still have ignored my question, "The subject of the thread is income inequality.", asking "Just wages and salaries?"
A side effect of inflation.
Absolutely, How much more is the labor performed by an employee who works for a large corporation worth than an employee who works for a small business, and in some cases may even perform more labor than the employee working for the large corporation?
Why are you asking me to explain something that I have not claimed.
Shouldn't you be asking "Is that scenario good for our country and our economy?

I would vehemently oppose a wealth tax, though I have previously suggested a wealth accumulation tax in the form of a Federal sales tax applied to stock market transactions applied to the purchaser, and the more I think about that, the more I think such could replace completely the Federal income tax.
 
By now, you've already heard of the debate surrounding inequality. progressives want to reduce it whereas cosnervatives say that it's nothing to worry about and that to some extent, it's a good thing.

But which one is right?

There is actually one economic theory known as the Galor-Zeira model. This model seeks to explain the effects of inequality on economic growth. Basically, the model says that inequality is good for growth in low income countries whilst being detrimental in high income ones. Brückner and Lederman tested this model and found that countries within the bottom quarter experienced growth that was directly correlated with inequality while those in the top fifth experienced growth that was inversely correlated.

Now why might that be?

The lowest income countries are dominated by agriculture. In order for their economies to grow, they must develop a manufacturing industry. Because it will obviously produce inferior goods when compared to upper income countries, the selling point becomes cheap labor. Obviously, having cheap labor means keeping wages low, resulting in high inequality. Examples include Bangladesh and Cambodia whose economies center around light industry. Both countries have high GDP growth rates at 6–10% a year.

The advantage of inequality disappears when a country hits the middle income trap. You see, unless the government actively suppresses wages, wages will grow with the economy. Eventually, it reaches the point where it’s no longer profitable to make goods in country A to be shipped to country B. At that point, the economy will shift towards services. This is the point where education becomes increasingly necessary. Some jobs pay well but those require education while others don’t require much education but pay very little. Thailand is an example of a country whose economy grew fast for the past few decades but has recently hit the middle income trap.

The US is at a point where the emerging industries promote those with college education. In this instance, high inequality means that many people can’t afford to go to college to obtain the necessary skills, thus slowing down economic growth.
Go **** yourself.
 
You still have ignored my question, "The subject of the thread is income inequality.", asking "Just wages and salaries?"
A side effect of inflation.
Absolutely, How much more is the labor performed by an employee who works for a large corporation worth than an employee who works for a small business, and in some cases may even perform more labor than the employee working for the large corporation?
Why are you asking me to explain something that I have not claimed.
Shouldn't you be asking "Is that scenario good for our country and our economy?

I would vehemently oppose a wealth tax, though I have previously suggested a wealth accumulation tax in the form of a Federal sales tax applied to stock market transactions applied to the purchaser, and the more I think about that, the more I think such could replace completely the Federal income tax.

I literally just asked you if the scenario is good for our country and our economy. When most Americans don't have any savings and live paycheck to paycheck, income inequality IS wealth inequality. The lower and lower-middle classes don't have any wealth. I've explained my position in this thread thoroughly, you can read back over my posts if you forgot. We're not talking about the "natural" income equality that comes from some people providing more valuable labor than others, we're talking about the highly unnatural capitalism end-game where the wealth (and income!) of a nation is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

That is not good for our country or our economy. If you feel it is, feel free to make some kind of a point or take some kind of position. Until now, you haven't contributed anything to the conversation at all.

Go **** yourself.
Can't counter any of Masterhawks points? Just hurl an insult like a child and refuse to take a position of any kind.
 
No question extremely bad!

Now don't let the right redirect the argument to the poor. We are talking about 90% of Americans. The entire muddle/working class. The backbone of America. The largest consumer base in the world.

Income-Inequality-Chart-032713.jpg

450px-2008_Top1percentUSA.png
 
I literally just asked you if the scenario is good for our country and our economy. When most Americans don't have any savings and live paycheck to paycheck, income inequality IS wealth inequality. The lower and lower-middle classes don't have any wealth. I've explained my position in this thread thoroughly, you can read back over my posts if you forgot. We're not talking about the "natural" income equality that comes from some people providing more valuable labor than others, we're talking about the highly unnatural capitalism end-game where the wealth (and income!) of a nation is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

That is not good for our country or our economy. If you feel it is, feel free to make some kind of a point or take some kind of position. Until now, you haven't contributed anything to the conversation at all.


Can't counter any of Masterhawks points? Just hurl an insult like a child and refuse to take a position of any kind.
I have to differ with you on your claim that "income inequality IS wealth inequality."
So the thread is not just about income inequality, but both income and outcome inequality!
Wealth accumulation, IMO, is the result of making good decisions and learning from bad decisions.
IMO, the term unemployed is a meaningless term, a better term would be "not working", meaning not providing a useful function in the society one is living among.
The only point I have is that most anyone with any income at all can accumulate some wealth, it's simply a matter of HOW you manage the money you earn, in addition to the effort you put forth. Perhaps a second job or at least some additional income producing work is needed for some. I know it was for me. But most of all learning to live within your means, putting aside many, most, or even all your wants until you can actually afford them is a necessity.
I didn't go to college until I could afford to pay for it without accumulating debt, and that was in my mid 30's.
I've hurled no insults at all. You just did, though I feel no need to respond in kind.
 
I have to differ with you on your claim that "income inequality IS wealth inequality."
So the thread is not just about income inequality, but both income and outcome inequality!
Wealth accumulation, IMO, is the result of making good decisions and learning from bad decisions.
IMO, the term unemployed is a meaningless term, a better term would be "not working", meaning not providing a useful function in the society one is living among.
The only point I have is that most anyone with any income at all can accumulate some wealth, it's simply a matter of HOW you manage the money you earn, in addition to the effort you put forth. Perhaps a second job or at least some additional income producing work is needed for some. I know it was for me. But most of all learning to live within your means, putting aside many, most, or even all your wants until you can actually afford them is a necessity.
I didn't go to college until I could afford to pay for it without accumulating debt, and that was in my mid 30's.
I've hurled no insults at all. You just did, though I feel no need to respond in kind.
I can tell you didn't read anything I said because you thought what I wrote to "AFrench" was directed at you and you didn't even notice that was odd.

You're attempting to over simplify things and you've ignored the arguments I actually did make. You're more concerned about arguing the difference between wealth and income as if that has anything to do with the thread.

About half of Americans have no wealth at all and live paycheck to paycheck. You're trying to blame them for simply not being frugal enough or being lazy instead of recognizing the structural issues of our economy. It's absurd that someone can work 2 minimum wage, full time jobs but still be barely able to make rent or put food on the table. You're clearly someone who has never had to make life work on minimum wage.

I'd like to direct you back to my actual point, which is that the end game of capitalism, if no regulation counteracts it, is that nearly all of the wealth and income in a society will gravitate towards fewer and fewer hands. You're taking the lazy way out and saying if and when that happens, it's no big deal because 95% of America would just be a bunch of lazy takers who chose poverty. Ridiculous and lacking any Form of compassion or understanding of the human struggle.
 
I can tell you didn't read anything I said because you thought what I wrote to "AFrench" was directed at you and you didn't even notice that was odd.

You're attempting to over simplify things and you've ignored the arguments I actually did make. You're more concerned about arguing the difference between wealth and income as if that has anything to do with the thread.

About half of Americans have no wealth at all and live paycheck to paycheck. You're trying to blame them for simply not being frugal enough or being lazy instead of recognizing the structural issues of our economy. It's absurd that someone can work 2 minimum wage, full time jobs but still be barely able to make rent or put food on the table. You're clearly someone who has never had to make life work on minimum wage.

I'd like to direct you back to my actual point, which is that the end game of capitalism, if no regulation counteracts it, is that nearly all of the wealth and income in a society will gravitate towards fewer and fewer hands. You're taking the lazy way out and saying if and when that happens, it's no big deal because 95% of America would just be a bunch of lazy takers who chose poverty. Ridiculous and lacking any Form of compassion or understanding of the human struggle.
I have no idea what you might have wrote to "AFrench", my post to you was based on what you wrote in your post #8, which resulted in me asking you:
"Just wages and salaries?
Any idea of the total number of jobs requiring a college education that exist in the U.S. and how many are unfilled?
And the same question about high paying production jobs?
I find it difficult to resolve issues in a rational way without taking into account ALL the variables and both the positive and negatives consequences relative to any changes being proposed."

As for what was contained in the OP, many times previously I have stated that "Inflation is NOT the means by which equality can be achieved."
We would have far fewer billionaires and far fewer millionaires, not to mention far fewer jobs moved abroad, were it not for the consequences of inflation, but it sure does help get votes for politicians who are willing to apply public debt as the means of providing more equal outcomes. Prices, the cost of living remained fairly constant up until 1913, and even back in the 50's a house could be bought for $10,000 to $15,000 and I remember looking at a new Ford Galaxy 500XL convertible in 1963 which sold for less than $3,000, though I was only earning less than $2,000 per year at the time but 6 years later, after serving 4 years in the USAF was able to find a career job that started me at nearly $9,000 per year. Yes, I worked for the minimum wage and at times for less than the minimum wage.
 
I have no idea what you might have wrote to "AFrench", my post to you was based on what you wrote in your post #8, which resulted in me asking you:
"Just wages and salaries?
Any idea of the total number of jobs requiring a college education that exist in the U.S. and how many are unfilled?
And the same question about high paying production jobs?
I find it difficult to resolve issues in a rational way without taking into account ALL the variables and both the positive and negatives consequences relative to any changes being proposed."

As for what was contained in the OP, many times previously I have stated that "Inflation is NOT the means by which equality can be achieved."
We would have far fewer billionaires and far fewer millionaires, not to mention far fewer jobs moved abroad, were it not for the consequences of inflation, but it sure does help get votes for politicians who are willing to apply public debt as the means of providing more equal outcomes. Prices, the cost of living remained fairly constant up until 1913, and even back in the 50's a house could be bought for $10,000 to $15,000 and I remember looking at a new Ford Galaxy 500XL convertible in 1963 which sold for less than $3,000, though I was only earning less than $2,000 per year at the time but 6 years later, after serving 4 years in the USAF was able to find a career job that started me at nearly $9,000 per year. Yes, I worked for the minimum wage and at times for less than the minimum wage.
Yes, recognizing that I didn't quote you would require you actually reading what I wrote.

So far you haven't addressed anything I've said, instead, you've claimed no amount of wealth or income equality could ever be a bad thing, even if Amazon owned nearly all wealth and all other Americans were starving. Clearly those Americans are just a bunch of lazy takers who chose failure!

Now you're trying to blame inflation for a problem you won't even admit exists. Next time you feel like wasting my time, just skip it.
 
Yes, recognizing that I didn't quote you would require you actually reading what I wrote.

So far you haven't addressed anything I've said, instead, you've claimed no amount of wealth or income equality could ever be a bad thing, even if Amazon owned nearly all wealth and all other Americans were starving. Clearly those Americans are just a bunch of lazy takers who chose failure!

Now you're trying to blame inflation for a problem you won't even admit exists. Next time you feel like wasting my time, just skip it.
What I've said is that inequality is neither good nor bad, it's simply natural.
As for inflation, I've simply stated a fact that it is NOT a solution to inequality, but instead it widens the gap.
It's your time to waste or not.
 
I have no idea what you might have wrote to "AFrench", my post to you was based on what you wrote in your post #8, which resulted in me asking you:
"Just wages and salaries?
Any idea of the total number of jobs requiring a college education that exist in the U.S. and how many are unfilled?
And the same question about high paying production jobs?
I find it difficult to resolve issues in a rational way without taking into account ALL the variables and both the positive and negatives consequences relative to any changes being proposed."

As for what was contained in the OP, many times previously I have stated that "Inflation is NOT the means by which equality can be achieved."
We would have far fewer billionaires and far fewer millionaires, not to mention far fewer jobs moved abroad, were it not for the consequences of inflation, but it sure does help get votes for politicians who are willing to apply public debt as the means of providing more equal outcomes. Prices, the cost of living remained fairly constant up until 1913, and even back in the 50's a house could be bought for $10,000 to $15,000 and I remember looking at a new Ford Galaxy 500XL convertible in 1963 which sold for less than $3,000, though I was only earning less than $2,000 per year at the time but 6 years later, after serving 4 years in the USAF was able to find a career job that started me at nearly $9,000 per year. Yes, I worked for the minimum wage and at times for less than the minimum wage.


" Wealth accumulation, IMO, is the result of making good decisions and learning from bad decisions. "

Meaning the majority of Americans who've not accumulated appreciable amount of wealth make bad decisions. And, since the great majority of wealth is in non-liquid/disposable asset of homeownership, even those who've accumulated some wealth via home ownership can't use it. You use the same argument racist use as to why black people do so much worse financially than white people.

"... politicians who are willing to apply public debt as the means of providing more equal outcomes..."

A good example would be the trillions in the giant pie of a tax cut that Trump gave to the rich and large corps, while the rest got the crumbs left in the pan.
 
" Wealth accumulation, IMO, is the result of making good decisions and learning from bad decisions. "

Meaning the majority of Americans who've not accumulated appreciable amount of wealth make bad decisions. And, since the great majority of wealth is in non-liquid/disposable asset of homeownership, even those who've accumulated some wealth via home ownership can't use it. You use the same argument racist use as to why black people do so much worse financially than white people.

"... politicians who are willing to apply public debt as the means of providing more equal outcomes..."

A good example would be the trillions in the giant pie of a tax cut that Trump gave to the rich and large corps, while the rest got the crumbs left in the pan.
I'm amused.
 
A good example would be the trillions in the giant pie of a tax cut that Trump gave to the rich and large corps, while the rest got the crumbs left in the pan.

well that has been going on well over 40 years. Tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it. What Republicans exist for

download.png

10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

history (1).gif
 
If you read my whole answer (instead of skimming it), you would have seen that although low wages are good for a developing economy marketing itself as a cheap exporter, it's not good for a country like the US because it means that people can't afford to go to college. The implication of my answer is that the US should direct more taxpayer money towards education to nurture the highly skilled workforce that we need. The fact of the matter is that 28% of Americans make less than $15 an hour while people who can do STEM jobs (which tend to pay well) are in demand.


It's your OP. You ask readers which one is right, but you won’t say which yourself, under what condition, for what reason. Not that I got, clearly, until this reply of yours. At least regarding the US, anyway.

I don’t know what you mean by “28% of Americans make less than $15 an hour” vs my “40% of the labor force makes less, on avg, than the proposed $15/hr MW”. Perhaps we should exchange links or you might clarify.

Employers are having a harder time filling blue-collar positions than professional positions that require a college education. They complain of needing more STEM workers, but in reality they lack blue collar. Anyway, we have been, effectively, at full employment for over 4 yrs because of having as many jobs open as people looking for work. Which does go to what both you and I say. Not enough qualified people (STEM) and not enough people willing to take blue collar work. Pretty much what it will always be when you have less than 5% unemployment.

As with everything else of worthiness within spitting distance, minorities do not get the education needed to get the STEM jobs you mention, wherein they are underrepresented. Govt funding of college ed would be a big step forward to help everybody, especially minorities, w/o being necessarily just for minorities. First 2 yrs on a community college level cost, for instance, graduated based on income. The only thing more educated people might allow is for sooner New Technology advancement. Workers just can’t handle the learning curve necessary to use NT as fast as it develops and become more productive. It’s not like higher ed and more STEM ed people will result in higher income for very many more people. That ain’t gonna happen. More minorities getting higher ed will result in higher income for minorities and piss-off racist white people.

Economic growth does not auto-equate to the economic well-being of a nation’s citizens. Nor does a low unemployment rate than that it is better than otherwise. I like rice and beans. But I’d like better to have chicken with it.
 
Well I can assure you I wouldn't get up in the morning to go to a job that pays as little as half of America works for. I would go John Dillinger first.

America needs as raise.

I bet $15 an hour would attract a lot more good help. You would be surprised what quality workers you could get for $25 an hour

And think what all that additional money into the largest consumer base in the world would do to our economy
 
Well I can assure you I wouldn't get up in the morning to go to a job that pays as little as half of America works for. I would go John Dillinger first.

America needs as raise.

I bet $15 an hour would attract a lot more good help. You would be surprised what quality workers you could get for $25 an hour

And think what all that additional money into the largest consumer base in the world would do to our economy


If I searched long enough, I might find this study I saw once before, or another like it, that showed an increasing hrly wage can have a slowing effect on productivity. That is to say, employees become satisfied with what they have, don't perceive a need for more, so they don't work for more. It was not conclusive, but was accurate/valid as far as the data goes.
 
I think income inequality is better-termed income disparity. Equality speaks to basic human rights under the law which makes us equal. Income sameness is not a realistic or even desired outcome because it leads to socialistic poverty. We need a variety of incomes to reward effort, ability and position, or there's no incentive to excel.

But we also don't need the extremes of a small top percentage of uber-rich using their leverage, influence and wealth to ever increase the disparity, and erode the middle class.
 
Back
Top Bottom