Current Events > Eventually the income inequality in the USA will cripple it

(+) Yeah! (+)

SocksForWokMAX5 posted...

Want to be wealthy? Spend less than you make.

Wealthy people shouldn't exist. Resources should instead be properly distributed to the people and institutions where they are needed.

---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

I'm going to let you in on a secret; You're *already* living in the dystopian future.

Orwell tried to warn us about two-day shipping, but nobody listened!

SocksForWokMAX5 posted...

Its the same loopholes we all use and these billionaires pay the majority anyway and despite the loopholes.

The vast majority of people just take a standard deduction bro

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Resources should instead be properly distributed to the people and institutions where they are needed.

Who defines "need"?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Who defines "need"?

It's not a case of "who".

It's about the minimum needed to sustain a society long-term.

Simply put, we cannot go along the same path we've been going down, otherwise the system is going to crumble in on itself.

---

Politicians only focus on groups of people who are already rich, or otherwise qualify for government benefits.

The group of people who need help right now are the working-class citizens who are denied government benefits and cannot afford college. We are forced into and endless loop of being overworked, underpaid, and having the cost of living go up every week. Why did neither candidate talk about this at the debate? Why did the moderators not ask this? Why do they seem to not care?

This is why I didnt vote. They dont even know its an issue right now.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Wealthy people shouldn't exist. Resources should instead be properly distributed to the people and institutions where they are needed.

That is whats happening. You just dont like the result.

---

Payzmaykr posted...

They dont even know its an issue right now.

Oh, they know.

Clutch posted...

That is whats happening. You just dont like the result.

Lmao the wealthy elite don't even properly distribute their wealth to the people working for them.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Wealthy people shouldn't exist. Resources should instead be properly distributed to the people and institutions where they are needed.

Whoa, easy comrade. That sounds dehumanizing. Wheres the wealthy cutoff btw? How much is acceptable, a lot of guys i think you like are pretty goddam rich. Remember how Bern used to rail against millionaires and billionaires. Then he became a millionaire and railed against billionaires only.

So i guess next the workers seize the means of production right, for the greater good? And then they being the morally superior ones ensure that it gets to the right causes, taking care not to embezzle or turn around and establish themselves as the new , improved elite. Because power and money will not corrupt when the cause is as pure as this. Sounds like a ... workers paradise.

Have you even read Animal Farm ffs? Youre spittin generic class warfare.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

It's about the minimum needed to sustain a society long-term.

who defines that?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Whoa, easy comrade. That sounds dehumanizing. Wheres the wealthy cutoff btw? How much is acceptable, a lot of guys i think you like are pretty goddam rich. Remember how Bern used to rail against millionaires and billionaires. Then he became a millionaire and railed against billionaires only.

So i guess next the workers seize the means of production right, for the greater good? And then they being the morally superior ones ensure that it gets to the right causes, taking care not to embezzle or turn around and establish themselves as the new , improved elite. Because power and money will not corrupt when the cause is as pure as this. Sounds like a ... workers paradise.

Have you even read Animal Farm ffs? Youre spittin generic class warfare.

This sounds less like a rebuttal and more like verbal diarrhea

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Wealthy people shouldn't exist. Resources should instead be properly distributed to the people and institutions where they are needed.

Define wealthy. If youre posting on gamefaqs youre already comparatively wealthy to a lot of people in the world

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Lmao the wealthy elite don't even properly distribute their wealth to the people working for them.

Amazon isnt valued so high because Bezos is hoarding wealth. Its valued so high because its delivering a service that people want and need. So dont pretend you want to properly distribute resources based on need. Its already being done without you.

---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Its a widely accepted economic fact that eventually so much wealth is hoarded that people cant buy goods to support businesses and the whole thing collapses.

Could be 10 years or 100 but we are headed that way here.

maybe, but we wont live to see it. We will be in our graves by then.

Bleuets posted...

maybe, but we wont live to see it. We will be in our graves by then.

Also, its not even an economic fact let alone a widely accepted one.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

who defines that?

It's less about "who" and more about "If we literally don't do this, the consequences won't be good".

The working class are the foundation of our society. If they are crumbling apart, what happens to the rest of our structure?

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

It's less about "who" and more about "If we literally don't do this, the consequences won't be good".

Who defines that?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Whoa, easy comrade. That sounds dehumanizing.

Indeed, capitalism is dehumanizing.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Wheres the wealthy cutoff btw? How much is acceptable, a lot of guys i think you like are pretty goddam rich. Remember how Bern used to rail against millionaires and billionaires. Then he became a millionaire and railed against billionaires only.

Don't care.

Keith_Valentine posted...

So i guess next the workers seize the means of production right, for the greater good?

Workers owning the means of production is the only outcome worth pursuing, regardless of whether or not its next or prior to whatever event on whatever timeline you're thinking of.

Keith_Valentine posted...

And then they being the morally superior ones ensure that it gets to the right causes, taking care not to embezzle or turn around and establish themselves as the new , improved elite. Because power and money will not corrupt when the cause is as pure as this. Sounds like a ... workers paradise.

If you're going to make up my own positions, what do you need me for? I'm sure there's a nice chair around here you can argue with.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Have you even read Animal Farm ffs? Youre spittin generic class warfare.

Animal Farm is a fictional novel. I've seen the animated movie, though, and it ends with the animals rising up and killing the pigs, who are now indistinguishable from men. Pretty good story.

---

Clutch posted...

Amazon isnt valued so high because Bezos is hoarding wealth. Its valued so high because its delivering a service that people want and need. So dont pretend you want to properly distribute resources based on need. Its already being done without you.

Yes, and it uses workers to deliver those services.

Those workers produce far more value than they are actually compensated for. That's the issue.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Those workers produce far more value than they are actually compensated for. That's the issue.

Do they though?

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Who defines that?

I don't know why you need your hand held through his.

These aren't man-made consequences. These are natural ones that occur logically within an unsustainable system.

A course-correction is necessary if we want to avoid said consequences.

---

Clutch posted...

Do they though?

Yes

---

It'll be an issue, but I believe quality of living is so high that it won't cripple the country

Maybe we'll actually hit the utopia that is Star Trek

---

Clutch posted...

Do they though?

Yes. By definition that is how employment works. I got paid $7.25/hour in highschool to make pizzas that sell for $20+.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Indeed, capitalism is dehumanizing.

Don't care.

Workers owning the means of production is the only outcome worth pursuing, regardless of whether or not its next or prior to whatever event on whatever timeline you're thinking of.

If you're going to make up my own positions, what do you need me for? I'm sure there's a nice chair around here you can argue with.

Animal Farm is a fictional novel. I've seen the animated movie, though, and it ends with the animals rising up and killing the pigs, who are now indistinguishable from men. Pretty good story.

Workers owning means of production, boom. Easy. Glad you agree, Napolean. Im happy you liked the cartoon but too bad you didnt realize it was a satire of the bullshit you're spouting.

*thats also not how it ends

Let's get one thing straight.

Fictional stories should not, in any way, be used to prove a point about socioeconomic theory.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Workers owning means of production, boom. Easy. Glad you agree, Napolean. Im happy you liked the cartoon but too bad you didnt realize it was a satire of the bullshit you're spouting.

Needless to say, Animal Farm is not a satire of workers owning the means of production and the abolition of the capitalist class.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Yes

Then why do they work at Amazon?

If they are independently responsible for the value they generate, they shouldnt need to work for Amazon.

Or, Amazon also generates value.
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Workers owning means of production, boom. Easy. Glad you agree, Napolean. Im happy you liked the cartoon but too bad you didnt realize it was a satire of the bullshit you're spouting.

*thats also not how it ends

Lol, he saw the cartoon.

I honestly cant tell if this topic is satire in itself.

---

el_cheato posted...

Yes. By definition that is how employment works. I got paid $7.25/hour in highschool to make pizzas that sell for $20+.

And when you add in rent, utilities, cost of equipment, ingredients, etc., how much more is your labor actually worth?

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Let's get one thing straight.

Fictional stories should not, in any way, be used to prove a point about socioeconomic theory.

Especially when those fictional stories prove the opposite point you think they're trying to make.

LIke, in Animal Farm, Napoleon is the bad guy, not the good guy. He is very much opposed to the workers owning the means of production.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Let's get one thing straight.

Fictional stories should not, in any way, be used to prove a point about socioeconomic theory.

Thats your opinion. And honestly, yours doesnt mean much to me. Because about the only thing i recognize your name from is complaining about inequality in the US and how the current system isnt worth trying under. Why would I want to listen to that loser mentality? Im from an upward mobile family, i know for a fact the shit you say isnt true. So ima keep talkin to the other guy.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Needless to say, Animal Farm is not a satire of workers owning the means of production and the abolition of the capitalist class.

Yea it basically is, youre preaching Diet commie with lime and you dont even get it because youre useful.

In the book the pigs overthrow the humans and then enslave the other animals themselves and start walking on two feet just like them. Thats the whole point. Youre wrapped up in quasi revolutionary rhetoric that is the same turd with frosting on it.

What do you consider yourself btw? Anarcho collectivist or what?

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Especially when those fictional stories prove the opposite point you think they're trying to make.

LIke, in Animal Farm, Napoleon is the bad guy, not the good guy. He is very much opposed to the workers owning the means of production.

Um no, wrong again. He preaches the animals owning the farm and then when he overthrows the humans he dominates the animals himself because some animals are more equal than others. Maybe that wasnt in the cartoon you watched either.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Yea it basically is, youre preaching Diet commie with lime and you dont even get it because youre useful.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Needless to say, Animal Farm is not a satire of workers owning the means of production and the abolition of the capitalist class.

Keith_Valentine posted...

In the book the pigs overthrow the humans and then enslave the other animals themselves and start walking on two feet just like them.

Yes. The problem in the novel is the counter-revolutionaries who become like capitalists/humans. The capitalists/humans are still the bad guys, and overthrowing them is still a good thing.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Youre wrapped up in quasi revolutionary rhetoric that is the same turd with frosting on it.

There's nothing "quasi" about my rhetoric. Its pretty straightforward. You're just confused.

---

Clutch posted...

And when you add in rent, utilities, cost of equipment, ingredients, etc., how much more is your labor actually worth?

it depends on how many other people are working at the same time and how many pizzas are sold in that time period.

for example, let's say there's a $10 profit margin with each pizza. after covering rent, utilities, ingredients, etc. the restaurant makes $10 from the pizza.

if, during a given hour, the restaurant sells 10 pizzas, then the collective value of the labour of everyone working there is 10 x $10, or $100.

so if there were 4 people working at the restaurant, everyone's labour would be worth roughly $25.

---

Is value denoted in terms of a medium of exchange in a communist society? I don't know that it makes sense to have currency in a world without profit

---

Balrog0 posted...

Is value denoted in terms of a medium of exchange in a communist society? I don't know that it makes sense to have currency in a world without profit

the ultimate goal of reaching a communist society does involve eliminating currency, at least in the way we currently conceptualize it.

but "value" in this sense is still useful for describing the functionality of the current system

---

Balrog0 posted...

I don't know that it makes sense to have currency in a world without profit

Even Marx realized that expecting workers to labor solely for the benefit of society was never going to work.

averagejoel posted...

it depends on how many other people are working at the same time and how many pizzas are sold in that time period.

for example, let's say there's a $10 profit margin with each pizza. after covering rent, utilities, ingredients, etc. the restaurant makes $10 from the pizza.

if, during a given hour, the restaurant sells 10 pizzas, then the collective value of the labour of everyone working there is 10 x $10, or $100.

so if there were 4 people working at the restaurant, everyone's labour would be worth roughly $25.

Lmao hell naw. Pizza profit margins is like 7%. Everybody splitting $.70 on a pizza. Damn socialists think everything is free, and then ask for higher salaries that make things even more expensive. That business is going under son.

---

averagejoel posted...

it depends on how many other people are working at the same time and how many pizzas are sold in that time period.

for example, let's say there's a $10 profit margin with each pizza. after covering rent, utilities, ingredients, etc. the restaurant makes $10 from the pizza.

if, during a given hour, the restaurant sells 10 pizzas, then the collective value of the labour of everyone working there is 10 x $10, or $100.

so if there were 4 people working at the restaurant, everyone's labour would be worth roughly $25.

Lol, then why wont someone pay them $25 an hour to make pizzas?

---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Its a widely accepted economic fact that eventually so much wealth is hoarded that people cant buy goods to support businesses and the whole thing collapses.

Could be 10 years or 100 but we are headed that way here.

Not if businesses adapt and switch to selling goods targeted at the new wealth demographics. Mid-range products will disappear, and there will be two classes of goods left: cheap, ultra-efficient ones designed for the workers, and hyper-expensive, ultra-luxurious ones aiming to get those juicy stockowner riches.

---

ZeldaMutant posted...

Mid-range products will disappear, and there will be two classes of goods left: cheap, ultra-efficient ones designed for the workers, and hyper-expensive, ultra-luxurious ones aiming to get those juicy stockowner riches.

Reality has shown us that the opposite dynamic tends to happen.
Poor needs that bling, and the wealthy stay wealthy by buying utilitarian.

Clutch posted...

Lol, then why wont someone pay them $25 an hour to make pizzas?

because the current economic system does not compensate people according to the value of their labour

---

g980 posted...

Then why do they work at Amazon?

Stable employment. Even if the money is shit, nobody is willing to go on a risky business endeavor when they're already struggling.

Even ignoring this, Amazon has a high turnover rate regardless.

---

averagejoel posted...

the ultimate goal of reaching a communist society does involve eliminating currency, at least in the way we currently conceptualize it.

but "value" in this sense is still useful for describing the functionality of the current system

Yeah I gotcha, it was more tangential of a question really

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Yes. The problem in the novel is the counter-revolutionaries who become like capitalists/humans. The capitalists/humans are still the bad guys, and overthrowing them is still a good thing.

There's nothing "quasi" about my rhetoric. Its pretty straightforward. You're just confused.

Nah youre the one confused. Because you still missed the main point of the story and you are naive about human nature. That is why these ideas have failed everytime they are put into play, and they always will on a large scale. And thats why one form or another of the capitalism you claim to hate and want to overthrow has consistently produced the strongest societies with the highest standard of living for the people who live in them.

Your shit works on paper. It sounds good to you. And its predecessors have led to misery over and over everywhere it has ever been tried.

So what ideology do you identify as again? Dont be shy

averagejoel posted...

because the current economic system does not compensate people according to the value of their labour

Yes, because it would be impossible to run a business based on such an arbitrary metric.

But nothing is stopping you from trying.

---

Clutch posted...

Yes, because it would be impossible to run a business based on such an arbitrary metric.

Explain

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Nah youre the one confused. Because you still missed the main point of the story and you are naive about human nature.

Incorrect. I have a basic grasp of the book and human nature, and it is from these things (well, the latter anyway, a fictional book is not that important lol) that I have drawn my conclusions.

Keith_Valentine posted...

That is why these ideas have failed everytime they are put into play, and they always will on a large scale.

Also incorrect and, for a bonus, ignoring the fact that capitalism has also failed every time it was "put into play", and is currently en route to ending human life.

Keith_Valentine posted...

And thats why one form or another of the capitalism you claim to hate and want to overthrow has consistently produced the strongest societies with the highest standard of living for the people who live in them.

It has also produced the worst of those categories in order to produce the best in those categories, so we should ditch it completely.

Keith_Valentine posted...

So what ideology do you identify as again? Dont be shy

You're attempting to make this personal. Sorry for your loss.

---