Current Events > Income Inequality is a made up problem

(+) Yeah! (+)

1. Wealth is not zero sum.

If the price of Amazon tanked tomorrow, who is getting all of the wealth that Bezos would lose? No one.

2. Increasing inequality doesnt hurt anyone.

If you had a button to give a random person living in poverty $100k but it would also give Bezos $101k, would you press it knowing that you are exacerbating inequality? Of course you would if you were interested in helping people.

The obsession with income inequality is grounded in pettiness.
---

No.

---

DarthAragorn posted...

No.

do you just feel like im wrong or do you have any thoughts in there
---

No, but the labor shortage is

---

I've seen some shit takes from you but this is quite brazen

Either a 10 post topic or 200 post topic incoming

---

bezos isnt gonna fuck you bro

---

g980 posted...

1. Wealth is not zero sum.

Yes it is.

g980 posted...

If the price of Amazon tanked tomorrow, who is getting all of the wealth that Bezos would lose? No one.

What do you mean, lose? How exactly would they tank? The money distributes.

g980 posted...

2. Increasing inequality doesnt hurt anyone.

Sure it does. Take 5 dollars from someone who makes 10$ a week. You've increased inequality and hurt someone who was already below the poverty line.

g980 posted...

If you had a button to give a random person living in poverty $100k but it would also give Bezos $101k, would you press it knowing that you are exacerbating inequality? Of course you would if you were interested in helping people.

That's not exacerbating inequality. You've taken someone out of poverty, while putting a drop in Bezos' already overflowing bucket.

---

Rich fucks having superfluous shit isn't the problem. Poor suckers lacking essentials is.

notice me, senpai daddy bezos

Lol, what a shitpost.

---

I think what you're trying to say is, as long as everyone(especially the poorest) gets lifted up, we shouldn't care how rich the very top get.

And I'd agree that wealth isn't zero sum. But I'd also say, people don't think the poorest are getting lifted up enough.
Plus the political power that money can buy makes the wealth inequality turn into a power one as well.

And let's be honest, even if it is pettiness, emotions matter. And they've always mattered and they always will. You shouldn't make the people in your society feel powerless and helpless
---

its ok guys

Youve read it, its in you're head now

I know you cant handle your class warfare obsession being challenged without a little time

Eventually you'll forget you read it here and think it's your own idea.
Then you can focus on ideals that actually help people in need
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Rich fucks having superfluous shit isn't the problem. Poor suckers lacking essentials is.

Agreed
---

attention

---

Each day you stray further from the proletariat and closer to the bourgeoisie, g#'s.

---

Real answer: income and/or wealth inequality is a symptom of an insufficiently regulated system.

The end result is that people are born into unequal circumstances, and merit plays much less of a role in success. That is not only unfair, but also prevents progress.

---

Guide posted...

Yes it is.

It definitely is not. Wealth is created and destroyed every day. There is no cap on wealth growth.


---

g980 posted...

its ok guys

Youve read it, its in you're head now

I know you cant handle your class warfare obsession being challenged without a little time

Eventually you'll forget you read it here and think it's your own idea.
Then you can focus on ideals that actually help people in need

Dude, this is the lowest quality bait Ive ever seen.

emblem boy posted...

And I'd agree that wealth isn't zero sum.

Turns out the economy was actually the law of thermodynamics violating perpetual motion machine we've been looking for all along

---

Dumb take.

---

Guide posted...

What do you mean, lose? How exactly would they tank? The money distributes

No it doesnt. Stock price can drop without anyone getting a penny of Bezos's equity
---

g980 posted...

No it doesnt. Stock price can drop without anyone getting a penny of Bezos's equity

Wealth in the context of income inequality works with projected values, does it?

---

theAteam posted...

Each day you stray further from the proletariat and closer to the bourgeoisie, g#'s.

Eh anyone who pays attention will also notice i argue for a stronger welfare system, rehabilitative justice system, public healthcare/retail banking, etc etc but that gets lost in echo chamber

The irrational anti capitalism anti wealth obsession bugs me though
CE likes to pretend its a moral issue but it absolutely isnt
---

Guide posted...

Wealth in the context of income inequality works with projected values, does it?

Not really. Unrealized gains only theoretically exist.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Not really. Unrealized gains only theoretically exist.

I wanted him to say it.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Real answer: income and/or wealth inequality is a symptom of an insufficiently regulated system.

The end result is that people are born into unequal circumstances, and merit plays much less of a role in success. That is not only unfair, but also prevents progress.

Only about 20% of millionaires received any inheritance at all. It really isnt as unequal as you would like to believe.

---

g980 posted...

1. Wealth is not zero sum.

If the price of Amazon tanked tomorrow, who is getting all of the wealth that Bezos would lose? No one.

2. Increasing inequality doesnt hurt anyone.

If you had a button to give a random person living in poverty $100k but it would also give Bezos $101k, would you press it knowing that you are exacerbating inequality? Of course you would if you were interested in helping people.

The obsession with income inequality is grounded in pettiness.

this is so wrong on so many levels, firstly and foremostly the mathematics and logic of it.

---

Naysaspace posted...

this is so wrong on so many levels, firstly and foremostly the mathematics and logic of it.

Good shitpost see ya on page 4

---

Clutch posted...

Only about 20% of millionaires received any inheritance at all. It really isnt as unequal as you would like to believe.

Pro-top: distance between all classes matters.

---

Wealth plays many factors but I get where you are coming from.

People who HATE rich people are weird. Someone has to be on top. You have these loser's shouting eat the rich while snacking on Cheetos with zero drive.

Now who I feel bad for and think the system is bullshit is the working class who have health issue because healthcare is a mess. The pull yourself by the bootstraps doesn't apply then.

When inflation outpaces the growth of the lower class, then they are not being lifted regardless of how much wealth is generated at the top. At this point wealth needs to be redistributed or else the working class will not be meeting its basic needs.

Not all labor is, nor should be, equally valued. But the minimum worth of a person's labor is that which allows them to meet basic needs for housing, food, transportation, and communication.

---

Guide posted...

Wealth in the context of income inequality works with projected values, does it?

Not sure what youre trying to say here

Are you in the "stock isnt liquid enough to count as wealth" camp? Tbh i dont buy into that
---

2003 account logic

---

Naysaspace posted...

this is so wrong on so many levels, firstly and foremostly the mathematics and logic of it.

No it isnt
---

ZMythos posted...

But the minimum worth of a person's labor is that which allows them to meet basic needs for housing, food, transportation, and communication.

Labor is as much a thing to be bought and sold as the things that labor creates.
It's value is the exact price the buyer and seller agree to.

ZMythos posted...

But the minimum worth of a person's labor is that which allows them to meet basic needs for housing, food, transportation, and communication.

Kind of a digression, but no thats not true at all

Its okay to say we should provide minimum standards of living to even our most unproductive people (something i believe in)

But that doesnt mean the value underwater basket weaving increases with the price of milk. You still just have the same wet basket.
---

Absolute shit topic. America has too much money for how things are currently. We have people that have to have two jobs just to pay for basic necessities while others have enough their family wouldnt need to work for generations.

In what universe does that sound fair?

---

MrDrMan posted...

Absolute shit topic. America has too much money for how things are currently. We have people that have to have two jobs just to pay for basic necessities while others have enough their family wouldnt need to work for generations.

In what universe does that sound fair?

Someone being rich is irrelevant to someone else needing to work two jobs
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Labor is as much a thing to be bought and sold as the things that labor creates.
It's value is the exact price the buyer and seller agree to.

That's assuming the two agreeing parties have mutual goals.

The wealthier or more powerful party only wishes to grow their wealth for its own sake. The less wealthy need it to survive. It quickly becomes a race to the bottom, and creates an undervalued labor market unless there is a great change in the society like a revolution, war, disaster, or pandemic.

---

g980 posted...

Someone being rich is irrelevant to someone else needing to work two jobs

Not when the people needing to work two jobs are their customers and employees. Its directly related.

You act as if all this money was generated out of thin air. Its through exploitation of the working class.

---

ZMythos posted...

The wealthier or more powerful party only wishes to grow their wealth for its own sake. The less wealthy need it to survive. It quickly becomes a race to the bottom, and creates an undervalued labor market unless there is a great change in the society like a revolution, war, disaster, or pandemic.

This current "labor shortage" is what happens when the balance tilts the other way.

g980 posted...

But that doesnt mean the value underwater basket weaving increases with the price of milk. You still just have the same wet basket.

That's not labor, that's a hobby. I'm talking about a contract between a worker and an employer.

---

Billionaire simp simps for billionaires.

---

People hating on Bezos but they still subscribed to Prime lmao
---

MrDrMan posted...

Not when the people needing to work two jobs are their customers and employees. Its directly related.

You act as if all this money was generated out of thin air. Its through exploitation of the working class.

It's through a lawful and consensual exchange of wages for labor

There are some bad actors, sure, but thats true of anything and it isnt fundamental to the system
---

ZMythos posted...

That's not labor, that's a hobby. I'm talking about a contract between a worker and an employer.

Ok pretend i run a business where i sell underwater baskets
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

This current "labor shortage" is what happens when the balance tilts the other way.

Except there hasn't been a real tipping point yet. Employers are waging a war of attrition against the labor market in hopes that they give in first and go back to accepting underpaid jobs. Current efforts to bring in more workers are fanciful and low effort to keep undervaluing the cost of the labor they need to maintain profit margins. It's a multi-pronged attack where the largest companies are lobbying against welfare programs, attacking the unemployed through marketing and messaging that "nobody wants to work anymore", and pretending like they value labor enough to raise their wages by a disproportionately small amount. As soon as enough $13 wage McDonalds jobs are filled to barely run a restaurant, they'll lower it back to 10, then to 8, and eventually back to the federal minimum.

---

ZMythos posted...

Except there hasn't been a real tipping point yet. Employers are waging a war of attrition against the labor market in hopes that they give in first and go back to accepting underpaid jobs.

That's why any given McDonalds has maybe two workers inside right now, yes.

g980 posted...

Ok pretend i run a business where i sell underwater baskets

You're the employer in this hypothetical, it's on you to meet the demands of the labor of the person you're hiring. It's on you to offer a contract that meets the basic needs of those whom you hire. If you cannot guarantee these things, you should not be in business.

Self-employment doesn't change this argument. If you cannot meet your own basic needs through a business, then you should not be in that business. You should be aware of the value of your own labor.

---