Society/Culture Why does inequality matter?

[RobbieK]

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

"I never said that" - Aristotle.

 

[CatFan79]

They profit off their workers and turn it around like they are the job providing god. If people were greatful for their jobs I'm sure they would tell you. Are you grateful for their labour and loyalty?

WTF, you refer to workers like they're chained to a desk working as slaves.

If a business pays poorly and has poor working conditions they will not attract quality staff. Without quality staff, a business fails.

If you're not happy with your employment situation that's YOUR fault, nobody else's.

You sound like someone who's just looking to blame others for your own bad life choices.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

WTF, you refer to workers like they're chained to a desk working as slaves.

If a business pays poorly and has poor working conditions they will not attract quality staff. Without quality staff, a business fails.

If you're not happy with your employment situation that's YOUR fault, nobody else's.

You sound like someone who's just looking to blame others for your own bad life choices.

A persons income is simply determined by their value on the free market. Someone who works hard and has a valued skill to offer will get paid well.

It all comes down to life choices, those who make good choices will make good money.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

A persons income is simply determined by their value on the free market. Someone who works hard and has a valued skill to offer will get paid well.

It all comes down to life choices, those who make good choices will make good money.

True. People's life choices in being born to wealthy parents have really panned out for them.

 

[Lebbo73]

True. People's life choices in being born to wealthy parents have really panned out for them.

And we have a winner. Welcome back to the thread KV!

 

[Hoops]

https://hbr.org/2016/01/income-inequality-makes-whole-countries-less-happy

 

[DaRick]

Complete income equality is impossible and would clearly disincentivise merit and performance. Complete equality of outcome is also impossible, although it can be improved by making sure poorer children don't go hungry in class and can therefore concentrate on lessons.

However, this Fortune article and the OECD (not exactly a socialist organisation), explain why too much income inequality (IMO much above 0.35, certainly above 0.4 as in the US/Mexico/Brazil) negatively affects a given society.

People's lives are obviously affected by their choices to some degree and naturally good choices will lead to good outcomes. However, there are IMO a few issues with this mantra:

- Whether or not a choice is 'bad' or 'good' is somewhat subjective and depends to some extent upon the person's strengths and ambitions. For example, one person might be happy earning, say, 50K in a lower-pressure job, so it would be a 'good' choice if they stuck with jobs paying that much - another person may be more ambitious and so it would be a 'bad' choice for them to stick to such jobs.

- What might have seemed like a 'good' choice a few years ago may not be today. For example, getting into the mining field would have seemed like a 'good' choice at the turn of the decade, but maybe not so much a few years later. Unless you're psychic, you can't always predict when a 'good' choice might become a 'bad' one.

- Your capacity to make a 'good' choice is affected by the information at your disposal and the environment you're in. People from ghettos, for example, are more likely to engage in what are seen by most people (and myself) as 'bad' choices, such as crime and antisocial behaviour, than people from more salubrious environments because they see their elders and peers doing those things, so they don't necessarily know any better. It doesn't excuse such behaviour, but it does explain it somewhat.

A persons income is simply determined by their value on the free market. Someone who works hard and has a valued skill to offer will get paid well.

Sometimes this is true; sometimes not.

American CEO's for example are paid obscene amounts relative to their workers (increasing since 1965) despite some well-known American companies floundering in recent times (Hewlett-Packard, General Motors) relative to their past performance. Even if American CEO's are booted or made to resign for bad performance, they usually get massive severance pay, so they do not really get punished for said bad performance. This happened to Jill Barad when she was Mattel's CEO, despite Mattel's disappointing earnings.

 

[faible]

It's a load of shit. They profit off their workers and turn it around like they are the job providing god. If people were greatful for their jobs I'm sure they would tell you. Are you grateful for their labour and loyalty?

I'm starting a business after I flip my house. Because it's literally the easiest thing to do and only sector that doesn't get attacked by both sides of politics. Nothing gets a freer ride than small business. I pulled zionist amounts out of a house over 2 years. All from exploiting young couples trying to copy me making money. Stealing their super too. All on the basis the bandwagoners think a second boom comes right after the first. Yes their choice, but only as a result of investors scaring them into becoming priced out. Which is wrong in the first place. They're only buying in fear of missing out. I'm stealing peoples ability to ever own their own house.

Anyone who has done both would tell you bosses are a protected species who don't have to pay tax.

What's this business you're going to create that's so easy and guaranteed of success?

I'd love to know this secret that apparently ~50% of small business owners do not.

 

[JCHolmes]

A persons income is simply determined by their value on the free market. Someone who works hard and has a valued skill to offer will get paid well.

It all comes down to life choices, those who make good choices will make good money.

So the HIV infected baby born into Zambia, one parent dead through HIV at 35, didn't make good life choices. That's what they get, right? Those dumbasses.

Seriously though, probably most of these third world countries (where people are paid pittance) yet to go through proper industrialization, so therefore no matter what they do, they have low productivity and add very little capital, if any, to any one product or mineral or whatever they can ship out that someone else will take. They were born into this region, into these countries with shit economies/politics. We were not. We can make choices to better our personal situation greatly, likely chance is they cannot make the same ones that we can.

They can work as hard as they want, and they usually do (to just break even and survive), for no real gain besides more years on earth with a much decreased average lifespan. That's not the same as what we face here. Its a different playing field.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

So the HIV infected baby born into Zambia, one parent dead through HIV at 35, didn't make good life choices. That's what they get, right? Those dumbasses.

Seriously though, probably most of these third world countries (where people are paid pittance) yet to go through proper industrialization, so therefore no matter what they do, they have low productivity and add very little capital, if any, to any one product or mineral or whatever they can ship out that someone else will take. They were born into this region, into these countries with shit economies/politics. We were not. We can make choices to better our personal situation greatly, likely chance is they cannot make the same ones that we can.

They can work as hard as they want, and they usually do (to just break even and survive), for no real gain besides more years on earth with a much decreased average lifespan. That's not the same as what we face here. Its a different playing field.

I am obviously talking about people born in Australia.

 

[CatFan79]

So the HIV infected baby born into Zambia, one parent dead through HIV at 35, didn't make good life choices. That's what they get, right? Those dumbasses.

Thanks for bringing this up..

Some of the sad cases on this forum complaining about their 'lot' who live in a country with endless opportunity but expect a handout might get some perspective for once in their life...

 

[Admiral Byng]

Complete income equality is impossible and would clearly disincentivise merit and performance. Complete equality of outcome is also impossible, although it can be improved by making sure poorer children don't go hungry in class and can therefore concentrate on lessons.

However, this Fortune article and the OECD (not exactly a socialist organisation), explain why too much income inequality (IMO much above 0.35, certainly above 0.4 as in the US/Mexico/Brazil) negatively affects a given society.

People's lives are obviously affected by their choices to some degree and naturally good choices will lead to good outcomes. However, there are IMO a few issues with this mantra:g earnings.

This.

Equality and inequality should not a discussion about one or the other extreme since both of them are ridiculous, but about where on the spectrum is the best fit. There needs to be incentive for those with ambition, there needs to be a system of picking up those who fall through the gaps. More importantly, there needs to be a pathway and opportunity for those with ambition - people turn to crime (and revolution) if rigid social stratification or legal segregation blocks their way and they can't see a pathway.

Likewise with discussion on the merits of private businesses and entrepreneurs. They can both create new wealth through innovation without ripping anybody off, also they can be destructive by market manipulation and exercising monopolistic power.. i.e. ripping people off for their own benefit. Once again it is about finding the right balance, and getting public policy settings right to prevent market distortion. Rather than being about outright redistribution public policy is more about regulation.

but this is probably too complex for the BF intellectuals that start these kind of threads.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

True. People's life choices in being born to wealthy parents have really panned out for them.

Gotta laugh how meritocracy is only relevant in select cases.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I'm still annoyed at myself for not choosing wealthier parents all those years ago. Could have set me up for life.

At least I chose to be white and heterosexual, I guess.

 

[Lebbo73]

I'm still annoyed at myself for not choosing wealthier parents all those years ago. Could have set me up for life.

At least I chose to be white and heterosexual, I guess.

You’re just jealous that your parents didn’t have a crack at success, just like you. Most people in Western countries can decide their own wealth. Have a crack or in our cases don’t whinge about the success of others. It comes across as being pathetic!

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

You’re just jealous that your parents didn’t have a crack at success, just like you. Most people in Western countries can decide their own wealth. Have a crack or in our cases don’t whinge about the success of others. It comes across as being pathetic!

Haha, did you quote the wrong post?

I'm living very comfortably, but I appreciate your concern.

 

[Power Raid]

A topic that many on the left like to talk about is rising inequality across Australia and the most of the western world. It is true that the gap between the rich and the rest of society is growing but why is that a problem?

Trying to make life better for middle and working-class people is a good thing, but why care about the gap between them and the rich?

Peoples qualities of life continue to rise because we are constantly developing new commodities both essential and non-essential that makes our life better. A working-class person in 2018 has life better than a rich person did back in 1918.

Let me clear up one big myth that rich people take from everyone else, wealth is accumulated by performing a large number of voluntary transactions on the free market. Rich people do not steal other people’s money.

My opinion is that all complaints about inequality simple relate to jealousy, so lets focus on making life better for everyone rather than being jealous because someone else has more money.

There are two competing views based on how you look at the question:

On one hand, people should be focused on the improvement of life (standard of living, opportunity and growth) for the ordinary and poor. If that is happening, the issue of how rich the richest have is completely irrelevant.


HOWEVER

When you look in third world countries and our own history (british) you will clearly understand the dangers of extreme wealth. It's called a feudal system, where only certain families control the government, control the police, control the army, control the land and control all opportunity.

When an ordinary person starts to rise or an external force (a foreign family or institution), the feudal families feel threatened. Suddenly property rights or brought into question and controlling the police, army, politicians and the courts.......suddenly the assets are stripped and or the person jailed. You will see other tactics of criminal charges like "sodomy" to discredit the person or rev up the unions or church to mobilise the stupid and get them to fight the feudal families battles. We have seen this later tactic recently in Indo with the mayor of Jakarta jailed and now going after Sukarnoputri (the feudal families behind this is Probowo, Winata).

You also only have to look at the US and Philippines to understand the feudal system is still live and well under $s for Presidency.



So in one hand, pathetic envy is pathetic envy. On the other, there is merit ensuring no one person or institution has too much power. That's why we have an upper house and lower house, unions, separation of church and state, corporate regulations, anti-bribery and anti-corruption, an education system, separation of the judicial arm of government from the executive, foreign ownership laws, ombudsmen, states and the RBA etc etc

There's a balance here which requires constant monitoring and assessment to ensure we stay within the range of tolerance.

 

[faible]

I'm still annoyed at myself for not choosing wealthier parents all those years ago. Could have set me up for life.

At least I chose to be white and heterosexual, I guess.

Check your privilege m8

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Check your privilege m8

Yeah, fair call.

It would be nice to own another yacht though.

 

[faible]

Yeah, fair call.

It would be nice to own another yacht though.

You didn't get a key to the second yacht with your white male membership card this year? I'd call them and complain.

 

[RupieDupie]

Gotta laugh how meritocracy is only relevant in select cases.

Apparently once a person becomes older, whiter and more male they get mad intellekchual, political, social, economic etc skills

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm still annoyed at myself for not choosing wealthier parents all those years ago. Could have set me up for life.

At least I chose to be white and heterosexual, I guess.

You poor thing, expect to be terribly discriminated against.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Apparently once a person becomes older, whiter and more male they get mad intellekchual, political, social, economic etc skills

Case 1: Law student gets internship at prestigious firm that only gets awarded to children of high-paying clients.

Case 2: Minority gets assistance in acquiring a role at big company

You just know that only the second case will be whinged about.

 

[RupieDupie]

This.

Equality and inequality should not a discussion about one or the other extreme since both of them are ridiculous, but about where on the spectrum is the best fit. There needs to be incentive for those with ambition, there needs to be a system of picking up those who fall through the gaps. More importantly, there needs to be a pathway and opportunity for those with ambition - people turn to crime (and revolution) if rigid social stratification or legal segregation blocks their way and they can't see a pathway.

Likewise with discussion on the merits of private businesses and entrepreneurs. They can both create new wealth through innovation without ripping anybody off, also they can be destructive by market manipulation and exercising monopolistic power.. i.e. ripping people off for their own benefit. Once again it is about finding the right balance, and getting public policy settings right to prevent market distortion. Rather than being about outright redistribution public policy is more about regulation.

but this is probably too complex for the BF intellectuals that start these kind of threads.

It is much easier to just give people agency, most people are capable of self governance and have a better understanding of their needs relative to the Gubmint. If all necessities that people require, education, healthcare, housing, power, communications, transport, water, security etc (no frills but keeping in sync with technological advances) has a government standard value relative to median income, rather than a value relative to an open-douchebag-driven-market, most people in the society are taken care of - it's pretty much what happens with some of these goods / services already.

Then if some person in today's society, currently classified as a douchebag, wants to have one hundred houses, 86 Mercedes, 2 yachts etc, they can do it without raping the remainder of the population (i.e. other members of their own society).

 

[Frank Bunn]

Haha, did you quote the wrong post?

I'm living very comfortably, but I appreciate your concern.

So your parents weren't wealthy but you have done well for yourself. Aren't you undermining your own argument?

Having poor parents isn't a barrier to achieving success. If you go to school/further education, develop skills that people are willing to pay for, have good personal habits such as - conscientiousness, networking, team player, calculated risk taking etc then chances are you will do well in life.

The government has a role to play. For example, it could state that government funding for each private school is contingent on a certain number of full scholarships being awarded to smart and motivated kids from low-income families.