Is economic inequality bad in itself?

[AaronsStaff]

With Pope Francis being in the news denouncing economic inequality, could someone please explain to me if/how economic inequality is bad in itself? I believe the context the Pope was speaking of was like the second one I mentioned but still, I’d love some context and information on this.

Let’s say for example, one person makes a nice income of $80,000 a year and is able to meet all of their needs, those of their family, etc. And another person makes $80,000,000 what is so wrong with this picture? I just don’t see why this inequality is bad in itself, if it is.

I can understand more of a controversy if someone makes next to nothing, can barely get by, and scraps to provide for their family IF they even can, while someone else is making tons and tons of money.

But is economic inequality bad in and of itself? If so, why and on what basis?

 

[Thinking10]

If a group of people are living in poverty, and a person in the group has an opportunity to earn his way out of poverty, is that person wrong for improving his own condition?

 

[Vouthon]

No but if he begins to hoard wealth and has no compunction about the common good of his fellows who were not so fortunate, then yes that person would be “wrong”.

Everyone cannot be economically “equal”. There must be degrees or else society would break down. Every rational person, minus a dedicated ideological Marxist, would agree on this.

The problem is that there is today in many capitalist countries a kind of “economic class” system and a lack of social mobility, with the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer but without any hope of improving their condition in life. People are sometimes poorer today even in Western countries than there parents were and can only hope to remain in the condition an accident of birth has put them in.

 

[GEddie]

Economic inequity is not in itself wrong, nor is it evitable: if farmers, for example, were able to command as much wealth as Bill Gates, no-one other than the farmers could afford food.

Conversely, those who make “non-essentials” that are yet in high demand can command a great deal of wealth without any shade of injustice, per se. While life (and therefore the bare minimum to remain alive) is a human right, an iPad is not.

Economic inequity becomes unjust when grinding poverty and glittering opulence exist side by side. This has always existed most places, and is beginning to appear in the USA.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

As an example, take Sir John Major’s critique of inequality in modern Britain:

‘Britain is run by a privately-educated elite’: Ex-Tory PM John Major condemns ‘truly shocking’ dominance of the privileged

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2499073/John-Major-Former-PM-blames-Labour-collapse-social-mobility-UK.html#ixzz2mAhIyIPl

Equality of opportunity? Social mobility? Pah!

(Major is a former Prime Minister of the Tory/Conservative Party)

 

[Origen52]

With Pope Francis being in the news denouncing economic inequality, could someone please explain to me if/how economic inequality is bad in itself? I believe the context the Pope was speaking of was like the second one I mentioned but still, I’d love some context and information on this.

Let’s say for example, one person makes a nice income of $80,000 a year and is able to meet all of their needs, those of their family, etc. And another person makes $80,000,000 what is so wrong with this picture? I just don’t see why this inequality is bad in itself, if it is.

I can understand more of a controversy if someone makes next to nothing, can barely get by, and scraps to provide for their family IF they even can, while someone else is making tons and tons of money.

But is economic inequality bad in and of itself? If so, why and on what basis?

The problem is that even in first world countries, such as the US, the discrepancy is not between those earning 80k and those earning 80 million. In 2010 48% of Americans earned under 25k, 75% earned under 50k. Most families can only stay above the poverty line because both parents work full time jobs. At a minimum wage of $8 an hour a worker earns $16 k a year on a 40 hour week.

Of course you have people, who like the kind folks at Forbes, believe no one in the US is poor when compared to workers in India, china and other emergent nations. Notice there is discussion of the cost of basic necessities in each country.

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/21/the-correct-us-poverty-rate-is-around-and-about-zero/

You can make statistics say whatever you want them to, but, in my opinion, people who work forty hour weeks should be able to afford basic necessities without having to take on second jobs. Perhaps Pope Francis agrees with my point of view.

 

[LegoGE1947]

As an example, take Sir John Major’s critique of inequality in modern Britain:

‘Britain is run by a privately-educated elite’: Ex-Tory PM John Major condemns ‘truly shocking’ dominance of the privileged

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2499073/John-Major-Former-PM-blames-Labour-collapse-social-mobility-UK.html#ixzz2mAhIyIPl

Equality of opportunity? Social mobility? Pah!

(Major is a former Prime Minister of the Tory/Conservative Party)

You might say it depends on which end of the inequality stick you are on!

 

[Captain_America]

OP; the basic point is that we are all equally human creations of God. Our world is ours to work and develop, but per revelation, we need to care for our brothers.

For the downside, consider the French revolution. . . or most revolutions. . . or people who live in the dirt eating crickets and scavenged garbage.

Rather debases humanity, no?

Say, do this: read some Charles Dickens.

 

[epan]

With Pope Francis being in the news denouncing economic inequality, could someone please explain to me if/how economic inequality is bad in itself? I believe the context the Pope was speaking of was like the second one I mentioned but still, I’d love some context and information on this.

Let’s say for example, one person makes a nice income of $80,000 a year and is able to meet all of their needs, those of their family, etc. And another person makes $80,000,000 what is so wrong with this picture? I just don’t see why this inequality is bad in itself, if it is.

I can understand more of a controversy if someone makes next to nothing, can barely get by, and scraps to provide for their family IF they even can, while someone else is making tons and tons of money.

But is economic inequality bad in and of itself? If so, why and on what basis?

Consider that the $80,000,000 could provide medical care, food, clothing, etc. for more than 1,900 families on $40k, and still leave $1m per year for the rich person. I don’t see income inequality as the problem, but rather the extreme greed that we are seeing. Let me ask you, is $1m per year enough to live on very comfortably? If so, then why not provide for others with the remaining $79m?

 

[LegoGE1947]

OP; the basic point is that we are all equally human creations of God. Our world is ours to work and develop, but per revelation, we need to care for our brothers.

For the downside, consider the French revolution. . . or most revolutions. . . or people who live in the dirt eating crickets and scavenged garbage.

Rather debases humanity, no?

Say, do this: read some Charles Dickens.

THE DICKENS you say!!!

 

[LegoGE1947]

Consider that the $80,000,000 could provide medical care, food, clothing, etc. for more than 1,900 families on $40k, and still leave $1m per year for the rich person. I don’t see income inequality as the problem, but rather the extreme greed that we are seeing. Let me ask you, is $1m per year enough to live on very comfortably? If so, then why not provide for others with the remaining $79m?

But of course, those Rolls Royce’s, Cadillacs, and Mercedes Benzes need upkeep. And have you priced alligator shoes and mansions lately?

 

[Hobbes42]

The problem is that even in first world countries, such as the US, the discrepancy is not between those earning 80k and those earning 80 million. In 2010 48% of Americans earned under 25k, 75% earned under 50k. Most families can only stay above the poverty line because both parents work full time jobs. At a minimum wage of $8 an hour a worker earns $16 k a year on a 40 hour week.

Of course you have people, who like the kind folks at Forbes, believe no one in the US is poor when compared to workers in India, china and other emergent nations. Notice there is discussion of the cost of basic necessities in each country.

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/21/the-correct-us-poverty-rate-is-around-and-about-zero/

You can make statistics say whatever you want them to, but, in my opinion, people who work forty hour weeks should be able to afford basic necessities without having to take on second jobs. Perhaps Pope Francis agrees with my point of view.

Bah!

The ‘poor’ in the US have much, much more than the poor of other states.

They also have an alarming statistic issue with obesity, try comparing THAT with the real poor of Sri Lanka or the Phillipines.

By the way, if a person can make do with 2 jobs to cover ‘basic’ necessities, they’re still MUCH better off than someone combing a trash dump for cents a day in order to survive.

 

[Origen52]

Bah!

The ‘poor’ in the US have much, much more than the poor of other states.

They also have an alarming statistic issue with obesity, try comparing THAT with the real poor of Sri Lanka or the Phillipines.

By the way, if a person can make do with 2 jobs to cover ‘basic’ necessities, they’re still MUCH better off than someone combing a trash dump for cents a day in order to survive.

So you’re saying that citizens living in the world’s richest country need to be grateful because they don’t have to pick through garbage dumps!!!

Pope Francis is certainly going to have a tough time with neocon Catholics.

 

[ishii]

You can make statistics say whatever you want them to, but, in my opinion, people who work forty hour weeks should be able to afford basic necessities without having to take on second jobs. Perhaps Pope Francis agrees with my point of view.

So if I, living in America where we are privileged to get 12 years of free education, where community colleges offer a very reasonable and accessible way to learn valuable job skills beyond those 12 free years of education - if in spite of all that opportunity, I decide to coast through life and as a result find myself at the age of 35 working for minimum wage to support a family of 4, I should be entitled to a higher wage anyway - to afford the “basic necessities” ?

(oh, and to save you some time, I am not a “neo-con” Catholic - whatever that is)

Ishii

 

[Origen52]

So if I, living in America where we are privileged to get 12 years of free education, where community colleges offer a very reasonable and accessible way to learn valuable job skills beyond those 12 free years of education - if in spite of all that opportunity, I decide to coast through life and as a result find myself at the age of 35 working for minimum wage to support a family of 4, I should be entitled to a higher wage anyway - to afford the “basic necessities” ?

(oh, and to save you some time, I am not a “neo-con” Catholic - whatever that is)

Ishii

So all the poor in the US are poor because they’re lazy. What a self satisfied little world you live in. You don’t need Pope Francis’ teachings, don’t change a thing, everything is perfect the way it is. Bless.

 

[Hobbes42]

So you’re saying that citizens living in the world’s richest country need to be grateful because they don’t have to pick through garbage dumps!!!

Pope Francis is certainly going to have a tough time with neocon Catholics.

I would love, if you would please explain what a “neocon” Catholic is. Last I checked, Catholicism wasn’t a political ideology. I suppose some would differ on that account.

What I am saying is that the poor of the USA are well off by global standards.

Ya shot that straw man square 'twixt the eyes! I wasn’t saying the poor should be grateful, I’m saying inequality isn’t the HORRIBLE LIFE AND DEATH issue it is in places of the world where poverty is real, and does exist.

So all the poor in the US are poor because they’re lazy. What a self satisfied little world you live in. You don’t need Pope Francis’ teachings, don’t change a thing, everything is perfect the way it is. Bless.

So what you’re saying is… "Poster X makes a point contrary to my point Y. I shall now engage in histrionics and accuse any and ALL who differ of being disloyal to His Holiness! "because obviously, you talked to the Pope Himself and can explain to us “neocon” Catholics the truth and clarity of Pope Francis as explained by Origen

 

[ishii]

So all the poor in the US are poor because they’re lazy. What a self satisfied little world you live in. You don’t need Pope Francis’ teachings, don’t change a thing, everything is perfect the way it is. Bless.

Oh, I get it - instead of dealing with the substance of my question and have a discussion, etc, you engage in a personal attack. Wish I’d known that earlier, then I would not have wasted my time trying to engage in conversation with you.

 

[Student09]

Bah!

The ‘poor’ in the US have much, much more than the poor of other states.

They also have an alarming statistic issue with obesity, try comparing THAT with the real poor of Sri Lanka or the Phillipines.

That is because in America, unhealthy processed food is cheaper than healthy food. What do you do when you’re a homeless, insulin-dependent diabetic, and all that is being donated to the shelters for distribution is donuts and sandwiches and similar high-carb high-sugar items? For the working poor, when people have two jobs and children to care for and no spouse, they don’t necessarily have time to cook healthy food from scratch; and healthy prepackaged dinners are expensive. So they buy junk, because that’s what they can afford.

The dynamics of poverty are different in America than in third world countries. That does NOT make American poverty unreal.

 

[Hobbes42]

That is because in America, unhealthy processed food is cheaper than healthy food. What do you do when you’re a homeless, insulin-dependent diabetic, and all that is being donated to the shelters for distribution is donuts and sandwiches and similar high-carb high-sugar items? For the working poor, when people have two jobs and children to care for and no spouse, they don’t necessarily have time to cook healthy food from scratch; and healthy prepackaged dinners are expensive. So they buy junk, because that’s what they can afford.

The dynamics of poverty are different in America than in third world countries. That does NOT make American poverty unreal.

Ahem. They’re still much better off than the poor of the developing world.

Those multiple jobs, are also of much higher working conditions. Take a look at work place injuries in China, India, or any of the other places where the real poor are being maimed and killed so rich, Western states can have our Iphones and Starbucks.

 

[JB_Dugan]

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

I have observed that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”