The gap between the "haves"and "have nots"

[Stilldreamn]

It is pretty sad when our economy is in the shape it is, yet instead of people standing in line for apples to eat, they are standing in line to BUY the latest apple iphone, most with the $500. in cash in their pocket, yet many of them probably can not even afford their rent that month LOL.

Maybe it’s just different here, but the homeless I serve mostly don’t have teeth, let alone Apples. A lot appear to have mental illness, and many are veterans.

 

[Ender]

Unfortunately, what we see is that the top 1% are capturing an ever increasing share of both income and wealth (not just in absolute dollars, but as an actual SHARE or ALL dollars of income). In 1977, the top 1% of Americans received 7.7% of ALL income, in 2013, the top 1% received more than 19%.

The way this is issue is phrased is a good indicator of the point the writer intends to make. For example, people do not “receive” wealth, they earn it. Wealth is created, not handed out by the wealth fairy - despite government attempts to fill that role.

Guess who the extra 11+% came from?

This is typically why so much is made of the gap between the rich and the poor: it is implied that the poor stay poor because the rich are taking more than their fair share. It’s like complaining that the bigger kids are gathering up all the Easter eggs and not leaving any for the little kids to have. This is simply not the case. The wealthy don’t get rich at the expense of the poor. In fact it is not at all clear that a growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is not a good thing because it may mean nothing more than that wealth is being created at a faster pace.

The bottom is fixed - the poor aren’t going to get much poorer (what would be bad is if the number of poor increased) but the top is open ended. Fifty years ago millionaires were considered wealthy and now we have billionaires. That represents enormous growth in the disparity between rich and poor but where is the argument that the poor are worse off now than before?

The gap between rich and poor is not a particularly relevant statistic, although it may well be useful propaganda.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

The way this is issue is phrased is a good indicator of the point the writer intends to make. For example, people do not “receive” wealth, they earn it. Wealth is created, not handed out by the wealth fairy - despite government attempts to fill that role.
This is typically why so much is made of the gap between the rich and the poor: it is implied that the poor stay poor because the rich are taking more than their fair share. It’s like complaining that the bigger kids are gathering up all the Easter eggs and not leaving any for the little kids to have. This is simply not the case. The wealthy don’t get rich at the expense of the poor. In fact it is not at all clear that a growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is not a good thing because it may mean nothing more than that wealth is being created at a faster pace.

The bottom is fixed - the poor aren’t going to get much poorer (what would be bad is if the number of poor increased) but the top is open ended. Fifty years ago millionaires were considered wealthy and now we have billionaires. That represents enormous growth in the disparity between rich and poor but where is the argument that the poor are worse off now than before?

The gap between rich and poor is not a particularly relevant statistic, although it may well be useful propaganda.

Ender

The wealth fairy exists all right - just ask the big corporations about their mega million/billion dollar grants, subsidies, tax incentives, and bail outs.

And undeserved bonuses.

We (taxpayers) are the wealth fairy.

 

[Ender]

The wealth fairy exists all right - just ask the big corporations about their mega million/billion dollar grants, subsidies, tax incentives, and bail outs.

And undeserved bonuses.

We (taxpayers) are the wealth fairy.

Most corporations don’t receive subsidies although clearly the government subsidizes more than it should but this still doesn’t change the fact that wealth is created. I have never suggested that the government won’t take it from one group to give it to others so if you want to argue that the government is responsible for the gap between the rich and the poor, go for it, but there is no argument to be made that the rich are responsible for the holding down the poor.

Ender

 

[manualman]

The wealthy don’t get rich at the expense of the poor. In fact it is not at all clear that a growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is not a good thing because it may mean nothing more than that wealth is being created at a faster pace.

Well now THAT is too broad a statement from the other end. Both sides in this issue tend to overstate their case. Let’s face it, the poor ARE often exploited by the wealthy. Ever been to a payday loan store? Ugh. Never heard of a highly profitable business “laying off” older workers shortly before they become eligible for pension and promptly hiring somebody younger/cheaper? No highly profitable corporations close profitable factories in areas where workers cost more and re-open in low wage areas in order to make MORE profits? These things are fair game for criticism.

True story: I have consulted for a fast food franchise owner who owns four restaurants and employs dozens of people. He’s shrewd and extremely profitable (it’s a higher end fast food place similar to Smashburger or Five Guys). On one level, he certainly deserves to become wealthy for the skill and organization he has achieved in creating these businesses. But his manner of speech and attitude towards his workers is horrifying. Once at a new restaurant I was with him when he saw an employee with full arms taking an order outside to a car in the drive-thru wait lane. The employee used his foot none to gently to open the door. The owner snarled “Watch that door, it’s worth more than YOU are!” I’ve seen this attitude more times than I care to say among the very wealthy towards the very people that are carrying out their business vision. It betrays a view of people as things to be used rather than human beings. Not good and certainly not uncommon. Things are there to be used/exploited. When people are viewed as things, exploitation is certain to happen.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Most corporations don’t receive subsidies although clearly the government subsidizes more than it should but this still doesn’t change the fact that wealth is created. I have never suggested that the government won’t take it from one group to give it to others so if you want to argue that the government is responsible for the gap between the rich and the poor, go for it, but there is no argument to be made that the rich are responsible for the holding down the poor.

Ender

I wouldn’t argue that the rich are holding down the poor, but on the other hand corporate welfare is a transfer from working people to the wealthy so that makes the income distribution worse. Also, Social Security and Medicare are transfers from poorer people to wealthier people so it skews the distribution of wealth.

 

[triumphguy]

Most corporations don’t receive subsidies although clearly the government subsidizes more than it should but this still doesn’t change the fact that wealth is created. I have never suggested that the government won’t take it from one group to give it to others so if you want to argue that the government is responsible for the gap between the rich and the poor, go for it, but there is no argument to be made that the rich are responsible for the holding down the poor.

Ender

No - I wasn’t disagreeing with that part of your argument - just saying that WE are the wealth fairies.

For instance in the USA you guys are adding how many billion a month to the money supply in order to keep businesses growing - who is going to pay for that?

I’m not arguing whether or not QE should happen, but someone is going to pay… and it’s going to be the Wealth Fairies… or WF for short… AKA Working Families.

 

[Ender]

No - I wasn’t disagreeing with that part of your argument - just saying that WE are the wealth fairies.

For instance in the USA you guys are adding how many billion a month to the money supply in order to keep businesses growing - who is going to pay for that?

I’m not arguing whether or not QE should happen, but someone is going to pay… and it’s going to be the Wealth Fairies… or WF for short… AKA Working Families.

I’ll be among the last to defend the tax and spend policies of our government. My point is regarding the creation of wealth and the fact that the wealthy do not become rich by taking from the poor. I don’t think there is any correlation between the two and if there is it is that there is no cost to the poor because the wealthy grow richer and probably an indirect benefit.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

I’ll be among the last to defend the tax and spend policies of our government. My point is regarding the creation of wealth and the fact that the wealthy do not become rich by taking from the poor. I don’t think there is any correlation between the two and if there is it is that there is no cost to the poor because the wealthy grow richer and probably an indirect benefit.

Ender

Well on that point - it seems that the greater the gap there is between rich and poor the more social and health issues there are in a society, so there is a cost to individuals when the mega-rich get mega-richer.

helenweavers.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-equality-is-better-for-everyone/

Why equality is better for everyone
That’s the title of a book I’ve just read (by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett), which can be summarised by the charts below. They show very comprehensively that all manner of health and social issues (from life expectancy to mental illness, violence to illiteracy) are correlated most strongly with how equal a society is, not how wealthy it is (once a country has reached a certain wealth).

The authors’ hypothesis is that living in an unequal society makes people more anxious, less trusting and supportive of others and reduces social mobility to such an extent that it has profound effects on health, crime and community life. They make a convincing case for how a more equal society would benefit all of us, not just the less well-off, and that measures that reduce inequality would simultaneously tackle a multitude of health and social problems that we spend millions on tackling separately.

 

[Ender]

Well on that point - it seems that the greater the gap there is between rich and poor the more social and health issues there are in a society, so there is a cost to individuals when the mega-rich get mega-richer.

Since I’ve not seen that study I certainly can’t comment on it … nonetheless put me in the doubtful camp if for no other reason than that it doesn’t pass the smell test. That and the fact that I have a really hard time believing that the US is so high on the “index of health and social problems.” I suspect that knowledge of what the authors consider health and social problems would clarify things significantly.

Ender

 

[SamH]

I wouldn’t argue that the rich are holding down the poor, but on the other hand corporate welfare is a transfer from working people to the wealthy so that makes the income distribution worse.

How does one apply for worporate welfare? I can’t find the forms anywhere.

 

[triumphguy]

Since I’ve not seen that study I certainly can’t comment on it … nonetheless put me in the doubtful camp if for no other reason than that it doesn’t pass the smell test. That and the fact that I have a really hard time believing that the US is so high on the “index of health and social problems.” I suspect that knowledge of what the authors consider health and social problems would clarify things significantly.

Ender

Well the US ranks fairly low (in relation to it’s GDP) on any number of major indices for health, happiness, education, safety etc.

eg: from the OECD

oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/

• life expectancy - 28 out of 36 countries
• life satisfaction - 14 out of 36
• social inequality - 24 out of 36
• employees working very long hours - 25 out of 36
• time devoted to leisure and personal care - 27 out of 36
• homicide rate - 32 out of 36
• student skills 20 out of 36
• quality of support network (friends and family available) 22 out of 36
• emplyment rate 17 out of 36

The USA tops the list in income but is 50th in infant mortality rate: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

ranking 174th highest newborn mortality rate out of 224 countries (224 being the lowest).

Hungary, Greece, Belarus, Slovenia and the Czech Republic all do better in this area.

 

[manualman]

How does one apply for worporate welfare? I can’t find the forms anywhere.

Look in the phone book under “Legislative Lobbyists.” And bring your checkbook.

From taxpayers paying for stadiums for billionaire team owners, to TIF districts, to gasohol mandates, to roadway improvement deals in trade for new factories to outright grants from the government for research into innately profitable areas, corporate welfare isn’t exactly hard to find out there.

 

[triumphguy]

How does one apply for worporate welfare? I can’t find the forms anywhere.

Don’t worry - If you were a multi-billion dollar corporation your lobbyists would have that all taken care of.

In England the City of Manchester built a mega stadium for the Commonwealth Games, gave it FREE to Manchester City Football Club who turned around and sold the naming rights for millions to a subsidiary of the company owned by the Oil sheikh that owns the Stadium.

In Edmonton the Oilers are demanding a new ice rink/arena from the city.

That’s just sports. It goes on and on. And on.

It’s called the Pork Barrel in Canada.

Little piggies to the trough, and the Wealth Fairy keeps on keeping on.

 

[manualman]

Don’t worry - If you were a multi-billion dollar corporation your lobbyists would have that all taken care of.

Beat ya’ to it!

 

[stinkcat_14]

How does one apply for worporate welfare? I can’t find the forms anywhere.

They are all over the place, but they don’t always put them where they can be easily found.

For example, here are some:

grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm

Here is another, but it probably won’t work during the shutdown:

usda.gov/fundinglapse.htm?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp

A more general overview of where to look is here:

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA703.pdf

 

[triumphguy]

Beat ya’ to it!

Yes you did:thumbsup: