Wealth Inequality Article

[Cruxis117]

businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201008238184.htm

"And when asked to give their ideal distribution, they described, on average, a nation where the wealth distribution looks not like the U.S. but like Sweden, only more so—the wealthiest quintile would control just 32 percent of the wealth, the poorest just over 10 percent. “People dramatically underestimated the extent of wealth inequality in the U.S.,” says Ariely. “And they wanted it to be even more equal.”

What do you think about this article (or the selected quote) in relation to the recent discussions of socialism and capitalism (basically, economic theory) that have been going on recently?

Or, alternatively, what is your opinion of this article (or selected quote) in relation to Social Justice in general?

 

[Rascalking]

Capitalism makes many people middle class or better.

Socialism makes many people poor.

Is Capitalism perfect? No, of course not. There are gross inequalities. However, I’d rather live in that kind of world than a world where everyone is miserable.

Think of it this way-being poor in America or Canada, England-the more “free” market countries- usually means having a car and a color television. Are there homeless people in those countries?? Starving? Of course. But they are a minority. Should we help them? Duh.

The best way to help them is through capitalism.

 

[Cruxis117]

Capitalism makes many people middle class or better.

Socialism makes many people poor.

Is Capitalism perfect? No, of course not. There are gross inequalities. However, I’d rather live in that kind of world than a world where everyone is miserable.

Think of it this way-being poor in America or Canada, England-the more “free” market countries- usually means having a car and a color television. Are there homeless people in those countries?? Starving? Of course. But they are a minority. Should we help them? Duh.

The best way to help them is through capitalism.

Well, apparently the article disagrees with you. In America, 84% of the Wealth belongs to the rich, and 0.1 percent belongs to the poor. That doesn’t sound like the “poor” are having cars and T.V.'s…

 

[Rascalking]

Well, apparently the article disagrees with you. In America, 84% of the Wealth belongs to the rich, and 0.1 percent belongs to the poor. That doesn’t sound like the “poor” are having cars and T.V.'s…

Could the article be misleading? Wrong? Does it coincide with common sense? Does it have a bias? Could statistics be ::gasp:: incorrect?

When I was in my 20’s, I lived in a grungy efficiency apartment-most everyone around me lived in the same conditions, and their/our friends did as well. I didn’t know anyone without a cable tv and a car.

A close family friend lives in a trailer park. Same with her-everyone in the park clearly isn’t rich, but is doing much better than the poor in India.

Look, I used to be one of those “capitalism is evil” people. Than, I began to read, work for a living, and have experience in the real world. Take a look how it works, than give me a call.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, apparently the article disagrees with you. In America, 84% of the Wealth belongs to the rich, and 0.1 percent belongs to the poor. That doesn’t sound like the “poor” are having cars and T.V.'s…

But cars and TV sets aren’t “wealth”, any more than a can of Campbell’s soup is. They’re just consumer goods. I can’t prove it, of course, but having lived awhile and seen a few things, I would be willing to bet that if 10% of the actual wealth was distributed to the people the government deems “poor”, none would have a farthing within a year of the redistribution.

Almost anybody can acquire “wealth” in this country, though for many it would be moderate. It’s just hard to do in the face of pervasive consumerism. You have to refrain from buying a lot of things others have, and you have to work harder than those who don’t acquire “wealth”. Part of my occupation involves doing banking services as an outsource, and I see hundreds of loan applications in a year’s time. It always amazes me how people with very good incomes don’t have two nickels to rub together. But they do travel on vacations, have up-to-date cars, houses much better than mine, eat out a lot, and dress better than I do.

On the other hand, I knew a guy who basically hunted and fished for a living, though he also split logs to sell for fence posts and worked here and there some as well. When he died, he had $250,000 in the bank. Lived a happy life, too. One of the most clever storytellers I ever met. Oh yes, he sent both of his daughters to (state) college, too.

There is no particular correllation between income and “wealth”. People with actual “wealth” typically live below their means. Most have their own businesses or independent trades, and most stay married to the same person throughout life. (Divorces wreck wealth almost like nothing else can.)

So, no. I don’t think “wealth redistribution” would serve any purpose other than finance a few flings of irresponsibility and needlessly burden those who are responsible.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

For me, it keeps returning to 2 issues:

Who is deciding how much wealth is redistributed? And what class of people is exempt from this redistribution? If this is heading toward Communism, then there will be a group of people on top, with a LOT of wealth, and the rest of the people at the very bottom with nothing. See the former USSR.

I don’t know where people get the idea that they can take from someone else and level society and then the people on top will…what? Give up their fortunes? OK, when Al Gore or Obama start handing out all their millions, call me and I’ll give some of mine up. So many of these supposed humanitarians don’t even tithe. Not even close.

 

[didymus]

Capitalism makes many people middle class or better.

Socialism makes many people poor.

Is Capitalism perfect? No, of course not. There are gross inequalities. However, I’d rather live in that kind of world than a world where everyone is miserable.

Capitalism has a lot of good points, most especially that it is an engine for generating wealth. As has been pointed out to me more than once the best way to lift up a country/society is to bring in a more capitalist/industrial system.

BUT once people started working for wages they have to go looking for employment, there are huge dislocations (including mass migrations), families are torn apart and workers are subject to periodic mass unemployment an unjust treatment by employers.

Once the dust settles and you have a more prosperous consumer society the family is again under attack. Children, who were once an asset working on family farms or shops are now a liability. The US birth rate has been falling overall since the 1830s, since the very dawn of industrialism. The endgame having fewer children in order to have more things winds up the ABC abortion mentality.

No, I’m not a commie, I’m glad to have all the goods that modern/tech/capital society can provide. This was driven home to me when I needed an operation and benefited from the whole panoply of CAT scans, MRIs, different specialists, &c.

I heard something from Fr Serpa on CA radio sometime back that we are all called to poverty, chastity, and obedience; poverty by realising we have is a gift from God; chastity in marriage; &, of course obedience to God.
Having so much (however distributed) maybe trying to cultivate a more attitude of poverty and thanksgiving and lose the capitalist, “It’s mine, I earned it, I can do what I want” attitude.

My $.02
sorry to rant.

 

[lutherlic]

Well, apparently the article disagrees with you. In America, 84% of the Wealth belongs to the rich, and 0.1 percent belongs to the poor. That doesn’t sound like the “poor” are having cars and T.V.'s…

The underlying tone seems like “wealth envy.” I agree with Rascalking’s points. The issue in comparing capitalism to socialism is not how well the classes do compared to each other, but how they would fare under each system.

In socialism, the gap would be dramatically closed because everyone (outside of government) does poorly. The poor in socialism could only dream of doing as well as the poor in capitalism. However, those who focus only on issues of “disparity” alone may think the poor would be comforted knowing the gap between themselves and others is closer. I doubt it.

Popes (Pius XI, John XXIII, Leo XIII) have condemned socialism. Even Saint John Chrysostom did 1600 years ago. He said:

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone?

Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift.

Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm.

Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first – and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

 

[Graubo3]

Well, apparently the article disagrees with you. In America, 84% of the Wealth belongs to the rich, and 0.1 percent belongs to the poor. That doesn’t sound like the “poor” are having cars and T.V.'s…

Your link doesn’t work. Can’t say I would actually care to read it though. I am biased against your mindset. What kind of government subsidy do you receive? Visit “inside” your local projects to get a real look at what government cheese buys. It almost makes me wish I was poor again, but then I wouldn’t be as free as I am. Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo

 

[portarica]

For me, it keeps returning to 2 issues:

Who is deciding how much wealth is redistributed? And what class of people is exempt from this redistribution? If this is heading toward Communism, then there will be a group of people on top, with a LOT of wealth, and the rest of the people at the very bottom with nothing. See the former USSR.

I don’t know where people get the idea that they can take from someone else and level society and then the people on top will…what? Give up their fortunes? OK, when Al Gore or Obama start handing out all their millions, call me and I’ll give some of mine up. So many of these supposed humanitarians don’t even tithe. Not even close.

If you don’t want the facts in the US to mirror the example you gave of the USSR, what should we do to reverse the present trend?

Peace

 

[St_Francis]

Capitalism has a lot of good points, most especially that it is an engine for generating wealth. As has been pointed out to me more than once the best way to lift up a country/society is to bring in a more capitalist/industrial system.

BUT once people started working for wages they have to go looking for employment, there are huge dislocations (including mass migrations), families are torn apart and workers are subject to periodic mass unemployment an unjust treatment by employers.

Once the dust settles and you have a more prosperous consumer society the family is again under attack. Children, who were once an asset working on family farms or shops are now a liability. The US birth rate has been falling overall since the 1830s, since the very dawn of industrialism. The endgame having fewer children in order to have more things winds up the ABC abortion mentality…

I wish you wouldn’t write so big–it’s hard to read on a small screen

However, I think you bring up a good point about industrializing a nation… the problem I see is that “industrializing a nation” means that the immense transnational corporations come in and build vast factories, so this process as it occurs now is simply a transfer of our system to their nation. So everywhere we go, we will end up with a mini-USA with all its flaws and all its stuff.

And the reality is that at one point, most of these places *had *a reasonable society, which somehow fell apart to the point that everyone started feeling sorry for them and the multi-national corps started moving in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wish you wouldn’t write so big–it’s hard to read on a small screen

However, I think you bring up a good point about industrializing a nation… the problem I see is that “industrializing a nation” means that the immense transnational corporations come in and build vast factories, so this process as it occurs now is simply a transfer of our system to their nation. So everywhere we go, we will end up with a mini-USA with all its flaws and all its stuff.

And the reality is that at one point, most of these places *had *a reasonable society, which somehow fell apart to the point that everyone started feeling sorry for them and the multi-national corps started moving in.

I don’t know. Most employed people even in this country are employed by small businesses, not giants. And, when you think about it, people are sneaking into this country to work. I have never heard of anybody who sneaked out of the U.S. to work in Mexico or Guatemala.