What do people think about income inequality?

[PoliSciStudent]

Greetings, all! I'm new here and hope that I will not offend anyone by confessing at the outset that my personal political leanings are probably farther to the left than is the norm in this forum, but I promise, I'm not here to be disruptive or disrespectful of anyone.

I am a graduate student in political science and would honestly like to hear the views of conservative thinkers on a point which has been troubling me with respect to the direction our country is heading, namely the widening gap between rich people and poor people.

According to the US Treasury Department, the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth in the US. That's honestly not just some liberal's opinion, that's really true, you can check the statistics yourself if you don't belive me. Flip that around and that means that the remaining 98% of us have only 20% to go around amongst all the rest of us. In the last three years, the income of the wealthiest .001% has increased by 600%, in other words, for every $10 million/year they were making before, they're now making $60 million/year.

I read in another article that 5 of the 12 wealthiest individuals on earth are from the Walton family which owns Wal-Mart. At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives? I've read studies which suggest that Americans by and large don't mind extremes of personal wealth as, this being the land of opportunity, we harbor some hope of one day rising to those lofty summits of affluence ourselves, so don't feel we should judge others for achieving that to which we ourselves aspire. Does that sound about right to you all? Anyone have any thoughts?

[Moonman62]

Do these studies account for what is done with the money saved by Walmart's customers?

All I know is that the Walmarts around me are surrounded by mom and pop stores that are springing up like mushrooms.

[nopardons]

Who is THAT wealthy?

Donald Trump works and has made his children work during their vacations.

Bill Gates works.

All of the Forbeses work.

The extended family Rockefeller? Yep, they all have jobs, but some of the married women don't. OTOH,many of them do charity work, raise their own children,and aren't all that different from anyone else.

All of President Bush's brothers work,as did their father before them and their grandfather.......All trustfunders.

Personally, I don't know a single trustfunder from my generation or my daughter's, who did/does NOT work, except for some of the married women.

The wealthy don't live off their investments. What century do YOU live in anyway? Stop reading books written by Edith Wharton,F.Scot Fitzgerald, or whatever " bodice rippers " you may indulge in. Who are you referring to anyway...Paris Hilton? Gee, she has a whole lot of salaried jobs.

There are no more "INTERNATIONAL PLAYBOYS"...Ali Khan and Ruberosa are dead as door nails.Taki (and even Taki works)is one of the last of the breed.

And I've got news for you, pet, I know many upper middle class men, who retired early and live off their investments. But THAT really isn't the point you're trying to make. No.........you're only a wee bit MARXIST and bitten by the green eyed monster of jealousy. It only richest of the rich, who drive you nuts. Okay, I understand it all now. But it REALLY would help your case, if you had even a glimmer of an idea what you're talking about; which you don't. :-)

[Choose Ye This Day]

Father Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of
college. Like so many others her age she considered
herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for
distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed
that her father was a rather staunch Republican which
she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs
and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more
welfare programs. In the middle of her heart felt
diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far
left professors at her school, he stopped her and
asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA,
and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That
she had to study all the time, never had time to go
out and party like other people she knew. She didn't
even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have
many college friends because of spending all her time
studying. That she was taking a more difficult
curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your
friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she
continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding,
"and all she takes are easy classes and she never
studies." But to explain further she continued
emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus,
college for her is a blast, she goes to all the
parties all the time and very often doesn't even show
up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go
to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off
your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a
2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a
3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal
distribution of GPA."

The daughter visibly shocked by the fathers suggestion
angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked
really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done
little or nothing, she played while I worked real
hard!"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

[sweetliberty]

"Taking his money and giving it to someone else is useless, because the person you are giving it to has no appreciation for it, as he did not have to earn it."

Not to mention removing the incentive for many to continue to work hard at earning huge amounts of money when it is just going to be heavily penalized. I mean why should I work to provide for 3 of us when you won't even work to provide for one or why should I earn more if it is just going to mean that I qualify to have more taken from me by the government?

[maui_hawaii]

I think income inequality sucks, especially because I am on the low end of things :o)

In reality though, for all thats said about the topic, it often gives hope to MANY people. They might not admit it, but it does.

For the guy in the ghetto who has very little, he can look out and say 'that sucks...that guy has a Benz and I have nothing'...Aside from this immediate reaction, in a longer term sense, wether admitted or not, it creates a desire and hope within that same person to change his own situation, and to know it can be done.

[Mo1]

Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?

No .. why should it?

There will always be rich folks .. they work their butts off to start a business and watch it grow bigger and bigger to the point they can offer jobs to others

That's what so great in this country .. anyone can do this if they really want to.

[Mo1]

It may not be exactly what you thought you wanted, but life is a journey and as Scarlet said "tomorrow is another day".

Very good advice :0)

[mcspur]

"What do people think about income inequality?"


I don't think about it. Look, there will always be rich and poor. It is my job to make sure that my family ( wife ) and I are not poor. That is why I got an education and got a job, also I make investments. In doing this I also put money back into the system so that others can through their hard work and industriousness do the same as I. This is the way the world works.

[razorback-bert]

Political science is an oxymoron.

[aquila48]

First let me congratulate you on starting this dialogue. I wish there was more of this between conservatives and liberals, rather than just name calling, because it would lead to discussing the fundamental issues and preconceptions that divide us.

For example, you look at the wealth distribution of this country and you cringe. It doesn't fit your world view of how the wealth in a just society should be distributed. This is because we have been taught that just means equal. Implied in your question is the premise that equality is a noble pursuit, (while, ironically and simultaneously you also pursue diversity - but, that's another topic). I couldn't disagree more. I cannot imagine a more miserable place to live than a society where equality reigned supreme. Societies that have only gone part way to achieving equality, such as Cuba, the soviet union, north korea, china during the cultural revolution, are edens compared to the hell, cohersion, misery and lifelessness that would exist in a truly equal society.

How can that be? you might ask. The most unfortunate phrase in the declaration of independence, an otherwise brilliant document, is the one that claims everyone is created equal.

How something so manifestly wrong can end up as a credo for a whole civilization is beyond me. We are not equal (thank god)!!! We look different we have different talents and intelligence, different likes and dislikes, different needs, so why are we surprised by the fact that we have different outcomes.

Note that the statement in the declaration is not a recommendation, i.e. create a system where everybody is equal. It is, rather, an assertion of fact. The statistics you quote obviously prove that assertion false. If everybody is created equal and always has been, then, you would expect the results to be pretty equal - after all we're all playing in this field called earth.

So what's happened is that the obviously wrong assertion has been turned into a recommendation. If we're not all equal, then let's do whatever we can to force people to be equal. The first consequence of this action is loss of freedom, because, to keep joe from getting ahead of mike you need to use some involuntary means to hold joe back.

An immediate consequence of this loss of freedom is the inability to pursue your happiness - the more your choices are limited, the less opportunity you have to follow your dream.

The third consequence is poverty - equal poverty. Why this is so should be obvious. It's impossible to turn a homeless guy into a bill gates, but with sufficient theft and shackles , transforming bill into a depressed, homeless, bum is doable. So if you want equality you got to do what's feasible, which is make the rich poor.

The fourth consequence of equality is societal failure. A society based on equality will eventually be overrun by one based on reality - i.e, people are not equal - vive la difference! Communism vs capitalism is a perfect real life example. Theoretically it is an obvious outcome of the third consequence above. Societies based on equality will end up poor and unable to defend themselves.

There's a lot more I could say on the topic, but this is already too long. I just want to close by pointing out that the european example you gave is only a partial and temporary picture and it only looks good from afar. Europe is quickly heading toward poverty, exactly because of their strong egalitarian bent. They may already be beyond rescue in the short term. Germany, France, Italy are all scrambling to pull themselves from the brink by passing (trying to) laws that will significantly reduce the welfare (theft) state. Of course they're getting tremendous resistance from the "poor" people. It'll be interesting to see whether the poor succeed in making themselves even poorer.

Maybe next time we can talk about another liberal misconception - the fiction that economics is a zero sum game. That the bill gates of the world have taken a huge chunk from the common pool, rather than the reality, which is that he has created wealth and filled the pool with contributions. What he has kept for himself he created - he didn't steal it from anyone. In fact the gates, ellisons and jobs of the world have created more billionaires, millionaires, and just plain well-off people than the government has ever done in its role as robbin' hood.

Boy, I sure went on - I couldn't resist a "teaching moment", though.

[Dad was my hero]

I want to finish some thoughts to this post.

if you dangle a big enough carrot in front of me, I'd probably loot a pension fund or bilk little old ladies out of their life savings, whatever. But even though it might net me a fortune, it wouldn't necessarily be in the best interests of my community or my country. Yes, this is done so often that people have begun placing their savings in mattresses again. I don't even know how to address this, it is pure hyperbole.

the question is how much incentive does there need to be and I'm still a little unclear Yes, that's true. The "incentive" that you wonder about exists within YOU. You can have no incentive in this country and exist of the labor of your fellow citizens thanks to big brother.

We've lost some 3 million jobs in the last 3 years, that's an historical level of upheaval by any standard. Another misconception that comes from the major media. The economy (not the government) creates and loses jobs daily. This figure, while it may be accurate doesn't report the gain in jobs that occurred simultaneously. Of those 3 million jobs lost, about 2.8 million new ones were created. Anecdotally (and I'm using this to illustrate because you are augmenting your arguments with anecdote) I know a private industry corporate pilot that lost his job at the beginning of the Clinton recession. (I say Clinton because, if you're going to blame an administration for it, blame the correct one.) He was out of work for over a year. His problem was not that jobs to match his skills didn't exist, they just didn't exist in his home town. If he would have been willing to move to a major east cost city, he would have found employment within weeks, and his personal circumstances would not have prevented him from moving. If you want to cite statistics, gather ALL of them, not just the ones you believe make your point.

While I certainly do believe in rewarding individual achievement, I believe that the purpose of a national economy should be to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of the country's population. While I addressed some of this earlier (a national economy) I want to take further issue with the concept of "rewarding individual achievement." In a free market, the transactions which occur between individuals occur freely. Nobody forces me to buy Microsoft products thereby further enriching Bill Gates. But in an economy with the heavy hand of government my transactions are no longer free, the fruits of my labor are confiscated at the point of a gun. How is this fair? It is done by government officials who have implemented their policies to appease either limited constituencies or to assuage their sense of power.

Finally, I still suspect you're a Troll because you are not here for the free exchange of ideas, when you have returned to the post you don't do so to come back and discuss what you've learned, rather you go on to bring up more of the same tired old lines about wealth being in the hands of a few and the government needing to equitably redistribute it, yadda yadda yadda. Click on my name and go to my homepage and you will find many good books listed there that will help you rid yourself of this confusion you seem to have based on listening too long to the liberal mantra. I once was a mindless libbie that repeated these same lines until I educated myself on these subjects. Pick up John Stossel's book as he refutes many of your positions too.

DWMH

[sweetliberty]

Your post #52 is very good.

[sweetliberty]

"I'm wondering if PSS isn't getting half of his graduate thesis research done for him here today"

He could do worse.

[FITZ]

No.........you're only a wee bit MARXIST and bitten by the green eyed monster of jealousy. It only richest of the rich, who drive you nuts.

Get off the pompous insults. I actually know people rich enough that they don't have to work for a living and they don't. And I'm not the least bit jealous of them, I don't envy their lifestyles. I have not said a single Marxist thing in here nor does it bother me that there are people that well off. Those depending on paychecks have more in common than you seem to care to believe --- without a paycheck their lifestyle will change. To me that makes more of us "middle-class" than you care to believe.

[FITZ]

No offense but you need to read more than what professors spoon feed you. Professors are refugees from the real word.

That's the problem with many of the professors --- they never left the campus environment, they never held a real world job. They don't even know what it is like for the people they lecture about, they never lived with them, worked with them.

[wtc911]

Mark,

I think we won't get an answer to any of the questions we asked this person about what he/she finds interesting about Marx or why he/she feels empowered to complain about having to pay for college.

[LibKill]

I am paid more than I'm worth, or a great deal less than I'm worth. It depends on what is going on on any given day.

BTW, I despise socialism, I will take my chances in a FRee Republic, win or lose.

[FITZ]

For example, you look at the wealth distribution of this country and you cringe.

It's good though to be concerned that the middle class stay strong --- only a strong middle class keeps us from having Marxist revolutions and the rest --- the rich and the poor don't matter --- every country, every third world country has those --- here it's the middle class that makes the difference, that makes the majority of people content.

[tortoise]

In reality though, for all thats said about the topic, it often gives hope to MANY people. They might not admit it, but it does.

Hell, yeah. It is what motivated me -- you have to be able to see a path to changing your lot in life. I grew up as po' white trash way out in the sticks, and decided pretty early on that there was no way I was going to settle for anything remotely like that when there are better things in the world. I didn't care what it took, I wanted out.

It turns out that it requires an extraordinary amount of effort and discipline to raise yourself above the crowd by your bootstraps. But it is definitely possible. The pain and extreme hardship required to get to where I am now is a quickly fading memory, and well worth it. I don't know why people are surprised at my very humble origins; the whole point of America is that such things are supposed to be possible, even if most don't exercise the opportunity.

Your life is not defined by what is handed to you, but by what you make of it.

[tortoise]

Political science is an oxymoron.

I believe it goes like this: Any field that calls itself "science", isn't.

Chemistry, physics, and biology, those are science.

Social science, political science,... You get the point. :-)