Replies

Wow, this is amazing, I was going to be grateful if a got just a dozen replies! This is kind of overwhelming, you guys are plainly a very passionate bunch around here, but let me take a stab at responding to some of your comments. My apologies to those who concluded that I must be a troll since I had to leave to go do some studying, but I hope you'll you'll understand I couldn't spend the entire day on FR.

First of all, thank you all for your replies. One poster I saw noted that you were probably doing all of the research for my graduate thesis and I have to say, although I'm not writing a thesis on this particular topic, I probably have gotten enough material here to write one!

Moving on, it sounds like no one here really has much of a problem with some people making more money than others, although I was interested to note that several of you stipulated that the money be earned in an ethical fashion. I think we're pretty much on the same page there. I think part of my concern is that, as many of you have already stated, it's human nature to aggressively pursue wealth, which gives rise to the question in my mind of just how aggressively is aggressive? It seems like the more one deregulates business, the more opportunities it creates for opportunistic individuals to acquire wealth in a manner which may or may not be ethical. I mean, hell, 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.

I also concur that individual financial incentive is a crucial ingredient in our economic success. If you'll read my original posts, you'll see that I said as much at the outset. For me personally, the question is how much incentive does there need to be and I'm still a little unclear on how Freepers feel on that issue. It sounds like most of you are not concerned about even very extreme degrees of individual wealth. If I've understood that correctly, I feel like I have to ask, is that an absolute, i.e., is there no degree of income inequality which would bother you? Or are you simply saying that things just aren't that bad in this country, but it might bother you if it became more pronounced? If, for instance, we were to return to feudal times where a small handful of nobility owned literally all of the wealth, as long as you had a roof over your heads, you'd be okay with that?

I'm asking because I'm honestly not clear on it. One poster observed that, in many respects, today's captains of industry and finance are even wealthier than the royalty of past ages, yet that same poster didn't seem unduly concerned by it. If that is in fact a statement with which most here would agree, well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 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. So, yeah, call me a socialist if you must, but if an economy reaches a level at which the vast majority of the rewards are going to a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of the majority of the population, then, yes, I have a problem with it.

A number of posters have asked whether I think it's fair that the wealthiest people should pay the greatest share of taxes. Well, yeah, actually, I do. I mean, if the richest people in America own 80% of the total wealth, why wouldn't they be responsible for 80% of the taxes on that wealth? I don't see how that's unfair at all, that just seems like a straight dollar to dollar correlation to me.

In addition, although I don't pretend to be an expert on it, I certainly hear a great deal from a wide variety of sources about the ingenuity that the wealthy demonstrate in finding offshore tex shelters and other creative ways of escaping tax bills. Do people here contest that those kinds of tax shelters exist and are used? If so, what do all of those forensic accountants do with their days? Are they just chasing ghosts?

I'm sorry my account of my own personal circumstances caused some of you to infer that my comments were simply a reflection of sour grapes. I mentioned it not to whine, but as illustrative of a larger problem. I am by no means the only unemployed, uninsured person in this country these days. We've lost some 3 million jobs in the last 3 years, that's an historical level of upheaval by any standard. I'm also but one of what? 30 million? 40 million uninsured? I forget the precise number, but it's one hell of a lot of people walking around without health insurance these days. I'm actually much better off than most in that I own my own home and have considerable savings to see me through this period of unemployment. Sorry to disillusion those of you who inferred from my student status that I was still young: I'm 37, I worked for several years as a public policy analyst before I was laid off and returned to school.

Anyway, my point is that we aren't talking about a small handful of people who are slipping through the cracks of the system (whom you can safely dismiss as "whiners" or "deadbeats"), we're talking about millions of people who are having a very hard time these days. Do you really have no sympathy for any of them? Here's hoping you're never one of them.

Oh, and for those who observe that I should just move to another country, you'd be surprised how hard it is to do that. Immigation regulations around the world have tightened considerably and it's very difficult to obtain work and residency permits. You might be interested to know that it's harder in part because so many Americans have followed your advice - the waiting list for Americans to get into Canada now exceeds two years. However, this is all moot as I happen to be an American, maybe not your kind of American, but an American nonetheless, with just as much commitment to my country as you have. I just happen to think that my country, although a pretty damn cool place already, can and should be always striving to be even better.

Oh hell, what else have I forgotten? I know a lot of you made really made great points and I'm probably forgetting at least half of you. Nuts, sorry, my mind's a blank. I'll try and get back to anyone I missed later.

Well, PSS, I'm glad you weren't a troll and did come back to continue the discussion. I hope you stick around and keep posing provoking questions. You are lucid, rational, not insulting, and well organized. We can use that around here.

Now, let me address some of your later points without going back and cutting and pasting.

It is clear to me from your comments that your earlier life experiences have biased you toward the socialist side. PolySci student, public policy analyst, etc would tend to make me think you lean in that direction. It's obvious your ideas differ from those of most of us here, but that's OK. Not likely we're going to change each other's minds, but it may make us consider some things we hadn't previously.

Does income disparity bother me? No. Is there any monetary level of disparity that would bother me? No. Would I feel the same way under a return to the fuedal system? No. Apples and Oranges. In a fuedal system no amount of hard work or study gets the peon off the land (other than military service.) Here and now, there are always ways to get ahead if you stop whining and take them.

I mean, hell, 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.

That, unfortunately say a lot about you. Especially if you think that everyone thinks that way. They don't. I don't. Some do. They need to be sanctioned, not restrict commerce in general because some may be unethical. Besides, until you codify "unethical" into crimminal behaviour, it's just another set of opinions.

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. So, yeah, call me a socialist if you must, but if an economy reaches a level at which the vast majority of the rewards are going to a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of the majority of the population, then, yes, I have a problem with it.

I believe that there should be NO purpose to a national economy. It just IS. The national economy is merely the aggregate of the individual microeconomic activites. To try to impose control over the national economy is an unacceptable intrusion into the actions of free individuals. (I know, I know, it's done constantly, but it's the principle.) As to the percentage of rewards going to the few, if it's the few that are putting out the effort, then so be it. I mentioned above that I am not encouraged by the attitude of today's youth. The majority attitude of most (including, unfortunately, my own 24 yr old son) is to work just enough to get along. Yes, there are exceptions, but the trend is depressing.

In addition, although I don't pretend to be an expert on it, I certainly hear a great deal from a wide variety of sources about the ingenuity that the wealthy demonstrate in finding offshore tex shelters and other creative ways of escaping tax bills. Do people here contest that those kinds of tax shelters exist and are used?

I don't. The politicians write laws carefully crafted to extract as much tax as they can without being thrown out by their constituents. The people examine these same laws to find ways to lessen the tax. In many cases the tax code is written in a way to encourage a certain social or economic behavior. Then they complain when too many people take advantage of it. Want to get rid of tax shelters? Write tax laws without loopholes. It's hard. How about a flat tax?

Several million people without health insurance. So? That's about 1% of the population. Almost insignificant statistically. Maybe it's not to them, but I am not responsible for their well-being. They are. Call me cruel.

I guess that's enough for now. I usually don't write this much, but I've been home from work for two weeks now with a lung infection, so have more time on the 'net. Yes, I have health insurance, but I have still had to write checks for over $1000 in the last two weeks for doctor's copay and procedures that weren't fully covered. But. hey, I'm insured.

Come back.

You're making some false assumptions to begin with. First of all, the economy is not the government's to own or tinker with. Economics itself is the study of the use of alternative resources which have alternative uses (*Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics p1). The things within the bounds of this economy all have alternative uses and the amounts that people set for their labor are based on their abilities to be useful to others.

Basically people's wages are established based on their worth to others. As a medical professional I have a worth to others in this society that commands so much money for minutes of my time. When someone graduates from high school with few skills, their worth to an employer is small. They can demand high wages but without a valid reason they will only get what value they can bring to an employer. If for instance the person is a young healthy strong male, he may only be worth $5.50 an hour to McDonald's because his skills are limited to grilling a hamburger, running the French fryer or filling a bag with the order. However at this time he may be worth $10.50 an hour to a roofer or some other construction company because he is young and strong. To a company looking for a manager to oversee their payroll department he is worth $0.00 because he has no background in that area.

You ask is there no degree of income inequality which would bother you? and I would answer NO! Payment for services is voluntary. People decide the worth of what someone does based on the scarcity of their skills and the demand for those same skills. If their skills are in demand but are also plentiful their value is less than if those skills are limited and in great demand. So the young strong guy will find more for his skills to move objects or do physical labor than would someone with a bad back and congestive heart failure. CEOs, professional athletes, actors, doctors and etc. have the ability to do things that few others can do. CEOs add wealth to companies which are owned by the wealthy and ordinary individuals. Professional athletes have the ability to perform at a physical level that surpasses others and provides many thousands of others with entertainment. Same for actors. Doctors can usually improve someone's health status.

This economy is made up of the millions of transactions that take place daily between individuals seeking to satisfy their needs, whether they are perceived or real needs is irrelevant. To alter what I decide is the worth of something or someone creates a weakness within the economy. It is no longer a free economy. Also to assume that you can wipe out poverty by artificially raising the bottom level (increasing the minimum wage) you only move the bottom up temporarily and once the economy readjusts those persons who you've claimed to help are no better off. And quite often many of them become unemployed in the interim.

Another fallacy is that there are a tremendous number of people out there making minimum wage trying to raise a family. The reality (read what Dr Thomas Sowell has written on the subject of minimum wages and statistics of who earns it -books and short essays) is that of those making hourly wages that would classify them as "living below the poverty level" 70% of them are kids, of the remaining 30%, about 80% of them are adults with second jobs picking up spare money. Of those remaining 6% most move out of that income level within a year as they acquire skills that make them more valuable to employers. Another thing that Dr Sowell has demonstrated using census bureau data is that poverty is not something that is lasting for most individuals within it. Statistics show that it appears we have a consistent percentage of the population living in poverty. However, it has been shown that those in poverty today will not likely be in poverty within 5 years and usually by the time they are ready to retire they have acquired financial security. Dr Sowell has shown that about 20% of those classified as living below the poverty line remain there for more than one decade. And that percentage decreases when viewed for two decades or more.

A final thought. Since president Johnson's war on poverty (initiated in 1964), the number of poor people has remained almost unchanged since 1959 (before the "war" began) through 2002 (39.5 million in 1959 and 31.1 million in 2002 *John Stossel, Give Me A Break p219). The percentage of the population in poverty was decreasing before the "war" began and has increased several times between 1964 and 2002. The greatest amount of wealth in the history of this world has been transferred from the middle and upper income classes to these "poor" and yet we see no end to this war in sight. If tomorrow by government fiat the minimum wage was set at $500 an hour so every person that worked a 2,000 hour year would now be a millionaire, within 12 months when the economy began to finally settle down, a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and an automobile would be the same proportion of cost greater than a million dollar income then as they are above an $11,000 a year income today ($5.50 x 2,000 hours). And I would venture that you would hear the same people out there whining that it's impossible to raise a family on a million dollars a year, we need to raise the minimum wage.

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