Income Inequality and Decadence

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

You cannot deny that, of course unless you are inheriting wealth from your parents, but you need to work to sustain it...

Not at all. I live in a city where trust fund kids are a dime a dozen, though I obviously don't live in the same neighborhood or move in the same circles. Sure, a number of them manage to actually do real work, or at least invest the money wisely, but far too many either live off of the interest of funds previously invested on their behalf, or at best they "work" at jobs set up by the family that involves them showing up for an hour or two each week, shaking a few hands, and then taking off to the clubs.

So you are saying that the rich don't work for their money?

[Mattopilos]

Well, the rich have worked for their wealth

All of them? Define "work". That, and define how their work was automatically harder than those struggling at the bottom.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Well, the rich have worked for their wealth

All of them? Define "work". That, and define how their work was automatically harder than those struggling at the bottom.

Look at people like John D Rockefeller, they worked hard and capitalised on opportunity, and became rich, and rags to riches is not unheard of, just very rare. I think the poor must not give up on themselves and sponge off others, but that they must capitalise on opportunity and make the right connections to succeed. The rich may have it easier now, but it was because of hard work before, studying hard to get good grades etc., while the poor work hard now, and they should have capitalised on opportunities to move up the ladder. The poor are struggling also because of migrant labour, and because of minimum wage laws and laws like Obamacare, which force employers to cut their wages and make them unable to earn invaluable experience to move up the jobs ladder and get access to better jobs.

Working hard is always the first step to a better life and a better career.

[New Grestin]

Look, I'm not saying we should start culling the rich and powerful and re-distribute their stuff.

I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't....

[Yuropah]

These days, I often see fashion/reality/news shows and documentaries, where the very rich live such wasteful and opulent lives. They are promiscuous, lazy and are often addicted to either drugs or alcohol. On the other hand, I have seen beggars on the street not getting a piece of food, resorting to stealing, with my own eyes.

In our world, the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 50%. They do not deserve this money- just look at the Kardashians, for example. They are corrupted with money and power, and have no basic morals or empathy to those in need. They are decadent, corrupt and are oppressive. Income inequality is the root of the countless things wrong with our world.

What do you think, NSG? I believe in socialism, and ideally, communism, so it may just be my bias, but I want to hear from you guys.

I think it is the right of the rich to do these things, if they want to. Sure, what they may be doing is usually immoral, and degenerate, but they should be allowed to do it, if they can pay for it. Stealing people's money, and giving it to the poor just breeds lazy arseholes. It takes away the incentive to work, on both sides. Why work if you don't get to keep your money? Why work if you have money literally given to you?
tl;dr socialism/communism doesn't work, and income inequality is needed

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

These days, I often see fashion/reality/news shows and documentaries, where the very rich live such wasteful and opulent lives. They are promiscuous, lazy and are often addicted to either drugs or alcohol. On the other hand, I have seen beggars on the street not getting a piece of food, resorting to stealing, with my own eyes.

In our world, the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 50%. They do not deserve this money- just look at the Kardashians, for example. They are corrupted with money and power, and have no basic morals or empathy to those in need. They are decadent, corrupt and are oppressive. Income inequality is the root of the countless things wrong with our world.

What do you think, NSG? I believe in socialism, and ideally, communism, so it may just be my bias, but I want to hear from you guys.

I think it is the right of the rich to do these things, if they want to. Sure, what they may be doing is usually immoral, and degenerate, but they should be allowed to do it, if they can pay for it. Stealing people's money, and giving it to the poor just breeds lazy arseholes. It takes away the incentive to work, on both sides. Why work if you don't get to keep your money? Why work if you have money literally given to you?
tl;dr socialism/communism doesn't work, and income inequality is needed

Well said.

[Constantinopolis]

So you are saying that the rich don't work for their money?

That is correct, the rich do not work for their money.

Or, to be more exact: Wealth in capitalism is absolutely not in any way proportional to how much people work. Two people who work equally hard can (and often do) have radically different amounts of wealth.

There are many ways to prove that the rich do not work for their money (that is to say, they do not work for MOST of their money; they may work for some part of it). Here is just one of those proofs:

The difference between the wealth of the top 1% and the wealth of an average worker is absolutely staggering. We're not talking about having two or three or ten or even a hundred times more wealth than the average person. No, the rich have thousands of times more wealth than the average person.

If this difference were due to work, that would imply that a wealthy stock broker works thousands of times harder than, say, a truck driver. Or a high school teacher. And no matter how you choose to measure work, that simply isn't true. You can measure it by time spent working, or by energy expended; you can add modifiers for the education level if you want. It doesn't matter (the stock broker may be highly educated, but so is the adjunct professor barely scraping a living). A person's wealth is simply not proportional to any measurable form of work or effort.

[New Grestin]

I think it is the right of the rich to do these things, if they want to. Sure, what they may be doing is usually immoral, and degenerate, but they should be allowed to do it, if they can pay for it.

Oh, yes. Of course.

Sure, the rich are immoral. Sure, they abuse the lower class for their own gain. Sure, they manipulate the government to keep themselves rich. Sure, they're riding society into the ground. Sure, we're all getting butt-fucked for their benefit.

But they're rich, and it's their right to fuck over society because they have money.

Blow me.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

So you are saying that the rich don't work for their money?

That is correct, the rich do not work for their money.

Or, to be more exact: Wealth in capitalism is absolutely not in any way proportional to how much people work. Two people who work equally hard can (and often do) have radically different amounts of wealth.

There are many ways to prove that the rich do not work for their money (that is to say, they do not work for MOST of their money; they may work for some part of it). Here is just one of those proofs:

The difference between the wealth of the top 1% and the wealth of an average worker is absolutely staggering. We're not talking about having two or three or ten or even a hundred times more wealth than the average person. No, the rich have thousands of times more wealth than the average person.

If this difference were due to work, that would imply that a wealthy stock broker works thousands of times harder than, say, a truck driver. Or a high school teacher. And no matter how you choose to measure work, that simply isn't true. You can measure it by time spent working, or by energy expended; you can add modifiers for the education level if you want. It doesn't matter (the stock broker may be highly educated, but so is the adjunct professor barely scraping a living). A person's wealth is simply not proportional to any measurable form of work or effort.

Capitalism allocates wealth the most efficiently, as only what is wanted and needed is kept and valued highly, while what is unwanted or valued less is valued less. If let's say you study art, and aspire to be an artist, you will not earn much, because we do not need or want art, and thus it is rewarded less and paid less, while those with the acumen to do things like stock broking and banking are paid highly due to their acumen. Besides, during financial crises, stock brokers lose a lot, and this also boils down to their acumen and capability. And the poor might not have such skills, and thus, they are paid less.

[Constantinopolis]

Look at people like John D Rockefeller, they worked hard and capitalised on opportunity, and became rich

Even if that were true, the fact remains that (1) others work equally hard and DON'T get rich, and (2) yet another group of people get rich without working much at all.

In other words, as I said, in capitalism there is no relationship between wealth and work. Sure, by coincidence, some rich people worked hard at some point in their lives. But other rich people didn't. And many poor people work hard too.

I think the poor must not give up on themselves and sponge off others, but that they must capitalise on opportunity and make the right connections to succeed.

If it requires "capitalising on opportunity" (i.e. luck) and "making the right connections" (i.e. personal charisma, family connections, and/or corruption), then it's not about work, is it?

Working hard is always the first step to a better life and a better career.

No it's not. Lots of people work extremely hard from sunrise to sunset and yet they are extremely poor. Miners work hard. Farmers work hard. Construction workers and people in factories work hard. How many of them are rich?

[Mattopilos]

All of them? Define "work". That, and define how their work was automatically harder than those struggling at the bottom.

Look at people like John D Rockefeller, they worked hard and capitalised on opportunity, and became rich, and rags to riches is not unheard of, just very rare.[/quote]

Exactly the point I am making: this is because equal opportunities in capitalism is bullshit. Being born into wealth means you are all the more likely to live being wealthy.

I think the poor must not give up on themselves and sponge off others, but that they must capitalise on opportunity and make the right connections to succeed.

That is assuming it is just that easy. The world in unfair, and corporations want cheap work, so they make a large profit with less wages as possible. They capitalize off the work of others. I think you would agree that is a little unfair, no?

The rich may have it easier now, but it was because of hard work before, studying hard to get good grades etc.

yeah.... no. It is called being born into royalty. They didn't have to work nearly as hard for the wealth they got.

while the poor work hard now, and they should have capitalised on opportunities to move up the ladder. The poor are struggling also because of migrant labour, and because of minimum wage laws and laws like Obamacare, which force employers to cut their wages and make them unable to earn invaluable experience to move up the jobs ladder and get access to better jobs.

It is also because work doesn't translate into wealth - that is why monetary wealth is an absurd and abstract way to rank people's worth, which is very much what is happening in capitalist societies.

Working hard is always the first step to a better life and a better career.

But never guarantees they get past that stage. Many get stuck in a rut and just work in the hopes they can get food on the table.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

If you are not as good as others, blame yourselves, dont blame the rest for your misery. That is what communists and the poor do, blame everybody but themselves. If you are valued less, improve yourself to be valued more, that way you will be able to improve your lives without needing to rely on anyone other than yourself.

[Constantinopolis]

That is correct, the rich do not work for their money.

Or, to be more exact: Wealth in capitalism is absolutely not in any way proportional to how much people work. Two people who work equally hard can (and often do) have radically different amounts of wealth.

There are many ways to prove that the rich do not work for their money (that is to say, they do not work for MOST of their money; they may work for some part of it). Here is just one of those proofs:

The difference between the wealth of the top 1% and the wealth of an average worker is absolutely staggering. We're not talking about having two or three or ten or even a hundred times more wealth than the average person. No, the rich have thousands of times more wealth than the average person.

If this difference were due to work, that would imply that a wealthy stock broker works thousands of times harder than, say, a truck driver. Or a high school teacher. And no matter how you choose to measure work, that simply isn't true. You can measure it by time spent working, or by energy expended; you can add modifiers for the education level if you want. It doesn't matter (the stock broker may be highly educated, but so is the adjunct professor barely scraping a living). A person's wealth is simply not proportional to any measurable form of work or effort.

Capitalism allocates wealth the most efficiently, as only what is wanted and needed is kept and valued highly, while what is unwanted or valued less is valued less. If let's say you study art, and aspire to be an artist, you will not earn much, because we do not need or want art, and thus it is rewarded less and paid less, while those with the acumen to do things like stock broking and banking are paid highly due to their acumen. Besides, during financial crises, stock brokers lose a lot, and this also boils down to their acumen and capability. And the poor might not have such skills, and thus, they are paid less.

Tell me, how do you know the amount of "acumen and capability" that someone has? Well, you look at their wealth of course: If they have a lot of money that means they had a lot of "acumen and capability".

So in other words, your argument is based on circular logic: "Capitalism gives people money based on their skills, and we measure the level of skill that you have based on how much money you get." Getting rich is your reward for... being able to get rich.

[Nochov]

Instead of redistributing wealth directly, which tends to be ultimately detrimental to a society, we could (and should) just impose the death penalty on drug use, and have governmental appropriation of all assets owned by the executed person. That way, the wealth gets spent doing something productive, and a very clear message indeed is sent to the addicts, both poor and rich, that degeneracy is not tolerable.

[Mattopilos]

Capitalism allocates wealth the most efficiently

Please tell me you said that ironically.

, as only what is wanted and needed is kept and valued highly, while what is unwanted or valued less is valued less.

According to an abstract measurement of worth, yes. And it is more 'what people will buy' rather than 'what is needed'. People don't need smartphones, they want smartphones.

If let's say you study art, and aspire to be an artist, you will not earn much, because we do not need or want art, and thus it is rewarded less and paid less, while those with the acumen to do things like stock broking and banking are paid highly due to their acumen.

In a free market setting they are worth more, yes. I hardly think they are needed anywhere else, nor do I think they further society. Don't want art? Now I know you are acting just a little ignorant. Let me guess, people don't want culture either?

Besides, during financial crises, stock brokers lose a lot, and this also boils down to their acumen and capability. And the poor might not have such skills, and thus, they are paid less.

And... why don't they have those skills? Oh, right: they weren't given the opportunity to learn them. Great system we got there.
That is the risk stock-brokers take with that job, so I see no reason to feel sorry for them when their system fails them - they were the ones bringing it upon themselves to rely on it as a career.

[Constantinopolis]

If you are not as good as others, blame yourselves, dont blame the rest for your misery. That is what communists and the poor do, blame everybody but themselves. If you are valued less, improve yourself to be valued more, that way you will be able to improve your lives without needing to rely on anyone other than yourself.

Thus says the designer of the maze to the mice that he places in the maze.

[Mattopilos]

If you are not as good as others, blame yourselves, dont blame the rest for your misery.

Good in what way? How are you measuring 'good' in this case?

That is what communists and the poor do, blame everybody but themselves.

No, we blame a system that favours the rich and only the rich. Capitalism is simply a system that favours those that already had a foot ahead in the first place. Few from the very bottom make it to that group. We hardly blame ourselves, and would do so if we did anything wrong.

If you are valued less, improve yourself to be valued more, that way you will be able to improve your lives without needing to rely on anyone other than yourself.

Again, how are you evaluating 'worth'? How are you expecting people to be better in a system that represses it by its very design? That, and only narrow egoists think that 'doing it for yourself' is how society will further itself.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Capitalism allocates wealth the most efficiently, as only what is wanted and needed is kept and valued highly, while what is unwanted or valued less is valued less. If let's say you study art, and aspire to be an artist, you will not earn much, because we do not need or want art, and thus it is rewarded less and paid less, while those with the acumen to do things like stock broking and banking are paid highly due to their acumen. Besides, during financial crises, stock brokers lose a lot, and this also boils down to their acumen and capability. And the poor might not have such skills, and thus, they are paid less.

Tell me, how do you know the amount of "acumen and capability" that someone has? Well, you look at their wealth of course: If they have a lot of money that means they had a lot of "acumen and capability".

So in other words, your argument is based on circular logic: "Capitalism gives people money based on their skills, and we measure the level of skill that you have based on how much money you get." Getting rich is your reward for... being able to get rich.

If you can get rich, you are capable, and if you stay poor, something is wrong with the way you do things. My father used to live in a one room rented flat with his 5 siblings, and his parents could barely afford to buy 3 meals daily for them, but because my father's siblings worked hard and his parents did, they moved into a 3 room flat and now, we can afford to live in a 5 room flat and drive a car, travelling at least once a year. Here in Singapore, such stories are very common, and rags to riches is something we are proud of, and we praise and thank Capitalism for that.

[Mattopilos]

Instead of redistributing wealth directly, which tends to be ultimately detrimental to a society, we could (and should) just impose the death penalty on drug use

... This is a joke, right? That is taking things a little far.

and have governmental appropriation of all assets owned by the executed person. That way, the wealth gets spent doing something productive, and a very clear message indeed is sent to the addicts, both poor and rich, that degeneracy is not tolerable.

So, what, degeneracy is caused by drug use? What an absurd point to make.

[New Grestin]

If you are not as good as others, blame yourselves, dont blame the rest for your misery. That is what communists and the poor do, blame everybody but themselves. If you are valued less, improve yourself to be valued more, that way you will be able to improve your lives without needing to rely on anyone other than yourself.

Or, perhaps, there are societal factors in place preventing you from improving yourself. Perhaps placing blame on an individual level ignores the societal causes of things like income inequality.

Looking at America right now, specifically, there is practically no Middle Class. There are haves and have nots, and the haves are taking more than their fair share by a long shot.

Governments exist to protect the people and to help care for their worst off citizens. The rich are by no means worse off, and should therefore be taxed more heavily than your average dick or jane. That money should be put into government programs, because the rich and powerful cannot be trusted to use their wealth for the betterment of society as a whole. That is the job of the government. To protect it's citizens. That protection should include programs to help the homeless, to help those that cannot help themselves so that they can become functioning members of society.

The poor are not the enemy here. The rich are. There is nothing inherently wrong with acting in your own self interest, but when acting in your own self interest is hurting others, then a line needs to be drawn.

There's a difference between screwing someone for a promotion, and forcing thousands to pay up or die for expensive medications just to make more money on top of the Scrooge-McDuck horde of money you already have.

[Mattopilos]

If you can get rich, you are capable, and if you stay poor, something is wrong with the way you do things.

Ridiculous and false point. Tell that to those who are working their whole lives and still stay at the bottom. Again, that is because of how repressed the system is.

My father used to live in a one room rented flat with his 5 siblings, and his parents could barely afford to buy 3 meals daily for them, but because my father's siblings worked hard and his parents did, they moved into a 3 room flat and now, we can afford to live in a 5 room flat and drive a car, travelling at least once a year. Here in Singapore, such stories are very common, and rags to riches is something we are proud of, and we praise and thank Capitalism for that.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! Using anecdotes and claiming it is more than just a n = 1 sample? Please take your logical fallacies elsewhere.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Instead of redistributing wealth directly, which tends to be ultimately detrimental to a society, we could (and should) just impose the death penalty on drug use

... This is a joke, right? That is taking things a little far.

and have governmental appropriation of all assets owned by the executed person. That way, the wealth gets spent doing something productive, and a very clear message indeed is sent to the addicts, both poor and rich, that degeneracy is not tolerable.

So, what, degeneracy is caused by drug use? What an absurd point to make.

One question, why do you support communism? Did you manage to afford a life with internet and computers with Capitalism or socialism?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not at all. I live in a city where trust fund kids are a dime a dozen, though I obviously don't live in the same neighborhood or move in the same circles. Sure, a number of them manage to actually do real work, or at least invest the money wisely, but far too many either live off of the interest of funds previously invested on their behalf, or at best they "work" at jobs set up by the family that involves them showing up for an hour or two each week, shaking a few hands, and then taking off to the clubs.

So you are saying that the rich don't work for their money?

No. I'm saying that the comments that "The rich work for their money" and "If you are inheriting money from your parents, you need to work to sustain it." aren't true in all cases, though they are in many. In fact, I believe that I made reference to the fact that there are trust fund kids who still work in that very post. Apologies if it wasn't a clear enough disclaimer.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

So you are saying that the rich don't work for their money?

No. I'm saying that the comments that "The rich work for their money" and "If you are inheriting money from your parents, you need to work to sustain it." aren't true in all cases, though they are in many. In fact, I believe that I made reference to the fact that there are trust fund kids who still work in that very post. Apologies if it wasn't a clear enough disclaimer.

Thanks for clarifying. Good to hear that.

[Mattopilos]

... This is a joke, right? That is taking things a little far.

So, what, degeneracy is caused by drug use? What an absurd point to make.

One question, why do you support communism? Did you manage to afford a life with internet and computers with Capitalism or socialism?

Another poor argument. The assumption that said commodities couldn't exist in such a system is going 'ha! gotcha!" without actually making the system look bad. There are not true communist societies, so I couldn't tell you... but neither can you, for that matter. How about asking questions with a clear answer?