what is wrong with having a high income?

[Grave_n_idle]

If you take money away from the rich who are creating jobs, then you're just causing more poverty. People need money to create jobs and give other people money.

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

[Molsonian Republics]

If you take money away from the rich who are creating jobs, then you're just causing more poverty. People need money to create jobs and give other people money.

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

[Geilinor]

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

Whichever person owns a business or can qualify for a loan to start a business. Person A could be a small business owner who happens to not make a high income and Person B might not own a business and may have high debt.

[Grave_n_idle]

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

It's irrelevant.

If I have resources I can sell, I can sell them. I will have an income, but am not necessarily creating any jobs.

If I 'create a job' in this situation, it is because I need that extra person to accomplish the workload - and it doesn't matter if I have $200,000 a year or $50,000 a year.

You're laboring under a misapprehension - that income has ANY inherent link to employment rate. It doesn't. That's why it's a myth.

[Cetacea]

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

Jobs are created by increasing consumption and that consumption comes from increasing the wealth of the middle classes.

[Russian Socialist Soviet States]

There is nothing wrong with it if you are not greedy.

[Sociobiology]

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

because there are 4 or 5 person A's for each person B, the person A's create far more jobs by creating demand for goods and services. It's not that hard of a concept.

[Gallia-]

If it's made/achieved through good work ethic, then there's nothing wrong with it.

Not necessarily true. You could have the best work-ethic in the world, but also have enough wealth that literally no-one else could afford to eat. For example. Clearly there is something about the allocation of income that isn't just about work-ethics.

In the beginning there was nothing, then god created energy, and wealth. The two things that cannot be created.

[Risottia]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money?

When I will see a CEO producing a daily work output 50 times the daily work output of a worker I'll justify the CEO's earning 50 times as much as a worker.

Not gonna happen.

If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes?

No.

[Risottia]

If you take money away from the rich who are creating jobs

The "rich" aren't "creating jobs".

You mean the "employers" are "buying labour". Which is a totally different thing.

[Risottia]

In the beginning there was nothing, then god created energy, and wealth.

Sarcasm, I hope?

[Terrordome]

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

Jobs are created by increasing consumption and that consumption comes from increasing the wealth of the middle classes.

People need to understand this. Rich people dont exist in a vacuum. Who do you think are buying the goods and services that the CEOs company provides? This is why lots of economist say a high Gini coefficiant is actually bad for the economy.

[Brickistan]

This is one of the most persistent, and least supported, myths on the internet.

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

A pretty common, and dangerous, myth.

When a rich man earns another million he puts it away in an offshore tax heaven. When a poor man earns another ten bucks he'll use it almost immediately.

You can have as many millions, and own as many factories as you want, but the wealth is only created when people buy the goods you produce. That's why societies with a big robust middle class tend to do better than societies with a small middle class.

Indeed, this is a big issue in the US right now. Production is stagnating as the purchasing power of the shrinking middle class diminishes. Meanwhile, wealth is increasingly created using a variety of ponzi schemes on Wall Street. And that doesn't create many jobs.

[Greater Istanistan]

If person A has a $50,000/year income and person B has a $200,000/year income, which one do you think will have a better ability to create jobs. If you say person A, I will not be able to take anything you say about economics seriously.

In addition to what everyone else has said here, I'll chip in.

First, the middle class is far larger and as such can occupy more jobs. So regardless of income, more actual labour in non-relative terms is done by the middle and lower classes.

Second, whoever spends more money makes more jobs. If they're rich fatasses who simply rake in cash and stockpile most of it in order to build a nest egg for their great grandchildren, then that's economically disadvantageous as it just means that cash is going out of circulation and as such is no longer creating jobs. If they spent more of their cash, they would create jobs and boost the economy. Money is useless unless you do something with it.

Third, the person with $200,000/year is probably making much of that off dividend payments on shares, which actually is bad for the economy as it takes cash away from corporations in exchange for a share that somebody might have bought decades ago and which has long since become a drag on the company, not an asset.

Fourth, the person with $50,000/year could be a teacher, nurse, or police officer. By keeping people safe, healthy, and ready for the future, this person would be creating and maintaining society as a whole. Picture a town without cops. Would anybody want to go there when it would be a crime-ridden Hell? Nope. That means nobody would work there, leaving the town empty and wages low. So cops are good for the economy. If they're a nurse, they're keeping people employed by maintaining health and therefore productivity. Nurses are good for the economy. If they're a teacher, then they're making sure that the nation's future workers are well educated and able to take on high-skill and therefore high-value jobs. Teachers are very good for the economy,

Oh, and your argument is terrible in that it immediately discounts anyone who opposes you offhand without presenting serious facts or allowing for alternative opinions.

[-The Trade Federation-]

Guys...

There's a difference between an extremely rich fatass who buys private islands, keeps all money for himself and underpays his workers and a honnest man with lots of money who invests smartly in his enterprise (And other things too) and pays his workers well.

But of course, you guys only see the bad side so you can have an excuse to grab their money and do the same.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Not that Molsonian Republics is right or anything, but generally a "rich fatass" will hold a significant portion of his assets in shares or bank deposits and that wealth is very much in circulation through investing activities. Very few "rich fatasses" will buy up shit-loads of property and sit on it until eternity. Although, buying property is good for the economy as it drives housing prices up and this significantly helps out the middle class who can afford houses, not so much the lower classes who can't.

The hate for the rich is too damn high.

[Grave_n_idle]

Guys...

There's a difference between an extremely rich fatass who buys private islands, keeps all money for himself and underpays his workers and a honnest man with lots of money who invests smartly in his enterprise (And other things too) and pays his workers well.

But of course, you guys only see the bad side so you can have an excuse to grab their money and do the same.

Or, on the other hand, you could actually read the posts for the last few pages, and address some of the things that are actually being said.

[Greater Istanistan]

Guys...

There's a difference between an extremely rich fatass who buys private islands, keeps all money for himself and underpays his workers and a honnest man with lots of money who invests smartly in his enterprise (And other things too) and pays his workers well.

But of course, you guys only see the bad side so you can have an excuse to grab their money and do the same.

And you only see the good side so you can have an excuse to squish the middle and lower classes and keep buying islands.

You also seem to have missed the part where we want income EQUALITY. We don't want to be rich - that is, as we've argued, bad economics. We just want everything to be more egalitarian and as a result more economically sensible. Capiche?

[Grave_n_idle]

Although, buying property is good for the economy as it drives housing prices up and this significantly helps out the middle and lower classes.

This part doesn't make any sense.

The hate for the rich is too damn high.

And this part has nothing to do with anything anyone is actually writing.

0 for 2. Good job.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Although, buying property is good for the economy as it drives housing prices up and this significantly helps out the middle and lower classes.

This part doesn't make any sense.

I edited it since although the premise doesn't change.

The hate for the rich is too damn high.

And this part has nothing to do with anything anyone is actually writing.

0 for 2. Good job.

It has a lot to do with 2 of the last 7 replies. Come on, at least read what everyone is actually writing before you jump at the chance to post a witty one liner.

[Terrordome]

This part doesn't make any sense.

I edited it since although the premise doesn't change.

And this part has nothing to do with anything anyone is actually writing.

0 for 2. Good job.

It has a lot to do with 2 of the last 7 replies. Come on, at least read what everyone is actually writing before you jump at the chance to post a witty one liner.

please explain how high house prices help the middle class. As a middle class person earning an average wage I would love to hear your expertise on how the hell I am supposed to get on the housing ladder without bankrupting myself with a huge mortgage.

(to be fair I live in London and someone near me just sold a 3 bedroom terraced house for £1million. Very few areas in the world have quite as ridiculous house prices as here.)

[Keyboard Warriors]

I edited it since although the premise doesn't change.


It has a lot to do with 2 of the last 7 replies. Come on, at least read what everyone is actually writing before you jump at the chance to post a witty one liner.

please explain how high house prices help the middle class. As a middle class person earning an average wage I would love to hear your expertise on how the hell I am supposed to get on the housing ladder without bankrupting myself with a huge mortgage.

Not high house prices, but rising house prices. In common sense, if your house is worth more than what you've paid for it originally after a period of time, you're better off. This is why most buyers generally rejoice when their house price has raised. If you buy a house and the value doesn't raise enough for you to cover your mortgage, you're left with negative equity; not desirable because it means you're stuck with that house until you have the financial means to pay the difference.

It does have the downside of making it harder to find a home if you're on a low income, but you'll find there are always areas of cheap housing.

(to be fair I live in London and someone near me just sold a 3 bedroom terraced house for £1million. Very few areas in the world have quite as ridiculous house prices as here.)

Not every home in London is worth that much however. I know where you're coming from. A shitty two bedroom unit fetches more than $600,000 in the middle of Melbourne.

[Brickistan]

Not that Molsonian Republics is right or anything, but generally a "rich fatass" will hold a significant portion of his assets in shares or bank deposits and that wealth is very much in circulation through investing activities. Very few "rich fatasses" will buy up shit-loads of property and sit on it until eternity. Although, buying property is good for the economy as it drives housing prices up and this significantly helps out the middle class who can afford houses, not so much the lower classes who can't.

The hate for the rich is too damn high.

Only one problem...

The housing bubble is so bad that, even though it got popped once, it's still a disaster waiting to happen. Young couples can barely afford a house these days - and you can forget all about it if you're single - and if the interest rate on the loans go up and/or the price goes down, many house owners are well and truly up the brown creek...

Indeed, the whole idea behind driving the economy though a series of bubbles - as capitalism tends to do - is causing a lot of harm.

Is it really surprising that the middle class now hates the rich? After all, it was the rich who crashed the economy in 2008. And while they got bailed out, we lost first our jobs, then our homes.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Not that Molsonian Republics is right or anything, but generally a "rich fatass" will hold a significant portion of his assets in shares or bank deposits and that wealth is very much in circulation through investing activities. Very few "rich fatasses" will buy up shit-loads of property and sit on it until eternity. Although, buying property is good for the economy as it drives housing prices up and this significantly helps out the middle class who can afford houses, not so much the lower classes who can't.

The hate for the rich is too damn high.

Only one problem...

The housing bubble is so bad that, even though it got popped once, it's still a disaster waiting to happen. Young couples can barely afford a house these days - and you can forget all about it if you're single - and if the interest rate on the loans go up and/or the price goes down, many house owners are well and truly up the brown creek...

Indeed, the whole idea behind driving the economy though a series of bubbles - as capitalism tends to do - is causing a lot of harm.

Is it really surprising that the middle class now hates the rich? After all, it was the rich who crashed the economy in 2008. And while they got bailed out, we lost first our jobs, then our homes.

I know it's raised a little since then, but no, the housing bubble is not so bad. Owning your own house has always been practically out of reach for a single person on an average wage unless you buy very cheaply, this isn't new. Bubbles are not a huge deal, all things considered, and no, they are not driving the economy.

[Brickistan]

Only one problem...

The housing bubble is so bad that, even though it got popped once, it's still a disaster waiting to happen. Young couples can barely afford a house these days - and you can forget all about it if you're single - and if the interest rate on the loans go up and/or the price goes down, many house owners are well and truly up the brown creek...

Indeed, the whole idea behind driving the economy though a series of bubbles - as capitalism tends to do - is causing a lot of harm.

Is it really surprising that the middle class now hates the rich? After all, it was the rich who crashed the economy in 2008. And while they got bailed out, we lost first our jobs, then our homes.

I know it's raised a little since then, but no, the housing bubble is not so bad. Owning your own house has always been practically out of reach for a single person on an average wage unless you buy very cheaply, this isn't new. Bubbles are not a huge deal, all things considered, and no, they are not driving the economy.

Not quite as bad, but still plenty bad. Here in Denmark, in the larger cities, prices are already getting perilously close to the pre-crash levels.

And while I agree that a single person has always had it difficult, the "news" is that now even couples have difficulties. In other words - it's getting increasingly difficult to find a place to stay. And, being currently single, I can assure you that trying to find even a modest place to stay in a major city is damn difficult without putting myself so deep into dept that it's not at all funny. Basically, as couples cannot get decent size houses, it puts pressure on the small apartments. And that means increasing prices and more pressure.

And yes, bubbles are a kinda big deal. It creates a huge inequality. My parents and grandparents, for example, got into the housing marked at the right time and are sitting securely in their houses. In contrast, the bubble has inflated prices to a point where I will never get a house in my current position. Even if I did get married, my student dept will ensure that I will never get the loans needed. In effect, the older generation sits on a lot of "value" (much of it entirely artificial and inflated way beyond anything bounded by reality) while the younger generation struggles.

The housing bubble certainly helped drive the crazy consumer boom we've been seeing over the last few decades with more and more loans taken out against the value of the house. And thus other bubbles were created.

No, much better then to keep the economy stable. You should never base your assumptions on the idea that everything (housing most certainly included) will automatically increase in value. That's just a disaster waiting to happen.