So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:01 pm
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
Because some people decided a life of crime and keeping it real was more important than going to college and those people deserve the same income as the guy that decided a life of delayed gratification would make them rich.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Actually, that you chose "harm" versus "fair" is interesting. One could argue that, while it is perfectly fair for someone to be super wealthy and another to not be super wealthy, harm can, in fact, result. Again, throw fairness out of the equation. If wealth is amassed by only a few, to the degree that amassed wealth does not create any benefit beyond the earnings of its owner, then it could, in fact, be harmful. Bill Gates applies a lot of his amassed wealth to global health missions (Polio eradication and education being among them.) Gates is able to do this because of his amassed wealth. For a non-Gates type, that hoards his/her wealth, and only creates benefit to himself/herself, then one could argue that harm results. When someone has an excess amount above and beyond even the most luxurious of needs, then that person is holding back a possible benefit for others.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
VisorBoy wrote:In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.
Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.
VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.
Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.
ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?
VisorBoy wrote:How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.
Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.
ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?
that wasn't you?I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met
And where did I indicate how those are provided?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.
Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.
ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?that wasn't you?I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met
VisorBoy wrote:And where did I indicate how those are provided?
Society doesn't provide for the individual.how one would structure a society from scratch?
You're missing my point. If we were to build a society from scratch, the mark of success would be that all people have their basic provisions provided without trampling on others' rights. That says nothing about HOW the provisions are provided.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:And where did I indicate how those are provided?Society doesn't provide for the individual.how one would structure a society from scratch?
It's not -- wealth isn't a zero sum gameHokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Not doing good does not create harm.Florida Hokie wrote:Actually, that you chose "harm" versus "fair" is interesting. One could argue that, while it is perfectly fair for someone to be super wealthy and another to not be super wealthy, harm can, in fact, result. Again, throw fairness out of the equation. If wealth is amassed by only a few, to the degree that amassed wealth does not create any benefit beyond the earnings of its owner, then it could, in fact, be harmful. Bill Gates applies a lot of his amassed wealth to global health missions (Polio eradication and education being among them.) Gates is able to do this because of his amassed wealth. For a non-Gates type, that hoards his/her wealth, and only creates benefit to himself/herself, then one could argue that harm results. When someone has an excess amount above and beyond even the most luxurious of needs, then that person is holding back a possible benefit for others.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Again, this is no argument that the hoarder should be compelled to do so. This is simply a matter of discussion around the word "harm." That someone would have the means to resolve the problem for others, but does not do so, for those that potentially could benefit, harm could result.
Now - sling your capitalist, individualist bows my friends.
Interesting question.
No, it doesn't "create" harm but it most certainly enables it. Apathy. Think bystander effect.133743Hokie wrote:Not doing good does not create harm.Florida Hokie wrote:Actually, that you chose "harm" versus "fair" is interesting. One could argue that, while it is perfectly fair for someone to be super wealthy and another to not be super wealthy, harm can, in fact, result. Again, throw fairness out of the equation. If wealth is amassed by only a few, to the degree that amassed wealth does not create any benefit beyond the earnings of its owner, then it could, in fact, be harmful. Bill Gates applies a lot of his amassed wealth to global health missions (Polio eradication and education being among them.) Gates is able to do this because of his amassed wealth. For a non-Gates type, that hoards his/her wealth, and only creates benefit to himself/herself, then one could argue that harm results. When someone has an excess amount above and beyond even the most luxurious of needs, then that person is holding back a possible benefit for others.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Again, this is no argument that the hoarder should be compelled to do so. This is simply a matter of discussion around the word "harm." That someone would have the means to resolve the problem for others, but does not do so, for those that potentially could benefit, harm could result.
Now - sling your capitalist, individualist bows my friends.
Interesting question.
I would go so far as to say that wealth equality is a bad thing.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
What is with conservatives? Google "trickle down economics" yourself... you will find lots of references to Reaganomics... do your own damn homework.RoswellGAHokie wrote:The "trickle down" strawman.
Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.
VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
All Hail King Arthur!Major Kong wrote:Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of capitalism government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
How can you possibly make such a conclusion?133743Hokie wrote:Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
When you consider that even the poorest of the poor in the USA would be considered among the wealthiest people in the land if the visited a third world nation, I would argue that the rising tide DOES raise all boats. Everyone in this country does, indeed, have their needs met and they still manage to get trivial wants, like that new X-Box One and cable television. Most Americans have a microwave oven. They have hot water, indoor plumbing, a FLOOR. These things are all considered the luxuries of wealth in many (most?) countries.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
OK... and which party wants to take away this safety net again?133743Hokie wrote:Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Not to be argumentative, pretty much every church is in contact with assistance agencies to help the poor if they don't do that type of work directly.VisorBoy wrote:How can you possibly make such a conclusion?133743Hokie wrote:Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.VoiceOfReason wrote:Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Many would love to receive assistance but can't either because they don't know how to or can't do it themselves.
The numbers are telling...
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-ame ... stics.aspx