How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?

[Ken-1122]

Why not? If it is as necessary to the process as the baker then it seems irrational to assume the baker is the only important factor.

Nobody says an oven makes cakes because it is only a tool used in the process.

Why not? The bank in this case is the INVESTOR. Do you feel the investors who front the capital are unworthy of any credit?

Who gets the credit isn’t the issue; everybody deserves credit! Think of it this way; if the Bank or the worker is the main one responsible for creating the wealth, why are they creating wealth in a way that gives the majority of the benefits to someone else? Seems to me, the easiest way to figure out who is responsible for something is to find out who benefits the most when it becomes successful. After all is said and done, it is the person who started the business who reaps the greatest benefit when his business becomes successful

I just had an idea for a widget that will sell for $1 million a piece and it will be amazingly successful. There, I have an idea. Have I created wealth?

Only if you take the risk and put this idea into effect, and become successful! Otherwise you will be like all the other guys sitting on the sidelines with good ideas; while working for someone else, getting credit for making them rich.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

May have made use of someone else's work.

Joe may have made use of someone else's work.

family fortune propped up by years of relying on the PUBLIC WELFARE SYSTEMS to pay their worker's healthcare. Now they are doing somewhat better but still have to had donations to help their workers get food for the holidays.

The same may apply to Joe when he becomes that successful

Spite-based software invention which became popular and now harvests all your data (they should thank YOU) in order to turn a profit off of selling stuff back to you based on the data YOU GIVE THEM.

Joe may have done the same thing

They called folks like him Robber Barons for a reason. And it wasn't a nice reason. Folks like him created monopolies which took every advantage imaginable against the regular people. Ultimately Standard Oil had to be broken up because of the ruthlessness and exploitation of their business practices.

Perhaps Joe is a mean person as well.

Interestingly realized that you have to pay your workers enough that they can and will buy the cars they make! Although kind of a nasty bigot.

Joe could be a bigot

Actually made a relational database. Now a generally nasty piece of work as far as being a human. Works really hard to avoid paying his fair share of taxes. Niiiice.

Joe may be a nasty human being

Most of them (or their heirs) were willing to do whatever was necessary to stick it to the regular folks in order to enrich themselves.

Note: I don't think that captains of industry are ipso facto bad people, just that these are not necessarily folks who have achieved greatness through purely good actions. They may be golden gods but they have feet of clay in many cases. And their businesses succeed because we in the USA value success at any cost.

I never said anything about Joe being good, he too may have feet of clay as well. Again, how are some of these super rich men I listed any different than the Joe in the scenario I presented? My point is, people like the Joe I mention can become the super rich; it's happened plenty of times before, and it will happen plenty of times again.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

That true to a certain extent though. If the labor force has lower wages the rich get more and the workers get less.

Which rich are you talking about? The rich who invest in the business? The rich who started the company in the first place? Which rich are you talking about when you say their extreme pay means less pay for the workers?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Firstly, your listing the exceptions. Secondly, if you take a look at the list of the wealthiest, these are not the type of people that dominate that list.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

1. Bill Gates - arguably in the category you listed, but that is debateable.
2. Carlos Slim Helu - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
3. Warren Buffet - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
4. Amancio Ortega - arguably in the category you described.
5. Larry Ellison - Critical in the development expansion of Oracle, check for earned his money.
6. Charles Koch - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
7. David Koch - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
8. Christy Walton - While she has ties to Walmart, her wealth was due to married into inherited wealth.
9. Jim Walton - inherited wealth.
10. Lilliane Bettencourt - inherited wealth.
11. Alice Walton - inhertited wealth.
12. S. Robton Walton - inherited wealth.
13. Bernard Arnault - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
14. Michael Bloomberg - Investor/businessman. Questionably in the category you described.
15. Jeff Bezos - in the category you described.
16. Mark Zuckerburg - in the category you described.
17. Li Ka-shing - questionably in the category you described.
18. Sheldon Adelson - in the category you described.
19. Larry Page - in the category you described.
20. Sergey Brin - in the category you described.
21. Georg Schaeffler - questionably in the category you described
22. Forest Mars - inherited wealth
23. Jacqueline Mars - inherited wealth.
24. John Mars - inherited wealth.
25. David Thomson - inherited wealth.
26. Paulo Lemann - questionably in the category you described.
27. Lee Shau Kee - Capitalist/investor
28. Stefan Persson - inherited wealth.
29. George Soros - Capitalist/investor
30. Wang Jianlin - Capitalist/investor

11 of the top 30 are people who really made an invention or business plan that set them apart and brought them wealth through their innovation. The rest may have used business acumen to leverage existing wealth into more wealth, but i would argue are not people like Joe.

You can keep going down the list, but you'll find that the majority of the super wealthy are not like Joe, but are those who have leveraged wealth or managed wealth to gain wealth, rather than innovating or executing a business plan that they devised.

I'll re-iterate: i'm not arguing that those who contribute and manage capital don't deserve a share of the wealth that is created. They absolutely do. I'm arguing that the share of the created wealth they receive is disproportionate to their contribution.

I was not implying that all of the top richest people are like the Joe in the scenario I presented, I was just refuting the claim that people like the Joe I mentioned in the scenario never make much money.

Ken

 

[whatbogsends]

I was not implying that all of the top richest people are like the Joe in the scenario I presented, I was just refuting the claim that people like the Joe I mentioned in the scenario never make much money.

Ken

I was not saying that people like Joe you mentioned never make much money, only that people like Joe tend to do fairly well, but those that do extremely well are an exception, not the rule, and, moreover, that when talking about the very wealthy there are more people not like Joe than people like Joe.

I think we have some agreement in the description of how it all works, and who earns what. I think we have some difference of opinion on the specific metrics of how money is distributed and to whom.

 

[amanuensis63]

The same may apply to Joe when he becomes that successful

Are you saying it is good business to pay your people so poorly that everyone else in town is on the hook for helping them survive?

I never said anything about Joe being good, he too may have feet of clay as well. Again, how are some of these super rich men I listed any different than the Joe in the scenario I presented?

your Joe character sounds like a truly terrible person and someone who should NOT get any benefits from others. As a society we SHOULD shun him. But often we don't because we have divorced ethics from business. Which is largely our problem as a nation. It leads to massive inequality because we have told some of the worst people on earth that they will get a pass just so long as they make money-money-money.

My point is, people like the Joe I mention can become the super rich; it's happened plenty of times before, and it will happen plenty of times again.

And it appears you skipped the last part of my post which was kind of the key. That the OP about inequality is made more likely because we have divorced ethical behavior from our business behavior.

 

[amanuensis63]

Nobody says an oven makes cakes because it is only a tool used in the process.

-sigh- Do I need to remind you of the METAPHOR YOU came up with? Comparing the oven to the worker. Unless you think the worker is undeserving of credit in making the widget.

Who gets the credit isn’t the issue; everybody deserves credit!

And again I am forced to bring the topic back around to the thread topic. The primary people who are getting the credit for advances in productivity over the last 30 years are the very top people. So EITHER you believe that the top people in an organization are hundreds of times more productive than the average worker in that organization or you must admit that the "Credit" is going to a small group who don't really do an amount of work that scales with their role in the organization.

Think of it this way; if the Bank or the worker is the main one responsible for creating the wealth, why are they creating wealth in a way that gives the majority of the benefits to someone else?

Again, I'd point to the rise of CEO pay through the backroom reach-arounds among the various CEO's on compensation boards across the US but you didn't seem aware that CEO's often served on other boards. So it would be obvious to you if this were more clear to you how the system works.

CEO pay in the US has risen dramatically. Yet CEO's have an average "lifespan" in the company of less than 10 years. Does that make sense to you? CEO's are often "fired" for failure at their jobs which gain them massive multimillion dollar payoffs as "golden parachutes". I once read an SEC filing for a company in California who was paying their new CEO millions of dollars base pay (and millions more in various other bennies) and in the contract they signed with him the company also helped him pay his mortgage because he had moved from a lower cost of living area to California.

The game is rigged by the rich for the rich.

(http://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/07/29/the-benefits-of-unions/)

(http://inequality.org/income-inequality/)

So I guess by your estimation these gains by the top 1% are all deserved and perfectly in line with what should happen.

Here's a puzzler: what happened in about 1980 to cause this graph to diverge so suddenly...did America give birth to a super race of superbeings who out performed all other humans?

(Source: Forbes)

 

[Smidlee]

.

Here's a puzzler: what happened in about 1980 to cause this graph to diverge so suddenly...did America give birth to a super race of superbeings who out performed all other humans?

(Source: Forbes)

Government spending happen in the 80's to support a false economy. Government started to heavily spend credit as cash; Americans became more dependent on credit cards, etc

 

[FanthatSpark]

What is the "fox hole" in your scenario?

Ken

The fox hole is your stance that is unbending in the face of reality. This shows strong belief and although this is a mind that can not come to compromise it will fight in the face of facts. 1 man can not spend vast wealth unless he gives it away. Because of acquiring said wealth or raised up in it to inherit it, it will not be given away and stored in an off shore account to avoid taxation. There has to be a ceiling of amassed wealth or we get what we got today. This debate. That chart above and the uncompromising mind of Ken. Does this make Ken a bad person, certainly not , thus in the fox hole "if" I were there too , I have without a shadow of a doubt you got my back.

Firstly, your listing the exceptions. Secondly, if you take a look at the list of the wealthiest, these are not the type of people that dominate that list.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

1. Bill Gates - arguably in the category you listed, but that is debateable.
2. Carlos Slim Helu - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
3. Warren Buffet - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
4. Amancio Ortega - arguably in the category you described.
5. Larry Ellison - Critical in the development expansion of Oracle, check for earned his money.
6. Charles Koch - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
7. David Koch - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
8. Christy Walton - While she has ties to Walmart, her wealth was due to married into inherited wealth.
9. Jim Walton - inherited wealth.
10. Lilliane Bettencourt - inherited wealth.
11. Alice Walton - inhertited wealth.
12. S. Robton Walton - inherited wealth.
13. Bernard Arnault - Capitalist, investor, not inventor/businessman.
14. Michael Bloomberg - Investor/businessman. Questionably in the category you described.
15. Jeff Bezos - in the category you described.
16. Mark Zuckerburg - in the category you described.
17. Li Ka-shing - questionably in the category you described.
18. Sheldon Adelson - in the category you described.
19. Larry Page - in the category you described.
20. Sergey Brin - in the category you described.
21. Georg Schaeffler - questionably in the category you described
22. Forest Mars - inherited wealth
23. Jacqueline Mars - inherited wealth.
24. John Mars - inherited wealth.
25. David Thomson - inherited wealth.
26. Paulo Lemann - questionably in the category you described.
27. Lee Shau Kee - Capitalist/investor
28. Stefan Persson - inherited wealth.
29. George Soros - Capitalist/investor
30. Wang Jianlin - Capitalist/investor

11 of the top 30 are people who really made an invention or business plan that set them apart and brought them wealth through their innovation. The rest may have used business acumen to leverage existing wealth into more wealth, but i would argue are not people like Joe.

You can keep going down the list, but you'll find that the majority of the super wealthy are not like Joe, but are those who have leveraged wealth or managed wealth to gain wealth, rather than innovating or executing a business plan that they devised.

I'll re-iterate: i'm not arguing that those who contribute and manage capital don't deserve a share of the wealth that is created. They absolutely do. I'm arguing that the share of the created wealth they receive is disproportionate to their contribution.

Not to mention patent buying for innovative things like the water engine that would have broken big oil and sanctions on solar power, wind power that would break the electric companies and now corporate free/bought trade take over Obama just signed. However, for a good showing of a rich man sub contracting and defunding safety measures in N. Dakota's oil rig blow up and how the little guy can not seek legal remedies because one guy is too powerful watch this...

 

[HannahT]

your Joe character sounds like a truly terrible person and someone who should NOT get any benefits from others. As a society we SHOULD shun him. But often we don't because we have divorced ethics from business. Which is largely our problem as a nation. It leads to massive inequality because we have told some of the worst people on earth that they will get a pass just so long as they make money-money-money.

I'm confused.

So, if Joe has a character flaw somewhere so he shouldn't have a business?

Businesses like Joe's are the movers and shakers of this country. The small to medium sizes business, and they are the ones that bring jobs, etc.

These small to medium sizes businesses are the ones we as a country need to concentrate on to flourish, and the chances of you finding this HUGE gaps in salaries - which seems to be the only thing people are objecting too - isn't really present. Granted the owner may make more than the receptionist, but life has always been that way. Small to medium size business normally have a working relationship with those they employ, and that is a completely different type of atmosphere than the huge companies.

The small to medium companies are getting crushed by piled on regulations and other stuff that government is handing down, because its only the big guys that are able to afford it. I don't see anyone screaming at them over this effect. To me it contributes to part of this equation. Where is complaining over those government ethics that are killing small business?

 

[FanthatSpark]

Not to say post 229 is not of our own complacency of the people. It will take decades to reestablish watchdogs that have been defunded or just plain gotten rid of . The first step is tax the electoral process that rids the process of Super Pacs and drastically changes who the politician is beholden too, not a lobbyist for sure weather he be foreign nation/corporation or domestic/corporation but the people. Trump is spitting out truth bombs a plenty yet they are being ignored . This is not a vote for him post it is some " truth bombs" are coming out of his mouth when he said in latest debate ya got to get rid of the super pac as he brags he is beholden to no one. That is truth in the face of little Joe.

There is not going to be an immediate fix to none of these issues IF the first thing mentioned here is not implemented soon.

 

[amanuensis63]

Government spending happen in the 80's to support a false economy. Government started to heavily spend credit as cash; Americans became more dependent on credit cards, etc

Don't forget "trickle down economics" becoming part of the Administration's gospel. And the elevation of the wealthy to god-like status.

 

[Mary7]

I think we are getting a little off subject here, my point is when the super-rich invests his money; whether it be someone else’s idea/company or something he started, he is creating wealth IOW making the pie larger. This money he is making is not taking away from the poor, of anything he is helping the poor by paying taxes on the profit he makes.

Ken

Oh,you mean the taxes on the trillions that are hidden off shore to dodge taxes on that money?

 

[Mary7]

I disagree with you. There is this misunderstanding that the US economy is like a pie; and the larger piece the rich has, the less for everyone else. It doesn't work that way. The reason the rich has a larger piece of the pie than everyone else is because when they create wealth, they make the pie larger. So even though they get a larger percentage of the pie than everyone else, and everyone else has a smaller percentage of pie; because the pie is larger, everyone; even the middle income and poor will have more pie.

Ken

 

[jgarden]

So this professor is basically telling the poor that it's okay to be envious.
Indulge in your envy, even though you get some, they get a lot more, and therefore your envy is justified.

This video is disgusting. Rather figuring out and teaching people to morally not be envious, he teaches people their envy is correct.

Despite Christ's admonishment of the "Rich Young Ruler" to give his wealth to the poor and follow Him, "ChristJudgeOfAll" chooses to ignore the message that " ... it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you saying it is good business to pay your people so poorly that everyone else in town is on the hook for helping them survive?

No, I never said anything remotely close to that.

your Joe character sounds like a truly terrible person and someone who should NOT get any benefits from others. As a society we SHOULD shun him. But often we don't because we have divorced ethics from business. Which is largely our problem as a nation. It leads to massive inequality because we have told some of the worst people on earth that they will get a pass just so long as they make money-money-money.

The Joe character is just a guy who comes up with a business plan and puts it in effect. His ethical behavior is not a part of the scenario; he could be the best guy in the world, or he could be the worse; the point remains the same.

And it appears you skipped the last part of my post which was kind of the key. That the OP about inequality is made more likely because we have divorced ethical behavior from our business behavior.

Divorced? When have the two ever been married?

ken

 

[FanthatSpark]

View attachment 165122 View attachment 165123

Sad that, yet on shock of it (The Pic) it makes one laugh at the brutal truth of it.

 

[Ken-1122]

I was not saying that people like Joe you mentioned never make much money, only that people like Joe tend to do fairly well, but those that do extremely well are an exception, not the rule, and, moreover, that when talking about the very wealthy there are more people not like Joe than people like Joe.

I think we have some agreement in the description of how it all works, and who earns what. I think we have some difference of opinion on the specific metrics of how money is distributed and to whom.

Yes the Joes who start business and become super rich are the exception rather than the rule, most of the super rich are investors; but then the investors who become super rich are the exception also. Obviously we have many more people willing to invest in something somebody else started than we have those who actually start something; thus the majority of the super rich are investors as apposed to those who actually start the businesses.

Ken

 

[Viren]

Which rich are you talking about? The rich who invest in the business? The rich who started the company in the first place? Which rich are you talking about when you say their extreme pay means less pay for the workers?

Ken

The investor. Those who use wealth to attract more wealth. Right now we have .1% of the population owning more than the bottom 90% of Americans. It has nothing to do with earning or creating wealth.

 

[Ken-1122]

-sigh- Do I need to remind you of the METAPHOR YOU came up with? Comparing the oven to the worker. Unless you think the worker is undeserving of credit in making the widget.

Of course the worker deserves credit! I’m saying when you have a business making money, the person who came up with the business plan and got the business started is the one most responsible for the existence of this profit making business; not the person who agreed to work for the business.

-And again I am forced to bring the topic back around to the thread topic. The primary people who are getting the credit for advances in productivity over the last 30 years are the very top people. So EITHER you believe that the top people in an organization are hundreds of times more productive than the average worker in that organization or you must admit that the "Credit" is going to a small group who don't really do an amount of work that scales with their role in the organization.

Weather the guy at the top is more productive or not is not the point; I’m saying he is more responsible for the existence of this business than anyone else.

-Again, I'd point to the rise of CEO pay through the backroom reach-arounds among the various CEO's on compensation boards across the US but you didn't seem aware that CEO's often served on other boards. So it would be obvious to you if this were more clear to you how the system works.

Yes CEO pay is extreme; but then so is Athlete pay, and many other types of entertainer pay. They say recently successful CEO’s have been elevated to “rock star” status in the business world; it hasn’t always been this way, but since it has their pay has gone through the roof. But this income inequality has existed long before CEO pay began going through the roof; this inequality is much more than just the recent rise in CEO pay, there are other factors involved.

Ken