Is income inequality good or bad ?

[Lepanto]

Very often we heard about complains about income inequality in the media. But is it really good or bad ?

 

[Radrook]

It can be ironic.
There are doormen in New York who earn twice as much as some skilled or educated workers do.
Boxers become millionaires by savaging another person in the ring while medical doctors never get close to such money.

 

[EmmaCat]

What is wrong with earning a living? Some have much, but with wise investments and smart money management, many can make the money help you.

I think it all depends upon how what little we have or a lot, how we manage it makes a difference.

 

[paul becke]

Very often we heard about complains about income inequality in the media. But is it really good or bad ?

Is homelessness good or bad ? How about widespread homelessness, also of young families, while incorrigibly-avaricious worldlings express contempt for Christ's teachings concerning money and wealth, spitting in his face, in the many persons of the indigent ? Many in reality suffer worse than that, at the hands of the physically violent 'at street-level' as well as by Mr Big ?

The reckoning seems very close at hand. "Vengeance is mine", saith the Lord. "I WILL repay." I would venture : in spades.

 

[paul becke]

It can be ironic.
There are doormen in New York who earn twice as much as some skilled or educated workers do.
Boxers become millionaires by savaging another person in the ring while medical doctors never get close to such money.

The poor things, Rad.

 

[Radrook]

The poor things, Rad.

What's your point?

 

[paul becke]

So, your American doctors don't earn as much as very successful boxers ? You think if doctors earned more, it would make a more just society ? From what I've read, they are paid far more than even our doctors.

You seem to equate worldy intelligence with merit. That doesn't makes sense to me at all. Do you think the message of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes were meant to be looked upon simply as beautiful poetry ? When Jesus said you can't serve God and money, he surely wouldn't have been talking aout Monopoly money, would he ? Nor, as concerns our 'treasure', do we set our hearts on Monopoly money.

Of course, Jesus always spoke in extreme terms, knowing what backsliders and Sardis types we are, but nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore almost the entire burden of Scripture, in which the rich man is cast as the wicked, the deceitful, fraudulent and violent man ; and the poor man, as the honest and innocent man, the true Israel.

And the worldly-wise don't end up living in nice mansions in the leafy suburbs by accident, nor indeed God's blessing. Although, of course, there are good people who are worldy-wise and God favours their charitable attitude and actions towards the less fortunate. But if he favours them with in pecuniary terms, it would only be because it is the normal world-view they have and the 'going rate' in the distorted, materialistic Western society in which they live.

 

[Radrook]

So, your American doctors don't earn as much as very successful boxers ? You think if doctors earned more, it would make a more just society ? From what I've read, they are paid far more than even our doctors.

You seem to equate worldy intelligence with merit. That doesn't makes sense to me at all. Do you think the message of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes were meant to be looked upon simply as beautiful poetry ? When Jesus said you can't serve God and money, he surely wouldn't have been talking aout Monopoly money, would he ? Nor, as concerns our 'treasure', do we set our hearts on Monopoly money.

Of course, Jesus always spoke in extreme terms, knowing what backsliders and Sardis types we are, but nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore almost the entire burden of Scripture, in which the rich man is cast as the wicked, the deceitful, fraudulent and violent man ; and the poor man, as the honest and innocent man, the true Israel.

And the worldly-wise don't end up living in nice mansions in the leafy suburbs by accident, nor indeed God's blessing. Although, of course, there are good people who are worldy-wise and God favours their charitable attitude and actions towards the less fortunate. But if he favours them with in pecuniary terms, it would only be because it is the normal world-view they have and the 'going rate' in the distorted, materialistic Western society in which they live.

There are activities which are considered inherently of more value to society than others.
The teaching profession and the profession of being a healthcare provider or a physician is valued more than simply opening doors or beating another human senseless for the sadistic entertainment of others. Therefore it logically follows that such activities should merit a greater monetary compensation. That is all I said. Everything else is your idea.

 

[pdudgeon]

we're asking the wrong question here--putting the cart before the horse.

all blessings come from God.
that's the place to start, and then realize that it is God who enables us to work, and Who also provides for all our needs. because His source is unlimited.

it is recognizing our Source of provision, and what we do with that provision that makes the difference between those who have and those who don't in this world.

 

[mea kulpa]

I think too much is bad and too little is bad.. there has to be incentives

I very much like the old papal encyclical rerum novarum outlines the best possible ecconomic structure in a fallen world

Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII

 

[pdudgeon]

I think too much is bad and too little is bad.. there has to be incentives

I very much like the old papal encyclical rerum novarum outlines the best possible ecconomic structure in a fallen world

Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII

what a good read! I'm saving this one for it's useful guidance and it's many and timeless applications in today's world. thanks again!

 

[mea kulpa]

what a good read! I'm saving this one for it's useful guidance and it's many and timeless applications in today's world. thanks again!

Yeah i was a fan of rerum for a while before i realised there is actually a economic ideology based on it.

Its called distributionist

It was started by hilare beloc and Gk Chesterton based on Rerum Novarum

Its neither left nor right wing or even centerist its totally off the scale of modern day politics and economies... if modern day polititcs are venus all on the same planet distributionism is mars

What is Distributism? Understanding a Controversial Alternative to Socialism and Plutocracy - The Imaginative Conservative

 

[pdudgeon]

Yeah i was a fan of rerum for a while before i realised there is actually a economic ideology based on it.

Its called distributionist

It was started by hilare beloc and Gk Chesterton based on Rerum Novarum

Its neither left nor right wing or even centerist its totally off the scale of modern day politics and economies... if modern day polititcs are venus all on the same planet distributionism is mars

What is Distributism? Understanding a Controversial Alternative to Socialism and Plutocracy - The Imaginative Conservative

wow, what an article!
our local paper just printed a related article in real life dealing with this same principle regarding the rights of property owners versus hunters who used dogs to hunt.
the bill proposed to fine hunters whose dogs entered private property that was posted. the bill failed by one vote.

 

[cherokee's friend]

It is a bad thing; when the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company have a huge difference in ratio in their wages compared to hourly employees. They are in the lap of luxury while paying the faces of their company starvation wages, the very people they rely on to make the company look good for them. Compensate them well and in turn they will have incentive to be productive to the company. In simpler terms take care of the employees and their gratitude will motivate them to care for the patrons. Corporate greed has a hand in wage inequality. Many conservatives take pleasure in looking down on people in entry-level jobs and assuming they deserve to live in poverty. Something to think about; at the end of the day you'll still need someone to serve your food, stock your grocery shelves, drive your taxis, check you out at the register (even with the self-service kiosks don't even get me started on how many people complain why we don't have more checkout lines open.) You may see my job as unimportant in your life but boy are you grateful when I open another checkout line, so perhaps for that brief moment in time, my job briefly has more significance. If that's not enough incentive for income equality, the gap between wealthy and poor is increasingly widening. It is troubling in an economy where no one has money. Small business suffers, when it comes down to it, I like to compare the flow of money in an economy to the human body. The distribution of money is like blood flow; it is dangerous when it accumulates to the top and fails to flow through the body, resulting in a stroke. The economy suffers when all the wealth is hoarded by the elite. Lower and middle class people will consume goods with money; wealthy people invest the money not in jobs, but in offshore bank accounts. Something to chew on..

 

[Sketcher]

Income inequality in and of itself is good because the nature and responsibilities of different kinds of work are not equal. I should make more than a fast food worker, but I shouldn't make as much as a researcher at the top of his field or a CEO. Why? Because the researcher could likely do my job, but I likely could not do his. And not only could I not do the CEO's job, but the CEO's decisions affect the employment of hundreds if not thousands of people. If he screws up, his company goes under. If I screw up, only a few people are affected (outside of extenuating circumstances).

 

[cherokee's friend]

Income inequality in and of itself is good because the nature and responsibilities of different kinds of work are not equal. I should make more than a fast food worker, but I shouldn't make as much as a researcher at the top of his field or a CEO. Why? Because the researcher could likely do my job, but I likely could not do his. And not only could I not do the CEO's job, but the CEO's decisions affect the employment of hundreds if not thousands of people. If he screws up, his company goes under. If I screw up, only a few people are affected (outside of extenuating circumstances).

I see your point that more responsibility=better pay, but I think it's unethical for a greedy elite to hoard all the profit while not adequately compensating the people at the bottom who play a role in making the company a success. No one should be working full-time and not be paid enough to support themselves, the cost of living continues to rise while wages are stagnating. You also forget that it is not just fast food workers who are underpaid, what about nurses aids, social workers, teachers, caregivers, etc.? In short everyone who works plays a role in the function of society. I find it unsavory to look down on people and assume they deserve to live in poverty, it disgusts me that conservatives think poorly of people in entry-level jobs without recognizing that they are working to earn a living and not sitting on their rumps. There are people with degrees still working entry level jobs because there are no jobs available. I'm not talking just for useless majors, for example I know someone who just got his master's in healthcare administration and still working fast food because he hasn't found a job in that field.

 

[Sketcher]

I see your point that more responsibility=better pay, but I think it's unethical for a greedy elite to hoard all the profit while not adequately compensating the people at the bottom who play a role in making the company a success. No one should be working full-time and not be paid enough to support themselves, the cost of living continues to rise while wages are stagnating.

What is "adequate"? Remember also that each employee is an investment. The employer is counting on getting a certain amount of output from the employee who is being paid right away. Good workers are worth it, bad workers are not. If a position is low-qualification and high-turnover, it doesn't make sense to throw more money at it than necessary to keep up that part of your business. The bad workers will get themselves fired in a few months anyway.

You also forget that it is not just fast food workers who are underpaid, what about nurses aids, social workers, teachers, caregivers, etc.?

I didn't actually.

In short everyone who works plays a role in the function of society. I find it unsavory to look down on people and assume they deserve to live in poverty, it disgusts me that conservatives think poorly of people in entry-level jobs without recognizing that they are working to earn a living and not sitting on their rumps. There are people with degrees still working entry level jobs because there are no jobs available. I'm not talking just for useless majors, for example I know someone who just got his master's in healthcare administration and still working fast food because he hasn't found a job in that field.

I think you're assuming what conservatives are thinking. I for one, have worked entry-level jobs, and I am thankfully not in one of those jobs anymore. I know that there are people with terrible work ethics and shady character working those jobs - they tend to get themselves fired after a few weeks or months. I know that there are young people who are just getting started in life - they learn skills there, and move on. I know there are spouses who are just there for second income. I know that there are sometimes people with degrees who find themselves working these jobs because they haven't found better ones - but they and other go-getters tend to not stay in those entry-level jobs. When a better opportunity opens up, they're out of there (or they take a management position, which is going to be much better compensated, and rightly so).

 

[JackRT]

In 1960 a CEO typically made about ten times what his lowest paid full time employee made. Most at that time recognized that for the most part this was fair, that people with special skills, with leadership ability who could contribute directly to the benefit of the company deserve to be better paid. The situation today is far different. CEOs can make from one hundred to one thousand times the lowest paid. They have built in yearly bonuses whether they deserve it or not. Even when dismissed with cause a CEO has a built in golden handshake worth millions. CEOs and senior executives have been known to collect their salary and bonuses for years after a company has gone bankrupt while the workers who lost their pensions are still trying to collect their last pay cheque. This does not go unnoticed. History records the results. One of the most dramatic was the French Revolution.

 

[mea kulpa]

Personally i think both left wing and right wing economics are wrong. For years i swung back and forth between socialistic ideals and free market i never felt comfortable with either. It was not until recently someone introduced me to distributism that i finally went ah...this is what i am a distributist. It actually makes sense!!!

 

[pdudgeon]

Personally i think both left wing and right wing economics are wrong. For years i swung back and forth between socialistic ideals and free market i never felt comfortable with either. It was not until recently someone introduced me to distributism that i finally went ah...this is what i am a distributist. It actually makes sense!!!

agreed, it does make sense.
there's a world of difference between a-fish-a-day, and a fishing pole, a hook, and a worm.