US income inequality at record high

[NWB]

For those of you tossing around words like "uprising", I have a question.

Who would you protest TO, and what would you have them DO? I am serious. The idea just seems ridiculous to me. But perhaps if you help me wrap my head around what the end game would be I could see it as EXTREMELY ridiculous, rather than just "regular" ridiculous.

In all seriousness though, what building or office would be the proper one to stand outside to protest? What official or business person would be the intended target? And what would you have the "authorities" DO to make things "fair"? Would it involve actually TAKING money from some and just handing it over to others? Would it involve a 98% tax rate on some? Would it involve salary caps for CEOs (but certainly not for athletes, musicians, and movie stars)? Would it involve a profit cap on Wal-Mart?

What EXACTLY would create a "level playing field"? And vague ideals don't impress me. I need to see the PLAN. How do we bring about more equality of outcome (rather than just equality of opportunity like we have now)?

Great points TwoFingers.

Keep in mind that there hasn't been a successful protest movement for at least the last 30 years for many of the reasons that you outline here. You had some pretty good observations there.

In my posts, I wasn't advocating any sort of violent uprising, but trying to note historical patterns.

How it could happen is that a charismatic figure may tap into the general sense of discontent and offer a solution that sounds very appealing to the masses. I'm not saying that would necessarily be a well thought out plan. This scenario could lead to widespread protests and quite possibly violent clashes with police, national guard, etc.

Another historical precedent would be the huge trusts of the late 19th Century where there were giant monopolies like Standard Oil and US Steel controlling a huge share of the US economy. Theadore Roosevelt rode a populist ticket to the presidency and broke up the monopolies. He was considered the trust-buster at that time. Events unfolding along these lines is also a possibility.

 

[ArtechnikA]

How it could happen is that a charismatic figure may tap into the general sense of discontent and offer a solution that sounds very appealing to the masses.

Didn't this just happen ?

 

[two fingers]

Didn't this just happen ?

Please be careful. I may disagree with some here but I enjoy the conversation. Your potential point may be well taken. But it has been clearly set aside as a topic not suitable for this forum. Let's not even go NEAR the line please. Thanks.

 

[skychief]

Didn't this just happen ?

touche'.

ha hah.

 

[aborgman]

This is not a shot at you, MM, but that quote is nutty as a fruitcake. "Nonsense of earning a living"?!? People who think that way absolutely deserve poverty.

It's an eventual inevitability.

We will eventually be so efficient and automated, that very few people will actually HAVE to work to produce for all the needs of humanity.

What do those people do when their production becomes completely unnecessary for the survival of the species?

 

[aborgman]

Interestingly, this is pretty much as it has been in the last 1000 years or so. The US post war boom (1946 through the 50's and to a lesser extent through the 90's) was actually the anomaly and outlier.... i.e., that big bump of highly paid, unskilled jobs in factories, etc.

THAT was the outlier. The current '1% thing' is more on trend given the last 1000 years or so.

Retirement was also a strange outlier during the post WWII boom. Formal retirement was pretty much unheard of until the New Deal, and is again 'regressing toward the mean of history', with pensions disappearing as fast as 'highly paid unskilled jobs'.

So, again, IMO, the situation today is 'back on trend'. It just seems like a shock to those of us between the ages of 35 and 60, where our parents mostly had cheap health care, good jobs, and a vested pension.

I don't disagree.

We're regressing to the historical mean, and that is an awful thing.

 

[KJung]

I don't disagree.

We're regressing to the historical mean, and that is an awful thing.

+1 It is less of an awful thing IMO when you realize that the strange period in the US post WWII was a total historical outlier that will most likely never happen again.

I guess you can view that as depressing. I guess I view it as my parents were lucky as heck to be born when they were in the US

Of course, if you are in the 'haves' it is a more wonderful world that it has ever been.

On a similar note, I get a kick out of those who scream about 'corporate influence' in US elections. Doesn't anyone read history anymore. The only difference between elections today and elections 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago is that instead of a few powerful men totally determining the outcome, now it is hundreds of powerful men (and a few women) And of course, before that, there were no elections and the leaders where either victorious fighters, or members of the lucky sperm club (literally).

I think it would help people to understand the past a smidge, which makes the current situation much less 'unique' than some (many, most!?!) seem to think.

 

[Lee Moses]

It's an eventual inevitability.

We will eventually be so efficient and automated, that very few people will actually HAVE to work to produce for all the needs of humanity.

What do those people do when their production becomes completely unnecessary for the survival of the species?

If Hollywood is right--and we know that Hollywood is always right--they will become soylent green.

 

[NWB]

It's an eventual inevitability.

We will eventually be so efficient and automated, that very few people will actually HAVE to work to produce for all the needs of humanity.

IMO, this won't happen. Automation takes a good deal of energy.

There just aren't enough remaining energy resources for this to take place. I expect the opposite actually.

 

[avvie]

Got to page 4 and we had already started the Battle Of Media-Created Stereotypes which tells me that the Plan is working just fine: divide and conquer.
Here's news, especially for you military types: America is dead. Has been for a long time. You won't get it back because we're mostly selfish brats who want things OUR way and don't know what freedom is (which is why we gave it away). Voting doesn't work and will become even LESS effective with every cycle. Your soldiers aren't "defending freedom" in any way, shape or form but they're well-brainwashed to convince themselves and you that they are.
It's all over, folks. Unless everyone suddenly supports a libertarian party (our original system designed by the Constitution) this place is doomed to become nothing more than a medieval feudalist society. BRING OUT YER DEEEEAD!!..

 

[6jase5]

How do you propose we get past incentive?

* If you don't pay/incent the best minds to invest your money, your money will never make money. See what returns your mattress can provide.
* If you don't pay/incent the best athletes to play at the top of their game, you will have a boring highlights reel on ESPN. Don't bring up non paid college athletes...who all aspire to make big contracts one day.
* If you don't pay/incent the best and hardest working minds, you won't have medical companies, lawyers, researchers, scientist, programmers or top notch doctors and when you want new games on your cell phone, invent a product that someone else copies, get cancer or we run out of oil, you'll wish you did.

Capping potential earnings reduces incentive.

I know that I work hard for the point of my commission plan. Take that away and I'll sit on TB all day.

 

[Unrepresented]

It's an eventual inevitability.

We will eventually be so efficient and automated, that very few people will actually HAVE to work to produce for all the needs of humanity.

What do those people do when their production becomes completely unnecessary for the survival of the species?

Humans usually do a pretty good job of helping to balance our numbers when we have more able bodies than need for them. Yes, we're unsustainably overpopulated now, but you can see by our zeitgeist that we're just itching for a good solid revision.

 

[BawanaRik]

I dont know, maybe. Maybe that isnt even such a bad thing, though.
I dont really have any thoughts on the matter one way or the other.
I was just thinking about a quote my gf showed me last night.

"We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

Id imagine we could acheive a lot for civilization if peoples needs were taken care of and we had more time to educate ourselves, each and every one of us.
Im sure such a society would still have lots of problems. Of course some people would still have to work, labor is a necessity (at least until we've created machines to do all of our manual labor), and there'd still need to be people running things.
I just found it interesting and thought it worth mentioning. I was going to start a thread with just that quote, lowner it, and let people argue back and forth on it, but it seems theres enough of that going on in this thread already.

I guess there's many different opinions on this subject. Mine is if someone is not interested enough in eating to go out and earn their daily bread we should respect that choice and allow them to starve.

 

[basscooker]

Fractional monetary system.

Thank you, "world" for creating and continuing to live by a lie. If there is no debt, money holds no value, therefore allowing any sort of income equality monkey-wrenches the entire system. There must always be have-alls and have-nots for money to function.

solution? world revolution and restructuring of the thought process. possible? no.
thank you, again, world, for your time to read my post. now i'm off to work at my second of four sources of income i need just to pay taxes and interest, while not starving to death.

 

[BawanaRik]

Humans usually do a pretty good job of helping to balance our numbers when we have more able bodies than need for them. Yes, we're unsustainably overpopulated now, but you can see by our zeitgeist that we're just itching for a good solid revision.

This is a requirement if the planet is to remain hospitable to humans.

 

[Unrepresented]

This is a requirement if the planet is to remain hospitable to humans.

It will not be as hospitable to humans as corrections are made, but corrections will be made.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

IMO, this won't happen. Automation takes a good deal of energy.

There just aren't enough remaining energy resources for this to take place. I expect the opposite actually.

Green energies are becoming more and more viable/useful on larger scales.

There is more energy than we could ever need, the issue is, and always has been, accessing it.

 

[UncleFluffy]

It's an eventual inevitability.

We will eventually be so efficient and automated, that very few people will actually HAVE to work to produce for all the needs of humanity.

What do those people do when their production becomes completely unnecessary for the survival of the species?

Work to provide the wants of the people providing their needs?

 

[avvie]

Who to protest TO?...about WHAT?
That's easy. Just a couple of starters:
1- eliminate crony capitalism and lobbyist money by making elections stick to a stated budget and publicly funded. Criminalize the bribing of officials with PAC donations...because it IS bribery even though that official "technically" doesn't "have" to vote in the contributor's favor.

2- Eliminate all Congressional ommunities from the laws they pass.

3-Disallow Congress to regulate other professions. If you think your veterinarian should be wiring your home or your hairdresser should be replacing your brakes shoes then feel free to continue to allow a lawyer to make all your health decisions and run your small business.

4- Overturn USv.Butler (1936) and all other decisions from that time which gave Congress a blank check to spend without any oversight or consequence.

5- Eliminate the committee's authority to change, revoke or create any legislation. This process makes the entire Congresssional legislation process into a complete ruse...nothing any Congressman argues on the floor has any meaning when s/he can simply negate it in committee after the fact.

6- and if you object to this one, you're wrong- close any and all foreign military bases and xefend our borders. That is the stated purpose of the US military. Have the rest of the world do what you insist that the rest of the US people do: grow up, get a job and pay their own way.

..so there's some starters...

 

[NWB]

Green energies are becoming more and more viable/useful on larger scales.

There is more energy than we could ever need, the issue is, and always has been, accessing it.

This is more than a bit off the thread topic, but let's examine a common green energy technology and its overall usefulness.

I'll use a solar cell as an example. Consider the energy expended in mining the materials to constuct the panel, the energy expended in refining the base materials, the energy expended in manufacturing the panel, the energy expended in transporting the raw materials and finished product. Also consider the energy used in the manufacture of the mining equipment, the base material refining equipment, the production equipment, etc. When it's all said and done, you don't get much return on the energy invested in the green solar panel.

The same energy return on energy invested analysis can be applied to other green energy devices as well.