Ukraine Crisis Fund
We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → [spam necro] Rich/Poor divide?
| 139 | 65305 |
Essentially how do the rich keep on getting richer whilst the poor keep on getting poorer. Surely in a civilised society the rich should sacrifice a few of their fast cars and big houses so that the people who slave 12 hours a day in their sweat shops can eat.
Discuss.
- 139 Replies
Those seem to be in the minority
a minority they are. but the point is that it does happen and that not ALL rich people have worked hard. they could just aswell be very lucky.
(the point is the word "all"
If average joe has better living standards, average joe becomes a better worker.
No. Job skills, training, those make better workers, and competitiveness. Not overloading them with wages which they don't deserve, which is a reason why Europe's productivity and competitiveness has been on the decline.
Im talking about BASIC living needs that many many many people on earth simply do not have. Right now, the economy is failing the poor and feeding more money to the rich. And you wonder why I see a problem with the rich!
As Nemo has said, it's not the fault of the gap. The gap doesn't cause poverty, it's the result of it.
Um... the poor are, in actual fact, poor.
Im astounded by the lack of empathy here and this is mirrored in the way that the poor are delt with, especially by those in a good position who never, ever, feel the sting of poverty and who will never worry about the next days food.
I have been in this position as a 1st world poor person which I admit, puts me in a lucky position and right now Im not poor, which I am sooooooooo happy about, trust me. But I know what its like. The psychological effects of being poor and having little opportunity to pull yourself out of it are an avoidable reality. Is this not easy to see? Is it not worth helping out fellow humans and having some empathy?
It's pretty clear throughout that my disparaging comments were towards the ''oor'' who aren't ''oor''. I don't scoff at the starving, and all along in this thread, my scorn has been for the ''oor'' not the poor. Also, I don't believe that redistribution through high income taxes is as valid a panacea as helping workers becoming more competitive.
not always. some people had just a idea that the public picked up and became rich in literaly weeks. some social media sites are a good example for this.
Go back few pages where i wrote that getting rich needs
A great Idea
Or/and alot of hard work
with some luck
And the funny thing is that, for the most important resources i.e. the ones we NEED to live, scarcity is a lie. Its a complete fabrication. Im not talking about ferrari's or toyota's. Im talking about BASIC living needs that many many many people on earth simply do not have. Right now, the economy is failing the poor and feeding more money to the rich. And you wonder why I see a problem with the rich!
What you think should be done about it?
Kill all the rich?
a minority they are. but the point is that it does happen and that not ALL rich people have worked hard. they could just aswell be very lucky.
(the point is the word "all"
I agree
It's pretty clear throughout that my disparaging comments were towards the ''oor'' who aren't ''oor''
Ok I understand that. But for the benefit of everyone, lets use the word "oor" to mean poor and not pretend poor and in the same vein I would like it understood that when I say rich I mean REALLY rich, not just middle class.
Also, I don't believe that redistribution through high income taxes is as valid a panacea as helping workers becoming more competitive.
I have to say that I dont know a solution and I never offer one (not seriously anyway because "Kill all the rich?" sometimes seems quite tempting when I) but I would suggest that people should have a cap on earnings no matter what. When we allow one person to accumulate more wealth that most of the worlds population there is gonna be serious problems unless the person is extremely empathetic and morally righeous, which as we have seen throughout history, had not happened and in the current case, has not happened either.
As Nemo has said, it's not the fault of the gap. The gap doesn't cause poverty, it's the result of it.
It doesnt matter that it doesnt cause the gap, as I said we cannot seperate the causes and results of the divide. The fact that there is a gap with causes and effects is obvious to us all and arguing the chicken egg scenario doesnt help us. What came first, the cause or the effect, lol (well, the cause of course, but anyways)
So the rich poor divide comes from the result of certain people being crappy with resources. The divide is clearly huge. There are people literally witholding resources from those less fortunate. Many cultures have a tradition of helping those less in need. This is age old right? AND its obviously morally right and beneficial to the human race to be altruistic right?
If you want to argue about the relative poorness compared to absolute poorness then we would get nowhere. We would have to scour the world for the poorest most destitute person in the world and help them first. Which would take much research and intellect to work out the logic of WHY that person is poorer. This is, of course, ridaddydickulous. So, would it not be better to raise the absolute living standard the world over i.e. EVERYONE gets food, water, clothing, education, communication, accomodation.
Ok, idealistic I know. BUT, and this is where my main bone to pick is, it is entirely possible. Completely, regardless of looking at economic models or studying the logic of who gets what.
The size of the rich poor divide is the most devistating thing about it. And we can do something about it. I think we have more of a right to be scornful fo those who have vast vast resources and keep them from others, even tho they will NEVER be able to use them. Thats pure greed. Why do you think I cannot accept arguments that justify the rich being rich, I dont care how much they "earned it" because its simply disgusting that its allowed.
Our leaders have failed us on so many levels.
When I brought up the low poverty levels in America, I was not arguing that America doesn't have anyone at poverty level. I was making the point that you can NOT use the wealth gap to measure poverty. Providing pictures of Americans who are homeless will not refute this point.
I wasn't trying to refute that point. I was trying to refute your statement that the living conditions of the poor are high compared to 3rd world countries.
No,they have done hard work in their field at some point in they life.(Unless they are born with a gold spoon, then they are just lucky.)
Not in all cases, such as in my example with my relative. She didn't do hard work to become wealthy, she simply used a con job.
I'm a bit in question whether it's more hard work or more successful con artists that result in wealth but I do agree with Nemo that wealth can be gained in many ways.
It's pretty clear throughout that my disparaging comments were towards the ''oor'' who aren't ''oor''.
How do you draw that line? There are many people living in a home eating every night with internet and phones, but are still a hairs breath away from losing all of that. One of the problems being faced is the line between the middle class and those like in the pictures I posted is blurring.
dont really see how the gap of wealth is not a *cause* of things just as the gap between rich and poor is one of the *results* of badly used resources (obviously, there is more to it). If the resources were used wisely then more people would have a fair living standard. As it is, the resources have been used badly and selfishly, leaving much of the human race in a bad position.
I'm not sold on this one. Goods that people need are profitable. Because goods, such as food, are profitable, they're well invested in by the rich. Most of the things we need are cheap. Most of the things we don't need, such as entertainment, are also pretty cheap. The most expensive need I can think of is housing. Is housing expensive because there is a gap in wealth?
If we close the gap, we have more evenly distributed resources and better living standard.
A smaller gap in wealth does not result in higher standards of living. As I have mentioned before, the gap is a result, not a cause. A smaller gap may reflect the number of different classes, but it can not possibly reflect living conditions.
The gap in wealth does not reflect how efficiently resources are being used either. Comparing the gap between rich and poor can only be used in conjunction with other statistics. However, even when used with other statistics, we have to keep in mind that the gap only shows results. Coming up with methods to lesson the gap will not guarantee prosperity by any means.
Im talking about BASIC living needs that many many many people on earth simply do not have. Right now, the economy is failing the poor and feeding more money to the rich. And you wonder why I see a problem with the rich!
Most goods that people need are very cheap. The most expensive needs I can think of are housing and medicine. There is a problem with the economy now, and it's starting to become harder to afford these needs, but this isn't an issue caused by the gap in wealth.
Im astounded by the lack of empathy here and this is mirrored in the way that the poor are delt with, especially by those in a good position who never, ever, feel the sting of poverty and who will never worry about the next days food.
Some people defending the rich in this thread, I believe, are missing the point, and I may go over some of their posts later. However, I would like to state that these are issues that should be dealt with, but lowering the gap will not solve these problems.
There's a possibility that if other solutions are used to help the poor, then the wealth gap may close as a result. Closing the gap between rich and poor, however, is not a solution.
Is it not worth helping out fellow humans and having some empathy?
Sure, but focusing on closing the gap will not help them. There are other ways to help the poor, which is a whole different debate. The ways in which we help the poor may or may not close the gap, but whether the gap closes or not is not important.
This is why I can't stand the OccupyMovement. They talk about the 1% owning most of the wealth, but this statistic alone is meaningless, yet it's the one statistic occupiers use to support their logic.
but I would suggest that people should have a cap on earnings no matter what.
If I remember correctly, there used to be a cap on how much money workers could earn. But I don't think this effected everyone, such as business owners. It's something I'll have to look into.
I'm going to make up numbers for sake of argument, but let's suppose Tom can produce 10,000 computers a year and make 100 dollars a computer, netting him 1,000,000 dollars. Now let's suppose there is a cap to how much money he can earn. The cap tops off at 500,000 dollars. There is no reason for Tom to produce 10,000 computers because he won't profit from them. He will only produce 5,000 as a result.
A cap on how much a person can earn would only hurt people. A cap will also do nothing to help the poor.
I'll continue my post at a later time, I have to kill some zombies.
The fact that there is a gap with causes and effects is obvious to us all and arguing the chicken egg scenario doesnt help us. What came first, the cause or the effect, lol (well, the cause of course, but anyways)
It actually is important that we separate cause and effect when discussing the wealth gap. It is also important that we understand that a gap is not necisarily a sign of failure. When people look at the wealth gap as a sign of failure, or as the cause for poverty, they tend to push for anything that closes the gap. These people fail to understand that closing the gap will not fix the problems we have with poverty. These people tend to support means of wealth redistribution that are destructive, and harmful to the economy.
So the rich poor divide comes from the result of certain people being crappy with resources. The divide is clearly huge. There are people literally witholding resources from those less fortunate. Many cultures have a tradition of helping those less in need. This is age old right? AND its obviously morally right and beneficial to the human race to be altruistic right?
(This one is a doozy!)
Either those who provide goods, services, and resources hold out so that they may make a profit, or they don't provide anything at all. In my last post, I explained that putting a cap on how much money a business can make would only result in the business producing less. Without profit, you have few to no goods or services.
It's a common belief that profit seeking leads to higher prices on goods. After all, a business must profit, or they will go out of business. If they sell their goods at too low a price, they go out of business. This leads to the idea that non-profit organizations can sell goods and services at even LOWER prices. Of course, you can't have a non-profit business, because profit is what keeps businesses alive. This leads many people to ponder, how do we create non-profit organizations? They often come up with the same solution, use government programs to create these non-profit organizations.
The idea is that businesses will go under if they don't make a profit, yet government programs won't go under if they don't make a profit. Therefore, government programs can produce cheaper goods and services, all because they're non-profit.
One of the greatest illusions in human history is that government is truly non-profit. Everything costs money, and everyone who produces goods and services want to be paid. In fact, people who work for the government are very often overpaid and overcompensated. These people are all working for a profit. They are not providing goods and services from the bottoms of their hearts (as many dunderheads would like you to believe). But the goods and services are sold at cheaper prices, right? Let's do some basic math.
Let's say it costs $10.00 to make a watch. This includes the cost of materials, labor, tools, etc. A business that must profit must sell the watch for at least $10.00 to stay in business. The business that produces this $10.00 watch will often sell the watch for more than what it cost to make. They increase the price so that they may profit. The use their profit to increase efficiency. It is true that they will use a portion of the profit to increase their own wealth, but it's allowing people to increase their own wealth that pushes them to use the rest of their profits to increase efficiency when providing goods and services.
*Often, the government spends more money to create inferior goods and provide worse service than private companies. The government would likely create a lower quality watch for $15.00. But for sake of argument, let's assume they create a similar quality watch for $10.00.
The government create a watch for $10.00. For the government to profit, they must sell the watch for at least $10.00. Because the government can't go out of business, they are allowed to go into debt. The government spends $10.00 to create each watch, and they sell each watch for only $5.00. Hoorah! Now everyone saves $5.00 when buying a watch! Everyone is $5.00 richer! Or are they? Remember, it cost $10.00 to create the watch, and the government is only getting $5.00 for each watch, so how does the government afford to sell these watches at such a low price?
The government MUST pay for the resources and labor put into creating the watch. Either the government can tax the people to pay for the watches, or the government can create more IOUs, and borrow money from the Federal Reserve. This creates debt, and it leads to a bunch of other problems. The most notable problem it creates is inflation.
As you can see, the government isn't really non-profit, because they borrow money, or take money from others through taxation, to pay off their debts. Not only do the watches cost $10.00 each to create, but the government, like private businesses, must also use money to do research, expand, and become more "efficient" (oxymoron).
In short, without profit, there is debt. Debt must be paid for, one way or another. Either the debt is paid for through taxes, which would mean the government isn't non-profit at all, or the debt is paid with IOUs, which creates inflation.
So, would it not be better to raise the absolute living standard the world over i.e. EVERYONE gets food, water, clothing, education, communication, accomodation.
Everyone who works should get these things. Everyone who doesn't work should be taken care of by people who are willing to help them. Nobody should be forced to help the needy. I'm all for helping the poor, but we can't force people to provide for them when they don't earn their money. If people want to help the poor without asking for anything in return, they can. Some people are unable to work, but these people often rely on family and friends who love them. When a person doesn't have family and friends who love them, then we should allow kind hearted people to help them.
Ok, idealistic I know. BUT, and this is where my main bone to pick is, it is entirely possible. Completely, regardless of looking at economic models or studying the logic of who gets what.
Sure, technically, it is possible. However, there are reasons the world doesn't work in such a perfect way. We must figure out how we can fix these issues. The means in which we help these people are constantly being debated.
The size of the rich poor divide is the most devistating thing about it.
You're thinking of resource value and availability as being independent from wealth distribution. This way, when you redistribute wealth, the resources that could be bought with said wealth would also be redistributed and available for purchase. However, this is not the case.
In reality, when you take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor, the rich have less money to provide goods and services. Either the rich raise their prices, or they provide less goods and services to the people. When the rich provide less, supply goes down and demand goes up. This increases the prices of these goods and services. In the end, redistribution of wealth would only result in a drastic rise in prices for most goods, as well as less goods and services that can be provided. (The resource are still there, but you took money away from the people who harvest the resources and people who pay for the labor to create goods).
I hope the above made sense, if not, I'll create a cleaner explanation some other time.
I think we have more of a right to be scornful fo those who have vast vast resources and keep them from others, even tho they will NEVER be able to use them. Thats pure greed.
We have the right to be scornful, but that's about it.
As for people keeping goods and resources they will never use, it really depends on what you mean. Many people own goods and resources they never use because they plan on selling these goods and resources. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
Why do you think I cannot accept arguments that justify the rich being rich, I dont care how much they "earned it" because its simply disgusting that its allowed.
If Bill Gates wasn't allowed to be as wealthy as he is, then most of us would probably be without computers, or our computers wouldn't be nearly as advanced. If Bill Gates hit a "cap", then why in the world would he care to continue providing computers and investing into research? Granted, Bill Gates does give a lot of his money away, but I'm still confident he would be far less motivated if he wasn't allowed to make money.
But as I said before, if you take all the money from the super elite and redistribute it, then you would create a shortage of goods and services, and a huge spike in prices. It would be disastrous.
Our leaders have failed us on so many levels.
Our leaders have failed us because they allow people to become wealthy through corrupt means. In fact, the leaders not only allow said corruption to happen, they're the ones who assist in the corruption.
This is why I can't stand the OccupyMovement. They talk about the 1% owning most of the wealth, but this statistic alone is meaningless, yet it's the one statistic occupiers use to support their logic.
No this is just one rallying point. The points they rally on aren't even that well focused.
But for you point about the gap not really mattering I think I get what your trying to say. If we say put things to numbers with 0 being worst possible conditions if the poor were between 100-200 and there was a gap with the rich being 1,000 this gap wouldn't matter much as the people at the lowest end of the spectrum are still well above extremely poor conditions.
The problem is the dealings that this "1%" are doing are resulting in the group in the 100-200 range to drop in order to increase there own ranger over 1,000. In this way we see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (As cliche as that statement is now.)
but I would suggest that people should have a cap on earnings no matter what. When we allow one person to accumulate more wealth that most of the worlds population there is gonna be serious problems unless the person is extremely empathetic and morally righeous, which as we have seen throughout history, had not happened and in the current case, has not happened either.
This is ridiculous. If a person can earn that much money through his own work, I see not why we should stop him. Rather, we should help the lower rung workers become more productive, and hence earn better wages, instead of cutting down on the top just because the stragglers can't keep up.
Many cultures have a tradition of helping those less in need. This is age old right? AND its obviously morally right and beneficial to the human race to be altruistic right?
I'm more a follower of Hobbes than Rousseau. Of course we should help the poor, but not by clamping down and imposing limits on the rich such as France. Making the top people poorer is not going to help the bottom, because the top won't want to set up businesses which provide jobs for the poor.
So, would it not be better to raise the absolute living standard the world over i.e. EVERYONE gets food, water, clothing, education, communication, accomodation.
Of course, but that doesn't mean stopping the rich from becoming richer, so much as helping the poor get better off.
Thats pure greed. Why do you think I cannot accept arguments that justify the rich being rich, I dont care how much they "earned it" because its simply disgusting that its allowed.
That has always been the high tone and ''moral'' argument the people at the back have always used.
but I would suggest that people should have a cap on earnings no matter what.
I don't think putting a cap on how much a person can earn is the answer. Perhaps a better method would be to focus on how they are making that money.
I'm more a follower of Hobbes than Rousseau. Of course we should help the poor, but not by clamping down and imposing limits on the rich such as France. Making the top people poorer is not going to help the bottom, because the top won't want to set up businesses which provide jobs for the poor.
Considering we are seeing the rich make record highs in profits and we still aren't seeing that translate down, it seems to me that the rich aren't going to provide those jobs for the poor.
Considering we are seeing the rich make record highs in profits and we still aren't seeing that translate down, it seems to me that the rich aren't going to provide those jobs for the poor.
The rich got rich based on their businesses and companies. Which are operated by the poor. So....jobs or no jobs? The poor in America are poor because of the lack of competitiveness, and the loss of the country's comparative advantage, especially in many manufactured products, which has seen an outsourcing of jobs to developing nations.
interesting conversation going on here. but i c 1 flaw coming back in almost all the posts here.
it are not the rich people that create jobs for the poor. taxing the rich people more will not help the poor people.
you see a ico of a big company does not use it's own money to keep the company working. they use the companys money to keep the company working.
so by taxing the rich people these people will simply move more money to itself as cio of the company leaving less money behind for them to pay the workers from.
if you would lower the company taxes however then there will be more money left in the company that can be spend of wich 1 could be higher loans. (for the cio or the workers thats the choise the company itself makes and not the government)
so the flaw i c in this conversation mostly is that rich people spend their own money to keep the companys working. but the companys pay the rich people for their high function.
beside that. plz. carry on it's prety intresting debate.
Considering we are seeing the rich make record highs in profits and we still aren't seeing that translate down, it seems to me that the rich aren't going to provide those jobs for the poor
How you plan to Solve this problem?
How you plan to Solve this problem?
if the consumers start consuming more. then the companys have more work to do wich will result in more jobs.
but if the consumers do not consume then the companys do not have to make alot wich results in less jobs.
it's not the fault of the companys alone. it's a circle.
if the consumers start consuming more. then the companys have more work to do wich will result in more jobs.
but if the consumers do not consume then the companys do not have to make alot wich results in less jobs.
it's not the fault of the companys alone. it's a circle.
I c
Thread is locked!