homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Inequality or poverty? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Inequality or poverty?
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Statistically there is also the declining Labour Terms of Trade: The rate of increase in the value of production (Gross Domestic Product Deflator) is less than the increase in the Consumer Price Index.

We are working harder and are able to purchase less, or seen another way our economy is not producing the value we want and need to make our purchases.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anabaptist Catholic
Shipmate
# 9284

 - Posted      Profile for Anabaptist Catholic     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Sober Preacher's Kid and Horseman Bree.

On reflection, moves to expand and shore up aspects of the welfare state and invest in infrastructure are often conscious efforts to even up the hand that people are dealt. And it can make a notional "wealth" distribution look better than one based solely on income (see Golden Key's link).

It's possibly not quite as simple as that though, in that the beneficiaries of the "Great Middling" are themselves recipients of the state's largesse, and certainly in the past, there were plausible models (e.g. Julian Le Grand's) that showed that the UK middle and upper classes would take more out of the welfare state than others once university education and longer life-expectancy (pensions and universal health care) were factored in - though this is changing a bit!

This was probably necessary to build wide support for a generous welfare state, and I used to think inequality was just the "outcome" of a system where some were dealt a bum hand, and others just plain didn't make the best of what they had.

Now, I'm not so sure, I think it's potentially itself a cause of other poor outcomes and if the money people are getting paid (or not) in the first place is incredibly unequal, mechanisms to correct it are likely to be less effective.

So perhaps specifically I'm looking for examples where equality of initial income (as opposed to equality of outcome or final income) were the aim.

--------------------
Catholic and Reformed

Posts: 152 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Olde Sea Dog
Shipmate
# 13061

 - Posted      Profile for Olde Sea Dog   Email Olde Sea Dog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, here's the Dog's quick and easy solution to the world's problems of unequal wealth:

There should be a mandatory limit on inheritances. Let's say that a billionaire would not be allowed to give more than one billion dollars to his heirs or philanthropic thingies. Anything over that billion of his estate would go into a fund that would give every young person (perhaps 30 yo) in the nation/world a one-time lump sum with which they can create a business, or do something stupid if that's what they want. But they would be provided with all the information they needed to create a business or to invest.

Of course anyone could donate to this Next Generation Fund, not just the wealthiest.

Now going back to the billionaire ........... no one needs more than about billion dollars to provide an income more than sufficient to have a great everything in life. Warren Buffet for example does fine with an old house in Omaha, attending conferences where he indulges in chorus dances, and eating little but McDonalds cheeseburgers with a cherry coke (seriously).

But instead of forcing the billionaire to give up excess wealth (pretty much impossible since they own the political machinery), there would simply be great encouragement for them to donate all of it to their favorite causes. Hopefully these charities would be largely beneficial to the poor; maybe public health initiatives like hygiene, contraception, and vaccinations; maybe microloans to thirdworlders who want to buy a cow to sell the milk, or a few chickens (that is, if the inheritance thing doesn't work out). Or of course they could donate to the Next Generation Fund, even more than mandated by law.

In return they get immortalized with statues, gold plaques, ads praising them to the moon .... many people would actually prefer public adulation to ordering up some enormous new yacht with all the bells and whistles, or hunkering over piles of credit cards in a secret room, gleefully rubbing their hands together.

If you are well-connected to Very Important People and like this idea in a general way, maybe fleshed out a bit to make it more cogent, please pass it along to them.

By the way, jlg posted a good comment on this thread back on the first page.

--------------------
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posts: 67 | From: The C of Consciousness - California | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There aren't enough billionaires to make a significant difference. An effective property or inheritance tax would certainly have to hit people who have millions of dollars worth of land and investment, and probably those with merely hundreds of thousands of dollars worth.

That's just for equalising things in the USA - on a world scale you need to go lower.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I noted above, the simple fact of inequality per se is not a real problem. Some people do earn a greater share, and others do not earn much, in any group you name.

The problem occurs becaue of the scale of the inequality, and because of the reason for that huge disparity - the perverting of "democracy" by those who have the large amounts.

Do you think the Tea Party would be so noticeable, or the GOP so fragmented, if it were not for the Koch brothers, for instance?

The rewriting of the rules, so that financial manipulators get their "mistakes" paid for by someone else, is one example. The lack of answerability, so that no-one who makes the financial "mistakes" ever answers for the problem, is another. And the vicious attacks on anyone who suggests making financial operations accountable is a third.

The Occupy movement wasn't about envy of the rich, so much as it was a cry for equitable treatment. Being blamed for not spending enough is particularly galling when you have been laid off, or when you can't get into the job market in the first place.

The opening up of opportunity during and after WW2 was the Great Prosperity Leap Forward, and that wasn't done by fleecing the rich. It was done by actions like the building of the road networks, the inclusion of most people in the chance-for-a-job market, and the reduction of effort in keeping disadvantaged groups (blacks, coloureds, women, aboriginals) stuck in their disadvantaged modes.

The attacks on the jobs market are as much an attempt to put people "in their place" as anything else. Remember that the President of the Great Democracy of the Free World was described as "uppity" by some of the people who orchestrate the collapse at the moment. They really don't like having women or coloureds or "the working poor" appear at all.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031

 - Posted      Profile for Luigi   Email Luigi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just read through this whole thread - many good points (e.g. Churchgeek and Jlg).

I have read much of the book and feel that Wilkinson and Pickett do deal with many of the reservations some here have articulated. Indeed their argument is nuanced very carefully. They are quick to be honest about outliers and certainly the Tax Payers Alliance critique is particularly poor.

Of course poverty can be regarded as absolute especially for those at the lower end of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, however in many richer countries much of it is relative. They show how some very successful economies are relatively equal.

Of course it is easy to understand why people at the bottom of very unequal societies are unhappy. Envy is an easy thing to accuse others of but I think many of us have at least some examples of weakness on this one.

However, the more I thought about the richest in unequal societies the more I realised (noticed) that many of the rich in a very unequal society are very anxious / fearful. The distance of fall is clearly greater and it may even be that there is greater possibility of it happening.

This article makes the point well. The seventh paragraph in particular is interesting

Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was reading an article about education today that a teacher friend of mine linked to on Facebook about the Finnish education system and thought it was very interesting that the primary focus has been on equality of opportunity and schools. And that this is credited with their high educational results.

I was thinking about the UK situation and I guess we have much the same problems as America in emulating this. We have a long history of private schools and I just don't see how you could abolish those, or reverse the whole competitive league table thing.

[ 06. January 2012, 18:25: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools