Income inequality seems to be front and center in the upcoming midterm elections. Is income inequality really a threat to our society?
No, income inequality is not the problem, but the perception that it is a problem is. We are such a consumer driven culture, that if we do not have enough money to buy that 70" TV, there is a problem. Well, it isn't. The USA is in fine shape if people would strive for more, but be happy with what they have and have compassion for all those around them. The belief that the next thing will make me happy and it is a dog-eat-dog world is the real problem in this country, and the world for that matter.
People need to take a look at the places in the world that have income equality. I know that's not what they have in mind, but that's where it exists.
perception of a media and politician driven fake problem is an actual problem? wth? compassion for all those around them? how is that requisite for our being fine? We've legislated away compassion via forced redistro. America is the most giving country in the world but will cease to be as crap like gov't medical insurance, massive roles on disability, SNAP, unemployment for a decade change our approach and generate valid cynicism.
I won't disagree that this is a problem, though I'm not certain whether the "problem" is generated by vote buying or simply politicians doing what they do when the opportunity presents itself. Simply put, is vote buying where the problem with income inequality starts, or is it the effect of the perceived problem? Perhaps the two are synergistic.
I am guessing what I was saying was not clear, so let me try again. People perceive there is a problem because it is plastered on the news everywhere, pundits on talk radio rattle their sabers at the opposing side, blaming them. People see this and start believing there is a problem with the disparity of income in this country. But, if you drive around, look at the way the US is running right now, it is not all that bad. Thus, the perception by the populous that there is a problem, that is the problem. My line in the second paragraph was butchered because I stopped half way through and came back to complete it. It should have read: "The US is fine right now. If people would strive for more, but be happy with what they have and have compassion for those around them, they would be better off."
Your statement that we are the most giving country seems to contradict the idea that we've legislated away compassion. Plus, we have far less legislated "redistribution" than a large number of countries, notably in Western and Northern Europe as well as Canada, with a much more cynical view of these types of programs than those countries . So, I'm not buying this is the source of our cynicism and lean more towards our proclivity as a society for cynicism. For example, non-Americans, by and large, find our lack of universal health care absurd, so I doubt that the concept of such a thing, in and of itself, is what causes cynicism. And, I continue to roll my eyes at your concept of "vote buying". I also don't buy this idea that income inequality doesn't exist because poor people, gasp, have cell phones and beat up cars instead of living in shantytowns like Calcutta.
Income inequality exists. The question is whether we should give a shit it exists. It exists far less say in china where the average wage is well below the US poverty level. And the European Utopias you refer to have lower standards of living, lower growth rates, lower wages, and far higher unemployment.
Who said utopias? I said less cynicism. People in those countries have quite a high standard of living, too. However, I do agree that it is nonsense to legislate income equality, but I do think there is enough of an issue to give a shit about the wide berth in income inequality. The most effective way to deal with the issue, though, is the million dollar question.
No one states that income inequality doesn't exist. That would be a straw man. People have different skills and ability, also some are just luckier than others. The issue is that income inequality isn't a pressing issue, instead a lack of economic liberty to improve oneself is what we should be concerned with in this country. Wealth isn't a zero sum game.
I doubt there is less cynicism among the rich. i'm sure those accepting the handouts are in favor of it. of course ask those same people about the support of the gypsies and see if you think they are 100% in favor of govt support for all. your neighbor being richer than you has absolutely no negative effect on you whatsoever.
Wait, I was told no luck is involved. Maybe not by you, but certainly by those advocating for the status quo. And, wealth isn't a zero sum gum, but there is some finite sense to it. It certainly isn't infinite, nor would the resulting inflation allow for everyone to become wealthy or middle class.
Those are a couple of sweeping comments. There's not a 100% agreement for anything in this world and the rich aren't the only ones who are contributing to social programs in those countries. Generally, though, the people are far more supportive and less cynical for those type of social programs. The rich aren't the only one's whose opinions count, anyway.
people win the lottery, but by and large luck is made. surely you are aware that "everyone" does not have the desire or ability to become wealthy or middle class. and for that matter "middle class" is a moving target and has no real definition. the middle class in china literally make 1/5th on average of what we consider people in poverty.
the rich pay for it there, just like they do here. and the people I've talked to aren't far more supportive at all. If we are to determine support of something shouldn't the opinion of the person paying for it count the most? I fully support you giving me $500. I doubt you'd feel similar.
Sure some people are lucky, but you can't quantify luck. You can't just create wealth from nothing as in printing money from nothing. You have to create a good or service.