5 ms·

Who buy most fridges? A billionaire or a thousand millionaires. A society where the rich has most of the money can't grow and then in the end everyone gets po

Who buy most fridges? A billionaire or a thousand millionaires. A society where the rich has most of the money can't grow and then in the end everyone gets poorer. It is a big problem IF the gap becomes too big at the expense of the poorest. I.e. the rich get richer but the poor doesn't get richer relative to the poor. It is not a big problem if there is some undefined balance between the different income groups as this will keep the economy going. The problem we have today is mostly that the rich gets much richer, the poor doesn't really get much better and the middle class is dissepearing which erodes the prospect of any society to grow.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
But the poor today all have fridges. Everything you describe is a problem of poverty, not inequality. Inequality is when the poor get 2x richer, but the rich get 3x richer, in real terms (not nominal). Do you have any reason to believe this is a problem?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  The cost of living goes up. So yes it's a problem.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    You deliberately ignored the words "in real terms".
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      It goes up in real terms since salaries are not going up with the cost of living.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > Inequality is when the poor get 2x richer, but the rich get 3x richer, in real terms (not nominal). Do you have any reason to believe this is a problem? But that isn't what's happening. The bottom quartile's incomes have shrunk when adjusted for inflation and they have stagnated since the 80s. That IS a problem.
  - zo1 10y ago
    "That IS a problem." To be a bit of a devil's advocate here: Why is that a problem as well? Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy?
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      The question should then be, what would you consider a decent life? The definition of that is different for everyone.
    - igk 10y ago
      The problem is consolidation. If more and more earn and own less and less, while less and less earn and own more and more,this creates power imbalance, impededes real growth( as in, new value being created due to Innovation. A balanced portfolio motivates less than starting the company/research yourself) and since the investors still want a return, even without growth, somebody will get shafted. There are people dying in London because their fridge was shut of, causing their insulin to go bad. why did get shut off? Because they did not have the money to pay for electricity. Mind you, this all goes out the window if a good , if austere life is guaranteed somehow, then capitalism and consolidation away.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      > Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy? 1. Nothing, assuming of course they are living those lives. There is a body of evidence, however, so overwhelming that at the lower incomes the people are not leading healthy lives. That is a matter of debate for someone with a medical degree and you could probably write books about this topic alone. Poor conditions reinforce poor behaviors. 2. Perhaps. Of course everyone will argue that their "greater context" is the right one. The question you're really asking here is "are we okay with letting the least productive members of our society suffer and struggle for survival?" Maybe for some people the answer will be yes. There's no logical argument I can provide for those people that will sway them. 3. That is the mantra of trickle down economics that has been proven consistently false over the last 30 years. Neither wealth nor income have trickled down despite increases in productivity. Of course one could also subscribe to the idea of "this is not a problem", but that's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand or throwing a tantrum.
- internaut 10y ago
  I don't have a problem with the rich. Provided they are capitalists. Effectively allocating capital is an important role. That's part of how the poor get wealthier. Outside of that (and stability/coherence of political power), what reason is there for rich people to exist though? Because I can't think of any. And typically non-productive beings that exist due to the efforts of others are known as parasites.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

But the poor today all have fridges. Everything you describe is a problem of poverty, not inequality. Inequality is when the poor get 2x richer, but the rich get 3x richer, in real terms (not nominal). Do you have any reason to believe this is a problem?

ThomPete 10y ago
The cost of living goes up. So yes it's a problem.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  You deliberately ignored the words "in real terms".
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It goes up in real terms since salaries are not going up with the cost of living.
antisthenes 10y ago
> Inequality is when the poor get 2x richer, but the rich get 3x richer, in real terms (not nominal). Do you have any reason to believe this is a problem? But that isn't what's happening. The bottom quartile's incomes have shrunk when adjusted for inflation and they have stagnated since the 80s. That IS a problem.
- zo1 10y ago
  "That IS a problem." To be a bit of a devil's advocate here: Why is that a problem as well? Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy?
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    The question should then be, what would you consider a decent life? The definition of that is different for everyone.
  - igk 10y ago
    The problem is consolidation. If more and more earn and own less and less, while less and less earn and own more and more,this creates power imbalance, impededes real growth( as in, new value being created due to Innovation. A balanced portfolio motivates less than starting the company/research yourself) and since the investors still want a return, even without growth, somebody will get shafted. There are people dying in London because their fridge was shut of, causing their insulin to go bad. why did get shut off? Because they did not have the money to pay for electricity. Mind you, this all goes out the window if a good , if austere life is guaranteed somehow, then capitalism and consolidation away.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > Assuming that despite their wages "shrinking", they are still leading decent, normal lives then what about that is bad? Perhaps their labour in the greater context isn't worth all that much to others and that doesn't fit in to our world-view? Or are we simply expecting that their "status" or "wealth" should be increasing along with the economy? 1. Nothing, assuming of course they are living those lives. There is a body of evidence, however, so overwhelming that at the lower incomes the people are not leading healthy lives. That is a matter of debate for someone with a medical degree and you could probably write books about this topic alone. Poor conditions reinforce poor behaviors. 2. Perhaps. Of course everyone will argue that their "greater context" is the right one. The question you're really asking here is "are we okay with letting the least productive members of our society suffer and struggle for survival?" Maybe for some people the answer will be yes. There's no logical argument I can provide for those people that will sway them. 3. That is the mantra of trickle down economics that has been proven consistently false over the last 30 years. Neither wealth nor income have trickled down despite increases in productivity. Of course one could also subscribe to the idea of "this is not a problem", but that's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your head in the sand or throwing a tantrum.
internaut 10y ago
I don't have a problem with the rich. Provided they are capitalists. Effectively allocating capital is an important role. That's part of how the poor get wealthier. Outside of that (and stability/coherence of political power), what reason is there for rich people to exist though? Because I can't think of any. And typically non-productive beings that exist due to the efforts of others are known as parasites.