7 ms·

The only way you will ever achieve wealth redistribution is with violence. Look at the great leap forward. It will not happen in America, at least I pray not in

The only way you will ever achieve wealth redistribution is with violence. Look at the great leap forward. It will not happen in America, at least I pray not in my lifetime.

lovich 8y ago
It's happening in America right now, just not in the way you think. Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders It's also been happening for years with social security redistributing wealth from younger workers to older retirees
- frockington 8y ago
  You should get out and meet real people in America. It will probably change the first half of your post
  - lovich 8y ago
    Not quite sure how. I ended up working at Walmart after college and had to steal food since I couldn't afford rent,student loans, and medicine. Pretty much everyone of my coworkers was in the same boat with student loans being the only difference. If you think it's not happening I suggest you put all your assets in an account you won't access and then try and live for a few years off a retail job
    - Carlton87 8y ago
      Life Pro Tip: Have better skills and be a better employee.
      - lovich 8y ago
        Life Pro Tip: have some empathy Additionally: No shit, I taught myself programming and I'm an engineer now. Not everyone is capable of doing this, and the fact that I managed was down to just as much luck as it was skill and effort. It also doesn't change the fact that we are taking money from society and giving it to companies
        frockington 8y ago
        What did you major in? Was it poorly thought out from the beginning or did college admissions lie to you about job prospects?
        lovich 8y ago
        I took an easy major to get a high gpa as I was trying to get into the military through ROTC and they care about your grade not your major. Then Obama got voted in on a platform of winding down the war, the ROTC detachments were told they could contract half as many people as they expected before the new president was even sworn in, and I got cut to graduate right after the recession with no real skills. With the benefit of hindsight I could have done much better for myself,but I would not expect someone at that age to have the foresight to prepare for just how fucked your life plans can get
      - hexane360 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
    - frockington 8y ago
      Don't go to college and then work at Walmart...
      - lovich 8y ago
        Not a lot of choices after the recession. There were people with Masters working there for a few months
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  >Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders I'm curious what you believe would happen if we could magically remove all welfare programs. Do you believe those employers would be forced to raise wages? Or do you believe the lives of the poor would just be that much worse?
  - lovich 8y ago
    I think everyone would be worse off unless companies are forced to pay. I am pro UBI, I just thought the guy was being crazy by hoping for something to never happen in his lifetime that is happening every day and has been for a while
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      >I think everyone would be worse off I agree with this, which is why I disagree with your first sentiment: >Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders Since we agree that employers would not pay more if welfare is removed, then the value of those welfare programs must not be subsidizing shareholders.
      - lovich 8y ago
        I don't agree with that conclusion at all. If they didn't subsidize those employees through welfare people would stop working there, either through leaving to other jobs or just dieing. At some point people have to eat and have a place to sleep. Society is providing a workforce to employers at a wage that is not sustainable without the welfare
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        >If they didn't subsidize those employees through welfare people would stop working there, either through leaving to other jobs or just dieing. So then you believe if we eliminate welfare that employers would be forced to raise wages, because employees would be unable or unwilling to work there for their current wages. That is the opposite of what you said before.
- dnautics 8y ago
  It also happens whenever we do QE or lowering discount window interest rates - that's wealth distribution from everybody (that happens to disproportionately hurt those with lower earning power) to banks and those privileged enough to obtain government grants, and indirectly, away from everyone saving for retirement to publically traded corporations.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  It's not the purpose of a company to pay enough to completely cover an employees life costs. It is the role of governments to help those in need. Companies pay taxes (profits, part of social security, wages which support taxes, property taxes, and on and on) which helps fund this role of government. If you require companies to pay enough to support the lifestyles of employees, than any person unable to generate enough value for a company will not get a job, will not have the opportunity to gather job skills to maybe get to that point, and will require full support from the government. And mandated higher wages leads to inflation, which puts the most vulnerable even further behind. It's fairly reasonable for the least skilled to get a job that pays accordingly, with society picking up the slack. If that person ever increases in skills to move out of this, then they too will pay more in taxes to support the new group in need or least skilled.
  - lovich 8y ago
    I'm pro UBI and think we'd all be better off if everyone got enough to live and then companies could offer a penny a week if they wanted, since employment would not longer be tied to your ability to live. Regardless of any of those arguments, I was responding to someone who said they hoped wealth redistribution didn't happen in his lifetime, and gave examples of it happening right now
    - ChrisLomont 8y ago
      I'd be pro UBI, but I've never seen the math where it works without violating one of: 1) insane tax rates that traditionally kill economies, 2) lower benefits for those most in need, or 3) simply wanting richer to hand money to poorer so they can not work much. As such, I'm much more in favor of targeted assistance to make the most use out of limited resources. And every one I've looked into will suffer from terrible inflation, probably defeating any gains. For example, if a person is willing to work a crap job to pay rent, this will not change no matter the money scaling. Give enough free money, then rents will simply rise (along with all other things for the same reason), to absorb the excess, and the same people will still end having to do the same work to keep their standard of living. Free money is almost always inflated away by markets.
chrisbennet 8y ago
We've had great inequality in the U.S. before (beginning of 20th century) and it somehow resolved itself. Perhaps there is a historical lesson in there somewhere.
- eloff 8y ago
  It was resolved in part thanks to World War II which was a massive all-in undertaking for the US (which it never really backed down from, they've maintained a massive standing force ever since then.) That was a huge redirection of capital that created many jobs while simultaneously removing millions from the work force. That is basically a perfect storm for raising wages across the board, and thus decreasing inequality. Historically wars and unrest seem to be critical for redistribution of wealth once inequality increased to unsustainable levels. I wonder what will happen now in this era of unprecedented peace.
  - Carlton87 8y ago
    You make my point. I don't believe there has ever been a redistribution from wealthy to poor without war and violence.
  - opportune 8y ago
    Social democracy is the least painful solution within the current societal organization. That or mass labor movements. Otherwise unfettered capitalism will simply exacerbate inequality until things reach a tipping point - if billionaires and people that control the media don’t begin to shill for more redistributionist policies in the next couple decades they will have indirectly killed themselves

The only way you will ever achieve wealth redistribution is with violence. Look at the great leap forward. It will not happen in America, at least I pray not in my lifetime.

lovich 8y ago

It's happening in America right now, just not in the way you think. Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders It's also been happening for years with social security redistributing wealth from younger workers to older retirees

frockington 8y ago
You should get out and meet real people in America. It will probably change the first half of your post
- lovich 8y ago
  Not quite sure how. I ended up working at Walmart after college and had to steal food since I couldn't afford rent,student loans, and medicine. Pretty much everyone of my coworkers was in the same boat with student loans being the only difference. If you think it's not happening I suggest you put all your assets in an account you won't access and then try and live for a few years off a retail job
  - Carlton87 8y ago
    Life Pro Tip: Have better skills and be a better employee.
    - lovich 8y ago
      Life Pro Tip: have some empathy Additionally: No shit, I taught myself programming and I'm an engineer now. Not everyone is capable of doing this, and the fact that I managed was down to just as much luck as it was skill and effort. It also doesn't change the fact that we are taking money from society and giving it to companies
      - frockington 8y ago
        What did you major in? Was it poorly thought out from the beginning or did college admissions lie to you about job prospects?
        lovich 8y ago
        I took an easy major to get a high gpa as I was trying to get into the military through ROTC and they care about your grade not your major. Then Obama got voted in on a platform of winding down the war, the ROTC detachments were told they could contract half as many people as they expected before the new president was even sworn in, and I got cut to graduate right after the recession with no real skills. With the benefit of hindsight I could have done much better for myself,but I would not expect someone at that age to have the foresight to prepare for just how fucked your life plans can get
    - hexane360 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
  - frockington 8y ago
    Don't go to college and then work at Walmart...
    - lovich 8y ago
      Not a lot of choices after the recession. There were people with Masters working there for a few months
Consultant32452 8y ago
>Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders I'm curious what you believe would happen if we could magically remove all welfare programs. Do you believe those employers would be forced to raise wages? Or do you believe the lives of the poor would just be that much worse?
- lovich 8y ago
  I think everyone would be worse off unless companies are forced to pay. I am pro UBI, I just thought the guy was being crazy by hoping for something to never happen in his lifetime that is happening every day and has been for a while
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    >I think everyone would be worse off I agree with this, which is why I disagree with your first sentiment: >Everytime a company pays their employees so little they need welfare to live, that's redistributing wealth from society to shareholders Since we agree that employers would not pay more if welfare is removed, then the value of those welfare programs must not be subsidizing shareholders.
    - lovich 8y ago
      I don't agree with that conclusion at all. If they didn't subsidize those employees through welfare people would stop working there, either through leaving to other jobs or just dieing. At some point people have to eat and have a place to sleep. Society is providing a workforce to employers at a wage that is not sustainable without the welfare
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        >If they didn't subsidize those employees through welfare people would stop working there, either through leaving to other jobs or just dieing. So then you believe if we eliminate welfare that employers would be forced to raise wages, because employees would be unable or unwilling to work there for their current wages. That is the opposite of what you said before.
dnautics 8y ago
It also happens whenever we do QE or lowering discount window interest rates - that's wealth distribution from everybody (that happens to disproportionately hurt those with lower earning power) to banks and those privileged enough to obtain government grants, and indirectly, away from everyone saving for retirement to publically traded corporations.
ChrisLomont 8y ago
It's not the purpose of a company to pay enough to completely cover an employees life costs. It is the role of governments to help those in need. Companies pay taxes (profits, part of social security, wages which support taxes, property taxes, and on and on) which helps fund this role of government. If you require companies to pay enough to support the lifestyles of employees, than any person unable to generate enough value for a company will not get a job, will not have the opportunity to gather job skills to maybe get to that point, and will require full support from the government. And mandated higher wages leads to inflation, which puts the most vulnerable even further behind. It's fairly reasonable for the least skilled to get a job that pays accordingly, with society picking up the slack. If that person ever increases in skills to move out of this, then they too will pay more in taxes to support the new group in need or least skilled.
- lovich 8y ago
  I'm pro UBI and think we'd all be better off if everyone got enough to live and then companies could offer a penny a week if they wanted, since employment would not longer be tied to your ability to live. Regardless of any of those arguments, I was responding to someone who said they hoped wealth redistribution didn't happen in his lifetime, and gave examples of it happening right now
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    I'd be pro UBI, but I've never seen the math where it works without violating one of: 1) insane tax rates that traditionally kill economies, 2) lower benefits for those most in need, or 3) simply wanting richer to hand money to poorer so they can not work much. As such, I'm much more in favor of targeted assistance to make the most use out of limited resources. And every one I've looked into will suffer from terrible inflation, probably defeating any gains. For example, if a person is willing to work a crap job to pay rent, this will not change no matter the money scaling. Give enough free money, then rents will simply rise (along with all other things for the same reason), to absorb the excess, and the same people will still end having to do the same work to keep their standard of living. Free money is almost always inflated away by markets.

chrisbennet 8y ago

We've had great inequality in the U.S. before (beginning of 20th century) and it somehow resolved itself. Perhaps there is a historical lesson in there somewhere.

eloff 8y ago
It was resolved in part thanks to World War II which was a massive all-in undertaking for the US (which it never really backed down from, they've maintained a massive standing force ever since then.) That was a huge redirection of capital that created many jobs while simultaneously removing millions from the work force. That is basically a perfect storm for raising wages across the board, and thus decreasing inequality. Historically wars and unrest seem to be critical for redistribution of wealth once inequality increased to unsustainable levels. I wonder what will happen now in this era of unprecedented peace.
- Carlton87 8y ago
  You make my point. I don't believe there has ever been a redistribution from wealthy to poor without war and violence.
- opportune 8y ago
  Social democracy is the least painful solution within the current societal organization. That or mass labor movements. Otherwise unfettered capitalism will simply exacerbate inequality until things reach a tipping point - if billionaires and people that control the media don’t begin to shill for more redistributionist policies in the next couple decades they will have indirectly killed themselves