|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
In China, one of the greatest economic transformations in history is taking place, as millions move from poverty into the middle class. But, ironically, just as they start earning enough to lead a life of some comfort, the Chinese are growing frustrated with income inequality. Luxury brands and millionaires are proliferating, while many average citizens believe they are not getting their fair share of the economic spoils. Increasingly, the Chinese see their country as one of haves and have-nots. Sound familiar? The same 1 percent versus 99 percent divide that has become a political current in the U.S. is bound to have its global moment as the worldwide middle class rises. China isn't the only emerging nation with this type of problem. Concerns about inequality are common in many countries, and the recent street protests in Brazil and Turkey illustrate how economic success can spawn middle-class aspirations and demands, as well as capacities for demanding political change. China is obviously very different from Brazil and Turkey, and mass demonstrations in the People's Republic are unlikely anytime soon, but it is clear that the Chinese middle class is growing restless, too. It's not certain yet how these emerging issues will manifest themselves in Chinese politics, but they eventually may prove a cause for concern among that nation's 1 percent. (Read more: Why China goes crazy on Singles Day) Despite the rising worries about inequality, no one can deny China's economic success over the past three decades. Though the country's growth rate is now slowing, at 7.5 percent it remains the envy of most nations. And overall, the people are pleased with the economic situation. In a Pew Research Center poll conducted this spring, 88 percent said the national economy was in good shape. Moreover, the Chinese overwhelmingly recognize how much they have advanced economically—in a 2012 Pew Research survey, 92 percent said they are doing better financially than their parents' generation, the highest percentage among the 21 nations polled. And there is considerable optimism about the future, with 82 percent saying that the current generation of children will be better off than their parents. The material trappings of success are increasingly common in China, especially in major cities, where car ownership and real estate prices have soared. As incomes rise, well-heeled consumers are developing an appetite for imported luxury goods. According to the management consulting firm McKinsey, by 2015 "one-third of the money spent around the world on high-end bags, shoes, watches, jewelry, and ready-to-wear clothing will come from Chinese consumers." However, the vast majority of Chinese are hardly living a life of opulence. Instead, they feel they are being left behind in a country where the 1 percent is enjoying a disproportionate share of economic benefits. The 2013 poll found 87 percent describing the gap between rich and poor as a big problem. About half (52 percent) believe it is a very big problem, up from 41 percent five years ago. Meanwhile, roughly seven-in-10 (69 percent) say the gap has gotten worse in recent years. In 2012, 81 percent at least somewhat agreed with the statement, "Today it's really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer," and 45 percent agreed completely. The Chinese have a reputation as hard workers, but many question whether hard work will ultimately pay off. Less than half agree with the statement, "Most people can succeed if they are willing to work hard," and those in lower-income groups are especially unlikely to agree. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100949996?__sourc...rememberMe=null
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 Likes: 26 |
Historically speaking there is only one resolution to these kinds of disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632 |
And the middle class always seems to win eventually...
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I don't think the economic inequality gap is an illusion. I'm curious if anyone would dispute it? So, (1) if the inequality gap is growing, and (2) if those who perceive themselves to be on the wrong side of it are becoming dissatisfied with their position, and (3) if, as BpG stated, violence is the historical response to this situation, then wouldn't it be wise of those who find themselves in control of this ill-distributed wealth to reverse the trend?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,749 Likes: 931
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,749 Likes: 931 |
It would be wise... but I'm not holding my breath waiting to see it practiced.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
So, the crux of this is the same as it is in America..... some of the middle class see that the upper class is making money at a faster rate than they are.
Ummm, that's how it works.
It's their money - their businesses. Why wouldn't it be that way?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Do you think the "income inequality gap," as some call it, is increasing?
Edit: I should be more specific about what I'm thinking here. I don't think the problem is that middle class people are upset that they don't have as much money as wealthy individuals. It's about growing income immobility and the shift of total wealth into fewer hands. This is very different from what you are talking about.
Last edited by Mantis; 08/12/13 06:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,949 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
Do you think the "income inequality gap," as some call it, is increasing?
I don't, know, care, nor see how it matters at all. It is purely a diversion that isn't pertinent to anything.
To those fretting about it, I would simply ask:
What are YOU doing to increase YOUR wealth & earnings?
Why are you worried about what someone else makes, and just how do you think their income level applies to YOU??
Quote:
It's about growing income immobility
Huh??
Quote:
and the shift of total wealth into fewer hands.
Hmmmm.... sounds like some people need to stop whining about having the money they want and go make some of their own, then, doesn't it? 
Demonizing wealthy people for making money is silly. Not to mention the fact that it is quite simply the order of things as it has always been.
There has always been Haves and HaveNots. That will not ever change, and I would say that anyone that spends enough time tracking who has what will never be among the Haves.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
I don't, know, care, nor see how it matters at all. It is purely a diversion that isn't pertinent to anything.
I care about it because I know history, which I believe BpG was alluding to in his post. Too much wealth held by too few individuals is bad for everyone, and I'm saying this as a conservative who strongly supports the ability of individuals to accumulate wealth through their hard work and ingenuity. I don't view this as an issue of who can be wealthy; it's really an issue of those who do control the wealth knowing what is best for the societies that provided the environment for them to gain their wealth.
I first started to think of these things when I listened to an interview given by Charles Murray, one of our greatest contemporary conservative minds. He says the problem is not that some people are wealthy and others are not. Instead, the problem is how disproportionate the wealth now is in relation to the work done to achieve it. A perfect example would be CEOs. Over time, the proportion of the money they make compared to other employees has gone up exponentially. Certainly, a CEO should make the most money in the company -- this is not in dispute. The question is, how much more should a CEO make than other employees? If the amount of money depends on an individual's value to the company, what justification can be given for a CEO making 20 times what other employees make as opposed to 10?
I'll stop at that and see what you think. Keep in mind: this is not a crackpot liberal argument. This is coming from Charles Murray. I don't know how much you've heard about this, but it is definitely something to be concerned about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
I should add, so as to not give a false impression about what he is interested in, that Murray thinks the primary reason for rising class conflict is cultural and social, not economic. But economics is part of it, and his argument about proper monetary compensation for individual value is a good example of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632 |
I, like Mantis, also consider myself a conservative in the traditional sense (NOT Republican - they are not conservative if you really think about it).
In addition, I don't view the tension stemming from one class absorbing more money than another class at an increasing rate, but rather, how that particular group is accumulating that wealth.
Here, you see a lot of the wealthy elite mobilize through lobbyists to keep our politicians from doing anything constructive for the country as a whole. Most inclinations you see now demonstrate the middle class in this country, along with the "American Dream," is dissipating. I used to view the source of this problem as a pinch between two distinct groups: the wealthy elite extending their greed and the "have nots" extending their feelings of entitlement.
While I feel both of these notions are true, I looked at some of the notions PDR has been bringing up over the past several months and I drilled down my thinking on the "have not" side of the coin. While I still fault the "have nots" in a lot of cases where people are unjustifiably absorbing societal benefits without putting forth societal contribution, I asked myself the questions, "Who else benefits from mandated health insurance, food stamps, etc. Where does all this taxpayer money end up?"
Corruption here is bad, and the middle class is getting pinched, but nobody seems to do anything about it. Middle class DoD employees are furloughed while defense contractors make record profits and hundreds of millions of dollars get funneled to making tanks we don't need. The ACA was passed and the House Speaker hadn't even read it. Student loans are getting backed by the feds to fuel an impending education bubble. And on and on... So maybe it is the middle class' fault for arguing about things like Trayvon Martin, Lady Gaga getting fat, Obama's birth certificate, etc. all while we're getting robbed.
Now flipping to the thread topic, China pretty much blows that whole corruptive notion out of the water. Their whole economic rise has been based on the fact they can marginalize their workers, pollute the hell out of the environment, manipulate their currency, cut corners, and undercut every other market.
This actually begs the question (at least in my mind), what is China's middle class' solution? If they actually sought environmental regulations, fair wages, and benefits, their export-based economy would completely lose its edge.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Here, you see a lot of the wealthy elite mobilize through lobbyists to keep our politicians from doing anything constructive for the country as a whole.
And that is the only issue I see, which has nothing to do with the wealth gap, and more to do with informed voters(keep voting out the sello0ut politicians until they get the picture), congressional and lobbying rules.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Great post. Right on point, imo. Quote:
In addition, I don't view the tension stemming from one class absorbing more money than another class at an increasing rate, but rather, how that particular group is accumulating that wealth.
Conservatives like Murray and Brooks refer to this as "unseemly" behavior. I'm going to include here a passage from Murray's recent book Coming Apart which discusses this problem. This might be departing too much from the OP, but I think China is going to be dealing with these issues soon enough, if they aren't already.
Quote:
Unseemliness
The collapse of a sturdy code (ecumenical niceness is not sturdy) also means that certain concepts lose their power to constrain behavior. One of those concepts is unseemliness.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines unseemly as "not in keeping with established standards of taste or proper form; unbecoming or indecorous in appearance; improper in speech, conduct, etc.; inappropriate for time or place." The ultimate source, The Oxford English Dictionary requires just three words: "Unbecoming, unfitting; indecent."
Some examples? Unseemliness is television producer Aaron Spelling building a house of 56,500 square feet and 123 rooms. Unseemliness is Henry McKinnell, the CEO of Pfizer, getting a $99 million golden parachute and an $82 million pension after a tenure that saw Pfizer's share price plunge. 15 They did nothing illegal. Spelling had the money to build his dream house, just as millions of others would like to do, and got zoning approval for his plans. McKinnell's separation package was paid according to the contract he had signed with Pfizer when he became CEO. But the outcomes were inappropriate for time or place, not suited to the circumstances. They were unbecoming and unfitting. They were unseemly.
I chose two examples so extreme that only people who deny that unseemly is a valid concept can argue with me. But as soon as I move to less extreme examples, that phrase, "established standards of taste or proper form," comes into play. Since my two examples involved money, let's stick with that topic. The final figure in this book, 17.1, shows the trend in the total compensation received by CEOs of large corporations since 1970.
Where does unseemliness begin? Even in 1970, the average CEO made about $1 million. Was that unseemly, given what good CEOs contribute to the success of their company? If that wasn't unseemly, is it unseemly that the average compensation doubled to $2 million by 1987? That it doubled again to $4 million by 1992? That it doubled again to $8 million by 1998? That it doubled again to $16 million by 2006?
I am not asking whether the increases were economically rational. The technical literature hotly debates this issue, but it does not reach the question I am asking. To clarify that question, it may help if I stipulate for purposes of argument that these increases were economically rational. I will further stipulate that the dynamics producing those increases promoted economic growth and, ultimately, a better life for people all the way down the line. Now return to the question: Is there anything unseemly about the story told in Figure 17.1?
At the individual level, accepting a big compensation package is seldom unseemly. You're the CEO; you've worked hard to get where you are; you think that your contribution is valuable to the company; you know that your compensation package is in line with what CEOs of comparable companies are getting. It is hard to see any ethical obligation to negotiate a smaller deal for yourself than the board of directors is willing to give you.
But what about all those boards of directors, themselves composed of many people who are or have been CEOs themselves? They have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, not to the employees of the company. To what extent are they handing out these compensation packages because, like it or not, that's what it takes to get the kind of person they need to run the company? Or to what extent have the boards of directors of corporate America--and nonprofit America, and foundation America--become cozy extended families, scratching one another's backs, happily going along with a market that has become lucrative for all of them, taking advantage of their privileged positions--rigging the game, but within the law.
It looks suspiciously as if there's a lot of unseemliness going on, but I cannot prove it. People within the corporate world with whom I have discussed the issue vary in their assessment of how much the cozy-little-club phenomenon applies, though all acknowledge that it exists to some extent. Finding hard data on the how-much question is as difficult as finding hard data on the criminal aspects of corporate malfeasance that I discussed in chapter 10 .
Even without hard data, I won't get any argument from people on the Left, who are inclined to view corporate America suspiciously in the absence of any data whatsoever. But it is not really an issue that is decided by political views. Recently, I asked a successful entrepreneur, an ardent proponent of free markets, what he thought about the bonus of several hundred million dollars that a board had decided to award to the departing CEO of a large company as a thank-you gift. He looked at me sharply and said, "It's obscene." That is a reasonable way for people to react whether they are liberal, conservative, or libertarian--the issue is not what should be legal, but what is seemly.
I have focused on the economic manifestations of unseemliness in the private sector because they have such broad ramifications for the United States--the great majority of the new upper class are involved in the corporate, nonprofit, and foundation worlds, all of which have instances of the kind of unseemliness that I think is reflected in Figure 17.1 . But if you're looking for egregious examples of unseemliness, you can do no better than look at contemporary American government.
It's not new. The crafting of legislation by the Congress has always been like the making of sausage. But when the federal government did not have much to sell except contracts for roads, military equipment, and government buildings, the amount of energy devoted to scrambling for government spoils was commensurate with the size of the pot. The pot has grown, with hundreds of billions of dollars of goodies now up for grabs for whoever knows the right people, can convince the right committee chairman to insert a clause in the legislation, convince the right regulatory bureaucrat to word a ruling in a certain way, or secure the right appointment to a key government panel. Perhaps unseemliness per unit of government has not increased in the last half century, but the number and size of those units has increased by orders of magnitude, and the magnitude of unseemliness has increased along with them. Washington is in a new Gilded Age of influence peddling that dwarfs anything that has come before.
Unseemliness is a symptom of the collapse of codes of behavior that depend not on laws and regulations, but upon shared understandings regarding the fitness of things, and upon an allegiance to behave in accordance with those shared understandings. Unseemliness is another symptom of hollowness at the core.
Murray, Charles. Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. New York: Crown Forum, 2012. pages 291-294.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,956 Likes: 115
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,956 Likes: 115 |
Quote:
So, the crux of this is the same as it is in America..... some of the middle class see that the upper class is making money at a faster rate than they are.
Ummm, that's how it works.
It's their money - their businesses. Why wouldn't it be that way?
I have no problem in how fast or how much money anyone makes in personal income. I do have issues with why these same people do not pay the same tax rates on that personal income as everyone else.
Closing tax loopholes and incorporating a flat tax rate for everyone for personal income is how it should work. It works like you say. So the income gap increases by design, not by equality. Time to change that.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.
– Jackie Robinson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I'm not so sure what's wrong with people trying to get the money you deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
I don't think the problem is that middle class people are upset that they don't have as much money as wealthy individuals. It's about growing income immobility and the shift of total wealth into fewer hands.
Isn't the main point of this article about the number of people in China who are moving out of poverty or near poverty into more of a middle-class situation? How is that indicative of income immobility? Seems quite the reverse to me.
I do have my issues with our own economy now.. especially the rapid increase in earnings at the top while workers wages have largely been stagnant for a long time.... but as it relates to China, it almost seems like you have a class of people who had nothing, now they have something, and they are starting to notice that the people above them have more... and they don't like it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632 |
I agree with you. I can't remember the exact words, but there was a saying that to stay in power, the rulers needed to keep his people's stomachs full and their heads empty.
With the Chinese middle class' increase in net worth, it sounds like their heads are getting less empty and they're realizing certain things, like corruption and the wealth gap. I imagine that even though the middle class is getting more money than before (obviously), the wealthy elite are still gaining worth at a much higher rate, although I could be wrong.
I think the crux of the argument for their middle class though, is what do they do? Do they eliminate the very things that are the basis of their successful economy?
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
When speaking of stagnating incomes, I was referring to the United States specifically. China's modernization has allowed it to move a large amount of its population into higher income brackets, so this problem is not as apparent there... yet. How long will it be until China is mirroring what is happening in the US? I don't know, but we can't deny that the trend is toward more wealth concentrated in fewer hands.
I understand many see no problem with this. I'm not sure why. Perhaps the numbers aren't alarming enough yet. Would anyone be okay with the 1 percent earning 75 percent of the income? I doubt it. It's an extreme example, but I use it to establish that we all have a limit somewhere. Honestly I don't know what the best distribution of income or wealth should be, and I also don't think the distribution can be fixed by a government. (Figured I should say that before anarchy2day erroneously calls me a Marxist again.)
I think the only solution is for those who control the wealth to realize that wealth distribution is not something to be ignored. And the simplistic "conservative" logic that promotes unlimited wealth acquisition without a social conscience is going to be the biggest obstacle moving forward. It's impractical and dangerous thinking, and it's not even truly conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
And the simplistic "conservative" logic that promotes unlimited wealth acquisition without a social conscience is going to be the biggest obstacle moving forward.
What about the consumer's conscience? How many people if they walked in a store and saw a nice 42" TV that was made by skilled people who made a decent wage sitting next to a 65" TV that was made by cheap off-shore labor would buy the 42" TV if they were the same price? Or who would pay $30 for a 6 pack of undershirts because everybody from the cotton farmer to assembly folks made more money when there is a $12 pack sitting right beside it and you have no idea who made it or how? I'm sorry but the American consumer owns a decent size chunk of the problem because they want it all, they want it bigger, they want it faster, they want it cheaper, they want it convenient, and they want it now.
The consumers have far more power to fix this than they realize but it takes sacrifice.. 1 TV instead of 3, fewer clothes, fewer toys, because they would be more expensive....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,990 Likes: 362 |
Here's the thing with "the rich getting richer" ....... it is bound to happen in almost any economic system.
A rich man has more money and more assets than a middle income man. By the very fact that he has more, he has more than he can "safely" risk. In economic down times, he can buy stocks at the bottom of the market, looking for growth, when middle income people are pulling their money trying to avoid loss. The rich man can buy real estate at the bottom of the market and sell it off when the market recovers. Given the way our government plows money into the market, and the housing market, both were bound to recover in fairly short order.
Further, there was a time when a middle class working person could put money in the bank and make a decent return. The days when a person could make 6-9% on savings and CDs have long since passed.
Look at how interest rates and market uncertainties have hurt middle class people. Saving is almost not worth it. If a person puts 5000/year into savings at 8% (which I got on CDs when I first started buying them way back when) and you do that for 35 years, you have over a million dollars when you're done.
At 2%, which you are almost lucky to get these days, you make around a quarter of that.
That's a huge difference for people trying to do what we have always been told to do, and save for retirement.
There are some annuities, and other financial products, that can bring a better rate of return, but in many cases they have limitations and risks. Even a 401K typically has risk involved.
Those with extra "riskable" (yeah, I just made that up) money can afford to take those chances, and even riskier ones ... and in fact often look for investments with huge rates of return, even with higher risks. They can afford to risk the market declining for a few years, because they know that it will recover eventually, and they aren't risking their entire nut. Middle class people have no such protections. They have to be careful, and they often are so busy working that they don't have the time to watch how the market moves. They pull their money before the lose more. Those with money buy more on the decline, trying to time the bottom, and being OK if they buy a traditionally strong stock near the bottom of its value, knowing that odds are that it will recover and surpass its initial investment value.They can afford the risk .... and that's really when it boils down to. "Rich people", those who have money they can afford to risk, can take the risks that pay off big. Those saving for retirement cannot take those chances with their retirement.
That is really one huge reason why we have a growing income inequality. Add in that salaries don't increase in an economy struggling for any growth at all, and that's the 2nd leg kicked out from under the middle class. I don't know that anyone in particular is to blame. It just is what it is. I don't see that "rich" people are to blame. They simply do what makes sense for them to do. Middle class people just do what they almost have to do.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
We are in complete agreement on that point. As Ytown said, no one is really to blame -- no one specific, that is. We all share in the responsibility for what is happening, rich, middle class, and poor alike.
What I'm trying to challenge is the notion that the wealthy are exempt from the responsibility to ensure an advantageous wealth distribution for an entire society. I don't know how we got to the point where many "conservatives" have come to believe that wealth distribution is not a concern. I suspect Ayn Rand is lurking somewhere at the bottom of it all, promoting the idea that there are a few great individuals among us, and the more wealth, power, and influence they exert, the better we will all be. This is a destructive lie, and it has nothing to do with conservative philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
What I'm trying to challenge is the notion that the wealthy are exempt from the responsibility to ensure an advantageous wealth distribution for an entire society. I don't know how we got to the point where many "conservatives" have come to believe that wealth distribution is not a concern.
Books could be written on this and I'm busy so I'll give you my summary and it has to do with the growth of the national (and now international) community. Many many years ago, the guy that owned the factory lived in the town where the factory was.. he had a vested interest in the employees of the factory, he had a vested interest in his consumers... because they were his neighbors. Now the guy isn't even really a guy, he's a corporation, a large group of guys and gals who use shareholder profits as their justification. And the factories they own aren't down the street and they don't see their consumers every Sunday at church..... while they live in New York or Chicago or LA, the factories are in South Carolina, and Indonesia, and Mexico and their consumers are all over the world.
That is how you develop a lack of connection with your employees and your customers.. and you don't have 100 employees anymore, you have hundreds of thousands of employees and if you give each of them a couple thousand dollar raise, well now you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.... The economies of scale drive a lot of decisions...
If you walk by the same homeless guy every day on your way to work and you see him there struggling to get by, begging for money, always polite, just trying to find his next meal... most people over time will develop compassion for that guy... those same people don't develop that same compassion for the people of India... because they never have to see them.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
I think you are exactly right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Well put. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Just sitting here waiting for the Chinese worker to Unionize. Once that war is over with and they kill their golden goose, things will be OK here again.
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.” -AOC
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,799 Likes: 632 |
Either that or everything will move over to India/Indonesia/Singapore/some other nation willing to marginalize its people to get exports out.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... China: Reached middle-class
status? Start complaining about it
|
|
