Empiracle evidence in favor of Income inequality.

[Breezy]

Tl;DR - Just saying that there is a problem with inequality is a meaningless meaningless statement bereft of valuable information. Inequality in market economies correlates with growth and higher standards of living for all income brackets. It's 3rd world countries where inequality means a fixed pie that is largely in the hands of the politicians. ... Homosexuals are Gay.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The large focus on income Inequality in the United States is all over the news lately. The premise: There is something inherently wrong with people having varying amounts of wealth and purchasing power. It appeals to the inner egalitarian that resides in many people. It's a shallow question however. It doesn't ask any meaningful follow up questions like, How do people get rich? How do people become poor? What effect does redistribution have?

There is a mountain of research against some of these socialist notions.

[Godzuki]

i don't think anyone cares about these studies much, since there are a lot that are used to argue both sides of the issue.

i do think generally speaking on a practical, realistic level, poor or middle class tend to spend their money more than the rich who tend to horde/invest(sitting in a stocks/MF).

i also think there is a lot of truth in this country or the world that its much easier for the rich to get richer, than the poor to climb out of poverty, or middle class to maintain their status. other than the occasional market crash out of nowhere which is a very rare occasion, its so evident if u follow stocks or how the whole market works and is controlled.

also there are the perceptions of CEO pay of public companies, along with Wall Street in general, being grossly overpaid or corrupt. there is a lot of truth to that also. its sort of wrong how because we've created this basis of people being able to invest in companies and them able to raise massive funding to become these mega corporations that their pays become grossly disproportionate to the rest of the work force, or the parameters not in place to keep them honest. In fact its almost impossible to police due to word of mouth nature, and positions of individuals within companies that will know things way before the public does, that can drastically change stock market values.

i don't think saying they went to Harvard so they deserve to make tens of millions is always truly earned like many will justify.

with that said the world in general is full of inequities, at least the real world is, not the sheltered one some people go to school and grow up in. any one of us could've been born in a 3rd world country with little opportunity for much in life.

[BoutPractice]

Empiracle?

[Breezy]

i don't think anyone cares about these studies much, since there are a lot that are used to argue both sides of the issue.

People who care about facts and care about real world consequences care about these studies.


i do think generally speaking on a practical, realistic level, poor or middle class tend to spend their money more than the rich who tend to horde/invest(sitting in a stocks/MF).

I don't see how this is relevant to inequality. Also rich people who invest their money do so in way that employ people. Unless you're suggesting that


i also think there is a lot of truth in this country or the world that its much easier for the rich to get richer, than the poor to climb out of poverty, or middle class to maintain their status. other than the occasional market crash out of nowhere which is a very rare occasion, its so evident if u follow stocks or how the whole market works and is controlled.

Did you even take a cursory glance at some of these studies? Economic growth lifts all income levels. Are you familiar with how market economies work? Market crashes don't come out of nowhere. The question at hand is growth and inequality. Some people (egalitarians) erroneously believe that there is a fixed pie of wealth, and that when 1 person is rich it necessarily follows that another person is poorer off.


also there are the perceptions of CEO pay of public companies, along with Wall Street in general, being grossly overpaid or corrupt. there is a lot of truth to that also. its sort of wrong how because we've created this basis of people being able to invest in companies and them able to raise massive funding to become these mega corporations that their pays become grossly disproportionate to the rest of the work force, or the parameters not in place to keep them honest. In fact its almost impossible to police due to word of mouth nature, and positions of individuals within companies that will know things way before the public does, that can drastically change stock market values.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand the preceding paragraph. It's a bit scatter brained. The only response I can give is that people who get rich through trade are a rising tide that lifts all boats. There are some people who get rich through special government privilege where they essentially syphon off of the tax payer. They are parasites. It doesn't address the central argument however that Inequality by itself is an irrelevant statistic.


i don't think saying they went to Harvard so they deserve to make tens of millions is always truly earned like many will justify.

Who is saying that? I don't know anyone who's ever made that argument.

[chosen_one6]

I think you mean "empirical evidence"

[Jello]

It doesn't matter. Income inequality is a buzzword used by the left to rile up people who believe wealth is 100 dolla billz in they pockets.

[Breezy]

I think you mean "empirical evidence"

Yes, that is what I mean.

[GimmeThat]

so it is true.

there's only 24 hours a day in everyone's life.

[Godzuki]

People who care about facts and care about real world consequences care about these studies.



I don't see how this is relevant to inequality. Also rich people who invest their money do so in way that employ people. Unless you're suggesting that



Did you even take a cursory glance at some of these studies? Economic growth lifts all income levels. Are you familiar with how market economies work? Market crashes don't come out of nowhere. The question at hand is growth and inequality. Some people (egalitarians) erroneously believe that there is a fixed pie of wealth, and that when 1 person is rich it necessarily follows that another person is poorer off.



I'm sorry but I really don't understand the preceding paragraph. It's a bit scatter brained. The only response I can give is that people who get rich through trade are a rising tide that lifts all boats. There are some people who get rich through special government privilege where they essentially syphon off of the tax payer. They are parasites. It doesn't address the central argument however that Inequality by itself is an irrelevant statistic.



Who is saying that? I don't know anyone who's ever made that argument.


what i've come to realize is no matter how many 'studies' you want to cite, no matter how many 'economists' you want to quote, none of them can quantify all of the variables that go into what you're trying to prove. That is why economists tend to be wrong often. That is why these links are nonsense, and there are many links to show the reverse.

to me its all mumbo jumbo nonsense when the 'experts' based on their so called studies are wrong so often. they're worse than weather forecasters.

[Jailblazers7]

what i've come to realize is no matter how many 'studies' you want to cite, no matter how many 'economists' you want to quote, none of them can quantify all of the variables that go into what you're trying to prove. That is why economists tend to be wrong often. That is why these links are nonsense, and there are many links to show the reverse.

to me its all mumbo jumbo nonsense when the 'experts' based on their so called studies are wrong so often. they're worse than weather forecasters.

Weather scientists are actually pretty badass. Nate Silver's book went into some detail about how weather forecasting has developed and it's really impressive. But yeah, economic forecasts/models are general pretty terrible.

[Sarcastic]

Even with massive redistribution of wealth programs, there will still be income inequality, you can rest assured. The rich will still be rich.

[NumberSix]

Weather scientists are actually pretty badass. Nate Silver's book went into some detail about how weather forecasting has developed and it's really impressive. But yeah, economic forecasts/models are general pretty terrible.
It's hard for a forecast to be fulfilled when there is absolutely no stability.

You'll notice in periods of great success, it's usually preceded by drastic change which is immediately followed by a downtime but when the new changes start panning out, then you have your period of great success. The problem though, is then a new group of people get into office and start mucking about with everything that was on a steady path of success. The mucking around doesn't usually have immediate negative impact. Things don't generally fall off a cliff. They gradually slide down a hill.

The problem is people don't want to endure the period of downtime before the period of success. And when they do, people's memory is short when things are going good. They don't leave well enough alone.

[Nick Young]

Even with massive redistribution of wealth programs, there will still be income inequality, you can rest assured. The rich will still be rich.
Exactly. Those occupy people were dumbasses. Quitting their jobs and camping in parks to whine about successful people.:facepalm


THERE'S A REASON YOU AREN'T SUCCESSFUL, OCCUPY DUMBASSES! Successful people dont get it in to their heads that it's a good idea to quit their jobs in order to protest in parks.:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Dresta]

It's hard for a forecast to be fulfilled when there is absolutely no stability.

You'll notice in periods of great success, it's usually preceded by drastic change which is immediately followed by a downtime but when the new changes start panning out, then you have your period of great success. The problem though, is then a new group of people get into office and start mucking about with everything that was on a steady path of success. The mucking around doesn't usually have immediate negative impact. Things don't generally fall off a cliff. They gradually slide down a hill.

The problem is people don't want to endure the period of downtime before the period of success. And when they do, people's memory is short when things are going good. They don't leave well enough alone.
That, and people tend to overshoot in periods of prosperity, making a scale-back (or governmentally directed perpetual inflation - same thing really) and the inevitable redundancies and loss of income that comes with. All it is is a realignment of the economy to its actual size, which will always be constrained by the limits of productive capacity. You can't simply inflate your problems away, at least not for ever.

One of the most ridiculous of the arguments made by statists is that for some reason once a person has become acclimated to a certain wage and a certain standard of living, that it is somehow against their human rights for them to lose their position or earn less due to the sector in which they're employed becoming less profitable - as if the rest of us should be paying for them making a poor decision with their chosen career path, and then their unwillingness to change career once their jobs become superfluous. Same thing with entrenched job-holders, who maintain their jobs not by merit but through having obtained certain privileges, privileges that prevent the coming generation from having the same advantages they had, and which allowed them to secure a decent job in the first place.