Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Grey Templar wrote:

If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.

And if you want absolute freedom from social responsibility and freedom to do as you please, feth off to Somalia.

**Grey Templar**

Indeed, so we want to live here with a mixture. So we live with the system we have, I'm cool with it.

**Ratbarf**

Grey Templar wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?

The qualifier is already in my previous statement. Even Frazzled noticed it.

What, social justice?

How is it justice to take money from someone, who by your opinion has not earned the money, and give it to someone that has most definitly NOT earned that money.

You're simply taking money from someone who may or may not have earned that money and giving it to someone that has beyond a shadow of a doubt not earned that money.

Its arbitrarily determining what a job is or isn't worth.

If a company(or executives of a company) are unable to determine what a fair wage is for a job they offer, who is the government to do it? Why would the government be in any way qualified to determine that?

The government can say "you may not pay anyone less than X",

they shouldn't say "if someone is doing Y, you must pay them at least X, and if someone else is doing 3Y you cannot pay them more than 3X"

In case you want it spelled out. I don't mind (overly) a payment of something like 10 times the average frontline salary, that is still a more than comfortable salary. What i do mind is the Victorian level of inequality that the current pay difference fosters, and its not as if the salaries at the top of the tree are even linked to success so the "its a really hard job" excuse doesn't cut much ice with me. In an ideal world everyone would be paid the same, unfortunately greed will always get in the way of that.

Again, why is such a wide gap between the salaries an issue?

I think the real issue is that the lower salary may be too low.

If I am making 20,000 and the CEO is making 2.2 million and I want more money. The issue isn't the CEO's pay, its my pay.

Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.

And an executive's job is still hard, just in a different way. He may not have gotten the job because he was successful, he may have inherited the ownership of the company. But to keep it he still has to work at it.

If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.

I feel that no one is seriously calling for massive and direct government control over what a person may or may not earn, but they are angry over the upper percentile's gaming of the system to better benefit themselves. Their money gives them the ability and incentive to shape both policy and public opinion as they see fit. This power leads to the over representation of their wishes in the government, which is essentially bought and paid for by the rich to safeguard their interests. Whether the rich in this case are large corporations or very wealthy individuals isn't really what's being argued, simply that they skew the process in their favour at the expense of everyone else.

**CuddlySquig**

I think some people here would be surprised at how poor some people in the states are.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, so we want to live here with a mixture. So we live with the system we have, I'm cool with it.

I'm not cool with it, I say the mixture is flawed and drifting too far in one direction. It needs redressing so as to avoid a return to indentured service to an aristocracy.

We should be working towards a better quality of life for everyone, not returning all but a tiny minority to working themselves to death for little more reward than shelter and food, we have been working away from that lifestyle since the middle ages.

**whembly**

CuddlySquig wrote:
whembly wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.

I think you'd be surprised at how poor some people in the states are.

I've been to the poor areas of appalachia and on poor Indian reservations.

Yes, they're poor as in they don't have a great house/car and all the trapping of *most* Americans.

At the same time, (and the reason why I was there in the first place)... people can work hard to better themselves.

That's why I don't engage those who deride that whole "bootstrap mentality"... they just don't get it.

**Palindrome**

Grey Templar wrote:

Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.
If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.

Actually I am asking for both. The social injustice lies in the massively inflated salaries for people who simply don't do enough to deserve them while giving their employees a 'fair; wage which is a tiny fraction of their bonus, never mind their actual salary. You may call western society 'asperational', I call it deeply flawed and skewed in favour of those with the deepest pockets.

I would love to live in a world with truly equal pay, unfortuantely far too many people are greedy so a balanced society simply cannot exist under those conditions.

**Grey Templar**

Ratbarf wrote:

I feel that no one is seriously calling for massive and direct government control over what a person may or may not earn, but they are angry over the upper percentile's gaming of the system to better benefit themselves. Their money gives them the ability and incentive to shape both policy and public opinion as they see fit. This power leads to the over representation of their wishes in the government, which is essentially bought and paid for by the rich to safeguard their interests. Whether the rich in this case are large corporations or very wealthy individuals isn't really what's being argued, simply that they skew the process in their favour at the expense of everyone else.

But people need to realize that they trying to stop the rich from gaming the system is itself gaming the system.

The Executives have direct control over the company system. The poor have their political voting power.

If you don't like the rich buying off your politicians, elect new ones that will enforce anti-corruption legislation. Participate.

We have such low voter turnout in this country that any issue we have with our government related to corporations really can't be fully complained about. No vote, no complain.

**whembly**

Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.
If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.

Actually I am asking for both. The social injustice lies in the massively inflated salaries for people who simply don't do enough to deserve them while giving their employees a 'fair; wage which is a tiny fraction of their bonus, never mind their actual salary. You may call western society 'asperational', I call it deeply flawed and skewed in favour of those with the deepest pockets.

I would love to live in a world with truly equal pay, unfortuantely far too many people are greedy so a balanced society simply cannot exist under those conditions.

That's utopia...

There's always someone greedy...

**Chongara**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.

Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.

What do you mean by this?

Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.

Simple logical really.

**Ratbarf**

Grey Templar wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:

I feel that no one is seriously calling for massive and direct government control over what a person may or may not earn, but they are angry over the upper percentile's gaming of the system to better benefit themselves. Their money gives them the ability and incentive to shape both policy and public opinion as they see fit. This power leads to the over representation of their wishes in the government, which is essentially bought and paid for by the rich to safeguard their interests. Whether the rich in this case are large corporations or very wealthy individuals isn't really what's being argued, simply that they skew the process in their favour at the expense of everyone else.

But people need to realize that they trying to stop the rich from gaming the system is itself gaming the system.

The Executives have direct control over the company system. The poor have their political voting power.

If you don't like the rich buying off your politicians, elect new ones that will enforce anti-corruption legislation. Participate.

We have such low voter turnout in this country that any issue we have with our government related to corporations really can't be fully complained about. No vote, no complain.

The thing is that it doesn't seem to matter what the people want, the people in power still do whatever they wish. Just look at the bailout package that was rolled out in 2008. The people said no, their representatives heard this and also defeated the first attempt at passing the bill. Then the administration pulled a fast one and manipulated the representatives into voting yes for the bailout, even though their constituents resoundly said "NO." The financial institutions that benefited from the bailout and the fiscal crisis just so happened to also be the companies that supplied the personnel that staffed the upper echelons of the US treasury. If that doesn't stink of collusion then your nose must be filled with all the sand that your head is in.

**Grey Templar**

So the people should have voted every one of their arses out of office. But they didn't. People are stupid.

Politicians only take advantage of people because we let them.

**Ratbarf**

They did, didn't matter. Both parties supported it, so America had no one else to vote for. That fiasco is what spurred the creation of the Tea Party. It also spurred the creation of Occupy Wall Street. both of which movements have pretty much been co-opted by the powers that be anyways.

**whembly**

Grey Templar wrote:
So the people should have voted every one of their arses out of office. But they didn't. People are stupid.

Politicians only take advantage of people because we let them.

Wizard's First Rule.

**Fafnir**

Grey Templar wrote:

If you don't like the rich buying off your politicians, elect new ones that will enforce anti-corruption legislation. Participate.

And what happens when those politicians are bought off just like the ones before them? "Just elect a new one" isn't a good enough answer. Especially when the rich can use the incredibly vast resources at their command to help ensure the person they want gets in.

We have such low voter turnout in this country that any issue we have with our government related to corporations really can't be fully complained about. No vote, no complain.

The whole idea of "not voting means you have no right to complain" is ridiculous. What if none of the options are simply any good? What if you live in a jurisdiction where your vote is essentially meaningless (for example, living in Alberta, if I wish to vote anything other than Conservative, I might as well piss on my ballot and call it a day)?

If we lived in a direct democracy, that argument might hold some weight, but in the system we have, not voting could mean a variety of things.

**Ratbarf**

@Fafnir, actually in Canada you can refuse the ballot, which indicates that you showed up to vote but refused to do so for various reasons. My Dad had done it once or twice.

**whembly**

And in Australia, you're required to vote. (not sure if it's really enforced... doesn't sound like it).

So what? Gary T's point was that we (American) need to be more engaged in the political process, instead of only caring during the Presidential Elections (aka, American Idol).

**Ratbarf**

Too bad that your politcal process is broken anyways. Two party system is only one more party than a one party system. And when one looks at the two choices Americans have, it sure looks indistinguishable from a one party system.

I honestly don't understand Americans or their politics.
(That won't stop me from having a strong opinion however.

)

**Easy E**

Chongara wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:

It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.

Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.

What do you mean by this?

Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.

Simple logical really.

The best thing I have read all thred.

Simple logic really, indeed.

**Fafnir**

Ratbarf wrote:
@Fafnir, actually in Canada you can refuse the ballot, which indicates that you showed up to vote but refused to do so for various reasons. My Dad had done it once or twice.

Which, as I noted, is no different from actually voting in Alberta.

**Ratbarf**

But you can stand up and say that you didn't vote for any of the hacks.

**Fafnir**

Hey, Jack Layton wasn't a hack. He was the last honest mustache in Canadian Politics.

**Ratbarf**

Ehhhh.........

**Huffy**

Frazzled wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.

Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.

That way it can still get lent out.

They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.

Where will all our glorious representatives put their money then Fraz??

**Cheesecat**

Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the

rich and poor.

**Desubot**

Cheesecat wrote:
Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the

rich and poor.

I always though the American dream was to own a home have children and be able to live comfortably not get on Ophra level wealth and fame. Is become rich and famous rock stars and celebrity the new dream?

**Cheesecat**

Desubot wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Not really a surprise to me (then again I really like sociology) meritocracy and the American Dream is somewhat of a myth (not to say it doesn't happen, look at Oprah), if you're born into a middle class family chances are you're going to be middle class for the rest of your life same with the

rich and poor.

I always though the American dream was to own a home have children and be able to live comfortably not get on Ophra level wealth and fame. Is become rich and famous rock stars and celebrity the new dream?

It's basically your success in life is determined by your ability and effort.

**Desubot**

Mk fair enough.

iv put damn enough effort into my success and and i comfortable with the amount i make. and come hell or high water i will make sure it stays comfortable.

**Cheesecat**

Desubot wrote:
Mk fair enough.

iv put damn enough effort into my success and and i comfortable with the amount i make. and come hell or high water i will make sure it stays comfortable.

The thing is this is somewhat of a myth because there's more barriers than just ability and effort when it comes to social mobility, Like a son of heroin addicted prostitute who's a single mom will have lower ambitions, less knowledge and opportunities to improve himself than a son of a

high ranking CEO. In fact the son of a high ranking CEO doesn't have to be that great to be successful in life as his family has a ton of connections for solid job opportunities, his education will be paid for, he'll have access to lots of extracurricular activities, etc.

**Desubot**

Of course its going to be hard. And if you cant pass those barriers then it wasn't meant to be. My single mother immigrated to the US with basically no money to her name, raised me and my sister and now owns her own company through her hard efforts alone.

i now work 8am to 11+pm every day to maintain this company. its bloody hard to expand any further with taxes and blah blah blah. was it hard for me to get into the business? no. am i working any less hard? hell no.

and i intend on moving the company forward so my children and there children children can have a successful life. though this is anecdotal, its not fair to hurt those that successful in life and it sure as hell is unfair to the children who could further push harder.

i mean yeah it sucks have a heiroen addict single mom but why are other people (including people who are suffering them selves) paying to help them?

edit: fundamentally i completely disagree with wealth redistribution as i was raised by the rule that you work hard so your children can succeed easier.

I have no problems with humanitarian programs to help drug addicted people get help but if people don't want to work hard then that's their problem.