Why is wealth inequality "unfair"?
Why are people suddenly entitled to be equal financially despite economics and what not.
People are so entitled these days, get your own money, your own wealth. Stop acting like you deserve MY money, its mine, not yours...MINE!! If you are poor, then do something about it instead of b*tch and moan. Sitting and complaining about how Bill Gates has more money than you and that you deserve some of it, won't help you financially.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797543]Why is wealth inequality "unfair"?
Why are people suddenly entitled to be equal financially despite economics and what not.[/QUOTE]
I think the issue is people see companies like apple and EA and microsoft and how much money they get for how little they do [B]now[/B]. I don't think people entirely comprehend the time and money it took to get these companies off the ground. They didn't just pop up with a billion dollars, they had to work at it.
[QUOTE=theoneman;39797599]People are so entitled these days, get your own money, your own wealth. Stop acting like you deserve MY money, its mine, not yours...MINE!! If you are poor, then do something about it instead of b*tch and moan. Sitting and complaining about how Bill Gates has more money than you and that you deserve some of it, won't help you financially.[/QUOTE]
Just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily mean they earnt it.
i.e. Bill Gates mostly just "managed" and "directed" Microsoft during the years where he made the majority of his money, the workers below him did the actual work - he just happened to be at the top of the hierarchy and therefore received more reward and renumeration than everyone else despite the success being a collective thing made up of the effort and hard work of tens of thousands of people. Sure he headed the overall strategy but that still doesn't change that a lot of what he "earnt" was just skimmed off the top of those beneath him. In a way it could been seen as stealing - the product of their labour never belonged to them and he and his team of executives took advantage of that to reward mainly themselves with the surplus value/profit/hoarded capital.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39797707]Just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily mean they earnt it.
i.e. Bill Gates mostly just "managed" and "directed" Microsoft during the years where he made the majority of his money, the workers below him did the actual work - he just happened to be at the top of the hierarchy and therefore received more reward and renumeration than everyone else despite the success being a collective thing made up of the effort and hard work of tens of thousands of people. Sure he headed the overall strategy but that still doesn't change that a lot of what he "earnt" was just skimmed off the top of those beneath him. In a way it could been seen as stealing - the product of their labour never belonged to them and he and his team of executives took advantage of that to reward mainly themselves with the surplus value/profit/hoarded capital.[/QUOTE]
So?
He was the leader, he owned it all, he reaps the rewards. That's how it works.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797543]Why is wealth inequality "unfair"?
Why are people suddenly entitled to be equal financially despite economics and what not.[/QUOTE]
If it was directly linked to the amount of effort you were willing to put in then it might be but the unequal circumstances many find themselves in are not the fault of their own drive or willingness to work as the individual has little control of the economic conditions they are born into.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39797707]Just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily mean they earnt it.
i.e. Bill Gates mostly just "managed" and "directed" Microsoft during the years where he made the majority of his money, the workers below him did the actual work - he just happened to be at the top of the hierarchy and therefore received more reward and renumeration than everyone else despite the success being a collective thing made up of the effort and hard work of tens of thousands of people. Sure he headed the overall strategy but that still doesn't change that a lot of what he "earnt" was just skimmed off the top of those beneath him. In a way it could been seen as stealing - the product of their labour never belonged to them and he and his team of executives took advantage of that to reward mainly themselves with the surplus value/profit/hoarded capital.[/QUOTE]
Typically when you own a business you built, you have a right to it's profits. It's not like Gates used slave labor, he paid his workers well enough for them not to break off and go to a competing business or start their own company. How you can say he didn't earn his money is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797796]So?
He was the leader, he owned it all, he reaps the rewards. That's how it works.[/QUOTE]
Just because that's how it works doesn't mean it's right.
Surely success should be spread amongst those that give life to it, not hoarded by a selected elite. Even if they are a "leader" or a "chief executive".
Not just the workers either, the whole environment and society that enabled him to rise to prominence and succeed should also surely reap a return.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39797809]If it was directly linked to the amount of effort you were willing to put in then it might be but the unequal circumstances many find themselves in are not the fault of their own drive or willingness to work as the individual has little control of the economic conditions they are born into.[/QUOTE]
I can understand your argument, but personally I would rather subscribe to a different type of social and economic structure. Social entitlements tend to create huge bubbles and tend to pop.
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39797848]Just because that's how it works doesn't mean it's right.
Surely success should be spread amongst those that give life to it, not hoarded by a selected elite.
Not just the workers either, the whole environment and society that enabled him to rise to prominence and succeed should also surely reap a return.[/QUOTE]
That's really just all your opinion, other people think differently. I also really hate the social contract BS.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39797707]Just because someone is wealthy doesn't necessarily mean they earnt it.
i.e. Bill Gates mostly just "managed" and "directed" Microsoft during the years where he made the majority of his money, the workers below him did the actual work - he just happened to be at the top of the hierarchy and therefore received more reward and renumeration than everyone else despite the success being a collective thing made up of the effort and hard work of tens of thousands of people. Sure he headed the overall strategy but that still doesn't change that a lot of what he "earnt" was just skimmed off the top of those beneath him. In a way it could been seen as stealing - the product of their labour never belonged to them and he and his team of executives took advantage of that to reward mainly themselves with the surplus value/profit/hoarded capital.[/QUOTE]
And had it not been for Bill Gates and his Co-Founder making the initial risk with their idea, those people would never have had that job and there would be no company for them to help build. Its not like the tens of thousands of people stood up and said "Lets found Microsoft and make software". Had that happened, then yeah I can see how they'd be entitled to an equal share of the wealth, assuming they all had an equal part. But thats not how it happened. 2 guys founded it, they slowly hired on more, business took off, they hired more, business kept growing, so they decided to hire more, so on and so on.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797849]I can understand your argument, but personally I would rather subscribe to a different type of social and economic structure. Social entitlements tend to create huge bubbles and tend to pop.
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
That's really just all your opinion, other people think differently. I also really hate the social contract BS.[/QUOTE]
Do you mean bubbles as in economic ones? If so then I agree and I would say that the way that the economy and capital work at the present time certainly seem to be conducive to this. Social equality and the expectation thereof is bad for business.
Yeah the "social contract" is null and void to me. I favour mutual organisation and aid that is not forced.
this is just what cash whoring does
[QUOTE=theoneman;39797599]People are so entitled these days, get your own money, your own wealth. Stop acting like you deserve MY money, its mine, not yours...MINE!! If you are poor, then do something about it instead of b*tch and moan. Sitting and complaining about how Bill Gates has more money than you and that you deserve some of it, won't help you financially.[/QUOTE]
brb working 12+ hour shifts 5 days a week and still being poor
[QUOTE=JDB;39797949]brb working 12+ hour shifts 5 days a week and still being poor[/QUOTE]
So you blame this on wealthy people not giving you their money?
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797796]So?
He was the leader, he owned it all, he reaps the rewards. That's how it works.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this philosophy is grounded.
We all know that placing some arbitrary label on who controls what therefore means that they are entitled to its product. Ownership- the concept of excluding others from the use of something- is a great thing. This is why we can have 5 empty houses for every homeless person in America!
Yes, we can all agree that the system of ownership where 280 people and work 40 hours a week so that a single man who works 30 can have the product of all of that work, is the best possible system. It is best that way- that we can own something and reap its benefits without needing to actually work for it. After all, if I want to chop down a tree, the best way to do it is to own an axe, and then get someone else to use my axe so that I can take everything they do with it. After all- I owned the axe, so it is my wood.
For instance, if I own a man, then I deserve everything he gives me, right? There's nothing morally wrong with that- what's the difference if I take all or only the majority of the product of someone's work? If he builds 200 cars in a month, then every one of those cars and all of their value is obviously mine, because he used the machines I owned. Why should he get some of [I]my[/I] profits from selling those cars? And those plants he eats- mine also, since I owned the land. And the air he breaths? Mine. Hell, I might as well own every aspect of his life. "Nonsense! That's too far! You can't do that!" Well, sure I can, if I can enforce it. Back in the olden days, I used to use thugs to enforce my ownership- now I have laws and a government that does that for me. All I have to do is just make the right trades at the right time, and then I'm entitled to anything! Yea, I might have to put in some work at first, but man does it pay off when I get to the position where I don't need to work at all, because other people are forced into a position where they need to make things on my behalf for a small cut of the earnings. Who cares if they're poor? What does it matter if a third of kids here are in poverty? I own their time, I own their bodies, I own their labor, and I own their product- and because I own it all, I'm entitled to every single cent. They can take what I give them, and they will, because they have no other choice. Disproportionate income compared to labor? Consistently poorer majority? Not my problem.
Fuck yea, ownership!
(Of course this is hyperbole but the point is that ownership means diddly squat)
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797987]So you blame this on wealthy people not giving you their money?[/QUOTE]
No, I blame it on wealthy people keeping the wealth by tax dodging and money whoring instead of circulating it around like it's supposed to be. It's just a recipe for disaster to have 40% of the money in 1% of the population. It's just asking for economic disaster.
good luck trying to run a society without the concept of ownership
Property is theft, etc.
I do agree that according to that video, that is an obscenely skewed distribution of wealth. The ideal one looks beautiful, and hell even the one they guessed on looks awesome.
But how do we fix it? If we try to break up the 1%s wealth, they'll fucking leave, taking their wealth with them. Unless we take some seriously fucked up measures against them, I don't know what we can do.
The only thing I can think of is scrambling the earning rates to match the ideal graph, but good fucking luck with pulling that off.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797987]So you blame this on wealthy people not giving you their money?[/QUOTE]
There wouldn't be any "giving"/"gifting" about it since im working for it.
If we are going to be close minded like that then I offer you a question. Are the wealthy not making themselves more wealthy by pocketing more money they earn from my work instead of paying it to me?
I think he is trying to blame companies on trying to maximize profits at the cost of the workers. I worked in a warehouse with a temp agency that had 3 shifts working 12 hours days. They didn't hire more people and have 4 to 5 shifts of 8 working the same number of hours in total because they would have to pay more in health costs for those extra workers. So while they enjoyed the profits, those 12 hour a day 6 to 7 day week workers never get to see their families and bring home pitiful paychecks after all those hours.
[QUOTE=JDB;39798092]
If we are going to be close minded like that then I offer you a question. Are the wealthy not making themselves more wealthy by pocketing more money they earn from my work instead of paying it to me?[/QUOTE]
Um yeah they are. Is that an issue? Why are you entitled to a higher pay?
[QUOTE=Waffle99;39798154]I think he is trying to blame companies on trying to maximize profits at the cost of the workers. I worked in a warehouse with a temp agency that had 3 shifts working 12 hours days. They didn't hire more people and have 4 to 5 shifts of 8 working the same number of hours in total because they would have to pay more in health costs for those extra workers. So while they enjoyed the profits, those 12 hour a day 6 to 7 day week workers never get to see their families and bring home pitiful paychecks after all those hours.[/QUOTE]
And that is a sign of a fucked up business model.
People are looking for higher wages and more jobs. The only problem is that when any correction is done to wages, prices go up so the giants can still get their fortunes.
[editline]4th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39798185]And that is a sign of a fucked up business model.[/QUOTE]
And this is a company that distributes to Walmart, Best Buy, and Target.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39797543]Why is wealth inequality "unfair"?
Why are people suddenly entitled to be equal financially despite economics and what not.[/QUOTE]Because our country is suppose to be where everyone is equal and things are fair. It's just like in that new movie Identity Theif. The bosses all got a giant bonus that normally would be distributed among others, but instead they all kept it a secret and kept it to themselves doing just as much work as the people below them.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39798054]good luck trying to run a society without the concept of ownership[/QUOTE]
What do you think we are, tribals? We see the flaws, and there are many paths of supposed ways to fix it, but staying the same obviously isn't right, because of the perceived flaws.
[url]http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/[/url]
Read the last part of that humor/info mix article and I hope you'll get my point a bit more.
Anyways, do you honestly think that someone is entitled to as much as 5 thousand times the amount of money as another human being simply because he made smart decisions, started a company, etc? I don't think any living thing on earth has the combined emotional, physical, and mental capacity of 5 thousand people.
There are obviously flaws, but the way to fix them is up for grabs.
[QUOTE=Anal Rat;39798249]Because our country is suppose to be where everyone is equal and things are fair..[/QUOTE]
lolwat?
Think you got some twisted ideas of what the USA are.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.