The risk of income inequality

[thereisnospoon]

Well, then I apologize profusely. You do have a pattern, Fishy, of bringing up my sexual orientation regardless of the thread.

Seriously Fish, if you're that curious, PM me and I might just answer your questions, otherwise do try and stay on topic.

As much as you would like to talk about it in private messages, I am not the least bit interested in what you and your wife do in private. I try not to let my imagination run in that direction because it always causes my stomach to produce acid.

Maybe you can interest some of the other gay forum members in a "this is what we do" thread.

Maybe you should stop bringing up my orientation in threads not at all related then. You bring it up at every turn then say how much you're nauseated by it.

Then how about you stop putting your orientation out there...
How dare you expect your orientation to not be a subject when you insist on making sure everyone knows you are a homosexual?
You cannot have it both ways.
Without divulging matters of a personal nature( something you ought to try) I know a lot more about this issue than you think I do...
And don't ask how or why. It's none of your business.
Maybe if you stuck to the issues instead of coming on this board and saying "hey look at what I do", you'd not get the kind of flack you do.
Now go ahead....say it...."I don't want ot be lectured"...Call it what you will. I stand by my statements.
And if you thought this was an invite for debate, you were incorrect.
I've stated my piece on the matter. For me, the subject is closed.

 

[gnarlylove]

How much of your income are you willing to give up to help solve income inequality?

If you're asking me I'd say you're asking the wrong question. I don't need money to survive, one needs food. When people aren't getting food, then there's a major violation of the right to life. Personally I've lived in along the federal poverty line much of my life and I can live on less and have been homeless, but it isn't about me or how much money one is sacrificing.

We need to take this issue at its roots. Is income inequality inhumane? Yes.

Countless research shows people who live below poverty line are at much higher risk of the most common diseases and early death.

So since it's inhumane we need to ask why does it exist? Obvious enough it's due to our current economic system. A system that takes from the poor and distributes it to the wealthy sectors through tax breaks, tax havens, government contracts, subsidies, and many other ways. We love to redistribute wealth, but only when it flows upwards. And when you think about it, if you were in power and could funnel money through tinkering of laws, then you'd do it. This selfish mode, this unreflective drive towards profit is destroying decent survival for billions around the world.

 

[blackhawk]

How much of your income are you willing to give up to help solve income inequality?

If you're asking me I'd say you're asking the wrong question. I don't need money to survive, one needs food. When people aren't getting food, then there's a major violation of the right to life. Personally I've lived in along the federal poverty line much of my life and I can live on less and have been homeless, but it isn't about me or how much money one is sacrificing.

We need to take this issue at its roots. Is income inequality inhumane? Yes.

Countless research shows people who live below poverty line are at much higher risk of the most common diseases and early death.

So since it's inhumane we need to ask why does it exist? Obvious enough it's due to our current economic system. A system that takes from the poor and distributes it to the wealthy sectors through tax breaks, tax havens, government contracts, subsidies, and many other ways. We love to redistribute wealth, but only when it flows upwards. And when you think about it, if you were in power and could funnel money through tinkering of laws, then you'd do it. This selfish mode, this unreflective drive towards profit is destroying decent survival for billions around the world.

So what type of economic system do you want if you feel our current one is the problem?

 

[OKTexas]

When income inequalities persist, violence ensues.

Not if the people have respect for others and a moral or two. That's just an excuse for bad behavior.

 

[gnarlylove]

How much of your income are you willing to give up to help solve income inequality?

If you're asking me I'd say you're asking the wrong question. I don't need money to survive, one needs food. When people aren't getting food, then there's a major violation of the right to life. Personally I've lived in along the federal poverty line much of my life and I can live on less and have been homeless, but it isn't about me or how much money one is sacrificing.

We need to take this issue at its roots. Is income inequality inhumane? Yes.

Countless research shows people who live below poverty line are at much higher risk of the most common diseases and early death.

So since it's inhumane we need to ask why does it exist? Obvious enough it's due to our current economic system. A system that takes from the poor and distributes it to the wealthy sectors through tax breaks, tax havens, government contracts, subsidies, and many other ways. We love to redistribute wealth, but only when it flows upwards. And when you think about it, if you were in power and could funnel money through tinkering of laws, then you'd do it. This selfish mode, this unreflective drive towards profit is destroying decent survival for billions around the world.

So what type of economic system do you want if you feel our current one is the problem?

Appreciate the genuine dialogue. Well, I have no specific vision but many books have been written. I refer you to the links at the bottom of this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/342121-what-is-profit-4.html#post8700518

But in general the obvious answer is we need a system that does not assume infinite growth and allow exorbitant concentrations of wealth. We need to overhaul our value system to downplay selfish desires and superficial consumption to a reality based model. We cannot keep doing what we are doing, period. We need a system that fosters our social nature and ties us deeply to our community where a doctor is not paid several times that of the CNA but knows he is doing a service to the community that is invaluable and all are grateful. As long as everyone is being sustained food shelter sanitation and water wise then I think this is a system that is a million more times preferable then our current system of individualism and isolationism or atomization. This takes advantage of human altruism and empathy which we have the choice to minimize or bring to the fore and treat others as ourself.

 

[RandallFlagg]

There was a time in this country where you graduated school, learned a trade and got a job with a major corporation and you were set for life
If you were lucky, you got a union job with good benefits. You could work 40 years with the same company and when you retired you had a good pension with health benefits.

Now workers are on edge. They don't know if they will have a job in six months. They accept jobs rather than careers. No benefits, no security, no future. Don't like it....there is the door. Collective bargaining is a thing of the past. You are on your own

One false step and you are destitute

You know, for once you are correct. There WAS a time - and I am testament to that fact. So, what the hell happened? I could explain it to you, but you wouldn't like the answer because it wouldn't fit your narrative, but would be the truth nonetheless.

 

[gnarlylove]

There was a time in this country where you graduated school, learned a trade and got a job with a major corporation and you were set for life
If you were lucky, you got a union job with good benefits. You could work 40 years with the same company and when you retired you had a good pension with health benefits.

Now workers are on edge. They don't know if they will have a job in six months. They accept jobs rather than careers. No benefits, no security, no future. Don't like it....there is the door. Collective bargaining is a thing of the past. You are on your own

One false step and you are destitute

This is called worker insecurity and Allan Greenspan in the 90s said the economy was doing great largely due to this. Worker insecurity means workers may wake up the next day without a job so they sure as hell won't demand better pay, benefits, vacation more humane conditions etc. Yep. This sure gets the economy running smoothly! LOL

 

[RandallFlagg]

There was a time in this country where you graduated school, learned a trade and got a job with a major corporation and you were set for life
If you were lucky, you got a union job with good benefits. You could work 40 years with the same company and when you retired you had a good pension with health benefits.

Now workers are on edge. They don't know if they will have a job in six months. They accept jobs rather than careers. No benefits, no security, no future. Don't like it....there is the door. Collective bargaining is a thing of the past. You are on your own

One false step and you are destitute

That was back when CEOs made 20x the average worker. Now they make over 270x the average worker to do the same job. Now they ship jobs over seas and cut benefits, sticking the government with the bill.

it's that sucking vacuum sound. NAFTA is the reason for the job shipments out of the country. The government created that climate, not business. Thank Clinton and those who were a proponent of the so called "free trade" agreements.

Bravo. The left conveniently fails to remember that it was that dirt bag Clinton who said "Yes, we will lose some jobs to the overseas markets, but we will regain them in jobs from Mexico and Canada". Ross Perot warned Americans that this will "probably kill American businesses" and was laughed at by those same liberal clowns.

Clinton DEMANDED NAFTA and he got it. What did we, the American people get out of it? SCREWED.

 

[bripat9643]

If you're asking me I'd say you're asking the wrong question. I don't need money to survive, one needs food. When people aren't getting food, then there's a major violation of the right to life. Personally I've lived in along the federal poverty line much of my life and I can live on less and have been homeless, but it isn't about me or how much money one is sacrificing.

We need to take this issue at its roots. Is income inequality inhumane? Yes.

Countless research shows people who live below poverty line are at much higher risk of the most common diseases and early death.

So since it's inhumane we need to ask why does it exist? Obvious enough it's due to our current economic system. A system that takes from the poor and distributes it to the wealthy sectors through tax breaks, tax havens, government contracts, subsidies, and many other ways. We love to redistribute wealth, but only when it flows upwards. And when you think about it, if you were in power and could funnel money through tinkering of laws, then you'd do it. This selfish mode, this unreflective drive towards profit is destroying decent survival for billions around the world.

So what type of economic system do you want if you feel our current one is the problem?

Appreciate the genuine dialogue. Well, I have no specific vision but many books have been written. I refer you to the links at the bottom of this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/342121-what-is-profit-4.html#post8700518

But in general the obvious answer is we need a system that does not assume infinite growth and allow exorbitant concentrations of wealth. We need to overhaul our value system to downplay selfish desires and superficial consumption to a reality based model. We cannot keep doing what we are doing, period. We need a system that fosters our social nature and ties us deeply to our community where a doctor is not paid several times that of the CNA but knows he is doing a service to the community that is invaluable and all are grateful. As long as everyone is being sustained food shelter sanitation and water wise then I think this is a system that is a million more times preferable then our current system of individualism and isolationism or atomization. This takes advantage of human altruism and empathy which we have the choice to minimize or bring to the fore and treat others as ourself.

You're a Stalinist. If your ideal were put into practice it would be living hell. Any plan that counts on changing human nature is doomed to failure. 100 million people were murdered by "idealists" just like you.

 

[bripat9643]

There was a time in this country where you graduated school, learned a trade and got a job with a major corporation and you were set for life
If you were lucky, you got a union job with good benefits. You could work 40 years with the same company and when you retired you had a good pension with health benefits.

Now workers are on edge. They don't know if they will have a job in six months. They accept jobs rather than careers. No benefits, no security, no future. Don't like it....there is the door. Collective bargaining is a thing of the past. You are on your own

One false step and you are destitute

This is called worker insecurity and Allan Greenspan in the 90s said the economy was doing great largely due to this. Worker insecurity means workers may wake up the next day without a job so they sure as hell won't demand better pay, benefits, vacation more humane conditions etc. Yep. This sure gets the economy running smoothly! LOL

But you think people should want more stuff. That's gross materialism. Remember saying this?:

"We need to overhaul our value system to downplay selfish desires and superficial consumption"

So why do you want them to have better pay and benefits?

 

[gnarlylove]

You're a Stalinist. If your ideal were put into practice it would be living hell. Any plan that counts on changing human nature is doomed to failure. 100 million people were murdered by "idealists" just like you.

Why don't you show that "my" ideals won't work by FIRST articulating them. Can you? (hint: read my signature).

 

[bripat9643]

When income inequalities persist, violence ensues.

History would agree with that, but there has never been a society quite like ours...

Is this the aggressive side of your passive beliefs?

Very hypocritical coming from a liberal, you advocate or better yet suggest violence is the result...

The simple truth is you can't always get what you want!!

But if try sometime you get what you need...

Does the increased font size help with your feelings of inadequacy? Please point out where I advocated violence.

"When income inequalities persist, violence ensues."

 

[blackhawk]

If you're asking me I'd say you're asking the wrong question. I don't need money to survive, one needs food. When people aren't getting food, then there's a major violation of the right to life. Personally I've lived in along the federal poverty line much of my life and I can live on less and have been homeless, but it isn't about me or how much money one is sacrificing.

We need to take this issue at its roots. Is income inequality inhumane? Yes.

Countless research shows people who live below poverty line are at much higher risk of the most common diseases and early death.

So since it's inhumane we need to ask why does it exist? Obvious enough it's due to our current economic system. A system that takes from the poor and distributes it to the wealthy sectors through tax breaks, tax havens, government contracts, subsidies, and many other ways. We love to redistribute wealth, but only when it flows upwards. And when you think about it, if you were in power and could funnel money through tinkering of laws, then you'd do it. This selfish mode, this unreflective drive towards profit is destroying decent survival for billions around the world.

So what type of economic system do you want if you feel our current one is the problem?

Appreciate the genuine dialogue. Well, I have no specific vision but many books have been written. I refer you to the links at the bottom of this post http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/342121-what-is-profit-4.html#post8700518

But in general the obvious answer is we need a system that does not assume infinite growth and allow exorbitant concentrations of wealth. We need to overhaul our value system to downplay selfish desires and superficial consumption to a reality based model. We cannot keep doing what we are doing, period. We need a system that fosters our social nature and ties us deeply to our community where a doctor is not paid several times that of the CNA but knows he is doing a service to the community that is invaluable and all are grateful. As long as everyone is being sustained food shelter sanitation and water wise then I think this is a system that is a million more times preferable then our current system of individualism and isolationism or atomization. This takes advantage of human altruism and empathy which we have the choice to minimize or bring to the fore and treat others as ourself.

It sounds like your talking about a system where everyone has the basic necessities of life but little or nothing else seems to me innovation and creativity would go right out the window in something like that not really something that personally appeals to me.

 

[gnarlylove]

But you think people should want more stuff. That's gross materialism. Remember saying this?:

"We need to overhaul our value system to downplay selfish desires and superficial consumption"

So why do you want them to have better pay and benefits?

Good question, glad you asked. i'm all for everyone doing their share, that's what tis all about b-ri!

But just owning a fridge doesn't mean there's food in it. These people, many of whom I know personally, deserve access to nutritious food, clean water, basic health care but don't get it. They have a human right to these things because research shows that people who live in poverty are 10 times more likely to have health problems. It makes no sense to make those born into poverty suffer for being born but we do it every day.

 

[bripat9643]

You're a Stalinist. If your ideal were put into practice it would be living hell. Any plan that counts on changing human nature is doomed to failure. 100 million people were murdered by "idealists" just like you.

Why don't you show that "my" ideals won't work by FIRST articulating them. Can you? (hint: read my signature).

You want to outlaw "concentrations of wealth." In other words expropriate private property. You want to control what people earn. You want to prevent economic growth. You want everyone to make the same amount "as long as everyone is being sustained food shelter sanitation and water wise." Altruism forced by government is Stalinism.

 

[dblack]

But just owning a fridge doesn't mean there's food in it. These people, many of whom I know personally, deserve access to nutritious food, clean water, basic health care but don't get it. They have a human right to these things...

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of "rights". You can't have a right to something you don't already possess.

 

[gnarlylove]

It sounds like your talking about a system where everyone has the basic necessities of life but little or nothing else seems to me innovation and creativity would go right out the window in something like that not really something that personally appeals to me.

I don't know why you'd believe that. I'm sure the media has lead you to believe human creativity would not exist but think about what your saying. Most of the world is owned by a infinitesimally small sector of people while the great majority are indebted, not allowed to do creative tasks at work because "work" is a form of robotic function. If everyone was not just scraping to get by and could have access to free education, creativity and innovation would soar! You'd be surprised how ingenious tribes can be! Have you ever studied indigenous peoples? Do you know what they did with nature before society became petroleum based? Their lively traditions have mostly faded and so we think our way is the only way but I'm by no means advocating some idiotic return to tribes! We should be a global community! When that many brains are humming without unnecessary violence and suffering, think of what can be done!

I mean don't take my word for it, if you are at all serious at least peak at a couple articles I linked in the link I posted. I don't deny your concern, it is legitimate but to just assume there would be no innovation because they'd be no profit motive is not very critical. It's like saying there would be no incentive to live well. of course we want to live as well as possible! Living excellently is what life is all about! But when excellence is mistaken for the utter devastation of our natural resources, it's a sad sight.

 

[bripat9643]

But you think people should want more stuff. That's gross materialism. Remember saying this?:

"We need to overhaul our value system to downplay selfish desires and superficial consumption"

So why do you want them to have better pay and benefits?

Good question, glad you asked. i'm all for everyone doing their share, that's what tis all about b-ri!.

"Fair share" of what? My "fair share" of paying your bills is zero.

But just owning a fridge doesn't mean there's food in it. These people, many of whom I know personally, deserve access to nutritious food, clean water, basic health care but don't get it. They have a human right to these things because research shows that people who live in poverty are 10 times more likely to have health problems. It makes no sense to make those born into poverty suffer for being born but we do it every day.

I'm not making them do anything. If you want to write them a check, be my guest. If you want to confiscate my income for your crusade, then go fly a kite. I'll fight you to my last breath.

 

[Brain357]

That was back when CEOs made 20x the average worker. Now they make over 270x the average worker to do the same job. Now they ship jobs over seas and cut benefits, sticking the government with the bill.

it's that sucking vacuum sound. NAFTA is the reason for the job shipments out of the country. The government created that climate, not business. Thank Clinton and those who were a proponent of the so called "free trade" agreements.

Bravo. The left conveniently fails to remember that it was that dirt bag Clinton who said "Yes, we will lose some jobs to the overseas markets, but we will regain them in jobs from Mexico and Canada". Ross Perot warned Americans that this will "probably kill American businesses" and was laughed at by those same liberal clowns.

Clinton DEMANDED NAFTA and he got it. What did we, the American people get out of it? SCREWED.

While I think trade is an issue, I still don't see what nafta has to do with it. We are losing most the jobs to China....

 

[gnarlylove]

You're a Stalinist. If your ideal were put into practice it would be living hell. Any plan that counts on changing human nature is doomed to failure. 100 million people were murdered by "idealists" just like you.

Why don't you show that "my" ideals won't work by FIRST articulating them. Can you? (hint: read my signature).

You want to outlaw "concentrations of wealth." In other words expropriate private property. You want to control what people earn. You want to prevent economic growth. You want everyone to make the same amount "as long as everyone is being sustained food shelter sanitation and water wise." Altruism forced by government is Stalinism.

I applaud your articulation. However, since when did I become the Benevolent Dictator or Philosopher King? I have no such desire to control.

This isn't about removing power and decentralizing it. You know, the thing you hate, called Democracy. That's why you like America, because it is not a functional Democracy. But in order to have real Democracy we would to build very different relations to one another and production. I suspect that's why you refuse to accept it--because you can't become master of your own kingdom (i.e. private property), you have to accept that everyone deserves to prosper, not just those born by happenstance into prosperity. You are no different than any other human that exists, you are not superior or inferior by any universally meaningful gauge.