Wealth inequality

[Libby1]

It's my belief that a lot of the cultural wars we're encouraged (by social media, celebrities etc) to participate in aim to distract us from the issue of the massive wealth divide between a tiny number of unbelievably wealthy individuals who pretty much rule the world now, and everybody else.  We've seen how BLM took an individual tragedy and transformed it into a global movement, which demonstrates that even in these times of vast inequality, collectively ordinary people do have power.

The cultural battles we fight divert a lot of time and energy away from the issue of wealth inequality.  It's never going to be addressed by governments unless and until the pressure from ordinary people  becomes overwhelming.  The problem is, there don't seem to be any areas of common ground people can unite on.  The notions held by poor people on the left as to how to tackle wealth inequality differ dramatically from the notions by poor people on the right.  While some people might think "this board is full of fascists" and others might think "it's full of leftie snowflakes", it seems to me that there's a diversity of political opinion on this forum and that most people here actually seem quite moderate....with a lot of negative judgments about individual posters probably being formed mainly due to positions they adopt on the distracting cultural wars that we fight endlessly.  So the point of this thread is to encourage people to express their views about how wealth inequality could best be tackled...and to see if there are any recurring ideas that indicate potential for consensus between those who lean left and those who lean right.

To start it off, I'll put forward some of my views.  I believe Amazon operates in a manner that is worsening poverty, unemployment and loss of opportunity (to build businesses) in the country I live in.  I contribute to that by buying a lot of things from Amazon.  As from today, I am going to set a rule for myself.  No more Amazon purchases.  There are other businesses out there that sell online.  They are no doubt pricier, and delivery might be slower, but I've plenty of time on my hands to shop around and plan in advance so that slow delivery times aren't such an issue.

If it were up to me, a company the size of Amazon would be subjected to onerous employment law rules in this country.  They would be required to pay all employees a wage above the usual national minimum wage.  If they used private contractors (eg as a courier service) they would have a duty to ensure employees of that contractor were being paid the same higher than minimum wage - with Amazon being required to make up the wage shortfall if the courier service was a small one which couldn't afford to pay its employees a higher wage.  Large "super-farms" would either have their agricultural subsidies cut out altogether, or they'd receive a far lower subsidy per acre than smaller farms.  They would also be subject to far more onerous employment regulations.  For smaller farms (say a couple of hundred acres) the rules would be far less onerous.   People on unemployment benefit would be allowed to work for up to 4 weeks every year, on or around minimum wage, without their benefits being affected.  They'd have to log on to a benefits account to notify the benefits office of any work they'd undertaken, but they wouldn't have to go through the hassle of coming off benefits then reapplying any time they got a week's worth of casual work.  Anything more than 4 weeks, and their benefits would start to be affected.

Small businesses would be largely left alone to do what they wanted.  So a very small business employing less than 3 people could pay below minimum wage, but obviously any breach of modern slavery regulations would incur the same criminal sanctions that apply to anybody else.  That would allow new start ups to take a couple of people on without being crippled by minimum wage requirements before they've even got off the ground.  Generally the principle would be that the larger a business grew, the greater its responsibilities in terms of wage requirements and observation of anti discrimination laws.  The aim being to eliminate situations where some one-man outfit gets targeted and put out of business by activists.   Obviously they might still try to put somebody like that out of business by spreading the word that they're discriminatory, but at least the law isn't colluding with that sort of targeting one man outfits who don't have any real power in the market and who really just hurt themselves by losing business to more enlightened competitors.

Any thoughts from other people who either envisage problems with this or who (preferably) have some ideas they'd like to share?

Edited June 18, 2020 by Libby1

[thefooloftheyear]

I(and many of my other self employed colleagues) can't fill relatively high paying jobs, most of these jobs that require little or no formal education because no one is even applying...Unemployment before the lockdown was as low as ever and I know dozens of quite average people that make a LOT of money(over 150/200k)….Some of them I'd even characterize as morons...Practically everyone I know has a sizable IRA with at least 6 figures....Every where you look., people are driving around in brand new Jeeps and such...point is signs of "wealth" abound everywhere..

The trades are all starving for people..Its literally at crisis levels right now...Quite frankly, it bothers the hell out of me that a younger kid that can't find a job(yet) in his/her chosen field wouldn't pick up a shovel or do some other type of manual labor job(there are virtually millions out there), until they find something more appropriate...

I recently had a conversation with a younger guy that was the son in law of a client of mine...We got to talking about what he does for a living...He tells me that he had gotten into a lot of trouble as a teen and in his early 20s...He couldn't find a "regular: job, because his past was holding him back...He answers an ad for a laborer position.. He starts working for this contractor and the boss liked his enthusiasm, so he asked the kid if he'd like to learn how to weld, as they needed specialty welders very badly..The company paid to send this kid to welders school, and fast forward a couple of years and he is now making over 100K with a new company paid truck to drive around in..He was telling me that once he receives his cert to weld natural gas pipe, he will be making another 25% more...Just bought a new house and has a baby on the way...Not even 30 years old yet,,

There are all kinds of ways to do this once you think outside the box..

Do you think all those people have time to protest if they needed a job/money to survive?  My guess is no...Yes, its a great thing to try to patronize a local business rather than these enormous entities like Amazon and such...But bear also in mind that Amazon isn't in the manufacturing business,. so a lot of what is ordered has to be made somewhere...So let's perhaps look to see how we can get the stuff made here rather than China, etc...but as we are currently seeing  that's not so easy...

Id love to go on some more, but have another loooong day ahead with business all over the place and not enough people to get it all done....

TFY

[Libby1]

36 minutes ago, thefooloftheyear said:

I recently had a conversation with a younger guy that was the son in law of a client of mine...We got to talking about what he does for a living...He tells me that he had gotten into a lot of trouble as a teen and in his early 20s...He couldn't find a "regular: job, because his past was holding him back...He answers an ad for a laborer position.. He starts working for this contractor and the boss liked his enthusiasm, so he asked the kid if he'd like to learn how to weld, as they needed specialty welders very badly..The company paid to send this kid to welders school, and fast forward a couple of years and he is now making over 100K with a new company paid truck to drive around in..He was telling me that once he receives his cert to weld natural gas pipe, he will be making another 25% more...Just bought a new house and has a baby on the way...Not even 30 years old yet,,

 

Lots of people I know experience difficulty finding good tradesmen.  It raises the question of whether schools do enough to encourage pupils to develop skills and interest in these areas while they're still at school.

[schlumpy]

I quote you in italics and my response in follows.

 

“from the issue of the massive wealth divide between a tiny number of unbelievably wealthy individuals who pretty much rule the world now, and everybody else.”

It’s been this way all through history. There may be a few closed communities you can point to like communes but there are always just a few people with most of the wealth. It has to do with human nature.

 

“We've seen how BLM took an individual tragedy and transformed it into a global movement”

I think they have had quite a bit of help from media and the Mayors of these cities that will not act in the public interest because it’s an election year. After the November election this will fade away just like so many of the other MAJOR events in the past. I have no explanation for the sympathetic  protests in other countries. It’s not clear what they are after. It’s seems to organized to natural.

 

“So the point of this thread is to encourage people to express their views about how wealth inequality could best be tackled...and to see if there are any recurring ideas that indicate potential for consensus between those who lean left and those who lean right.”

Not a bad goal. I doubt you can get there. I don’t even think you can get agreement on the meaning of wealth inequality. For some people if the other guy has twenty dollars more in their pocket, than they are well off. What is well off? Where I live 60k to 70k a year is a good living, but would that be true in New York or California? What is the yardstick?

There are people who put up an image of riches when actually their debt load proclaims the opposite. There are people who live modestly, have no debt, a healthy stock portfolio and a 100k emergency fund in the bank. You would never know it from appearances.

 

“The notions held by poor people on the left as to how to tackle wealth inequality differ dramatically from the notions by poor people on the right.”

I agree with your premise but how did those people get those notions? The majority of these people at the start, have the same options and choices in the financial realm. There are many examples around us of people who chose one way over another. We don’t have to rely on theory, we can see success or failure in practice. Why did average people choose different paths and accept different philosophies?

 

“I believe Amazon operates in a manner that is worsening poverty, unemployment and loss of opportunity (to build businesses) in the country I live in.” 

I think you are off-track with Amazon. Amazon is only a middle-man. Instead of having multiple accounts with each business requiring a password and the exposure of your credit card number in a database with dubious security, Amazon allows you single point entry. That’s quite convenient.

I do agree with you that if you want the best deal, it’s better to shop around. Amazon is only representative of markets and is not complete. I rarely do business with them.

As to them worsening the economy, I just don’t know. The dot com businesses have been trending now for quite a while and there seems no stopping them, although many other businesses are beefing up their online services. Many stores I was familiar with as child no longer exist. There is a constant turnover in the retail market that has more to do with changing conditions then with any single entity. I’m still mourning the death of Sears and JC Penneys.

 

“If it were up to me, a company the size of Amazon would be subjected to onerous employment law rules in this country.”

I’m very leery of artificial wage standards. Forced higher wages tend to keep businesses from locating where you would like them to. No place to work makes higher wages a moot point. I admit that I’ve never run a business, so it’s all theory to me.

I know nothing about farming except how to grow tomatoes but I did read your solution with interest.

 

“Any thoughts from other people who either envisage problems with this or who (preferably) have some ideas they'd like to share?”

I got lost in the social engineering requirements that businesses would have to follow under your scheme. Every social requirement has paperwork that goes with it. There must be people that ensure regulations are carried out. This is all overhead that must be paid for through the purchase price of the product or service. It makes a business less competitive and less likely to expand and thus employ more people.

 

“My ideas.”

I can only offer a very narrow perspective on being well off. The best way is to start and run your own business but that takes a person with special abilities and I’m not talking about smarts. I’m talking about perseverance and sacrifice. I’m talking about working 12 hours every day for an unknown future payoff. Not many people have those qualities

My choice was the stock market. I borrowed the abilities of people who run businesses, abilities that I don’t have, by investing money into their stocks. My Aunts choice was US savings bonds. Some people choose real estate. Name your poison.

There are options for people who are tired of living on a financial cliff but they have to be willing to sacrifice to attain their goals.

[Ellener]

On 6/18/2020 at 6:20 AM, thefooloftheyear said:

Quite frankly, it bothers the hell out of me that a younger kid that can't find a job(yet) in his/her chosen field wouldn't pick up a shovel or do some other type of manual labor job(there are virtually millions out there), until they find something more appropriate...

I've been looking for what to do next as through no ones fault the pandemic has basically cut off my living for the forseeable future, and I'm being presented with work up to a whopping $18 an hour, often way less, and told things like I must stand for my whole shift for no good reason....

i have arthropathy of my feet so frankly the unbending attitude of so many of the employers will force me to finally give up and claim disability. Because ironically I don't get access to the 'disabled' jobs until I do.

To expect another generation to 'pick up a shovel' and work themselves into the ground so others can get rich is not going to happen.

If employers want workers they must share some of the profit.

[Emilie Jolie]

3 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

I’m talking about working 12 hours every day for an unknown future payoff. Not many people have those qualities

Respectfully yet very strongly disagree. Most people work hard everyday for an unknown future payoff. That's just life.

Rags to riches stories are very heavily pushed forward and romantisiced in movies and the media, but they are very rare. So many people are completely oblivious to the opportunities they were born with, and just believe the only thing standing between poverty and a comfortable is just 'hard work'.

No. Some of us (humans, I mean, not me personally) need to work twice as hard to get to the same place, through no fault of our own.

It took a high earning football player (soccer, to you) who knows what poverty feels like for having grown up in a single parent household with 4 other siblings and a struggling mother, for the UK government to make a U-turn on its decision not to provide food vouchers to struggling school-aged children this summer (google Manchester United's Marcus Rashford, if you're interested).

The gap is widening and is leaving too many people behind. Wealth inequality is kept by design. There is zero reason to believe that a stock broker works harder than a social worker, for instance.

Our value system is completely screwed, in my opinion.

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Rags to riches stories are very heavily pushed forward and romantisiced in movies and the media, but they are very rare. So many people are completely oblivious to the opportunities they were born with, and just believe the only thing standing between poverty and a comfortable is just 'hard work'.

It depends what you mean by 'hard work' or 'success'. Before the pandemic I considered it successful to live on the poverty line with my budgeting skils and be helping people with terminal illnesses and working about 10 hours per week so my own physical disability was managed, then my mental illness ( anxiety disorder ) after Harvey.

I'm sure lots of people would discount me spending hours practising piano as not of use to society. But it was. I received hundreds of letters and cards from seniors and their families telling me I made a difference in their situation with my music programmes.

I don't have to be a billionaire to be successful. I do have to manage my bills and know that I am helping someone.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Ellener
spelling

[alphamale]

54 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

I quote you in italics and my response in follows.

 

“from the issue of the massive wealth divide between a tiny number of unbelievably wealthy individuals who pretty much rule the world now, and everybody else.”

It’s been this way all through history. There may be a few closed communities you can point to like communes but there are always just a few people with most of the wealth. It has to do with human nature.

 

“We've seen how BLM took an individual tragedy and transformed it into a global movement”

I think they have had quite a bit of help from media and the Mayors of these cities that will not act in the public interest because it’s an election year. After the November election this will fade away just like so many of the other MAJOR events in the past. I have no explanation for the sympathetic  protests in other countries. It’s not clear what they are after. It’s seems to organized to natural.

 

“So the point of this thread is to encourage people to express their views about how wealth inequality could best be tackled...and to see if there are any recurring ideas that indicate potential for consensus between those who lean left and those who lean right.”

Not a bad goal. I doubt you can get there. I don’t even think you can get agreement on the meaning of wealth inequality. For some people if the other guy has twenty dollars more in their pocket, than they are well off. What is well off? Where I live 60k to 70k a year is a good living, but would that be true in New York or California? What is the yardstick?

There are people who put up an image of riches when actually their debt load proclaims the opposite. There are people who live modestly, have no debt, a healthy stock portfolio and a 100k emergency fund in the bank. You would never know it from appearances.

 

“The notions held by poor people on the left as to how to tackle wealth inequality differ dramatically from the notions by poor people on the right.”

I agree with your premise but how did those people get those notions? The majority of these people at the start, have the same options and choices in the financial realm. There are many examples around us of people who chose one way over another. We don’t have to rely on theory, we can see success or failure in practice. Why did average people choose different paths and accept different philosophies?

 

“I believe Amazon operates in a manner that is worsening poverty, unemployment and loss of opportunity (to build businesses) in the country I live in.” 

I think you are off-track with Amazon. Amazon is only a middle-man. Instead of having multiple accounts with each business requiring a password and the exposure of your credit card number in a database with dubious security, Amazon allows you single point entry. That’s quite convenient.

I do agree with you that if you want the best deal, it’s better to shop around. Amazon is only representative of markets and is not complete. I rarely do business with them.

As to them worsening the economy, I just don’t know. The dot com businesses have been trending now for quite a while and there seems no stopping them, although many other businesses are beefing up their online services. Many stores I was familiar with as child no longer exist. There is a constant turnover in the retail market that has more to do with changing conditions then with any single entity. I’m still mourning the death of Sears and JC Penneys.

 

“If it were up to me, a company the size of Amazon would be subjected to onerous employment law rules in this country.”

I’m very leery of artificial wage standards. Forced higher wages tend to keep businesses from locating where you would like them to. No place to work makes higher wages a moot point. I admit that I’ve never run a business, so it’s all theory to me.

I know nothing about farming except how to grow tomatoes but I did read your solution with interest.

 

“Any thoughts from other people who either envisage problems with this or who (preferably) have some ideas they'd like to share?”

I got lost in the social engineering requirements that businesses would have to follow under your scheme. Every social requirement has paperwork that goes with it. There must be people that ensure regulations are carried out. This is all overhead that must be paid for through the purchase price of the product or service. It makes a business less competitive and less likely to expand and thus employ more people.

 

“My ideas.”

I can only offer a very narrow perspective on being well off. The best way is to start and run your own business but that takes a person with special abilities and I’m not talking about smarts. I’m talking about perseverance and sacrifice. I’m talking about working 12 hours every day for an unknown future payoff. Not many people have those qualities

My choice was the stock market. I borrowed the abilities of people who run businesses, abilities that I don’t have, by investing money into their stocks. My Aunts choice was US savings bonds. Some people choose real estate. Name your poison.

There are options for people who are tired of living on a financial cliff but they have to be willing to sacrifice to attain their goals.

excellent analysis

[Emilie Jolie]

Right. People have all sorts of priorities that don't necessarily involve making a buckload of money.

That's what I'm saying when I say our value system is screwed. The thing is, some people can't manage their bills even when they're working hard. That can't be right.

5 minutes ago, Ellener said:

I don't have to be a billionaire to be successful. I do have to manage my bills and know that I am helping someone.

 

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

our value system is screwed.

you think?

We have a severely mentally ill president and no one even tries to help him....see that's a sign of weakness in me to many people, compassion. I should either support unconditionally or hate on someone. Not me.

[Emilie Jolie]

Just now, Ellener said:

you think?

We have a severely mentally ill president and no one even tries to help him....see that's a sign of weakness in me to many people, compassion. I should either support unconditionally or hate on someone. Not me.

I don't have access to your President's medical record so can't comment on that. I also don't think wealth inequalities are down to a lack of 'compassion' or 'kindness'. 

Wanting to reduce glaring wealth inequalities is not an act of charity - it's a way to maintain a healthy balance in a well-functioning society.

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I don't have access to your President's medical record so can't comment on that. I also don't think wealth inequalities are down to a lack of 'compassion' or 'kindness'. 

Wanting to reduce glaring wealth inequalities is not an act of charity - it's a way to maintain a healthy balance in a well-functioning society.

I know I'm just an old hippie but everything comes down to kindness and empathy. Everything. 'Let me be, let you be'. That's the balance. And then that balance equals out some of the time. 

Well-functioning equals happy and kind. 

[Emilie Jolie]

12 minutes ago, Ellener said:

I know I'm just an old hippie but everything comes down to kindness and empathy. Everything. 'Let me be, let you be'. That's the balance. And then that balance equals out some of the time. 

Well-functioning equals happy and kind. 

You think those who think wealth inequalities are the natural order of things are unempathetic and unkind, then? What of those who pay lip service to 'helping people' but actually don't, therefore allowing inequalities to deepen? I don't know, I think relying on 'kindness' and 'empathy' alone is super risky; there too need safeguards in place to ensure all those who do work hard  get to live a stress-free life.

It doesn't need to be in the form of benefits either.

But a system that so heavily depends on debts can't sustain itself. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[Libby1]

42 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

 

My choice was the stock market. I borrowed the abilities of people who run businesses, abilities that I don’t have, by investing money into their stocks. My Aunts choice was US savings bonds. Some people choose real estate. Name your poison.

There are options for people who are tired of living on a financial cliff but they have to be willing to sacrifice to attain their goals.

The current situation hasn't always been the way of it.  I'll concentrate on the US since that's where most LS posters seem to be from.  If you google figures from the National Bureau of Economic Research (I don't want to link, due to the time lag) you'll see that after 40 years of a gradual decline since 1965, round about 2004  90% of the population began experiencing a far more dramatic decline.  A dramatic wealth divide increases potential for violent revolution.  Is violent revolution also just the way of it, do you think?  A means of curing wealth divides for a time, until a new elite emerges and decides that it isn't against seeing an increasing wealth divide?

Quote

Not a bad goal. I doubt you can get there. I don’t even think you can get agreement on the meaning of wealth inequality. For some people if the other guy has twenty dollars more in their pocket, than they are well off. What is well off? Where I live 60k to 70k a year is a good living, but would that be true in New York or California? What is the yardstick?

I think the size and situation of the middle class is a good indicator.  Where you have a shrinking middle class, with most of the members of that middle class experiencing financial decline, then sooner or later it reaches a point where a lot of people who would once have been politically moderate move towards a more politically extreme position.  

Quote

There are people who put up an image of riches when actually their debt load proclaims the opposite. There are people who live modestly, have no debt, a healthy stock portfolio and a 100k emergency fund in the bank. You would never know it from appearances.

I'm aware of that.  I'm not thinking in terms of appearances, but more in terms of statistics showing average personal worth and income - and the difficulties some people face even getting a foot on the housing ladder.

Quote

The majority of these people at the start, have the same options and choices in the financial realm. There are many examples around us of people who chose one way over another. We don’t have to rely on theory, we can see success or failure in practice. Why did average people choose different paths and accept different philosophies?

When my brother and I were small, my mother worked as a teacher while my dad was a student.  She and my dad got a mortgage on a 3 bed terraced house based on her salary.  They managed. I'm sure they both managed their money very well, but no matter how good a couple were with their money...there's no way that in this day and age they could manage what my parents managed.   A lot of young people are extremely resentful of the boomer generation, and it's not surprising.  They're told that if they get off their asses and work hard, they'll make it because that's what their parents and grandparents did....but they face obstacles that previous generations didn't face and perhaps aren't appreciating the scale of if they live in houses where the mortgage is paid off and they benefit from a good pension.

Quote

I got lost in the social engineering requirements that businesses would have to follow under your scheme.

In order for people to actually have a real shot, in the current climate, at starting a business and making it work, I think small businesses need to be set free from the kind of requirements that are imposed on larger businesses.  It's not about making it harder and more bureaucratic for smaller businesses, but making it less so.  When you have complex and onerous employment laws and red tape that apply to businesses across the board, the huge corporations have an advantage over small ones because they have the resources to deal with it.  So I'm not looking for systems that make it harder and more complicated for smaller businesses to operate.  I'm looking for the exact opposite.

[Libby1]

2 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You think those who think wealth inequalities are the natural order of things are unempathetic and unkind, then? What of those who pay lip service to 'helping people' but actually don't, therefore allowing inequalities to deepen? I don't know, I think relying on 'kindness' and 'empathy' alone is super risky; there too need safeguards in place to ensure all those who do work hard  get to live a stress-free life.

 

Agreed.  Kindness and empathy are very appropriate and welcome when it comes to charity work, but I don't think they're enough when it comes to creating and implementing policies that are actually going to work and start to raise people's economic status so that we have a degree of wealth inequality that's more akin to what we had 20 or so years ago...as opposed to the far more dramatic level of wealth inequality we have today.  Equality is an impossible and even dangerous goal, but reducing the current, serious levels of wealth inequality is not.

[pepperbird]

My suggestion?
Start back in school. Surely learning about topics such as how credit works, basic budgeting, home economics, that sort of thing is really important, and it's not happening at home in a lot of cases. Add to that, teach kids where their food comes from and learn some basic agricultural skills.

Also, I wish people would realize that raising minimum wage does nothing to actually help anyone. It just sounds good. I used to sit on the governing board for a large government funded not for profit. One of our mandates was to provide low cost day care for military families, and every time minimum wage went up, we would scramble to  find a way to cut costs and absorb that increase or we'd have to raise rates. A lot of the time, we couldn't do it. Our lowest paid employees rates would go up, then the other salaries also had to increase. The parents would have to pay m ore, because there was no way our funding was going to go up.

It's the same for small businesses too. Some of the little guys stand no real chance.

 The only way I can ever see real equality would be if everyone has the same basic income, and if you choose to earn more than that and get the "perks"  that's up to you. Also, getting rid of the legal entity known as "the corporation" would be a great start too.  Even though they may increase profits, automation and technology are costing jobs. Is the convenience worth it?

One final thought, at least with respect to Canada. If we ever want to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in thanks to covid-19 and our PMs weird obsession with getting a  seat on the UN security council, we are going to need to make some tough choices when it comes to international aid. For example, the ten million our government sends to China every year should stop. Pay down our national debt first-why are we giving any funds to a country we already owe an arm and a leg to? This would leave more tax revenue for social programming, health care and other areas that are sorely underfunded today. For eff sake, we're sending money overseas for "development" but we can;t even make sure our own First Nations citizens have  clean drinking water?

That's ridiculous.





 

[pepperbird]

30 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

Agreed.  Kindness and empathy are very appropriate and welcome when it comes to charity work, but I don't think they're enough when it comes to creating and implementing policies that are actually going to work and start to raise people's economic status so that we have a degree of wealth inequality that's more akin to what we had 20 or so years ago...as opposed to the far more dramatic level of wealth inequality we have today.  Equality is an impossible and even dangerous goal, but reducing the current, serious levels of wealth inequality is not.

I know this is going to sound unkind, but part of the problem is welfare ( social assistance here).
I don't think it was ever intended to be a long term income source, but that's what it is. Families depend on it, generation after generation. You can start to think you can't ever do any better, and that can hold people back.

[lana-banana]

34 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You think those who think wealth inequalities are the natural order of things are unempathetic and unkind, then? What of those who pay lip service to 'helping people' but actually don't, therefore allowing inequalities to deepen? I don't know, I think relying on 'kindness' and 'empathy' alone is super risky; there too need safeguards in place to ensure all those who do work hard  get to live a stress-free life.

It doesn't need to be in the form of benefits either.

But a system that so heavily depends on debts can't sustain itself. 

I'm gonna go further and say that even if you aren't working hard, you still deserve the basic safeguards of a roof over your head, enough food to eat, and medical care. I don't care whether anyone "earns it" or "deserves it". Everyone deserves the bare minimum to live. It is appalling to me that we can have private individuals worth nearly a trillion dollars but there are millions of families with no clean water. 

Tax the hell out of the rich. Tax the hell out of corporations. End multibillion-dollar tax refunds for companies like Facebook and Amazon. (There are companies all over the world operating in high-tax environments; it's not like everyone's going to move to the BVI.) Rebuild our social safety net so even if you're between jobs you can at least afford to eat and not worry about being evicted or dying of disease. Make insulin and preventative care screenings free, period, no questions asked.

Everyone says these things are too expensive and too hard but they're not. We just don't have the political will for it. We would rather let people die of insulin rationing than cut the Pentagon's budget. It's not that we can't do these things, we just won't.

[Libby1]

1 minute ago, pepperbird said:

I know this is going to sound unkind, but part of the problem is welfare ( social assistance here).
I don't think it was ever intended to be a long term income source, but that's what it is. Families depend on it, generation after generation. You can start to think you can't ever do any better, and that can hold people back.

One of the problems there is that welfare has become a way of plugging the gap between low wages and the cost of living.  A friend of mine was stressing out about managing financially during the furlough.  I asked her to send me details of her earnings, and worked out that even when she's on full earnings she's entitled to welfare assistance for her rent.   She works full time. In the UK, welfare top ups like working tax credit and help with rent are the only way that a lot of working people are able to get by. 

Smaller businesses such as the one my friend works for can't afford to pay them a living wage - ie a wage that would fully cover their rent and basic necessities, and then you have bigger businesses who could afford to pay better wages, but who'd prefer the profits to go to increased dividends for shareholders.  Then there's the sort of corporate welfare big business gets in order to persuade it to keep operations in particular areas (and sometimes those businesses will scoop up everything that's on offer, then leave anyway.  I think Boeing is supposed to be one of the biggest offenders there.

Starbucks contributes a tiny amount (relative to its size) in terms of tax payments in the UK thanks to its ability to exploit all sorts of loopholes.  They suck up a lot of business that could otherwise go to independent chains, and they don't give much back in terms of tax.  When so much effort goes into pandering to big business and its shareholders, it encourages this situation whereby people are increasingly just becoming state funded consumers of everything big business churns out...instead of being an active part of the economy by building businesses of their own.

[Emilie Jolie]

6 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

I'm gonna go further and say that even if you aren't working hard, you still deserve the basic safeguards of a roof over your head, enough food to eat, and medical care

Totally.

Utterly ridiculous to upload arbitrary, ever-shifting standards of 'worthiness' when we can't seem to value the life of another human being.

I personally don't begruge anyone's financial success, but I can't wrap my head around why anyone would need, or deserve, or use a handful of billions.

Besides that, of course if you have money to pay for wars, you have money to pay for healthcare.

21 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

We just don't have the political will for it

Not yet, no; within the next 10/15 years hopefully. I really think too many people are ripe for change now, there's no way back. 

[schlumpy]

2 hours ago, Ellener said:

It depends what you mean by 'hard work' or 'success'. Before the pandemic I considered it successful to live on the poverty line with my budgeting skils and be helping people with terminal illnesses and working about 10 hours per week so my own physical disability was managed, then my mental illness ( anxiety disorder ) after Harvey.

I'm sure lots of people would discount me spending hours practising piano as not of use to society. But it was. I received hundreds of letters and cards from seniors and their families telling me I made a difference in their situation with my music programmes.

I don't have to be a billionaire to be successful. I do have to manage my bills and know that I am helping someone.

Exactly. Success.

How do you define it?

I'm not interested in a champagne lifestyle. I need to feel satisfied with what I'm doing and how I'm living and that I don't owe anything to anyone.

[schlumpy]

2 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

The gap is widening and is leaving too many people behind. Wealth inequality is kept by design. There is zero reason to believe that a stock broker works harder than a social worker, for instance.

Our value system is completely screwed, in my opinion.

Just for clarity I was referring to business owners. Primarily the trades.

I think the summer lunch programs where I live were started around ten years ago. When you actually see the kids that show up it becomes apparent that lack of food is not one of their pressing problems. That's not to say there aren't but I would much rather bring the hammer down on their idiot parents who are now expecting someone else to provide food for their offspring. Not a good life lesson to pass on to the next generation.

We all have differing values Miss Jolie. I'm not saying my values are supreme but I know how work within them. Learn how to work within your own values to create the outcome you seek.

Just my experience.

[Emilie Jolie]

7 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

We all have differing values Miss Jolie

Sure.

I note I've recently gone up in the world of schlumpy; I get a Miss title now whereas I only were thrown a dismissive 'Jolie' before 😉. I'll take it!

We'll agree to disagree on the rest 🙂

[thefooloftheyear]

3 hours ago, Ellener said:

I've been looking for what to do next as through no ones fault the pandemic has basically cut off my living for the forseeable future, and I'm being presented with work up to a whopping $18 an hour, often way less, and told things like I must stand for my whole shift for no good reason....

i have arthropathy of my feet so frankly the unbending attitude of so many of the employers will force me to finally give up and claim disability. Because ironically I don't get access to the 'disabled' jobs until I do.

To expect another generation to 'pick up a shovel' and work themselves into the ground so others can get rich is not going to happen.

If employers want workers they must share some of the profit.

.

No one cares...Everyone has problems and obstacles to overcome....Some people are doers and some complainers....Which side do you want to be on?

People don't succeed by being stupid...and because they worked hard, took great risks, never complained, , you don't have to?  It's supposed to be the other way around, no??

Maybe you can find some guy to be a donkey so you don't have to....there is always that option...

TFY

 

[elaine567]

18 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

I think the summer lunch programs where I live were started around ten years ago. When you actually see the kids that show up it becomes apparent that lack of food is not one of their pressing problems. That's not to say there aren't but I would much rather bring the hammer down on their idiot parents who are now expecting someone else to provide food for their offspring. Not a good life lesson to pass on to the next generation

I do know in some areas in my nearest city some of the kids in primary school are "half the size" of their peers and come to school starving and the teachers have to feed them out of their own wages.
Meanwhile parents mostly mothers come to school sometimes to collect them, can of lager in hand.

Fat kids are often seriously malnourished too, so just because they are fat doesn't mean they don't need proper food.