Wealth gap (split from Liberal Views Explained)

[waitforufo]

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

There are better solutions to that than the current model, there's simply no reason for such an enormous  wealth gap

The  wealth gap is the natural intended product of  capitalism.  It is actually the essential component.  It creates the drive to create products or services at low prices so more people can afford to purchase them.  Productivity is maximized. Wages are determined the number of qualified workers in the labor pool and their labor output on the job.  Productive people get paid more because they do more  than the average person.  

Fairness isn't even a consideration, nor should it be.  Its an unplanned wild free for all controlled by what' called the invisible hand  No planning is even possible.   The system is designed to create winners and losers. 

So do we need regulation to  protect people from capitalism?  Absolutely.  A capitalist will do anything he can legally get away with.  Environmental, worker safety rules, etc., Im for them.  I just don't see  how the government can write a regulation requiring a private or publicly held company to be more fair with their wage distribution to close the wealth gap. It can' be done.

I often wonder how people like yourself imagine the lives of the evil rich.  Lets just pick one.  How about Jeff Bezos.  The richest man in the  world with an estimated wealth of over 100 billion.  Do you think he lives in some ever expanding mansion, with wings being added so he has a place his to store his ill gotten gains in shrink wrapped pallets of cash.  Do you imagine Jeff walking through all that cash laughing and saying "screw the little people?

I see Jeff as  kick ass capitalist.  He is providing awesome goods  and services to the economy.  His wealth is tied up in the company he created.  He employs lots of people, many of them at  high wages.  My nephews work for him in Seattle. The wages they are  making at about 30 I didn't make until I was 45.  I say good for Jeff and I wish the country had many more billionaire like him.

22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You are saying economic prosperity as though it is a Universal term. In reality what is good for some isn't good for all.

Why does it need to be good for all?  what"s wrong with better for most?  I have been an engineer for 35 years.  I have designed an managed the creation of many fielded products..  Every circuit was reviewed to insure that every circuit was the cheapest just good enough design that would get the job done.  Yes,  MTBF was a design requirement.  We did that to have the lowest price in the market, with the intention of killing our competition.

In engineering a common phrase is "You can get 90% of what you want for 10% of the budget."  So why not help the 90 % and expect the the last 10% will receive secondary from the prosperity  created by the  policy that helped the 90%?  

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Your question confuses me, since I both can and do understand that.

I do, which is a very large part of the reason I keep voting for those who do things which actually improve the economy and well-being of me and my neighbors (as opposed to those who are all hat and no cowboy offering specious talking points that fail when implemented).

I think this is my favorite response to one of my posts you ever made.  You made my day.

Your first line you claim to be a reasonable person.  Then you contradict your self by saying conservatives are f*cking idiots so no compromise is possible.  

What an awesome reply.

The funny thing about all of this is that liberals have lost the american public and they don't even see it. people's paychecks just got bigger because of the tax cut.  People view all these investigation as nothing but vendetta by the losers.  A year of investigation and they got nothing on Trump.  Since Trump got elected two of my kids got better jobs and my son in law got promoted with a good raise.  Everyone with a 401k is now more optimistic about retirement.  By the way, so are their kids who feel their parents will have  the dignity of financial security an they will not have  the financial burden of parental support 

But you think Trump is a Nazi and are foolish enough to state it publicly (item 11 in the OP).  

You better hope Muller finds something substantial against Trump because if he doesn't expect a big backlash against those opposed to Trump,  

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why does it need to be good for all?  what"s wrong with better for most?  I have been an engineer for 35 years.  I have designed an managed the creation of many fielded products..  Every circuit was reviewed to insure that every circuit was the cheapest just good enough design that would get the job done.  Yes,  MTBF was a design requirement.  We did that to have the lowest price in the market, with the intention of killing our competition.

In engineering a common phrase is "You can get 90% of what you want for 10% of the budget."  So why not help the 90 % and expect the the last 10% will receive secondary from the prosperity  created by the  policy that helped the 90%?  

"in June 2016 that the top 1% of families captured 52% of the total real income (GDP) growth per family from 2009-2015. From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% captured 91% of the income gains"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Nothing is wrong with better for most. Better for most would be great. During the 35yrs you've been an engineer we have not experienced "better for most". We have experienced better for some by worse for most. 

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

you contradict your self by saying conservatives are f*cking idiots so no compromise is possible

I said no such thing. You can confirm this yourself since you quoted my exact words.

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The  wealth gap is the natural intended product of  capitalism.  It is actually the essential component.  It creates the drive to create products or services at low prices so more people can afford to purchase them.  Productivity is maximized. Wages are determined the number of qualified workers in the labor pool and their labor output on the job.  Productive people get paid more because they do more  than the average person.  

   

4

That's an excuse, not a reason.

Quote

Fairness isn't even a consideration, nor should it be.  Its an unplanned wild free for all controlled by what' called the invisible hand  No planning is even possible. The system is designed to create winners and losers. 

1

You seem to be contradicting yourself, for example, who designed it? 

33 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I often wonder how people like yourself imagine the lives of the evil rich.  Lets just pick one.  How about Jeff Bezos.  The richest man in the  world with an estimated wealth of over 100 billion.  Do you think he lives in some ever expanding mansion, with wings being added so he has a place his to store his ill gotten gains in shrink wrapped pallets of cash.  Do you imagine Jeff walking through all that cash laughing and saying "screw the little people?

So why do he and his fellows try so hard to hide the horde? 

33 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why does it need to be good for all?   

 

Whats wrong with good for all?

33 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

what"s wrong with better for most?  I have been an engineer for 35 years.  I have designed an managed the creation of many fielded products..  Every circuit was reviewed to insure that every circuit was the cheapest just good enough design that would get the job done.  Yes,  MTBF was a design requirement.  We did that to have the lowest price in the market, with the intention of killing our competition.

2

I'm alright jack is what's wrong, it means in order to enjoy my privilege I have to accept some will suffer, which is fine as long as it's not me. 

33 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

In engineering a common phrase is "You can get 90% of what you want for 10% of the budget."  So why not help the 90 % and expect the the last 10% will receive secondary from the prosperity  created by the  policy that helped the 90%?  

Why not make sure the 10% get what they need since that is a tithe, a curious correlation.

Edited February 2, 2018 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

On 2/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, waitforufo said:

The  wealth gap is the natural intended product of  capitalism.  It is actually the essential component.  It creates the drive to create products or services at low prices so more people can afford to purchase them.  

This is the part I completely disagree with, and have shown why in many ignored ways over the years. Competition and natural market pressures are what create the drive to create products at all price points. It has nothing at all to do with the disparity between working, middle, and upper class wealth. Capitalism is always going to work towards the least costs, and it's always going to concentrate wealth unfairly unless it's well regulated. It's the biggest myth of all that if you allow business free reign it will be good for everyone. The only way to ensure capitalism works well for all is making sure it doesn't pool all the wealth up at the top, where it tends to be hoarded until something makes hoarding less attractive and profitable.

The top 500 wealthiest people made over a trillion dollars more in 2017 than they did in 2016. 500 people, $1,000,000,000,000 more money in a single year. That's more than four times the gain they made from 2016. It's not the money though, it's the fact that the tax structure encourages them to sit on this wealth. We need it to be invested in the economy, or we need the taxes it could generate. Productivity hasn't dropped a stitch, but wages for that productivity have not kept pace. 

[swansont]

As far as "The  wealth gap is the natural intended product of  capitalism.  It is actually the essential component.  It creates the drive to create products or services at low prices so more people can afford to purchase them." goes and to the extent that this is applied to the US, It should be noted that the Constitution does not say anything about the country being capitalist. If anything, the document describes the minimum level and various ways that the US will be (may be or must be, depending on the section) socialist.

The fact that the commerce clause exists is evidence that unfettered capitalism is not the intended economic system of the US.

[John Cuthber]

On 02/02/2018 at 2:53 PM, waitforufo said:

The  wealth gap is the natural intended product of  capitalism.  It is actually the essential component.  It creates the drive to create products or services at low prices so more people can afford to purchase them.  Productivity is maximized. Wages are determined the number of qualified workers in the labor pool and their labor output on the job.  Productive people get paid more because they do more  than the average person.  

Do you accept that a wage ratio of say 10:1 will motivate people to do their best and that increasing it doesn't help- it just generates problems.

There is nothing to gain from paying the boss so much or the the workers so little that the ratio is as high as it is in some companies.

It's also important to recognise the fact that many of those who earn a lot are not "the best people" or "the most talented people".

They are the lucky people.

It makes no sense whatsoever to pay them a huge salary for  having already been very lucky.

So it also makes no sense to support a system that leads to such irrational outcomes

[iNow]

52 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you accept that...

FYI: 

 

[John Cuthber]

Oops!
Should have spotted that. Mind you I think the point's still valid for anyone else looking in.