Wealth Inequality in America

[GoCometsGo]

Here is the problem with that champagne glass "graph": The implication would be if the glass was a perfect cylinder with everyone having an equal amount of the world's "worth", that the color would be solid red/orange. However, spreading the wealth among everyone would NOT create prosperity for all. Much of the wealth that is held by the filthy rich is just sitting there. It doesn't really do anything. By having it sit there it does NOT deprive others of wealth. If we all had an equal share then inflation would reach heights that we can't even fathom.

The truth is that the world needs to have its various classes. We would not know how to function without them. I am not saying that the huge disparity that we now have is good. But I am saying that it is better than having it be all Even/Steven.

What makes our world dynamic from a human perspective is that we seek to better our lot in life. We can't be idle and thrive. If we know, going in, that everyone is going to have an equal share than we lose our incentive to provide. Ponder has the notion that it is wrong for us to want more for our own loved ones. Maybe Ponder doesn't have that gene that makes him care more for his own family. I think that most of us are hard-wired to want what is best for those closest to us. That one simple thing is what has led us to that champagne glass.

We need to be very careful about desiring to create "fairness." Fairness is not possible, or even desirable. Sure, we can try to figure out a way to change the shape of that glass. However, there will always be those that feel that they are getting the shaft.

Fairness IS possible.
I have no problem working for someone whose worth is 1,000 times more than my own. But I want to be rewarded for my efforts in being productive and helping to keep his enterprise prospering.
The fairness here is that I expect a wage that provides me with enough return on my labor to support a standard of living as high as possible without threatening the viability of my employers investment.
My employer should continue to reap the rewards of his investment if he manages well.
I should be paid a "fair" wage for the value I offer, but always aware that the financial health of the organization is most important. Obviously, if my high wages (alone) stresses the good condition of the organization, the balance is upset.

Fairness works both ways, and when valued is the best of both worlds.

You are talking about fairness on a small scale. I am talking about fairness for all. There will always be those that believe that they are getting an unfair shake. My point is that you can't change that AND that striving for it, (fairness for all), will not get you the result that you desire.

[PonderThis]

Ponder has the notion that it is wrong for us to want more for our own loved ones. Maybe Ponder doesn't have that gene that makes him care more for his own family.

The selfishness gene.

[Wonky]

Here is the problem with that champagne glass "graph": The implication would be if the glass was a perfect cylinder with everyone having an equal amount of the world's "worth", that the color would be solid red/orange. However, spreading the wealth among everyone would NOT create prosperity for all. Much of the wealth that is held by the filthy rich is just sitting there. It doesn't really do anything. By having it sit there it does NOT deprive others of wealth. If we all had an equal share then inflation would reach heights that we can't even fathom.

The truth is that the world needs to have its various classes. We would not know how to function without them. I am not saying that the huge disparity that we now have is good. But I am saying that it is better than having it be all Even/Steven.

What makes our world dynamic from a human perspective is that we seek to better our lot in life. We can't be idle and thrive. If we know, going in, that everyone is going to have an equal share than we lose our incentive to provide. Ponder has the notion that it is wrong for us to want more for our own loved ones. Maybe Ponder doesn't have that gene that makes him care more for his own family. I think that most of us are hard-wired to want what is best for those closest to us. That one simple thing is what has led us to that champagne glass.

We need to be very careful about desiring to create "fairness." Fairness is not possible, or even desirable. Sure, we can try to figure out a way to change the shape of that glass. However, there will always be those that feel that they are getting the shaft.

Fairness IS possible.
I have no problem working for someone whose worth is 1,000 times more than my own. But I want to be rewarded for my efforts in being productive and helping to keep his enterprise prospering.
The fairness here is that I expect a wage that provides me with enough return on my labor to support a standard of living as high as possible without threatening the viability of my employers investment.
My employer should continue to reap the rewards of his investment if he manages well.
I should be paid a "fair" wage for the value I offer, but always aware that the financial health of the organization is most important. Obviously, if my high wages (alone) stresses the good condition of the organization, the balance is upset.

Fairness works both ways, and when valued is the best of both worlds.

You are talking about fairness on a small scale. I am talking about fairness for all. There will always be those that believe that they are getting an unfair shake. My point is that you can't change that AND that striving for it, (fairness for all), will not get you the result that you desire.

Small scale?
The billions of people around the globe who work for wages?
And I'm not all that enthused about fairness for lazy people who are able to work, but won't.
The fairness I describe above WILL get me the the result I desire. I may never happen, but it's possible.

[csrowan]

I don't know what it would do to national or world economies, but I think that this is more along the lines of what a lot of people think of as 'fair'.

[PonderThis]

This is more along the lines of what seems fair to me:

[GoCometsGo]

I don't know what it would do to national or world economies, but I think that this is more along the lines of what a lot of people think of as 'fair'.

I don't think that those at the bottom would consider it fair... which was my point from the beginning. However, your diagram is at least within the realm of 'do-able' maybe even 'desirable.'

[Simon Peter]

I watched my competition, watch his pickup being towed, while he was waiting for his ride with the authorities. If he loses his license, that'll help my cause a good deal. I imagine he works under the table. They all laugh at me, because I don't. Most of them are on a disability check, or service connected pension. And, not satisfied with their determined award.

Can a military deserter draw VA disability?

[illcommandante]

In the first nursing home, that I worked in, my employer was dead level honest, in every regard. And, delivered a level of care, far in excess of what could be reasonably expected. I sat outside of Liz Taylor's room, there. In case she needed a real nurse. The owner was well enough off to build a home for Fernando, the Mexican cook. He was well off as Crosius. From being attentive to business. How well off were the dozens of thieves that I worked for after? Thieves that saw lawyers as a part of medicine. (Gran and I, proved a few of them wrong). I have had dozens of employers. A few of them honest. I can quickly name them. All Jewish, but the sample is so small, it's statistically insignificant.