Where the left got it right. Income Inequality

[paxamericana]

Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income within a population, meaning some individuals or groups earn significantly more than others.

This creates third order effects such as affordability due to the high leverage of the hyperfinanical lending system. Those with more money can jack up the prices because we can print more money faster than natural means of production say growing crops or building new apartment buildings. Demand in effect out strips supply. 

[Michael Hardner]

I maintain that the current spate of populist movements are driven by the perception of poor economic outlook for working people.  It's not hard to see where that comes from and it's not hard to sympathize.

And it's a problem for ALL centrist parties.

[paxamericana]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I maintain that the current spate of populist movements are driven by the perception of poor economic outlook for working people.  It's not hard to see where that comes from and it's not hard to sympathize.

And it's a problem for ALL centrist parties.

Where the left got it wrong was trying to turn inequality into equity; which is only achievable by making everyone poor with communism. It's not morally wrong for a brain surgeon to make more money than a person sweeping the floor due to supply and demand curve. What is morally wrong is covetous, envy, a main talking point of the left against anyone above them. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

1. Where the left got it wrong was trying to turn inequality into equity; which is only achievable by making everyone poor with communism.

2. It's not morally wrong for a brain surgeon to make more money than a person sweeping the floor due to supply and demand curve.

3. What is morally wrong is covetous, envy, a main talking point of the left against anyone above them. 

 

1.  Well,  sure but 1917 was a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

2. Morality is personal, but yeah... I sure don't have a problem with that.  Incentivizing excellence is a systemic approach, so that's at least more rational than what Marie Antoinette and King Louis thought.  Interestingly, both Cuba and the US (as I understand) work to reduce the wages of doctors.

3. I agree.  But you do hear the phrase "deserve" a lot from the right when they talk about what people earn.  I am conservative, so I buy into the institutions that got us here: labour peace, free enterprise, and a managed 3-part balance between public, enterprise, and labour.

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well,  sure but 1917 was a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

2. Morality is personal, but yeah... I sure don't have a problem with that.  Incentivizing excellence is a systemic approach, so that's at least more rational than what Marie Antoinette and King Louis thought.  Interestingly, both Cuba and the US (as I understand) work to reduce the wages of doctors.

3. I agree.  But you do hear the phrase "deserve" a lot from the right when they talk about what people earn.  I am conservative, so I buy into the institutions that got us here: labour peace, free enterprise, and a managed 3-part balance between public, enterprise, and labour.

As you have already admitted, these institutions you buy into have been lying to all of us so...Fck 'em!

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

As you have already admitted, these institutions you buy into have been lying to all of us so...Fck 'em!

The Powers that be have been lying since the first Sumerian shaman declared to the people that the animal sacrifice to Anu was a success.

I'm sorry to pop your cherry on that one.  

In other news, Clinton DID have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Powers that be have been lying since the first Sumerian shaman declared to the people that the animal sacrifice to Anu was a success.

I'm sorry to pop your cherry on that one.  

In other news, Clinton DID have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky.

Nice try Libbie but...

1. My "cherry" was popped decades ago.

2. You're sacrificing more people now than ever before. Mental instability...increased poverty...lack of readily available power...tent cities...increased tax burden...and of course...social upheaval.

And for what? Can anyone answer that? What has this Progressive movement produced that has been of benefit to anyone?

Income inequality has always been there. The cream rises to the top. The rest...

Believes blindly in institutions.

[User]

So... what exactly did the left get right? What exactly is it you are calling for here?

This whole thread is muddled and unclear. 

 

[Nationalist]

55 minutes ago, User said:

So... what exactly did the left get right? What exactly is it you are calling for here?

This whole thread is muddled and unclear. 

 

I think the idea of the OP, is to give Libbies semi-credit for something. Income and wealth inequality is and always has been...evident. But is it...a "problem"?

So...we do see that the top earners have been making themselves richer at a very increased pace over the last 5 years. Are they gathering as much as they can, expecting hard times ahead? Or are they just pricks for whom there is never enough? Who knows...

There are many reasons people can be uber-wealthy. Birth right...hard work...intelligence...talent...luck...and/or any combination of these. Since this is rather obvious, why would we discourage these traits rather than admire them? Aspire to join them? 

One of the most important traits a parent can instill in his/her child is "confidence". If a person can believe in one's self, half the challenge of success is in place already.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Nationalist

[User]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

I think the idea of the OP, is to give Libbies semi-credit for something. Income and wealth inequality is and always has been...evident.

That is what I am getting at. 

Its like starting a thread saying the left was right about gravity. Then making some muddled commentary on gravity. 

Like... the fact that there was income inequality is there for all to see... so what exactly was the left, right about? 

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, User said:

That is what I am getting at. 

Its like starting a thread saying the left was right about gravity. Then making some muddled commentary on gravity. 

Like... the fact that there was income inequality is there for all to see... so what exactly was the left, right about? 

The assumptions are endless, but here are 3 biggies. 

1. Everyone should make the same money

2. The government should be able to determine a maximum and minimum amount people can earn. 

3. Income disparity must be The result of something nefarious. It cant be hard or smart wwork.

Of course, the op doesn't set any criteria to determine if the income disparity is unfair. So, we can only guess. Further, the charts and numbers are virtually meaningless. They amount to "People who are rich, have more money." Kind of a "No shìt Sherlock" moment.

[paxamericana]

22 minutes ago, User said:

muddled commentary on gravity. 

18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

So, we can only guess.

The problem with income inequality is affordability. Affordability for those who are on the lower bracket. Essentially inflation without the wage rise to account for it. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

The problem with income inequality is affordability. Affordability for those who are on the lower bracket. Essentially inflation without the wage rise to account for it. 

This makes zero sense. It is gibberish. 

 

[paxamericana]

13 minutes ago, User said:

This makes zero sense. It is gibberish. 

 

A simple example is the housing market. When access to capital is increased through say financing, it jacks up demand. However, the construction of new housing is not as fast as a bank application. So housing prices get higher and higher while you work the same job for the same pay. This is a none issue for people already making a lot of money. Where they're able to buy 5 houses and further contribute to increase in demand while builders are not able to build that quickly. 

To put it simply, can you afford to buy your current house now at market value with the income you are currently making? If the answer is no then you have an affordability problem. 

Edited August 20, 2025 by paxamericana

[User]

35 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

A simple example is the housing market. When access to capital is increased through say financing, it jacks up demand. However, the construction of new housing is not as fast as a bank application. So housing prices get higher and higher while you work the same job for the same pay. This is a none issue for people already making a lot of money. Where they're able to buy 5 houses and further contribute to increase in demand while builders are not able to build that quickly. 

To put it simply, can you afford to buy your current house now at market value with the income you are currently making? If the answer is no then you have an affordability problem. 

The housing market is anything but simple. There is no one singular market, the market is different based on every city, county, and state. It is driven by any number of things from space, population, building costs, regulations, etc... 

The concept of income inequality has almost nothing to do with it. The fact that there are a bunch of billionaires isn't stopping anyone from affording a house in most of the country.



 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, User said:

The housing market is anything but simple. There is no one singular market, the market is different based on every city, county, and state. It is driven by any number of things from space, population, building costs, regulations, etc... 

The concept of income inequality has almost nothing to do with it. The fact that there are a bunch of billionaires isn't stopping anyone from affording a house in most of the country.



 

So...I'm still wondering if this is really a problem?

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

1. My "cherry" was popped decades ago.

2. You're sacrificing more people now than ever before. Mental instability...increased poverty...lack of readily available power...tent cities...increased tax burden...and of course...social upheaval.

3. And for what? Can anyone answer that? What has this Progressive movement produced that has been of benefit to anyone?

4. Income inequality has always been there. The cream rises to the top. The rest... Believes blindly in institutions.

1. Ah ok, good.
2. *I* am ?  No.  I'm not.
3. The Progressive movement, which I assume means the 60s "libs" allowed people to pursue things that they otherwise were prevented from pursuing... ie more "freedom"
4. It's worse than before.  Lots on the right are decrying our political systems for that very reason.

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, User said:

The concept of income inequality has almost nothing to do with it. The fact that there are a bunch of billionaires isn't stopping anyone from affording a house in most of the country.

I would advise against dismissing it entirely. This has already taken wings in the political sphere with leftist wanting to do rent control and public housing projects. 

[User]

Just now, paxamericana said:

I would advise against dismissing it entirely. This has already taken wings in the political sphere with leftist wanting to do rent control and public housing projects. 

Dismissing what?

The left has pushed rent control and public housing forever... 

 

[paxamericana]

Just now, User said:

Dismissing what?

The left has pushed rent control and public housing forever... 

 

Gentrification, it raises housing cost. Yes if there are more rich people that can afford pricier neighbourhood it will naturally displace the people with less income. Property taxes alone can do that.  

[User]

2 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Gentrification, it raises housing cost. Yes if there are more rich people that can afford pricier neighbourhood it will naturally displace the people with less income. Property taxes alone can do that.  

So, now you want to talk about Gentrification?

It raises costs in certain areas. Just like many things might impact costs in certain areas. 

That has less to do with rich people existing and more to do with rich people wanting to live somewhere particular. Even then... this is not limited to rich people, but just a different class of people, could be lower middle class... 

You are all over the map man, and have yet to really make any point here. 

Edited August 20, 2025 by User

[paxamericana]

8 minutes ago, User said:

 

You are all over the map man, and have yet to really make any point here. 

No the point was to give you an example but the same process that plays out for housing applies to other goods and services. With more rich people prices will go up. That's the problem with income inequality. You need a middle class. 

Edited August 20, 2025 by paxamericana

[User]

6 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

No the point was to give you an example but the same process that plays out for housing applies to other goods and services. With more rich people prices will go up. That's the problem with income inequality. You need a middle class. 

IF somehow supply doesn't go up... sure. Its not like being rich means you just buy 100 homes, mostly it means you can buy nicer larger homes or maybe a home somewhere else for vacations. 

Supply and Demand are always changing and adjusting to address these imbalances. 

Income inequality doesn't mean no middle class. 

Once again, you are just talking gibberish. 

[paxamericana]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Once again, you are just talking gibberish. 

Not what the data says. The middle class is shrinking. You can't bury your head in the sand or live in an echo chamber. This is becoming a big issue.

Edited August 20, 2025 by paxamericana

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, User said:

Like... the fact that there was income inequality is there for all to see... so what exactly was the left, right about? 

The fact it leads to social upheaval when it gets to far out of balance. But it's not that we're right it's just that we give a shit when it does 

Then power in society gets redistributed until it becomes unhinged and back and forth it goes.

Power and wealth go together like peas and carrots. It doesn't matter which comes or goes first.

Maybe it's more like time and space.