Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Is income inequality a legitimate issue?

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:06:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
http://www.theguardian.com...

This really shouldn't be a question...yay plutocracy.........

But really, I don't see how anyone could legitimately disagree with it being an issue.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 7:11:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Just for reference, the "1%" would be 73,000,000
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:05:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:11:11 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Just for reference, the "1%" would be 73,000,000

Those mutant freak hoarders need to be culled from the human race.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 12:22:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Yes. And nobody I know of disagrees.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 12:44:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 12:22:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Yes. And nobody I know of disagrees.

You'd be surprised.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 4:15:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:06:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

This really shouldn't be a question...yay plutocracy.........

But really, I don't see how anyone could legitimately disagree with it being an issue.

It's an issue in that vast economic inequality, which results in equally vast social inequality, creates social instability and unhappiness in countries without rigid class or caste systems.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:43:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
From what I've seen, everyone agrees that it's a problem, it's just that no one really knows what the solution should be.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 6:46:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:06:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

This really shouldn't be a question...yay plutocracy.........

But really, I don't see how anyone could legitimately disagree with it being an issue.

I don't understand how it is an issue.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:34:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 12:22:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Yes. And nobody I know of disagrees.

See above post.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:16:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:34:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 12:22:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Yes. And nobody I know of disagrees.

See above post.

Yeah, there are plenty of people who disagree.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:25:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 7:06:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com...

This really shouldn't be a question...yay plutocracy.........

But really, I don't see how anyone could legitimately disagree with it being an issue.

http://www.debate.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 6:13:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:34:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 12:22:34 PM, tejretics wrote:
Yes. And nobody I know of disagrees.

See above post.

i did, i don't understand whats the big deal.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 2:55:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.

What is so bad about income inequality.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2016 3:40:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 2:55:06 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.


What is so bad about income inequality.

A few I can think of offhand:
-Income inequality leads to inequality in opportunity (e.g. the Great Gatsby curve)
-Crime rate
-Less consumption
-Large gap means benefit is not maximised (the rich suffer diminishing marginal returns)
-Not beneficial to social harmony
etc.

Confucius argued that poverty itself is never a problem, but unequal distribution is, in Analects 16.1. (Legge's translation said it was about unequal distribution of people, but Zhu Xi's annotations - which should be standard - says Confucius' statement pertained to both.)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 2:47:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/3/2016 3:40:03 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:55:06 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.


What is so bad about income inequality.

A few I can think of offhand:
-Income inequality leads to inequality in opportunity (e.g. the Great Gatsby curve)
-Crime rate
-Less consumption
-Large gap means benefit is not maximised (the rich suffer diminishing marginal returns)
-Not beneficial to social harmony
etc.

Confucius argued that poverty itself is never a problem, but unequal distribution is, in Analects 16.1. (Legge's translation said it was about unequal distribution of people, but Zhu Xi's annotations - which should be standard - says Confucius' statement pertained to both.)

The problem with your whole argument is you seem to think that wealth is distributed(Note, that i can only speak for the U.S.). It seem that you believe that there is a fixed amount wealth, and that everyone deserves a share. The problem with this is that it's not true, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth and its not distributed. Wealth is created, through business and competition. In other words wealth is constantly expanding, as long as there are people out their inventing and innovating new products. Just because someone becomes rich, doesn't mean that others became poor. For example look at Facebook. No one became became poorer because Facebook became rich.

Here is another example:Why back when there was only one millionaire (John Jacob Astor), now there's many. Then there was only one billionaire(John D. Rockefeller) and now theirs multiple. So, if their is only a fixed amount of wealth, then how can wealth keep growing as it has.

So, my main point is that it doesn't matter how much the wealthy are making since, it doesn't cause anyone else to become poorer.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 3:01:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 2:47:51 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:40:03 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:55:06 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.


What is so bad about income inequality.

A few I can think of offhand:
-Income inequality leads to inequality in opportunity (e.g. the Great Gatsby curve)
-Crime rate
-Less consumption
-Large gap means benefit is not maximised (the rich suffer diminishing marginal returns)
-Not beneficial to social harmony
etc.

Confucius argued that poverty itself is never a problem, but unequal distribution is, in Analects 16.1. (Legge's translation said it was about unequal distribution of people, but Zhu Xi's annotations - which should be standard - says Confucius' statement pertained to both.)

The problem with your whole argument is you seem to think that wealth is distributed(Note, that i can only speak for the U.S.). It seem that you believe that there is a fixed amount wealth, and that everyone deserves a share. The problem with this is that it's not true, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth and its not distributed. Wealth is created, through business and competition. In other words wealth is constantly expanding, as long as there are people out their inventing and innovating new products. Just because someone becomes rich, doesn't mean that others became poor. For example look at Facebook. No one became became poorer because Facebook became rich.

Here is another example:Why back when there was only one millionaire (John Jacob Astor), now there's many. Then there was only one billionaire(John D. Rockefeller) and now theirs multiple. So, if their is only a fixed amount of wealth, then how can wealth keep growing as it has.

So, my main point is that it doesn't matter how much the wealthy are making since, it doesn't cause anyone else to become poorer.
Josh, I've never said that wealth is fixed, that people are entitled to anything (that would just make me sound like a liberal hippie), or that creating wealth causes others to become poorer. I haven't even mentioned wealth inequality before; the thread is about income inequality. This doesn't really invalidate what I've written above, particularly the first. It's widely-accepted that lower-income families can afford fewer educational resources for their children, which leads to inequality in opportunity. How much income they actually earn is irrelevant here; if the difference between family incomes is large (i.e. the Lorenz curve is far away from the line of perfect equality), children from lower-income families will be less likely to succeed.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 4:04:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:01:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/4/2016 2:47:51 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:40:03 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:55:06 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.


What is so bad about income inequality.

A few I can think of offhand:
-Income inequality leads to inequality in opportunity (e.g. the Great Gatsby curve)
-Crime rate
-Less consumption
-Large gap means benefit is not maximised (the rich suffer diminishing marginal returns)
-Not beneficial to social harmony
etc.

Confucius argued that poverty itself is never a problem, but unequal distribution is, in Analects 16.1. (Legge's translation said it was about unequal distribution of people, but Zhu Xi's annotations - which should be standard - says Confucius' statement pertained to both.)

The problem with your whole argument is you seem to think that wealth is distributed(Note, that i can only speak for the U.S.). It seem that you believe that there is a fixed amount wealth, and that everyone deserves a share. The problem with this is that it's not true, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth and its not distributed. Wealth is created, through business and competition. In other words wealth is constantly expanding, as long as there are people out their inventing and innovating new products. Just because someone becomes rich, doesn't mean that others became poor. For example look at Facebook. No one became became poorer because Facebook became rich.

Here is another example:Why back when there was only one millionaire (John Jacob Astor), now there's many. Then there was only one billionaire(John D. Rockefeller) and now theirs multiple. So, if their is only a fixed amount of wealth, then how can wealth keep growing as it has.

So, my main point is that it doesn't matter how much the wealthy are making since, it doesn't cause anyone else to become poorer.
Josh, I've never said that wealth is fixed, that people are entitled to anything (that would just make me sound like a liberal hippie), or that creating wealth causes others to become poorer. I haven't even mentioned wealth inequality before; the thread is about income inequality. This doesn't really invalidate what I've written above, particularly the first. It's widely-accepted that lower-income families can afford fewer educational resources for their children, which leads to inequality in opportunity. How much income they actually earn is irrelevant here; if the difference between family incomes is large (i.e. the Lorenz curve is far away from the line of perfect equality), children from lower-income families will be less likely to succeed.

I understand your point, what i am saying is that the rich having large amounts of wealth has no effect on how much that low income families are making. So, even if the income inequality was twice as large as it is now, those low income families would still be in the exact same position(not worse, nor better). Basically what I'm saying is that you cant blame income inequality for why low income families have less opportunities.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 4:07:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 4:04:11 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:01:57 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/4/2016 2:47:51 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/3/2016 3:40:03 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/3/2016 2:55:06 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/2/2016 1:43:33 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think most people would agree it's an issue, except Westerners who are trapped in their ideology and cannot think beyond it.

Heck, in Hong Kong, even the people who exacerbate income inequality (read: the government) pretend they're trying to alleviate it.


What is so bad about income inequality.

A few I can think of offhand:
-Income inequality leads to inequality in opportunity (e.g. the Great Gatsby curve)
-Crime rate
-Less consumption
-Large gap means benefit is not maximised (the rich suffer diminishing marginal returns)
-Not beneficial to social harmony
etc.

Confucius argued that poverty itself is never a problem, but unequal distribution is, in Analects 16.1. (Legge's translation said it was about unequal distribution of people, but Zhu Xi's annotations - which should be standard - says Confucius' statement pertained to both.)

The problem with your whole argument is you seem to think that wealth is distributed(Note, that i can only speak for the U.S.). It seem that you believe that there is a fixed amount wealth, and that everyone deserves a share. The problem with this is that it's not true, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth and its not distributed. Wealth is created, through business and competition. In other words wealth is constantly expanding, as long as there are people out their inventing and innovating new products. Just because someone becomes rich, doesn't mean that others became poor. For example look at Facebook. No one became became poorer because Facebook became rich.

Here is another example:Why back when there was only one millionaire (John Jacob Astor), now there's many. Then there was only one billionaire(John D. Rockefeller) and now theirs multiple. So, if their is only a fixed amount of wealth, then how can wealth keep growing as it has.

So, my main point is that it doesn't matter how much the wealthy are making since, it doesn't cause anyone else to become poorer.
Josh, I've never said that wealth is fixed, that people are entitled to anything (that would just make me sound like a liberal hippie), or that creating wealth causes others to become poorer. I haven't even mentioned wealth inequality before; the thread is about income inequality. This doesn't really invalidate what I've written above, particularly the first. It's widely-accepted that lower-income families can afford fewer educational resources for their children, which leads to inequality in opportunity. How much income they actually earn is irrelevant here; if the difference between family incomes is large (i.e. the Lorenz curve is far away from the line of perfect equality), children from lower-income families will be less likely to succeed.

I understand your point, what i am saying is that the rich having large amounts of wealth has no effect on how much that low income families are making. So, even if the income inequality was twice as large as it is now, those low income families would still be in the exact same position(not worse, nor better). Basically what I'm saying is that you cant blame income inequality for why low income families have less opportunities.
Have you looked up the Great Gatsby curve?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...