Thread: The Wealth Gap

and every time you click on a you tube, facebook, twitter or google link, order something from amazon, buy an i phone or put petrol in your car or bike you are putting more money straight into the pockets of the billionaires you seem to despise.

the mega rich are here to stay. the concept of fairness in life is just idealistic nonsense. we are all governed by the laws of nature which state that big fish eat small fish and only the fittest survive.

Oxfam UK accounts 2017

find salaries you have to scrooooooooollllllllllll right down to the bottom of report

perhaps if the fuckers took a big pay cut,they'd be taken seriously.

http://www.oxfamannualreview.org.uk/...2016-17-v2.pdf

The Wealth Gap Isn't a Crisis, It's a Good Sign


When authorities attempt to equalize outcomes, they inadvertently create a permanent underclass.
Jay Owen
by Jay Owen
The wealth gap is getting a great deal of attention recently. USA Today, CNN, and the Urban Institute have all recently published stories chronicling wealth gap disparities. The New York Times, after stating global inequality has stabilized, proclaimed, “But here’s the bad news: The respite probably won’t last.”

The criticism of the wealth gap is a criticism of individual liberty and the free market.

How So?

Humans are complex, and that complexity is understood by considering all the various wants and needs we have. The similarity in general wants and needs is obvious, but so is the complexity of satisfying them. Generally, humans want/need housing, but have you ever seen two homes that are identical? The exact same aesthetic, inside and out? What about the music playing on Pandora?

The complexity of our desires, right down to the music we listen to, is best met by a system that allows the mutually beneficial exchange between those who create music and those who want music. The exchange benefits both parties. One party enjoys the product, and the second creates income which can become wealth. As a specific musician’s music satisfies more people’s wants, their income increases to the point where profit (income exceeding expenses) is realized and wealth (the accumulation of assets) is created.

The market is a mechanism that rewards those who meet the needs of others. Those who meet the needs of others best are compensated accordingly and create wealth faster than others. Thus a gap is created between those who meet the needs and desires of others in an extraordinary way and those who do not. As strange as it seems, Taylor Swift is compensated more than the Avett Brothers and has accumulated more wealth. There is a gap.

Therein Lies the Problem

Critics of the wealth gap make a moral judgment that regardless of who serves the wants/needs/desires of others more, one individual or group is more deserving. This person, business, or industry deserves more wealth because they are more meritorious. The Avett Brothers deserve more because their music is more authentic than Taylor Swift’s, and the gap in wealth should be lessened. The beginning of the totalitarian state finds its roots in this shift from a free market to a planned market.

The liberty of the individual to create and maintain wealth is subordinated to an outcome of equalized wealth that authorities determine for the rest of the population. Either taking from those who create wealth (Taylor Swift) by satisfying the needs of others in an extraordinary way and redistributing it to those who do not (The Avett Brothers), or barring the individual from participating in the market altogether.

Is There Really a Wealth Gap Problem?

The wealth gap is not a problem. It is the product of individuals using their liberty to pursue interests that are most satisfying to them: either producing goods and services for others or consuming what others produce. Those who serve many accumulate wealth.

There is a problem when there is no wealth gap. Through various means of wealth redistribution, authorities attempt to equalize outcomes and inadvertently create a permanent underclass. Also, the reduction in wealth via property confiscation reduces the incentive to meet the needs of others. Fewer goods and services are produced and less wealth is created. Ultimately a death spiral occurs, and we all lose.

The satisfying of wants/needs/desires and the creation of wealth benefits all, especially the poor. The gap is still there but the standard of living for the poor has increased dramatically. What were once luxuries, financially available to only the wealthy, have become ordinary possessions for even the “poor.” Refrigerators, air conditioners, automobiles, telephones, computers, washers and dryers have become commonplace. Why? Because the creative and industrious had the freedom to serve the needs of many, lifting the standard of living for both parties. The consumer has their needs met and the producer has created wealth.

Jay Owen

What a crock 'o shite.

Addressing the wealth gap isn't an all or nothing, black 'n white, proposition about redistribution and never has been.

It's about recognizing that there's something amiss when a CEO is earning x200+ more than the workers.

Originally Posted by Chico

Whilst Oxfam publishes this report, one Oxfam exec in the US gets paid $500,000, still the same shit from 2013 when we had the big media postings about charities getting paid big bucks.

If you look at the Oxfam pay scales in the UK,none are on the Min wage. ha ha ha

42 people owning the same amount of wealth as 3.7 billion people really has nothing at all to do with the UK minimum wage, or with the salaries of people at OXFAM exceeding it.

Sumpin's wrong when entire blocks of countries go without food, water and medicine and 42 people are holding the power to ffix it.

Psychologically it's an interesting one. You would have thought that there would be some stage when those 42 folks were content with their massive wealth and didn't feel the need to get even wealthier. I know that if I made a few million then I would be giving up work for a life of travel and taking it easy by the pool and doing some charity work on the side.


“This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.”
-Douglas Adams

Trickle down economics is the biggest load of tosh ever told imo.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Sumpin's wrong when entire blocks of countries go without food, water and medicine and 42 people are holding the power to ffix it.

Which blocks of Countries go without food medicine and water ?

^^And the scale of the problem is illustrated here. The mere mention of such shameful facts is taken as an indication of a socialist, and if the organisation that has compiled the figures pays anyone more than 20 bucks an hour they are supposedly riddled with hypocrisy.

Signs of a binary world.

This ain't news its old news, and it has a lot to do with the charity who needs money from big donors ain't doing itself any favours.

This situation has been getting worse by the year and will continue to do so unless people are willing to go something about it, but no doubt we will all be whinging about it 10yrs from now.

go have a look at there anal report and see where all the money goes, investments in what the big players own.

Ever been into an Oxfam shop and seen their prices,certainly ain't helping the under-privileged in the UK

Originally Posted by cyrille

42 people owning the same amount of wealth as 3.7 billion people really has nothing at all to do with the UK minimum wage, or with the salaries of people at OXFAM exceeding it.

Originally Posted by Mandaloopy

You would have thought that there would be some stage when those 42 folks were content with their massive wealth and didn't feel the need to get even wealthier.

There must be an element of trying to run away from one's mortality involved, surely?

And in many cases a very fragile ego.

CEO is earning x200+ more than the workers.

And often, paying less tax.

Plus, why should the US gov't (ie, taxpayer) have to subsidise workers in full time employment with Medicaid & food stamps? People working for massive corporations like Macdonalds, Walmart & Amazon. If that isn't a compelling argument for raising the minimum wage, I don't know what is. Hasn't exactly done California any harm.

Since 1984, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has decreased. Measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation) using 1984 dollars, the real minimum wage was $3.35 in 1984, $2.33 in 1994, $1.84 in 2004, and $1.46 in 2014.
​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimu..._United_States

Originally Posted by Chico

Ever been into an Oxfam shop and seen their prices,certainly ain't helping the under-privileged in the UK

Chico...even by your standards that assertion is a classic. I read it three times in order to fully appreciate its coruscating stupidity.

Many thanks.

The fact that some countries that go without food water or medicines is more likely due to the corrupt dictators that rule them and/or the needless wars that todays politics encourage.

The fact that bezos has amassed x billions of dollars or that a footballer chooses to buy 10 lamborghinis every month has very little to with poverty levels in bangladesh or the sudan.

Not that hard to understand why. All political parties have donors. To get donors they have to do what the donors tell them to do. The only people who have the money to throw at and influence political parties are the super rich, because to be clear, someone with a net worth of 300m will be getting between 10-30m generated for them on a yearly basis from their Family Office or PE firm, pretty much for free, so they can chuck around money like confetti and still have more coming in each second. Regardless of what the super rich tell you in their media, they are not generous, they are not philanthropists, they do not care about man kind. Money is meaningless to them, so what is left for these people to aspire to? Power and control. So they tilt the table through their crooked political parties (hence parties have a Whip to get everyone to follow the Party Line) to ensure that they have more, and everyone else has less.

It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by Mandaloopy

The rise of the right wing is a huge part of the problem.

It is the entirety of the problem in my eyes.

Originally Posted by bsnub

It is the entirety of the problem in my eyes.

Prepare to be called a snowflake or libtard. Got some news for the right wing, winter is coming. The Brits have a bit of a reputation about just taking it, I do wonder how much will be too much and we start to see civil unrest. It can't keep going on.

Here we go its Trump who is making the problem.

Originally Posted by Chico

Here we go its Trump who is making the problem.

Or is it....

^^Nobody even suggested that until you, just now.

What straw man is next?

Politicians are a huge part of the problem. The Houses of Parliament is a cesspit of cronyism, nepotism and the most unsuitable self entitled jerks going. Holding public office shouldn't result in becoming a multi millionaire many times over. It flies in the face of democracy and common decency.

Originally Posted by bsnub

It is the entirety of the problem in my eyes.

Not that simple. Greed is bipartisan and equal opportunity.

Originally Posted by bsnub

It is the entirety of the problem in my eyes.

Just don't get it, do ya!

So the CLintons never did anything to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor? Obomba didn't

Fool!

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Just don't get it, do ya!

It is you who does not get it.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

So the CLintons never did anything to enrich the rich and impoverish the poor? Obomba didn't

Perhaps you could be more specific. See that is the problem with you lack of substance.