As you're certainly aware, there is a global movement to fight what is perceived to be an unjust distribution of wealth. Part of what's making many people irate is what economists call wealth condensation. This is when newly created wealth gets concentrated or flows to already-wealthy individuals. The economic data is fairly clear--there's a growing disparity between the wealthy and non-wealthy, and the wealthy have a substantially greater percentage of the total wealth than the non-wealthy. One startling statistic (among many) is that half of the people in the U.S. have 2.5% of the total wealth. Another is that more than 30% of those born in the middle class will fall to the lower-class. The upshot of all the statistics is that the poor really have it rough, the middle class is shrinking, and the very few rich are getting astronomically richer.
Richard Wilkinson gave a TED talk about how economic inequality harms societies. He jokes that if you want to live the American Dream, you have to move to Denmark. His more serious conclusion is that economic inequality makes for rather dire consequences. Is this a good argument against our current economic and socio-political system? If a change is in order, then what sort of change exactly? How is one to determine the just distribution of wealth? (The philosophical literature on this topic is voluminous. Probably the most famous book on the subject, for those of you that are curious, is John Rawls's A Theory of Justice.) What sorts of policy changes, if any, do you think are in order?
22 comments:
Why don't we just ACTUALLY TAX the rich and then reduce taxes of the poor and middle class. This would pay for all the social services, military, etc. we curently have and leave more money for the people that need it. Easy solution. Why can't politicians pull this off?
Because they have been bought by the rich.
If you want a fair distribution of wealth, try communism. It has really worked well for the Cubans! Maybe instead of crying about the the wealth other people have, the individual should work harder to create their own wealth. This is the true meaning of the American Dream right?
Deb- Thanks for commenting.
What you seem to be suggesting is that communism does NOT lead to a fair distribution of wealth and that this is not a desirable economic/political structure. I think many, many people would agree with you. However, your claim about "working hard" to achieve the American Dream is dubious. The data just doesn't support your suggestion. If you listen to the TED talk and read up on matter, I think you'll see that very wealthy people have a MUCH better shot at moving up the "economic ladder" than anyone else. And this is what I think so many people are upset about. It's the fact that the poor and middle class have the deck stacked against them in rather hefty way. The data does clearly support their position. But the question I'm worried about is what exactly, if anything, should be done about this. The facts should inform our policy and our moral judgments. And it's the policy and moral judgments with which I'm concerned.
I'm intentionally not weighing in on this debate. So please don't take anything I've said to be a call for communism or anything like that. I'm merely presenting the issue and hoping that folks reading the blog will share their opinions and reasons for having these opinions. As I hope I've made clear, the reason you give seems to be orthogonal to the issue at hand. What I think the "99%" are upset about is this issue about not having a fair shot at moving up the economic ladder and not having a fair share for the amount of work they put in and the contribution they make to society. It's not clear to me how the undesirability of communism diminishes their case in any way. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps you can say a bit more about what you're thinking and flesh out your argument.
In a communist state, there is no incentive for the individual to work harder as everyone gets the same regardless of their efforts. If we as Americans feel that we can take from the 1% (as the protesters claim) and distribute amoung the 99%, what would make the 1% continue to work hard. These are the people who are creating jobs and inventing things that advance our society. Perhaps some of these people have acheived wealth in an unethical manner, but how many indivduals who recieve welfare benefits have also received them in an unethical manner? In the end there will always be the haves and have nots. As far as it being harder for the individual to move up the ladder, perhaps instead of protesting they should be studying or getting a part time job to start paying off those student loans. You have to beat the odds in this life and I don't really think this generation is ready to do this.
I see what you're saying now, Deb. Thanks for clarifying. I'll leave it to others to comment on your points. Thanks again for putting in your two cents!
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to shed some light on the other side of the coin here. I have always felt that "Spreading the Wealth" is the easy way out and will have serious moral and ethical consequences.
I see what Deb is saying but I also see what the first person said.
Doesn't it depend on what you mean by spreading the wealth? We shoudn't just take money from rich people and give it to poor people. That's not fair. One solution to this issue is not to go so far as communism but to return to what were reasonable tax rates that we had not that long ago. As some of the stuff that Jesse posted shows, even under Regan we had a reasonable tax rate for the wealthy. It's only in the last couple of decades that it's gotten really bad. So just go back to the good old days and close some of those tax loops and we'll see more money going to the wallets of those of us that actually do work instead of the investment bankers and CEOs. I don't think this would stop job creation or slow the economy. Besides look what the current system of taxation has gotten us..more jobs and higher wages? I dont think so. So even though I agree with Deb about communism, I humbly disagree about it just leaving it the way it is.
Yeah, I don't think we should take money from people and "redistribute it" but there is a more fair way of payment and taxation. People that do hard work and contribute to the world deserve there fair share. And people that don't don't deserve to be so so rich. I mean it's hard to see how someone could be worth millions of dollars a year and someone else is only worth 10 dollers an hour. I think we should pay people that work in hard jobs and contribute to society more and pay people that don't work hard and don't really contribute less. That doesn't mean that they get paid as much as everyone else. Just less money. Like pay a banker 500,000 instead of 3 million and pay a teacher 70,000 instead of 25000. Thats my suggestion.
Debs view about instead of protesting about what you don't have and whining about what the rich do have seems so familar. Usually the rich want to stay richer so the poor can stay poorer.
You don't seem to include anything about the 400,000 filing for unemployment because jobs have been shipped overseas or because they lost their jobs due to the recession we are currently in. I think that if there were more jobs the people would actually want the job rather than being on unemployment making less than what they would be making if they were still working. It's the views where people don't think about extenuating circumstances that get to me. To be true to the topic at hand one must also have empathy. I think empathy is an important part of morality.
I totally agree with Deb. I believe that the U.S. should live up to what it was created on (freedom and free trade). I believe this is contradicted if the government applies rules to regulate wealth. Although not completely communist this would still lessen the will to gain wealth in the U.S. If someone becomes wealthy and the government takes a lot of the wealth away it takes away from the will. Although the TED talk does link many issues with wealth inequality I believe there are other ways to solve this other than government regulations. People need to compete with wealthy companies to better distribute the wealth. With more government regulations the U.S. will become less free and this is why the people of wealthy countries such as the U.S. need to act, forming more companies and businesses and distributing the wealth.
Torrey Johnson
Torrey--free trade is one of the reasons why The middle class is shrinking. All those blue collar jobs going overseas instead of in the USA where they belong? What do you have to say to that? If you are going to argue free trade--
Then you have to know more about it than that. If they don't stop sending the jobs overseas--then nothing will change and things will continue to spiral downward. Where's your empathy for all the people who lost those jobs? Where's the empathy for the 400,000filing for unemployment each day. Empathy is what Makes Morality what it is. Empathy and Justice. Without that--freedom wouldn't exist. Chew on that and come back with a better arguement--because so far you haven't persuaded me.
Sherry Troutman
Torrey--this country wasn't founded on free trade. It was founded on mass genocide of another culture (the indians), stripping them of their land, and slavery. Free trade was pushed into legislation by George Bush, a way for the rich business people to reduce labor costs, evade health regulations, and start risky practices like evading health code putting the entire country at risk. It's because of free trade that we have bacteria scares and have to recall a bunch of products. They said anything they could to get it to pass even if it meant that they would have to lie through their teeth claiming that it would create more jobs, when actually it was going to take a numerous amount away from the general public who because of those jobs were actually making a decent living.
Those people who lost those jobs deserve them back. Sending jobs overseas was a horrible crime president bush did to the american public that was left unpunished. It's one of the reasons why the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer, and the middle class is continuously shrinking. I suggest you read more about free trade. But I already knew about it--because I took the american political process with doctor robar right when they were trying to push the free trade agreement into law. The free trade agreement took away my mother's job where she was making more money than she is now. Do you think that's fair?
Please keep comments civil. We can engage in a debate and express our opinions without being mean or calling names. I've had to reject a couple of comments in this thread and a few that I've posted could be worded a bit more carefully/respectfully. Thanks!
I really really badly want to tell this richard guy a thing or too about health issues versus social issues and that he's got it all wrong. I am beyond frustrated with that man. Mental illness is caused by neurotransmitters misfiring in the brain and the brain is technically a part of the body--just because most of the illnesses deal with emotions doesn't mean that they are not health issues! I've taken a few psychology classes out at pitt--and even the professors are upset that "some" people are not looking at mental illness the way it should be looked at.
Well Sherry, since you have a vast knowledge of the history of the United States I would like to know if you could name one point in time where trade was completely cut off. If not, could you at least back your claim? And for your claim of this country being founded on mass genocide and other things I would like to state that this was not the intended purpose and that many other countries have gone or are going through close to the same thing. No, I am not proud of what happened and who would be, but the past is the past and if you ask me you should look at this country for what it has become not what it used to be. You may say it has become nothing good but I disagree. I believe, for the most part the U.S. has become a very good place to live and grow up. Would you rather be in another country doing a job forced upon you that you hate or would you like to be free to do what you like with endless possibilities? Another point I saw in your post was the loss of jobs. Yes, the loss of jobs in the U.S. is a terrible thing but do you think that it did not affect me and everyone else in this country in some way? I grow up in a small town where it is very hard to find jobs and I managed to do it along with many other people. If you ask me, this is when free-trade should be promoted in our country. With the growth of new business, new jobs will be created and businesses need trade. And the nice thing is free trade allows people working blue collar jobs to rise up in position and make more money. I have worked several blue-collar jobs and know the importance of them so please do not assume that that I have no empathy for them. For the next point, health scares, I would like to specifically state what you said. As you stated, " It's because of free trade that we have bacteria scares and have to recall a bunch of products." Free trade is not the cause of this. Every area on earth could potentially have these problems. Tribes that are isolated from civilization completely, could have encounters with bad food. One last point I would like to address is the loss of your mothers job. I do not think it is fair to bring family and personal things into this discussion but since you did I would like to ask some questions. Would it be morally or ethically right to take away peoples jobs that directly relate to free trade? Or peoples that indirectly have to do with free trade? What if the supplies for a company came about through free trade and this was the only way to keep it afloat? Trust me I would love to keep all the jobs in the U.S. at every possible time but I believe there are other ways to do this than doing away with free trade. I think the government needs to back off all of its polices and regulations for extra tax dollars and let trade among people and countries just happen. It is not "fair" to restrict peoples freedoms (in this case trade). I believe we are straying away from the topic of wealth but I stand by my main focus that wealth should be regulated freely and not through intervention of any source.
Torrey Johnson
PS, I am not trying to offend you so please try to do the same to me. It would be greatly appreciated.
I would like to add to my blog earlier that I am looking at "free trade" mostly as freely trading within a country.
Although many people might think that it isn't fair that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, that is the way that the country is starting to go. As unfair as it may be if you stop to think about it who are we as a people to say that it isn't right for the rich to make more money, they obviously are doing something right if they keep getting more and more money. Plus on top of that I think that if were to implement something to help the distribution of wealth it would have bad consequences on our country. I completely agree with people when they say it is unfair that the rich keep getting richer because just like everybody else I want to make as much money as I can and want to be rich as well. I feel as though the people that are complaining about this though are just upset that they do not have that much money and if they did they wouldn’t be complaining about it. So I guess what I am trying to say is that I think our country just needs to leave everything how it is and keep letting the rich get richer.
Yes--I understand your point of view Torrey, but The Free Trade act that they have now is much different than that--they want to close down buisness in the USA and give those workers to foriegners who will get paid less, get treated with disrespect, not even allowed to take bathroom breaks or food breaks--If you want free trade--they should go about it with some respect--at least they are not doing that now. I did my presentation on this. I've done the research. Free trade wouldn't be such a bad thing, if they would follow the same rules and standards that we have in the USA, and if they did that, then they wouldn't even want free trade anymore. The whole reason free trade was passed was for the benefit of the corporations and not the common man.
Well that's not what 'free trade' is right now. Torrey, it's really different than freely trading within a country.
I also want to clarify free trade--free trade is envading the laws of the environment and sending jobs over seas to cut costs and avoid labor laws--if the corporations weren't allowed to do this--they'd rethink free trade and make up a new law and new name for the law. I wish everyone luck on their final and research paper if they choose to do this subject or any subject--and if you need more help understanding this subject, feel free to email me for a few quick questions. =)
I don't think it would be ethical to take either Job away torrey. But free trade destroyed more jobs. They said they would create more jobs for the American people, but it really didn't. The American people were lied to. So the next question that I would pose on the people reading this blog: Is it right that the American people were lied to?
No, I believe it is wrong.
Post a Comment