Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[tesuji]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, actually I didn't even hear any of your points.  What do you think those scriptures are about?  Do you really believe that they mean we should give all our wealth to the poor in any and all cases?  What do you really mean when you decry inequality?

The reason we've made the statements we have is that you really haven't defined anything.  Everything you've said is rhetoric without any logic or reasoning or even definitions.  I'd like to know what your reasoning is.  I'm assuming you have some logic and reason to your positions which have yet to be defined for the topic of this thread.

@tesuji

I continue to get the impression that you really don't think much about these topics at all.  You're just feeling things out.  That's fine for a beginning.  But if you really want to make a difference in both yourself and others, you need to spend some intellectual capital and really define and understand what you believe and why.

If I'm wrong in this impression, I'd like to hear your reasoning -- especially what you think about the verses that you give so much heed to.

 

OK, I'll respond soon then. 

I was trying to present what I think is the general answer - which is what the scriptures tell us. 

I have plenty of ideas, but I think arguing politics with people is usually fruitless. And just causes disharmony and bad feelings among church members. So I try to stay "above the fray" in political discussions. Not because I think I'm above anyone else, but because I think the answers are found in the gospel, beyond worldly political ideologies - they all have major problems, and all harp on some things and ignore other equally valid concerns.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Carb, wealth is relative. I know people that say they are not wealthy but to me the cars they drive, the vacations in Eupore etc makes them wealthy. Perhaps they are comparing themselves to Bill Gates. So when you tell me you've been there, I don't know what that really means for you. But you don't need to explain either.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.  Of course wealth is relative.  But I guess you didn't read my previous posts.  I've been dead broke.  I've been homeless.  If that isn't poor enough for you, I don't know what is.  Yes, I know what it is to be broke.

What I'm talking about is not unrealistic people like the woman in your example. I'm talking about good people who work hard...but sometimes stuff happens. Job lay offs, illness, death in the family...all sorts of things can happen.

Again, I've been there.  I've spoken about this on the forums before.  "Stuff" has happened to me as well.  I almost became dead broke again.  I'm aware.  I don't see how that changes anything.  The fact is that anyone who chooses to do those things that will create wealth will become wealthy.  Many don't.

Now a point we might somewhat agree on...I think....is this. I choose to work in the Social Work field. I do this knowing full well I could make more money in business. But the world of buying and selling g does not appeal to me. I'm and Idealistic and I am driven to try and make a difference in the world. I jokingly call my choice to do social work my vow of poverty. If you call that me chosing not to be wealthy, then I suppose you are right. 

Bingo.  Yet another example of just what I'm talking about.  I certainly don't call that lazy.  But you've obviously made choices that you knew would keep you from achieving great wealth.  That was your choice.  This has nothing to do with some over-arching socio-economic malady.

But I believe there are people who hustle and who would work in any field to make money but sometimes crap happens.  No offense intended but when people claim all you have to do is be willing to work that discounts ones dependence on God. 

Yet another thing I never said.  In fact, I said quite the opposite.

 

[tesuji]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Those are fine points, but the troubling part of socialism is "that they'd rather have the poor poorer as long as the rich were less rich." Direct quote from Margaret Thatcher. She was right then, she was right today. The older I get the more I am convinced that hating the rich is a desperate attempt to appear "compassionate" and "I'm jealous I don't have that, so I'm going to throw a tantrum."  In reality, the rich get rich for providing goods and services people want. And you know what? Some people are just lucky and born into good circumstances. Welcome to the real world where in the words of the legendary Rolling Stones, "you can't always get what you want." 

Envy will eat you up because it makes you ungrateful, which is death to your spirit. 
(Sorry, been in a celebrating the English mood since the Brexit)  

Who is talking about socialism here in this thread?

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Who is talking about socialism here?

Come on. Those who talk about "inequality" aren't raging capitalists, are they? 

It's ingratitude. In America most of the poor live like kings compared to the poor in India, Africa, most of Europe etc. You know who you can thank? Capitalism.  

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree.  I don't see any reason for 354:1.  Sure CEO's should be paid more. I have no problem with that.  My problem is with them getting paid that much more.  

Why not 354:1? If the CEO makes 354-times more for the company, why should he not be justly compensated? How does that hurt the entry-level intern (who may be gaining as much value from the on-the-job training s/he's receiving as from the paycheck)?  CEO pay, or how much the rich acquire is not what hinders those in the lower socio-economic levels.

Edited June 28, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think Tesuji's points are:

1. There's inequality, and that's bad
2. Most people don't know how inequal and how bad
3. We have scriptures telling us of a society that had no inequality, and that's good
4. We should do it like they did it in the scriptures

If I'm missing anything, let me know.

The best way I know how to express my opinion on this is when my landlady said:

Quote

I have no problem saying I'm a fascist Marxist communist.  If I were king (yes, I'm aware she was a woman) of the world I'd make sure everyone had food, clothing, shelter, and medical needs.

My response was: How would you go about doing that?

The bottom line is that she didn't have a clue about human motivation or what causes production.  As a king who forces his subjects to produce creates a system that will produce less.  She simply thought all the resources would always be there no matter what.  That simply isn't true.

Someone has to produce stuff.  How are they going to do that?  Why would they be motivated to do so?

Someone has to come up with systems to put thing in place.  Who does that?  How are they driven to come up with such systems?

A free market has through historical evidence shown that allowing people to work for personal gain by producing something for society is the best way to create a more productive society.

[estradling75]

My experience is when people talk about economic differences they draw the line at too much at the point of "more then me."

They are more then happy to support taking from the "MoreThans" because it is not them.  But they quickly deny that they are a "MoreThan" and scream loud and long how the "rich" should be made to pay their  "Fair Share"

Simple fact if you invoke God you have to include all of his children over all the world.

Simple fact if you are on the internet then compared to all the people in all the world you are a "MoreThan"

With this two facts in place then those who are complaining about Inequality need to ask themselves... "how much of my lifestyle am I willing to give up to raise my African brothers and sisters(and others in third world countries) up?"  Because if you are not willing to apply it personally then you have no case trying force or convince someone else to do so.

 

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How about because wealthy people tend to be more charitable than poor people?  Who donates more money to charity rich or poor?  

That is a good question, I don't know. I have heard it the other way. I realize this is anecdotal , but I heard a story about a Bishop who asked for more fast offerings to help the poor, and it was the poor he hoped to help that increased there fast offering. 

I don't have any stats to back that up though, how about you?

Supposing you are right, doesnt it make sense that the one who has more money than they need would share more than someone barely getting by?

Poor people don't save? You said you've been there...so it shouldn't be hard to understand that when you can't pay the bills, you can't save? 

Look I'm not condemning rich people. I know some fine e people who are rich. Many of our church leaders are quite wealthy as I understand it. What bothers me is the attitude some wealthy people have of "poor people could do this too if they really tried" rather than giving credit to God for the talents He gave you, and knowledge to get there.

I do love that in the temple we are all on the same level. And I look forward to the day when Christ comes and we live the Law of Consecration, but I know that won't work until He comes. 

Finally, while I am not wealthy by any means, I'm happy. My hubby and I pay our bills, we don't need welfare. I'm satisfied that with the Lord's help, I have what I need. So no isn't about me wanting other people's money. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, tesuji said:

Aaahhh, walls of text. I'll try to study what you all have replied soon today.

My main point is that we should think about the principles, ideals, and solutions that the scriptures teach. I'm not advocating any political solution, and I think the gospel is the answer to these problems, not partisan ideologies.

I gave you a gospel answer.  It's on page 1.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

\. 

Finally, while I am not wealthy by any means, I'm happy. My hubby and I pay our bills, we don't need welfare. I'm satisfied that with the Lord's help, I have what I need. So no isn't about me wanting other people's money. 

That's all the matters, Lit. The blunt truth is that more money DOES equal more problems-but only people who aren't struggling have the right to say that. I've been poor before (I've slept in a car, I've almost had my power shut off, etc) though and I've been "rich". Rich is better. Money gives you the ability to stop worrying about money but at the end of the day you are who you are. Money can buy happiness, but only briefly. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Why not 354:1? If the CEO makes 354-times more for the company, why should he not be justly compensated? How does that hurt the entry-level intern (who may be gaining as much value from the on-the-job training s/he's receiving as from the paycheck)?  CEO pay, or how much the rich acquire is not what hinders those in the lower socio-economic levels.

Good question. How does a CEO bring that much value to a company? It sounds like he or she is some sort of superhero. I have no problem with a CEO making more, even a lot more...he should be compensated for his training, his education, his decision making abilities. No problem! I just don't understand how 353:1 is justified.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, tesuji said:

Aaahhh, walls of text. I'll try to study what you all have replied soon today.

My main point is that we should think about the principles, ideals, and solutions that the scriptures teach. I'm not advocating any political solution, and I think the gospel is the answer to these problems, not partisan ideologies.

I gave you a gospel answer.  It's on page 1.

[prisonchaplain]

19 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But I believe there are people who hustle and who would work in any field to make money but sometimes crap happens.  No offense intended but when people claim all you have to do is be willing to work that discounts ones dependence on God. 

Sometimes labels are useful. I am a free-enterprise proponent, a minimum wage opponent, and a favor free trade. Having said all that, "crap" happens far too often. Some of it is societal, much of it is familial, and there is the individual aspect. Factories close, entire industries become obsolete, housing market bubbles burst, and then there are those who were raised in drug infested communities, schools, and families. Those, just to name a few. And yes, there are those of us who get the college education (first in my family), but who then answer the call to the more humbly compensated professions.  All of that is true.

And, so? What to do? "Soak the rich" has never worked.  I still believe the old quip:  The sin of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, the glory of communism/socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

[LeSellers]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm talking about good people who work hard

What in the world does "working hard" have to do with creating wealth?
I may spend 12 hours a day making the world's best mud pies, I can make them pretty, I can make them large and small, and I can work up a terrible sweat and be hungry and tired at the end of the day, but all my hard work has not helped one person be happier, be better off.

Wealth comes to anyone who makes other people better off, and great wealth comes to those who make a lot of people much better off.

Bill Gates is wealthy because he made a lot of people much better off. Andrew Carnegie made a lot of people much better off. John Rockefeller made a lot of people much better off. Working hard is not the answer: the answer is making other people better off, the more people and the  better their lives, the more you will earn.

Wealth is a reflection of how many people one has made happier.

Further, the wealthy run all the risks. They create jobs and they pay their employees before they sell any products. The employee runs no risk: he gets paid whether the mud pie sell or not.

It's not about hard work. It's about making others better off. It's not about inequality, it's about scarcity. Those who compete for easy job will not become wealthy. Those who work hard at the wrong job will not become wealthy.

Make others better off, and you will become wealthy. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." It's a Law.

Lehi

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Sometimes labels are useful. I am a free-enterprise proponent, a minimum wage opponent, and a favor free trade. Having said all that, "crap" happens far too often. Some of it is societal, much of it is familial, and there is the individual aspect. Factories close, entire industries become obsolete, housing market bubbles burst, and then there are those who were raised in drug infested communities, schools, and families. Those, just to name a few. And yes, there are those of us who get the college education (first in my family), but who then answer the call to the more humbly compensated professions.  All of that is true.

And, so? What to do? "Soak the rich" has never worked.  I still believe the old quip:  The sin of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth, the glory of communism/socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

PC, I totally agree with your first paragraph.

The second one is puzzling to me though. That isnt what I intended at all. 

[prisonchaplain]

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Good question. How does a CEO bring that much value to a company? It sounds like he or she is some sort of superhero. I have no problem with a CEO making more, even a lot more...he should be compensated for his training, his education, his decision making abilities. No problem! I just don't understand how 353:1 is justified.

His decisions may win contracts worth 10s of millions, his insights may discover ways of saving similar amounts. It's not just his education and training, but his experience, his true wisdom, his leadership. He attracts talent, he begets success. S/he is a superhero, in the business world. That's why there are the 80-hour plus weeks--the company cannot afford for this individual to be dormant. They pay first class air tickets, because having this person at the top of his/her game is worth the extra bucks.

The bottom line is that if he was not worth the 354-fold salary, why is the company giving it to him?  Charity?  The decision makers must believe this leader is worth it.

[tesuji]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, actually I didn't even hear any of your points.  What do you think those scriptures are about?  Do you really believe that they mean we should give all our wealth to the poor in any and all cases?  What do you really mean when you decry inequality?

The reason we've made the statements we have is that you really haven't defined anything.  Everything you've said is rhetoric without any logic or reasoning or even definitions.  I'd like to know what your reasoning is.  I'm assuming you have some logic and reason to your positions which have yet to be defined for the topic of this thread.

@tesuji

I continue to get the impression that you really don't think much about these topics at all.  You're just feeling things out.  That's fine for a beginning.  But if you really want to make a difference in both yourself and others, you need to spend some intellectual capital and really define and understand what you believe and why.

If I'm wrong in this impression, I'd like to hear your reasoning -- especially what you think about the verses that you give so much heed to.

 

My purpose in starting this thread is to get people thinking about these scriptures, which I think show us the ideal that we should be working for. We are supposed to be preparing for Zion.

I'm not here to propose specific paths or solutions or public policies.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, tesuji said:

We are supposed to be preparing for Zion.

Indeed. But we are supposed to be preparing for Zion while in a telestial world. christ warned us to be harmless as doves, but wise as serpents. We have to work where we are planted. Trying for utopia (no where) n a sinful world will only get us slaughtered. Sometimes physically, sometimes economically, but slaughtered nonetheless.

Lehi

Edited June 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

His decisions may win contracts worth 10s of millions, his insights may discover ways of saving similar amounts. It's not just his education and training, but his experience, his true wisdom, his leadership. He attracts talent, he begets success. S/he is a superhero, in the business world. That's why there are the 80-hour plus weeks--the company cannot afford for this individual to be dormant. They pay first class air tickets, because having this person at the top of his/her game is worth the extra bucks.

The bottom line is that if he was not worth the 354-fold salary, why is the company giving it to him?  Charity?  The decision makers must believe this leader is worth it.

Thanks PC, this is very helpful. I really am just trying to understand. I need to ponder this a bit....maybe wrestle with my cognitive dissonance, but you are making me think. I appreciate that.

So why are you against minimum wage? 

@anatess2 your comment was helpful to me as well. I'll ponder that along with PC's words.

[prisonchaplain]

10 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

PC, I totally agree with your first paragraph.

The second one is puzzling to me though. That isnt what I intended at all. 

Of course you did not intend to harm the rich. Yet, that is where discussions of inequality lead. Occupy Wall Street was all about the 1%. Government can't increase everyone's income 354-times, but it can sure tax and punish those CEOs making that amount.  The quick fix to income inequality is to make the rich pay "their fair share."  It may not help the poor much, but they can feel better, because now they are getting paid 1/200th of the CEO's pay, instead of 1/354th.

IMHO, fighting poverty should be all about encouraging strong families, combatting societal ills, etc.--not on how much more the pretty successful people are making.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

IMHO, fighting poverty should be all about encouraging strong families, combatting societal ills, etc.--not on how much more the pretty successful people are making.

Thank you, your explanations are helpful. I particularly like this paragraph. It reminds me of a quote I heard long ago, I'll shareit later if I can find it...but it was about Lord's way vs man's way. What you describe is the Lord's way...working with individuals and families. 

I've been thinking for sometime that I know Socialism is not the answer, but what is. I think this is my answer.  Why didn't I see it before? 

Thanks so much PC, you've really helped answer my questions and give me some new insights.

[LeSellers]

39 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So why are you against minimum wage? 

Because it destroys jobs for those whose work is not worth anything below about ⅔ the minimum wage. It kicks the bottom rungs out of the ladder to success. It also undermines the true value of everyone whose previous wage was less than (or not too much above) the new minimum wage.

Finally, it gives government too much power over who gets hired, who gets fired, and who gets to make decisions about how to run a business, power it does not deserve.

Lehi

Edited June 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That is a good question, I don't know. I have heard it the other way. I realize this is anecdotal , but I heard a story about a Bishop who asked for more fast offerings to help the poor, and it was the poor he hoped to help that increased there fast offering. 

I don't have any stats to back that up though, how about you?

There's this:  http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/charitable-giving-in-america-some-facts-and-figures.cfm

A little down the page, it gives percentages of donations by income level.  Those who make $10MM or more give the greatest percentage of their income.  Those between $45k and $50k are second.  Also keep in mind that a full 28% of all donations in the US were given by non-individuals (corporations, etc.).  This is more donations by the wealthy that they don't get credit for.

Supposing you are right, doesnt it make sense that the one who has more money than they need would share more than someone barely getting by?

Of course it does.  And they do.  My point is that if you re-distributed the wealth, there would be less overall giving.

Poor people don't save? You said you've been there...so it shouldn't be hard to understand that when you can't pay the bills, you can't save? 
Of course I understand.  How does that change the fact?  Not only that, many "poor" as you describe could actually save if they really wanted to.  When I was broke I ate rice with no beans for three meals a day (if I had three meals).  How many of today's poor actually do that?  When I was poor, I had to give up my apartment and became homeless.  How many of the poor have no home?  When I was broke I hunted job after job and worked 13 hours a day at minimum wage jobs.  Do the poor you speak of do the same? I know what it is to be poor.  Do the "poor" that you speak of truly know what it is to be poor?  

Look I'm not condemning rich people. I know some fine e people who are rich. Many of our church leaders are quite wealthy as I understand it. What bothers me is the attitude some wealthy people have of "poor people could do this too if they really tried" rather than giving credit to God for the talents He gave you, and knowledge to get there.

I never said "if they really tried".  And I thank the Lord all the time for my talents and abilities he's given me.  So, should I place them under a bushel and remain poor?

I do love that in the temple we are all on the same level. And I look forward to the day when Christ comes and we live the Law of Consecration, but I know that won't work until He comes. 

Agreed.  That would be wonderful.

Finally, while I am not wealthy by any means, I'm happy. My hubby and I pay our bills, we don't need welfare. I'm satisfied that with the Lord's help, I have what I need. So no isn't about me wanting other people's money. 

Good.  And I'm happy for you as well.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[tesuji]

As I have said, my main intent with this thread was to raise the question, and encourage people to think about what the scriptures mean. This is not part of some liberal gotcha agenda - "see, the scriptures say you Republicans are all wrong." No. (I'm not Republican or Democrat, anyway.)

 

It's more important that you all ponder these scriptures than listen to what one person (me) thinks them. But here are my thoughts, since at least one of you has asked for them:

 

 

There are four examples in the scriptures I can think of that show us a similar situation, where there were no poor:

 

- The early Christian church under Paul after Jesus left

- 4 Nephi after Jesus left

- The city of Enoch in the Book of Moses

- The failed experiment with the United Order under Joseph Smith

 

From these four, here is what I see that they each have in common:

 

It was a subset of the population, a group of uncommonly devout people. 

It came about in association with a strong, inspired priesthood leader.

It was voluntary.

It did happen - it was not a fantasy utopia.

It did not last.

 

I expect there may have been more of these throughout history that we don't know about. I don't know if we can assume these 4 represent the only possible answers or situations that have existed; but they are the ones we know about.

 

So if you say, "we should be more like these people," then there are two spheres to consider:

 

1. Individual actions

2. An organized system

 

Right now, I think our concern is the individual sphere. What should my heart be, and how should I individually act?

 

The organized system, however - I don't think we as LDS members can do much yet, except study what Zion will be. We can study what we know about Zion, the teachings of King Benjamin, study what the past United Order was like (assuming Zion will be like that - will it?). The scriptures say a lot about money and poor people and how we should think about these things.
 

I personally believe Zion will not be "new wine in old bottles" - by which I mean, it will not be based on Telestial, worldly ideas or -isms such as capitalism, socialism, etc.

 

It will be a brand new system. New to us anyway, who have never lived like this. This system must be established by God, by revelation to church leaders. The best we could hope do until them is achieve some kind of synthesis of the best elements of all the worldly -isms; but I believe that would fall short.

 

 

[added]

More in the individual sphere--

We can also learn about the law of consecration, which LDS temple goers have all agreed to, if I understand correctly. And we can contribute by way of offerings through the church.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, tesuji said:

My purpose in starting this thread is to get people thinking about these scriptures, which I think show us the ideal that we should be working for. We are supposed to be preparing for Zion.

I'm not here to propose specific paths or solutions or public policies.

Two points.

1) The Free Market may not be perfect.  But it will get us closer to Zion than any other currently existing economic system that there is.
2) Remember that the scriptures you speak of are GOALS not methods.  If we can agree on that, then we're good.

Would it be great if everyone worked as hard as they could on everything that is required of them?  Sure would. 
Would it be great if we had a society where everyone freely gave to everyone?  Sure would.
Would it be great if we made people feel guilty for making 354 times more than another man?  Uhmm.  No.  What has that got to do with the scriptures?  This is exactly what the SA article is trying to do.  The very underlying message is that the wealthy are being evil because they make so much more than others.  Try re-writing the article without that as the subtext and I'd find it a much more useful article.