Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Carborendum perhpps we are bot hjs misunderstanding each other. I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. I think sometimes we all get preconceived ideas about what the other person is thinking and then we don't listen as effectively.

@tesuji you know I understand your concerns and share them. Thinking about the scriptures you shared, I think PC had the best answer as to how to move towards that goal...working with individuals and families. The quote he reminded me of was from Ezra Taft Benson. I'll try to find it and share it later. I think you will like it too.

Edited June 28, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, tesuji said:

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

-#5: The failed experiment under Brigham Young.  Are you aware of what caused the failure?

 

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. Considering the Nephites were isolated, it was pretty much the entire population.

It came about in association with a strong, inspired leader. Not certain the Nephites would qualify unless you're talking about Jesus Christ Himself.

It was voluntary. This is a key point to remember, not just one point among many.  The voluntary is a linchpin.

It did happen - it was not a fantasy utopia.

It did not last. -- Enoch did not last only because it was removed from the Earth.

 

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?  

Yes, and I believe that most members of the Church do a great job at it.  BTW, Utah leads the nation in charitable giving.

 

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 believe we're already doing it as a Church.  It's just not as visible because it's not advertised.  We all make a covenant for the Law of Consecration.  That is active NOW.  TODAY.  Just because it doesn't appear on the tithing forms doesn't mean it's not active.  All I own is the Lord's.  That is the Law.  He lets me exercise stewardship over it as I see fit.  One day He will hold me accountable for that stewardship.  Is it good for me to simply give away all the Lord's goods and wealth to anyone who asks for it?  No.  It's the Lord's.  Is there a reason He would want you to have it?  If so, I'll give it to you.

There are a multitude of donations that people make all the time that doesn't get sent to the IRS for recording.

 

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

 

It will be a brand new system. New to us anyway, how 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.

 

Please read the link I posted earlier.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/01/to-prepare-a-people?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Is it economic inequality that you worried about, or are you just jealous of "rich" people who have more than you? Envy is also gravely sinful.  

THISTHISTHISTHISTHIS.

It's about class envy.  Period.  I do not care in the slightest how much the richest people have.  I don't care whether they got it by earning it or inheriting it.  I don't care if they make 200 times more money than I do.  I just.  don't.  care.

And then I see stuff like this that screams in my face that apparently this is some kind of awful injustice and I should be enraged. 

Where's the injustice?  Some people work harder, are more talented, better educated, or just born in the right family.  I'm supposed to be outraged by that?  What difference does it make to me how much money Warren Buffet has?  And who am I to judge whether his income is fair? 

The problem is that people who are the most concerned with income inequality are people who think wealth is a zero sum game.  In other words, for one person to be rich, someone else must necessarily be poor.  While it's true that resources are finite, economies expand and national wealth is measured by more than just how much gold is in at Ft. Knox or how much cash is in circulation.  Does anyone think the U.S. economy is the same size now as it was in 1816?  Anyone? 

Growth is growth.  Some will benefit more from it than others, but I don't know why some being wealthier than others is inherently unfair.  Money isn't what makes life good.  Think Paris Hilton has a better life than you?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour 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.

Of course (presuming these were the points), then the solution is simply to convert the 1% to the gospel.  (Well, convert everyone to the gospel, really).

[LeSellers]

25 minutes ago, tesuji said:

- The early Christian church under Paul after Jesus left

No such times. Peter was the Chief Apostle.

As I said earlier, none of your four examples worked very long. We live in a telestial world, and the Law of Consecration and Stewardship does not work under the stress of scarcity.

We could take the example of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. Even though religiously motivated, they failed miserably because any excuse to stay home was good enough, and the stay-at-homes got to eat the same as those who worked. (I don't recall any specific examples of the United Order or similar LDS ventures, but they all failed — if it was for a different reason, I'd be interested in knowing what it was.)

No kind of socialism works. Whenever an outside power dictates that all should be "equal", without mandating that all should contribute equally (something that is impossible in any case), the system will fail, and fail spectacularly. There is not a single example of its ever achieving its stated goals anyplace on earth (with, as I said, the possible example of the City of Holiness and it was taken before the founders died off).

Lehi

Edited June 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

LeSellers did a great job of explaining why the minimum wage is harmful, in general. In particular, it's death to high school students, and many college students, seeking first jobs. The higher the wage the more likely experienced retirees will step back into the market place. If I'm managing McD's, in Seattle, and I have a 16-year old HS kid and a 65-year old, who's worked for 50 years, and still presents as in vigorous health, who am I likely to pick for my entry-level $15/hour position? High minimum wages are also harmful to new immigrants--especially those with language barriers. Let's not forget those who are trying to come off government assistance, those recovering from drug/alcohol abuse, and those coming out of prisons. There are many people who want to enter the marketplace, who have the drive and willingness to learn, but who lack skills.  Low minimum wage jobs give these folks a chance to build a resume, gain experience, and begin their journey towards a job with a sustainable living wage. Minimum wage jobs were never meant to support a family of four. They are usually part-time, low-compensated, but rich in first-time on-the job training. Often there is more value in the labor than in the pay.

Edited June 28, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[tesuji]

Carborendum, thanks for your additions to my lists and to my thoughts. (It won't let me insert your quote here, for some reason).

Nephites were a subset because the wicked had all been killed, as far as we know.
(or maybe a smiley is insensitive here...?)

Yes, I was referring to Jesus as the strong leader. It appears he inspired the members enough and/or maybe even set up the system that allowed it to happen.

#5 Brigham Young's failed experiment - Oh, yeah, I forgot that one. Orderville, UT and all that. It failed because of selfishness, I would guess?

I'm not so sure many LDS members don't have a ways to go, as far as helping poor people. But if I point my finger here, four will be pointing back at me, as the saying goes...

Thanks for that link to the article. I will read it.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So why are you against minimum wage? 

I'll give you a great example of what this does.  Mrs. Carb worked at a dry cleaners when the min wg was about $3.50/hr.  She got trained and was given a raise to $3.70/hr.  After she got good and proved her worth, she got a raise to $4.00/hr.  Then the govt decided to raise the minimum wage to $4.00/hr.  Since the business couldn't afford to give everyone a raise, she was working at minimum wage again even though she had put forth a lot of time and effort to prove her worth.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Carborendum pperhpps wee ar bot js misunderstanding each other. I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. I think sometimes we all get preconceived ideas about what the other person is thinking and then we don't listen as effectively.

Did I misunderstand anything you said?  I realize I get a little zealous sometimes in my posts.  But don't mistake this for being angry or thinking any less of you personally.  I just feel that I have to express my opinion as clearly as possible.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@prisonchaplain sorry I missed Lehi's posts.  What you say makes sense, but  couldn't a absence of minimum pay be abused? Looking back at history would seem to show that.

 

[prisonchaplain]

@LiterateParakeet I've come to the place of simply opposing minimum wage hikes. It's doubtful, especially in today's political environment, that we would ever see a repeal of the minimum wage. However, if there is ever a nationwide application of Seattle's disastrous $15/hour policy, I would lobby for a reduction.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Did I misunderstand anything you said?  I realize I get a little zealous sometimes in my posts.  But don't mistake this for being angry or thinking any less of you personally.  I just feel that I have to express my opinion as clearly as possible.

Thanks for clarifying. I do think you misunderstood me, and I you. It's okay those things happen.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@LiterateParakeet I've come to the place of simply opposing minimum wage hikes. It's doubtful, especially in today's political environment, that we would ever see a repeal of the minimum wage. However, if there is ever a nationwide application of Seattle's disastrous $15/hour policy, I would lobby for a reduction.

That seems like a reasonable compromise actually.

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So why are you against minimum wage?

The concept of a Minimum Wage is basically the State setting the baseline of the Standard of Living.  There is nothing wrong with setting a minimum wage to set the Standard of Living.  The problem is, the Minimum Wage debate in the US is not setting a baseline Standard of Living.  Rather, it is sold as Welfare - giving more money to people on the bottom so they can - support their families, buy more, be less poor, etc.  This is a complete MISUSE and MISUNDERSTANDING of the concept of a Minimum Wage.

To explain this in detail:

A person's Standard of Living does not ONLY depend on the value of his production (wage).  It ALSO depends on the value of his consumption (expenses).  The Standard of Living, therefore, is a combination of both.  It doesn't matter if the person is only making $1 per hour when his market basket of necessities also only costs $1.  He still has $7 per day to spend beyond his necessities (he is rich).  At the same time, it doesn't matter if the person is making $50 per hour when his market basket of necessities costs $500.  He is short $100 to afford his necessities (he is poor).

Setting the minimum wage to increase one's Standard of Living is, therefore, a LIE.  It is purely and simply a way for politicians to buy your vote in the ballot. 

What makes this lie an immense problem is it is made at the expense of Production.  Setting the minimum wage INCREASES the cost of doing business.  The assumption that businesses have all these extra money lying around (I will bet you my favorite shoes that people expect the money to come out of CEOs salaries) is another LIE.  Increasing the cost of business has only one expected result - an increase in the price of goods.  This increases the price of the market basket so your Minimum Wage has not impacted the Standard of Living one iota.... what it does though is this:  US Production cannot compete with the global competition - this is made possible due to the US propensity for Free Trade where US production has to compete with low labor costs of other countries.  This condition gives you a TREMENDOUS problem.

 

Now, when should the Minimum Wage be increased?  Note that Minimum Wage is for Entry Level job seekers.  Minimum Wage is for the 14-year-old seeking a job bagging groceries so he can gain some production and work ethic experience.  It is not intended for the 30-year-old with 4 mouths to feed.  When a country is experiencing a major surplus (there are more jobs than there are job seekers), the State may set the Minimum Wage higher to set the Standard of Living at that price point.  This bumps everyone up the dollar scale - not only the minimum wage workers  but all the way up the ladder.  The market can absorb the increased value of the market basket since there are a lot of jobs to pay for the basket.  This then puts more Dollars in demand, thereby increasing the value of the Dollar.  This is set so that even when production declines, the value of the Dollar remains protected.  You don't increase minimum wage in an economic downturn.  That will produce the opposite effect.

 

 

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

couldn't a absence of minimum pay be abused? Looking back at history would seem to show that.

Not in a real market. If your work is worth $3.25 and I pay you only $3.00, other smart employers will "bid you away" from me by offering $3.20, then $3.25. In fact, your work  might be worth $3.25 to me,  but $3.50 to someone else.

Lehi

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So why are you against minimum wage?

The concept of a Minimum Wage is basically the State setting the baseline of the Standard of Living.  There is nothing wrong with setting a minimum wage to set the Standard of Living.  The problem is, the Minimum Wage debate in the US is not setting a baseline Standard of Living.  Rather, it is sold as Welfare - giving more money to people on the bottom so they can - support their families, buy more, be less poor, etc.  This is a complete MISUSE and MISUNDERSTANDING of the concept of a Minimum Wage.

To explain this in detail:

A person's Standard of Living does not ONLY depend on the value of his production (wage).  It ALSO depends on the value of his consumption (expenses).  The Standard of Living, therefore, is a combination of both.  It doesn't matter if the person is only making $1 per hour when his market basket of necessities also only costs $1.  He still has $7 per day to spend beyond his necessities (he is rich).  At the same time, it doesn't matter if the person is making $50 per hour when his market basket of necessities costs $500.  He is short $100 to afford his necessities (he is poor).

Setting the minimum wage to increase one's Standard of Living is, therefore, a LIE.  It is purely and simply a way for politicians to buy your vote in the ballot. 

What makes this lie an immense problem is it is made at the expense of Production.  Setting the minimum wage INCREASES the cost of doing business.  The assumption that businesses have all these extra money lying around (I will bet you my favorite shoes that people expect the money to come out of CEOs salaries) is another LIE.  Increasing the cost of business has only one expected result - an increase in the price of goods.  This increases the price of the market basket so your Minimum Wage has not impacted the Standard of Living one iota.... what it does though is this:  US Production cannot compete with the global competition - this is made possible due to the US propensity for Free Trade where US production has to compete with low labor costs of other countries.  This condition gives you a TREMENDOUS problem.

 

Now, when should the Minimum Wage be increased?  Note that Minimum Wage is for Entry Level job seekers.  Minimum Wage is for the 14-year-old seeking a job bagging groceries so he can gain some production and work ethic experience.  It is not intended for the 30-year-old with 4 mouths to feed.  When a country is experiencing a major surplus (there are more jobs than there are job seekers), the State may set the Minimum Wage higher to set the Standard of Living at that price point.  This bumps everyone up the dollar scale - not only the minimum wage workers  but all the way up the ladder.  The market can absorb the increased value of the market basket since there are a lot of jobs to pay for the basket.  This then puts more Dollars in demand, thereby increasing the value of the Dollar.  This is set so that even when production declines, the value of the Dollar remains protected.  You don't increase minimum wage in an economic downturn.  That will produce the opposite effect.

 

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Anatess. Very helpful!

[Guest]

I'll put this subject on its head for a moment.  How much does a poor person really "need" to get by on?  A family of 5 or 6 can get by on an average income of $50k/yr and be quite comfortable.  Let's say this is an average of about $10k/person.

According to the census bureau about 50 million live in poverty.  Do the math.  Even if we assume everyone in poverty has NO income, that is about $500 Billion to give everyone in poverty enough to be comfortable.

The US donations were about $360 billion.  considering that all people have SOME income, and that this $10k/person is quite comfortable, I'd say we're already where we need to be in order to make sure everyone has what they need.  Why are we pushing for more?

Isn't it the ideal to make sure everyone has enough and then let anyone achieve whatever more that they want?

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now, when should the Minimum Wage be increased?

Never. The minimum should die the ignominious death it so richly deserves.

Lehi

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Never. The minimum should die the ignominious death it so richly deserves.

Lehi

"Richly".  Classic.

[LeSellers]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Note that Minimum Wage is for Entry Level job seekers.  Minimum Wage is for the 14-year-old seeking a job bagging groceries so he can gain some production and work ethic experience.

Which will not happen when a grocery bagger's work is not worth the minimum wage. Then he will not get that experience. Why, because he won't get the job at all.

"Fast food" is the quintessential "minimum wage job". But it clearly does not make any sense: M^cDonald's is installing kiosks to take the place of its minimum wage staffers because those staffers' work is just not worth the minimum wage.

Let's be clear: it's the work, not the people, that's not worth it. If the same people were working elsewhere doing something more meaningful, they'd get paid more: they'd get paid the value of the work they did.

Lehi

Edited June 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

11 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Let's be clear: it's the work, not the people, that's not worth it. If the same people were working elsewhere doing something more meaningful, they'd get paid more: they'd get paid the value of the work they did.

Lehi

THIS!

I suspect liberals naively want to see people paid what THEY are worth, rather than have them compensated for what they produce. We will never get what we are worth this side of Glory.

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

We will never get what we are worth this side of Glory.

But then, we'll get a lot more than what we're worth.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Isn't it the ideal to make sure everyone has enough and then let anyone achieve whatever more that they want?

The ideal is to make sure that everyone has the ability to do what he's best suited for and that will make others the best off. When everyone is guaranteed he'll survive, and do so at the expense of others, there are too many who'll produce nothing, and take everything they can get.

Lehi

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The ideal is to make sure that everyone has the ability to do what he's best suited for and that will make others the best off. When everyone is guaranteed he'll survive, and do so at the expense of others, there are too many who'll produce nothing, and take everything they can get.

I never used that word.  By saying "make sure" it allows for voluntary (and therefore not guaranteed) efforts to fill in voids.

My overall message is that we as a nation are already taking care of our poor.  So, the only real complaint is that they are not as "comfortable" as some would want.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest