Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tesuji said:

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

2) 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.

3) #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?

4) 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...

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

1)  I thought your point was that a Zion people would necessarily have to isolate themselves from those around them.  That was my interpretation anyway.

2) If Jesus is our leader in a very physical as well as spiritual sense, then YES! we could totally live this dream that I think all of us want.

3) Selfishness was only part of it.  This goes back to what you were saying about a subset.  It was the very fact that non-LDS immigrants started populating Utah that many disturbances came into the system.  No, there was no one cause.  And yes, there were some who were beginning to take advantage of the system and so forth.  But most of the saints were quite happy with the system.  Little things happened that upset a delicate balance, but they handled them as they came up.

4)  There's always room for improvement.  But I don't share your pessimism about the Latter-Day Saints.  I think MANY Saints are pretty generous to the poor and also have are firmly grounded in the spiritual over the material.

5) I hope so.  It's a good article.

[tesuji]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 

I wasn't trying to make points, just trying to analyze the examples. I'm not sure what lessons we should take from them, but was trying to at least see if we could describe what they had in common.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, tesuji said:

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...

Apologies ahead of time.  But this statement is beginning to nag at me.  What is it that you expect the Saints to do that you don't see them doing which would indicate we're working toward an economic Zion?

[tesuji]

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Apologies ahead of time.  But this statement is beginning to nag at me.  What is it that you expect the Saints to do that you don't see them doing which would indicate we're working toward an economic Zion?

 Satan is The Accuser; Christ is The Advocate. I don't want to be an accuser, and tell specifics of my opinion, just say that I think we have a ways to go. And that Zion is about more than economic preparation.

So I would rather be like an advocate and instead encourage people. To continue preparing. Always including myself of course.

Sorry if it's nagging you. What's important is not my opinion, but how each of us answer that question ourselves. Are we ready to live in Zion?

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, tesuji said:

 Satan is The Accuser; Christ is The Advocate. I don't want to be an accuser, and tell specifics of my opinion, just say that I think we have a ways to go. And that Zion is about more than economic preparation.

So I would rather be like an advocate and instead encourage people. To continue preparing. Always including myself of course.

Sorry if it's nagging you. What's important is not my opinion, but how each of us answer that question ourselves. Are we ready to live in Zion?

Uhmmm...

Quote

T: What about this?

C: What about it?  We're fine.

T: No we're not.

C: What makes you say that?

T: Well I'm not judging.  I just think we should try to do better.

C: Yes you are judging, and how are we to do better if we don't know what we're doing wrong?

Like I said, there's always room for improvement.  But this is a pointless thread if you're not going to discuss what you want to discuss.  This sounds like that guy that popped into the advice forum long enough to ask for advice about what to do in his situation but wouldn't tell us anything about his situation or the decision he was trying to make.

Huh???

The definition of a forum is a place where people come together to exchange ideas.  So feel free to exchange.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[tesuji]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Uhmmm...

Like I said, there's always room for improvement.  But this is a pointless thread if you're not going to discuss what you want to discuss.  This sounds like that guy that popped into the advice forum long enough to ask for advice about what to do in his situation but wouldn't tell us anything about his situation or the decision he was trying to make.

Huh???

The definition of a forum is a place where people come together to exchange ideas.  So feel free to exchange.

You could start with the book Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley. That's all his view, but I think he's got some good points.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/approaching-zion/

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

43 minutes ago, tesuji said:

You could start with the book Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley. That's all his view, but I think he's got some good points.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/approaching-zion/

Thanks for the recommendation. I think I'll read that.   

[bytebear]

I challenge the premise that wealth inequality is a bad thing.  The fact is, world poverty has dropped dramatically, largely due to rich people wanting to get even more rich.  And while we lament that poverty exists in the world, it has dropped from 70% to less than 10%.  We are at the wealthiest, most prosperous time in world history, and we should be grateful for that.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

If socialism is really what God wanted us to do, He probably would have revealed it to His prophets by now. 

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

By saying "make sure" it allows for voluntary (and therefore not guaranteed) efforts to fill in voids.

You may be right, but I'm not seeing how "guarantee" and "make sure" differ.

Lehi

[Backroads]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I hope my children will achieve even more.  That is the way it works.  And it SHOULD work like that.

Disclaimer: I've only read the first page of this thread upon writing this response. I apologize if it's a bit of a derailment. I also don't mean this to be accusatory. Just discussing my musings.

So, is it generally expected that each subsequent generation make more money than his parents did? Thus, a son (or daughter) ought to seek a higher-paying career than his parents'? Or is the ideal for a generation to reach a happy point where the offspring can comfortably pursue a comfortable lifestyle that is not necessarily greater than the prior generation?

Several examples: My mom has a good friend who is married to a doctor. Thus, very comfortable living situation. They have some kids, and a majority of them have also decided to become doctors. Then there is another one who is going into social work. There is a final kid who is currently a semi-homeless druggie, but let's that one be the outlier.

Another example is my uncle. He is at multimillionaire status from his business. While his kids are all doing their things, not one of them is in a career that will get even close to that multimillionaire status or even ever break the 100 grand income mark. I think all are living happily and comfortably.

My dad writes software. I believe his top income has been about 80,000. I am a teacher, my brother is a respiratory therapist, my other brother runs social media for the city, my sister works in finance, and the three younger siblings are all in college pursuing respectable degrees but nothing promising an outrageous sum of money.

If each generation should be achieving more, should they automatically be seeking careers that make more than their parents?

[Backroads]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I hope my children will achieve even more.  That is the way it works.  And it SHOULD work like that.

Disclaimer: I've only read the first page of this thread upon writing this response. I apologize if it's a bit of a derailment. I also don't mean this to be accusatory. Just discussing my musings.

So, is it generally expected that each subsequent generation make more money than his parents did? Thus, a son (or daughter) ought to seek a higher-paying career than his parents'? Or is the ideal for a generation to reach a happy point where the offspring can comfortably pursue a comfortable lifestyle that is not necessarily greater than the prior generation?

Several examples: My mom has a good friend who is married to a doctor. Thus, very comfortable living situation. They have some kids, and a majority of them have also decided to become doctors. Then there is another one who is going into social work. There is a final kid who is currently a semi-homeless druggie, but let's that one be the outlier.

Another example is my uncle. He is at multimillionaire status from his business. While his kids are all doing their things, not one of them is in a career that will get even close to that multimillionaire status or even ever break the 100 grand income mark. I think all are living happily and comfortably.

My dad writes software. I believe his top income has been about 80,000. I am a teacher, my brother is a respiratory therapist, my other brother runs social media for the city, my sister works in finance, and the three younger siblings are all in college pursuing respectable degrees but nothing promising an outrageous sum of money.

If each generation should be achieving more, should they automatically be seeking careers that make more than their parents?

[bytebear]

It's not just how much you make in comparison to your parents.  It's how much you can get for what you pay.  Fact is, today we have gadgets that surpass anything every dreamed of a generation ago.  We generally live in bigger houses with nicer amenities and have better household goods that cost far less than they did a generation ago.  We don't make our own clothes.  We don't bake our own bread, or grow our own vegetables.  We are absolutely, without question far better off economically than the previous generation, and you only have to go back a few generations to see that our lifestyle is something that in their generation was not even achievable by royalty.

[bytebear]

Think about this.  For about $500, which is equivalent of a few weeks pay at minimum wage, you can buy a plane ticket to the most exotic destination on the planet, whatever you deem that to be.  And you can get there in less than a day.  That's absolutely astonishing.

[LeSellers]

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

wealth is relative.

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

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.

Wealth is relative. millions of people worldwide live on far less than you have. Are you willing to give them a substantial portion of what you have?

There are people on this earth, right now, who have much less than 1/353 of what you have. Wanna share?

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, bytebear said:

It's not just how much you make in comparison to your parents.  It's how much you can get for what you pay.  Fact is, today we have gadgets that surpass anything every dreamed of a generation ago.  We generally live in bigger houses with nicer amenities and have better household goods that cost far less than they did a generation ago.  We don't make our own clothes.  We don't bake our own bread, or grow our own vegetables.  We are absolutely, without question far better off economically than the previous generation, and you only have to go back a few generations to see that our lifestyle is something that in their generation was not even achievable by royalty.

PREACH. 

For thousands of years, we lived in conditions that you and I would think of as horrible poverty. People died at 45-55.

Capitalism is that girlfriend you mistreated, cheated on and left. Now she's doing  great while you are on your fourth marriage. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Backroads said:

So, is it generally expected that each subsequent generation make more money than his parents did? Thus, a son (or daughter) ought to seek a higher-paying career than his parents'? Or is the ideal for a generation to reach a happy point where the offspring can comfortably pursue a comfortable lifestyle that is not necessarily greater than the prior generation?

A lot of buzz words in these questions.  So, let me just try to explain in different words.

The basis of wealth growth in a free society is that each generation works hard to make life better for the next generation.  This is generally achieved at the family level rather than the societal level.  By achieving it family-by-family, the society also grows since the family is the basic unit of society.

This philosophy has been lost on the current rising generation.  Many of the poor complain that they just aren't given the opportunities to "make it big".  Most of the middle class figure, they're comfortable enough that they can just do what Dad did.  Many of the wealthy are spoiled trust fund kids.  So, this is a problem from the top to the bottom of the economic food chain.

I don't think it should be an expectation for each child to do "better" than their parents.  It should be expected that the parents to everything they can to give their children the opportunity for the children to make that decision.

Obviously, JD Rockefeller Jr. couldn't be expected to do better than his father.  How can you get richer than the richest?  But in his day the addage "where much is given much is required" resonated within him to the point where he felt some anxiety about his debut into the world.  He was given more than anyone else in the world.  Of him would be required more than anyone else in the world.

I've told my children of this generational wealth building philosophy.  My son considers us somewhat wealthy.  And in some ways we are.  But more than half the ward makes a lot more than I do.  So, my son worries about being expected to make more than I do.

So I need to temper this philosophy with the idea of "vocation".  I've given that definition before.  Let me know if you haven't heard it.  But if your vocation simply isn't one that will produce a large income, there is certainly no shame in that.  LP's vocation is one that doesn't pay a lot.  But if that is her calling in life, then let her find joy in that field.  And I'm sure she'll do a lot of good in that field.  My vocation was one that gave me a very comfortable income, but not an ultra wealthy one.  And I recognize it all as a gift from God.  

Whatever field he chooses, I want it to be his vocation, not just a profession or occupation.  As long as it is something that the Lord would approve of, I don't care if he's a garbage collector or sewage maintenance man.  And it is enough to support his family, he's contributing to society and he's found his calling.  Be happy in your calling.

[Backroads]

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

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.

Now, it's not fair to compare wages from all states to all states but here in Utah... I know quite a few professional people in respectable jobs who are making in the ballpark of $15 an hour. True, they do tend to be in the earlier years of such careers, but in my little corner of the world, $15 is a decent if not ideal amount that is earned by people beyond their first year of burger-flipping. I just can't get behind the $15 minimum idea.

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For thousands of years… People died at 45-55.

Again the misleading truth.

Life expectancy is not the same thing for people of all ages. At birth, it's much lower than for an octogenarian. In earlier ages, life expectancy at birth was much lower than life expectancy at birth in our time. But life expectancy at any age greater than, say, ten years, was not all that much different from LE today for the same aged child (or adult).

Children died at almost 50% by the age of five or six. Women might have had child after child but never wean one of them because of illness and accident and war. (But other mothers could raise ten or twelve children — and everything in between.) If we look to the Bible, we see Anna, a widow of many decades.

Life Expectancy is not what most people think. And it never was.

Lehi

[Backroads]

@Carborendum I don't think I have heard your definition of vocation and now I'm curious. Please share.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

You could start with the book Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley. That's all his view, but I think he's got some good points.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/approaching-zion/

I believe I've debated (if you an call it that) with you before on Facebook.  Your manner, your unwillingness to make definitive statements, and now you're quoting Nibley without acknowledging apostles' statements.  Do I sound at all familiar to you?

[Backroads]

@Carborendum I don't think I have heard your definition of vocation and now I'm curious. Please share.

[Backroads]

@Carborendum I don't think I have heard your definition of vocation and now I'm curious. Please share.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Backroads said:

@Carborendum I don't think I have heard your definition of vocation and now I'm curious. Please share.

The old belief that each of us was put on this earth to contribute to society in a very special way whether it is by revolutionizing the oil industry as Rockefeller did or being a landscaper, or as LP touches the life of just that one special person in her social work, or if you are able to inspire just one student in your school, we perform that mission that God gave us because it is our mission from God.  It is our "calling" which has similar roots as the word "vocation".

The story is told of the three brick layers building the Notre Dame Cathedral.  An observer sees the first man with a scowl on his face working slowly and sloppily.

"What is it you're doing there?"

"I'm laying bricks. What do you think?  Stop pestering me."  This man had an occupation.

The observer went to the second bricklayer who was much more efficient and very accurate in his placement.

"What is it you're doing there?"

"I'm the best brick layer in all of France.  And everyone will know that when they see my walls.  No time to talk."  This man had a profession.

He went to the third man who was not only doing as well as the second.  But there seemed to be an artistic feel to every brick he laid.  And he was smiling with every brick.

"What is it you're doing there?"

"I am building a temple to my God.  Come and join with me in worship, won't you?"  This man had a vocation.

Too many times we pick our career path because it's in demand or because it will make a lot of money or because whatever.  But to pick a career path because we realize "I was born to do this!  This is why God put me here" is recognizing our vocation.

There was no escaping the fact that I was born to be an engineer.  I'm sure Vort was born to be a physicist.  I'm sure it was Pam's vocation to start the More Good Foundation (I think she founded it?).  And I'd bet that JAG was born to be a lawyer.  I know Mirkwood was born to be a cop.  While I'm happy that my career has given me a comfortable living, I enjoy the actual job because I know it's my calling in life.  I am very fulfilled knowing that I'm doing what the Lord wants me to do.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There was no escaping the fact that I was born to be an engineer.  I'm sure Vort was born to be a physicist.  I'm sure it was Pam's vocation to start the More Good Foundation (I think she founded it?).  And I'd bet that JAG was born to be a lawyer.  I know Mirkwood was born to be a cop.  While I'm happy that my career has given me a comfortable living, I enjoy the actual job because I know it's my calling in life.  I am very fulfilled knowing that I'm doing what the Lord wants me to do.

And Gator was born to be cool, Carb.