patrick.net

HARM,
OK, now I can see some differences to throw around. You have to understand that I see wealth as a good thing. Yes, it is not a good thing when people suffer because of unethical ways of earning it, but in general I like real wealth. I believe it does create opportunities, and I think overall the free market is a great place to redistribute it. Having lots of wealthy and super wealthy people creates opportunities because the wealthy do buy nice houses, cars, boats, and planes. The wealthy hire all sorts of service providers. The wealthy are demanding on their surroundings so areas of concentration of wealth are nicer. It may be a sore topic here, but the wealthy do put money in financial institutions which then lend and that creates many more opportunitites.

I further believe that setting minimalist goals for a society ~everyone should have food, clothing, shelter~ gets minimalist results. It can be government driven, or privately driven, you still get a large group of really poor people. On the otherhand in our society, people are considered poor even when they have the basics, I think that is a good thing.

I further believe that setting minimalist goals for a society ~everyone should have food, clothing, shelter~ gets minimalist results. It can be government driven, or privately driven, you still get a large group of really poor people. On the otherhand in our society, people are considered poor even when they have the basics, I think that is a good thing.

Malcolm,

I support a limited form of minimum threshold/aka "safety net" for how far people can fall for a number of reasons:

1. On a purely rational self-interest basis, social stability benefits everyone (even the rich).

All it takes is a quick trip down memory lane (Depression/Grapes of Wrath) or a peek at a modern-day kleptocracy (Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar) to see what societal "benefits" are produced by pure anarchic, laissez-faire style capitalism. Even if I'm the richest guy on the planet, being surrounded by hordes of impoverished, hungry, angry people who want to kill me does not make me "feel" very rich.

2. Shit happens --I've been there.

When I graduated into the early 90's recession (much more severe than the Dot.com recession, btw), I was basically SOL. Thanks to bad timing, I was caught out in the cold with my diploma in one hand and dick in the other. And neither one was particularly useful to me at the time. Sometimes people end up in harsh situations THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. I know this is a hard concept for you to believe, perhaps because you've been fortunate all your life and success has come easy. But there are cases where people get unlucky, or have to struggle thanks to choosing their parents unwisely or simple bad timing.

3. Helping those who need a temporary hand up is not only morally right, it helps grow the economy.

I am not so naive to think there are no lazy f**cked up people living on the dole by choice. I personally know two of them. For these people, I say "three hots and a cot" --that's it. And only for citizens. If you don't want to work and contribute, that should be all you get, no more. For the rest of the people, a welfare-to-workfare type system represents the best solution. It doubly benefits society by removing people from poverty/welfare rolls and growing the economy & consumer base.

4. Some people are beyond helping, but that doesn't mean I want them roaming my street.

You'll always have a certain % of non-functioning mentally ill/alcoholic/druggie people in any society. I don't think letting them wander the streets, peeing defecating anywhere and committing crimes to survive reflects very well on our society. And frankly, a lot of my motivation is purely selfish, not moral: I don't want some stinky ass bum peeing in front of my house and I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes so I don't *have* to see him.

good posts, HARM. nice bookends to your thread ;)

HARM says:
Honestly, I have enough things to be worried about (health, job, spouse, rent, housing bubble, peak oil, global warming/whining, etc.) without having to worry about how to “motivate” the rich. Based on their astounding success at concentrating even more of the national wealth over the past 35 years, is this really something anyone should be concerned about? And please don’t tell me how a greedbag Boomer CEO is really “worth” 268X his least paid employee thanks to his superior “leadership” ability (i.e, inside connections and family legacy) –I’m just not buying it.

ha, my reverse conversion is working...

If you have the brains and ability to invent a cure for cancer or invent warp drive technology, then you should be –and will be– handsomely rewarded for that by Mr. Marketplace. As long as you pay your share of taxes like everyone else, the government should keep its mitts off your profits.

even that ain't necessarily so -- think about the discoveries by biochemists working in giant pharmaceutical companies -- these guys don't own their own IP, they get a salary, and for their genius and brainpower, the profits flow to executives and shareholders. (big pharma makes most of its profits from manufacturing simple tried and true compounds like aspirin over and over again, and then from patents held on 'breakthrough' drugs, which they use as a hobbyhorse to moan about the high cost of R&D and say they are entitled to their super-profits.)

However, if by “able to earn unlimited wealth”, you mean there should be no limits on what a person can earn through institutional fraud, anti-competitive cartels/monopolies, cronyism, corruption, insider trading, taxpayer pork, subsidies, etc., I take a very dim view of this form of “success”.

hmm, such as Dick Cheney recasting the books at Halliburton on taking the helm, instantly creating $245 million extra paper profit by sheeting home all potential profit as actual profit, without taking into account unforeseen expenses, adjustments and cost blowouts, etc. and for his many (5) years service as a great business leader (stepping momentarily out of govt), they rewarded him a $20M payout, as he went back into govt, this time as the VP. however, on public complaint, he only took $14M, thus guaranteeing the impartiality of his contract allocation decisions as VP. plus a $200K p.a. 'pension' from Halliburton.

Oh no, I've gone and pleased Different Sean TWICE in one post! What am I doing wrong?? ;-)

Actually my friend you'd be surprised. I started from nothing myself.

You'd also be surprised that while I'm speaking conceptually, I have the same need to help those around me as you describe. Like you, I judge a society by how it treats its most pathetic citizens. I believe you need wealth first, then you can put up the safety nets. Wealth is beautiful because it is the means for compassion, charity, assistance, and giving.

I have actually shifted on some concepts. I actually favor minimum wage increases, not so much to aide in stratifying a class but because I do see the disparity in wages that you talk about. I used to be against mandated health care, now I brainstorm all the time about universal healthcare. I believe that businesses should be heavily incentivized to provide it, and furthermore I believe in a catchall program to take care of the unemployed. This should be a system which the free market can openly compete with to maintain quality of service.

Malcolm,

Wow, I guess we're not quite as far apart as I thought. Ironically, I used to be a strong supporter of the minimum wage, but now I doubt it does much good. I've seen some convincing arguments that, if raised high enough, it may even price some marginal labor (student labor, poorest of the poor, etc.) out of the market. Personally, I think a combination of flat tax, enforcing immigration laws, and more shareholder activism could take care of the lion's share of the wages gap.

I also support a minimum level of healthcare coverage for all citizens & legal residents. Not sure how to structure it to avoid the Fannie Mae/Sallie Mae trap of "anything the government subsidizes eventually grows bigger, more bureaucratic and more expensive" problem though.

I actually favor minimum wage increases, not so much to aide in stratifying a class but because I do see the disparity in wages that you talk about. I used to be against mandated health care, now I brainstorm all the time about universal healthcare.

Malcolm, EPI has some interesting research on these subjects (epionline.org).

Mandated healthcare is not the same as universal healthcare. The first one punishes employers and will lead to mass unemployment.

I still think the optimal minimum wage is $0.00/hr. I am under the strong impression that increasing minimum wage will cause business closures while destroying the currency.

HARM, on minimum wage I agree with you about the high end, I just don't see how paying $8/hr really makes that big a difference as opposed to $5.75. I almost think the idea of paying someone $6/hr to do anything is exploitation, but I always err on the conservative side. Like I said, I used to be against it for all the reasons you and Peter say, now I am for it, for all the reasons you outlined.

Mandated, Universal, I don't care how we name it, like HARM, I recognize that things happen, and no one should have to face a debt of $100,000 for some unforeseen illness or accident, there HAS to be a safety net in there.

@Malcolm,

100% agree. It's nuts that in the richest country on earth, you can be bankrupted for getting sick or injured.

Health care system broken, Clinton says

BAP, I favor medical savings accounts with insurance just for the catastrophic stuff. That to me strikes some sort of balance, and it forces people to shop and save.

I favor medical savings accounts with insurance just for the catastrophic stuff.

I agree. That is a good balance. But as usual, the avocates will cry foul because they think the system is a "regressive tax."

I do not oppose universal health care but:

1. Employers should not have to bear all the costs. This will put a lot of small/medium companies out of business.

2. There needs to be dramatic welfare reforms.

The city of Tijuana Mexico had over 300 murders last year. That’s an unsafe city, picking out the projects of Compton to try to draw a parallel is intellectually dishonest.

Sorry, you are just wrong. What percentage of the murders in San Francisco last year happened in the Hunter' Point/Bayview neighborhood? Bayview-Hunters Point has an infant mortality rate comparable to Bulgaria or Jamaica.

"A lot of these kids don't get to go out of their houses at all when they get home after school because of the danger," said Tareyton Russ, principal of Willie Brown Academy elementary school, which draws children from the area with the greatest child population increase. "And that's the best thing for them in a lot of cases."

Overall San Francisco had 96 murder in 2005 and 25 of them were in Bayview. 25 out of a population of 10,000 residents is a murder rate of around .25%. This has been constant for the last few years. And Bayview is not even as rough as many other poor neighborhoods. The Tijuana population is 1.6M and if it had 300 murders as you state, then the murder rate is .018%, less than 1/10th that of Bayview!

25M Americans used soup kitchens or food banks last year. This is hardly a nation that is feeding its poor well. And people starve in America all the time, granted most of them (all of them?) are mentally ill, but 38M Americans are "food insecure" meaning they one paycheck away from standing in the soup kitchen line.

Just because you don't know any poor people doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous and difficult to be poor in America.

Oh, by the way, the figures for Baghdad are 1800 civilian deaths a month, according to the Baghdad government. That works out to 22k a year, in a population of 9M, that is .25%, the same as Bayview-Hunter's Point.

Before you put up a bunch of poop DS, you may want to visit any emergency clinic or ward in Mexifornia and take a head-count of three main things: “Of those of you without proper insurance…. 1) Who’s an illegal invader?, 2) Who is on some form of state aid?, 3) Who has illegal drugs in their system?.” Ask them three questions and 90% of the “uninsured” will be counted in any Mexifornia medical place.

well, your health care system is currently ranked 37th in the world for quality, based on the insurance system. the reason is probably that enough lame-brained americans like bap think enough crazy thoughts that it will never be reformed in line with the preceding 36 countries to improve the quality. the HMOs and big pharma need lots of people like bap to keep the current system chugging along nicely, thank you very much....

why not visit some other country and see how it works, bap -- hilary clinton did... it costs half as much in some countries to deliver better quality care with better universal outcomes than in the US through a tax-based citizenship guarantee system... and bap wants to make it *more* regressive... maybe slip to 100th or so, in line with sierra leone...

MEDICAL EMERGENCY / Neglected for a decade, health care is metastasizing into a new crisis / Live sicker, die younger: The plight of the uninsured

you should also read the bible more to help you get away from those commie-lib notions like 'love thy neighbor' -- tough love obviously works best... and the tougher the better... hanging, drawing and quartering is the toughest love of all...

well, your health care system is currently ranked 37th in the world for quality, based on the insurance system.

That is way better than median! I think there are more than 150 countries in the world. :)

I definitely think we need to reform the cost structure in the health care system. At the present level, there is no hope of universal health care getting political acceptance.

Sean, unlike in other countries, many liberals (not all, I know many good-hearted liberals too) here just want to use other people's many to pay for what they think should be free. They will cry for more welfare but they will refuse to pay an extra dime.

Answering the original thought about income disparity, I figure there's no possible way that anyone, regardless of what you do for society (the measure I use for salary calculation), is worth a hundred-plus times more than anyone else. I figure at most a scaling factor of three to five. Whether that means minimum and maximum wage (or other) systemic legislation or genetically engineering greed out of the race, I'm not sure.

I figure there’s no possible way that anyone, regardless of what you do for society (the measure I use for salary calculation), is worth a hundred-plus times more than anyone else. I figure at most a scaling factor of three to five.

Again, "worth" is not a meaningful word. The only question: whether having the disparity is good for the society as a whole.

How about this, then. There is no contribution that an individual can make that would cause such an impact on society that their compensation should be astronomically larger than anyone else.

And no, the disparity is not "good" (if that word has any meaning) for society. It breeds hatred, envy, lust and pride. If those mean anything.

Agreed Tesh.

I'm reminded of the disenfranchised young men in polygamous communities. There we see the results of economic disparity, artificially forced by polygamy. These young men can never have even one wife, and of course, no children. They are left to live on the outskirts of town without any means for or access to economic growth. They are ripe for terrorists groups, looking for young men who have nothing to live for, nothing to lose.

It's a dire example of how disparity can play out. I'd prefer a society where the rungs of the ladder are maintained, so that anyone can climb (or fall) freely. Knock out the middle rungs and we create a subculture of throw aways.

Hi Jimbo,
Your points are very well taken, and at least paint a picture of the very worst in this country. Your stats are good, I would point out again, that yes you can go to the very worst neighborhoods and get a stat equal to a war torn country's overall rate. Iraq has some safe, and some very unsafe areas as compared to a gang infested neighborhood. As a society it should be a goal to have no areas left like this, but you have to eventually conceed that these situations are so small that statistically they aren't significant, and perpetuate an exageration when these small hot spots are held up as the example of what a typical poor neighborhood in America is like.

"Here's what's really going on behind closed doors in affluent America"

http://tinyurl.com/27rkhb

Fair enough, not everyone lives in such dangerous neighborhoods, but the poor in America live lives that are vastly more dangerous than the poor in any other 1st world country. Sure, it is better than Tijuana, but that is hardly something to aspire to.

The poor in America generally are fed, generally are housed and live in less violent regions that most of the world's poor and this is something to recognize. But compared to other developed nations, we are doing badly, that is my point.

Cable TV and cell phones are the new drugs of choice, Bap; the new addition to the cigarette and beer stable. If people knew how to prioritize their money (and stifle addictions), things would be different.

Harm,

I live in Bucarmanga, in the state of Santander. Been pretty much all over the country...not the jungles or southern half however. Lots of time in Bogota. I have been there 1 1/2 years. My Colombian husband and I bring US & European paragliding tourists there to fly and see the country. Actually, at this moment, I am back in California for about a month, to visit family and do some business.

He who makes the laws? He who has the most money to buy the courts?
:shrug:

Or are we talking about ultimate laws of theology and such, because any time these things are left to people, they will be botched.

Not unnoticed, nor ungrieved, Sid. It's one of the biggest mistakes in US history.

There is also the notion that our economy has progressed to the point where wealth disparity is unlikely to lead to the kinds of social/political unrest it has in the past (French, Russian Revolutions, etc.), because for the most part, citizens' basic physical needs are still being met. A.k.a., the "bread and circuses" argument

I have a feeling that Sportsball is really on the decline, esp. with the younger generations.

AmericanKulak says

I have a feeling that Sportsball is really on the decline, esp. with the younger generations.

Too much to do. All you have is the the NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL and throw in Tennis and golf I guess? Everyone knows they aren't gonna make it statistically, so less interest. My kids are done with baseball. My oldest would rather play volleyball. Golf. The others are good with golf, track, soccer, etc.

Football is going away. Too much brain damage.