PDA

View Full Version : 95 % of wealth are owned by 5 % of the citizens



ZeQuebecois
07-30-2008, 08:12 PM
I heard about numbers like that, in the US I think. (I apologize if I'm wrong about it)

What d'you think about? Any new solutions of your own or ways to etablish a balance?
Better like it is now? Why?

Explain your thoughts. I'm pretty curious about the opinions and argues:rolleyes:

Mota Boy
07-30-2008, 08:52 PM
My opinion is that while that statistic might be true, it's utterly meaningless to ask people to discuss it without giving a single reference.

ZeQuebecois
07-31-2008, 10:03 AM
I apologize, of'course I should've add some stuff...:o

I heard by people these numbers, so I've just took a look to find sources, and I've found out it's not THAT dramatic, but still a lot inequally divided in most countries.This (http://http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) article doesn't sounds like propaganda, made by a university professor. It's about 3 years old, but still.
This (http://http://www.statcan.ca/francais/studies/75-001/archive/f-pdf/f-9013.pdf) (PDF document in french) shows the comparisons beetween Can. and US. But this is worthless for us I think, it's in french...
A journal article (http://http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/national/main635936.shtml) related to economy and to the poor-rich gap.
I might try to find other sources, but I've gotta go.

I mean, even if these stats aren't perfect, there's a lot of inequallity I think. My question was if you've got any other ways to share the money than those applied, so to reduce the gap beetween riches and poors, or if it HAS to be inequal.

Betty
07-31-2008, 12:14 PM
It's not an easy question to answer. To put it somewhat simply and briefly:

The thing is that when there is a wildly uneven distribution of wealth like in America, the country as a whole is richer. And even many of the low income individuals live comfortably. Relatively, they don't have nearly as much money as the rich, but they are modestly clothed, fed, sheltered, entertained, etc. So it's a question of whether we want to sacrifice economic prosperity for fair income distribution, or rather, how MUCH do we want to sacrifice? What is the ideal trade off? I generally tend to lean towards supporting the uneven distribution because there are many valid reasons that certain people become very rich and others don't, but the issue is too complex, and I don't feel like I've thought enough or learned enough about it to be able to have a good opinion on the subject, or whether I could ever form a good opinion on it because both extremes have very negative points.

wheelchairman
07-31-2008, 12:18 PM
This kind of issue isn't one I concern myself with.

Naturally I prefer the spread of income in Denmark (we still have our ridiculously wealthy, we just don't have the ridiculously poor.)

Which I think has a lot to do with the different economic methods governments have used to distribute wealth. In Europe it's the keynesian method in which to generate consumption we give money directly to the poor, in America trickle-down economics is more popular among economists, so the money is given to the rich.

Personally I think it works quite well in Europe. It also makes more sense to me.

GBH2
07-31-2008, 01:03 PM
who cares? if you don't have money it's not society's fault, it's your own. do something about it. it's not the government's job to ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth.

"giving everyone an equal part when they're clearly not equal is called what, class?" "communism!"

wheelchairman
07-31-2008, 01:10 PM
who cares? if you don't have money it's not society's fault, it's your own. do something about it. it's not the government's job to ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth.

"giving everyone an equal part when they're clearly not equal is called what, class?" "communism!"

Government's generally give money to the poor in cases of economic downfall, or even in upswing, there will always be unemployed people who want work, people with disabilities, people with special needs etc. I think it makes perfect sense that the government supplements their incomes as opposed to making them a burden on their families.

And the "fairness of wealth distribution" can also be called into question, is it fair that celebrities and sports stars are paid so much? That heads of companies are an inheritable position and by the second generation the company stagnates and the 3rd collapses (obviously not all companies do this and it doesn't happen to every single one that does.)

The American belief that if you can't make enough money to live on your own you should die or be a burden to your family is one of the most naive ideas ever. Of course societies can afford that. And no it's not called communism, it's called an effective welfare state.

Hell we pay our students to study, instead of forcing parents to mortgage their homes in order to provide their children with an undergrad degree. It's also nice that I can go to hospital without having to pay, well anything. I can go anytime. I can go when my credit card is locked and still get full treatment.

But really I guess what I dislike is that stupid attitude.

EDIT, I guess what bothered me is the idea that if you are poor it's your own fault. While society restructures itself all the time. When industrial and textile jobs left western countries was that the fault of textile workers? Not really. When the IT jobs started to leave was that the fault of IT employees? Accident on the job? etc. etc.

GBH2
07-31-2008, 01:18 PM
EDIT, I guess what bothered me is the idea that if you are poor it's your own fault. While society restructures itself all the time. When industrial and textile jobs left western countries was that the fault of textile workers? Not really. When the IT jobs started to leave was that the fault of IT employees? Accident on the job? etc. etc.


well that may be so, but they're the ones working industrial jobs anyway. get a college education, apply yourself. and don't pull the "oh, maybe they didn't have the opportunity growing up" card. Parents having to mortgage their house? do well in high school and colleges will be throwing money at you. (if it's too late for that, well, they should've done better)

i have no sympathy for those who are lazy and complacent and look to the government for handouts.

wheelchairman
07-31-2008, 09:32 PM
well that may be so, but they're the ones working industrial jobs anyway. get a college education, apply yourself. and don't pull the "oh, maybe they didn't have the opportunity growing up" card. Parents having to mortgage their house? do well in high school and colleges will be throwing money at you. (if it's too late for that, well, they should've done better)

i have no sympathy for those who are lazy and complacent and look to the government for handouts.

Well there's a lot delusional about what you're saying. Public schools in the united states are funded by the surrounding areas (so lower class areas get lower funding). From the get-go that means lower quality schools in lower class areas. (I went to a rather decent middle school but the English text book was 20 years older than than what would've been acceptable here.) Generally it's harder to get scholarships or a great grade average when you come from a shitty school and neighborhood.

Then there's the fact that you think parents should foot the bill. (I'm not sure if you are aware how much tuition can be, even in mediocre schools.)

Then there's the issue of social inheritance, it's much easier to be good at school if you come from an academic home, if you do not, then you cannot for example get help with your homework from your parents.

You also seem to be under the delusion that if everyone tried to, everyone could get great office jobs.... (and that only lazy people work in industrial jobs.) I've worked industrial jobs and can tell you that's not true. It's not true that it's only dumb people either, or the unambitious. At some point life forced certain people to drop ambition for pragmatism.

Oh and I think it's rather intelligent that higher education should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. I think that's a horrible system.

HornyPope
07-31-2008, 11:34 PM
Oh and I think it's rather intelligent that higher education should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. I think that's a horrible system.

It doesn't matter to whom the public education is available. We can't all hold white-collar jobs. Some of us are bound to sweep floors, flip burgers or suck dick for money.

The question then is: who decides the remuneration for a specific job and who creates poverty as a consequence? The forces of the market, the government, the Jews?

Paint_It_Black
08-01-2008, 06:15 AM
It doesn't matter to whom the public education is available. We can't all hold white-collar jobs. Some of us are bound to sweep floors, flip burgers or suck dick for money.


You looking for work? I'm trying to cut down on fast food, and my floors don't need sweeping, but maybe we could come up with something.


who cares? if you don't have money it's not society's fault, it's your own. do something about it. it's not the government's job to ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth. [/I]

What is the government's job then? Wheelchairman has made his view quite clear, but you haven't clearly stated yours. What do you think government is supposed to do?

The government is supposed to protect the people and keep society running smoothly, right? I'm speaking in very general terms in hopes of finding some vague agreement between everyone.

Example. Productive workers help keep society running smoothly. A sick worker is not a productive worker. If the government picked up the hospital bill there would be less sick workers. Don't think of it as an individual getting something for free. Think of it as keeping the workforce in good health. Think of it as helping society to run smoothly.

Why is it not the government's job to distribute wealth? Most of the governments money does not come from the rich folks anyway, so it wouldn't be like they're robbing the rich to give to the poor. It would actually be more like robbing the poor and then spending their own money wisely for them. It's a bit like if I stole your wallet but used your money to pay your bills for you.

The problem, as far as I can see, is that right now the money isn't being spent wisely. We have new tanks in Iraq instead of new books in schools. I try to avoid being "political" because, honestly, I'm shamefully ignorant. But the point I'm trying to make is that government's money comes from the common people, and it should be used for the betterment of the common people. Primarily that means health and education. The rich can still be rich, and at the same time we can make the poor a little less poor. Tell me what's wrong with that?

HornyPope
08-01-2008, 02:21 PM
You looking for work? I'm trying to cut down on fast food, and my floors don't need sweeping, but maybe we could come up with something.

Oh yeah? Keep talking.... know however there is a fierce competition for my services, so you will have to contend with the forces of market economics if you count to put me on your payroll.

GBH2
08-01-2008, 07:41 PM
Public schools in the united states are funded by the surrounding areas (so lower class areas get lower funding). From the get-go that means lower quality schools in lower class areas. (I went to a rather decent middle school but the English text book was 20 years older than than what would've been acceptable here.) Generally it's harder to get scholarships or a great grade average when you come from a shitty school and neighborhood.
touche, this is definitely true


Then there's the fact that you think parents should foot the bill. (I'm not sure if you are aware how much tuition can be, even in mediocre schools.)

show me where i said this. also, i know how much college costs, i'm in college. an out of state college.


Oh and I think it's rather intelligent that higher education should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. I think that's a horrible system. i agree. college is mostly a fuckin scam
-----------
as you all can tell, i'm doing a terrible job with my argument. here's where i stand: it's not the job of government to ensure equality. it's the job of the government to ensure equal opportunity. though the government may not do a good job of this, i would like to believe they are near adequacy. those who squander their opportunity and look to the government to remedy their incompetence are wrong.
------------
but all in all, you make it sound like you are doomed to a life of factory work if you do not come from a middle class suburban family, and it's totally society's fault. which is stupid.

GBH2
08-01-2008, 07:44 PM
Why is it not the government's job to distribute wealth? Most of the governments money does not come from the rich folks anyway, so it wouldn't be like they're robbing the rich to give to the poor. It would actually be more like robbing the poor and then spending their own money wisely for them. It's a bit like if I stole your wallet but used your money to pay your bills for you.

ha, good point. but not if Obama gets elected.