Income Inequality in America

Post Reply New Topic

This isn't a good response to people like Fnord or Ruveyn. You start bringing yourself into it you're falling for their trap, letting them take the argument where they want it to go.

Oh, I get it alright ... I get the fact that you can not refute the claim or the definition, so you blame me for your failure to refute it.


Don't even try to make this a problem; and don't even try to make this my problem. If more people would make something of themselves, there would be more wealthy people to tax, and more revenue to pay for more military, more education, and more health care. Otherwise, it's a simple matter of a majority of people demanding that the minority pay for everything, and then blaming the minority for the majority's problems.


Seriously, income disparity is the fault of those who can not or will not compete under the rules of a free market, plain and simple. These same people want to either change the rules to their favor, or they want the wealthy to give them handouts while simultaneously demonizing their potential benefactors for allegedly causing poverty in the first place.

Seriously.

Why should I need to refute something I don't even disagree with? No such system exists, but that doesn't mean things can't ever be better than they are here and now. If everyone throughout history thought in the manner you do we would still have things like slavery and 16 hour workdays.


I never tried to make it your problem. You are the one who started in with the "jealousy" accusations. If you don't want arguments to be personal don't make ad hominem attacks. This topic has absolutely nothing to do with you until you decide to make it about you. This is about people like Mitt Romney and David Koch who don't want to pay a cent more in taxes.

Anyways, the "if more people would make something of themselves" argument is ridiculously flawed. Today there are more people than ever who have made something of themselves. The problem is there is a shortage of "profitable" jobs even though there is no shortage of work that needs to be done.


Plain and simple... and utterly unfounded.

Competition means there will be winners and losers. You take the idea that the "free market" ALWAYS lifts all boats with a religious-like conviction. The middle class and poor aren't getting poorer today because they are getting lazier. They are getting poorer because their wages are going down relative to inflation even though worker productivity has gone up.

How come on the one hand you believe in an internal locus of control when it comes to the individual, yet on the other hand you claim there's absolutely nothing that can ever possibly be done regarding growing economic inequality which you want to conveniently assume operates like a force of nature, completely out of the control of human politics or culture. That's utterly inconsistent and irrational!

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5278724.html#5278724

Marshall, when Fnord said this, it gave me a clue and it is making sense now. Fnord goes by the facts that currently exist now and I think so does Reuven. They don't think in theories, possibilities and what-ifs. It is not part of their personality at all. They do not think theories and why the facts are. They simply accept that the facts just are. They just simply go by them. They don't try to understand why confidence is an inherent requirement in America or why one must have a positive attitude. They just simply accept that we do and they just simply accept certain tenets that he and Reuven has stated out as is.

Showing them theories, possibilities,analysis, and extrapolation models will more than likely will not work on them. If you're going to change their minds you have to present facts that exist today in our modern concrete world to them. Otherwise, we're wasting our time and energy.

I've been studying the MBTI and the Enneagram and I appreciate your analysis of the conversation.

Facts rule. Theories serve -- sometimes.

ruveyn

Without theory, there are no facts. There is no way to describe what constitutes a "fact" without using some kind of abstraction.

lol, you beat me to the punch Exactly, How did we even come up with the concept of "fact?" Even the scientific method had to be based upon certain ideas those who came up with it had. Ideas are generated from our perceptions of reality. The reality we perceive is just one perception and lens of it.

I subscribe somewhat to the idea that there are no facts but interpretations which was said by Fredrich Nietzsche. I don't agree with it totally. This means what people perceive as real is only their interpretation of what is real. This is based upon a human's brain structure, eye structure, ear structure and how our bodies are constructed. The information that is being fed through our 5 senses are being organized by our neurology.

Rueven, the way you see things is just but one interpretation out of possible others. You state "life is not fair." This is true or false depending upon how you look at it. Even the terms true or false to me is not absolute but they are sliding scales. I do believe there is some truth to it because people with your beliefs choose to accept it as a truism. Its very acceptance is what gives it it's potency. This is how I see it.

If you think life is fair I suggest you read the daily news papers. Perhaps you might want to reconsider. Every so often good prevails but seldom and only for a short time. Good is possible, but in practice seldom.

ruveyn

I think we all agree that "life isn't fair". I'd more accurately say "nature isn't fair". I have a problem with people who use "argument from nature" to justify a reactionary attitude. For instance, you could defend the institution of slavery with "life isn't fair". That would be utter BS of course. All arguments that break the "is-aught" barrier are BS. This is one of the downfalls of the culture of "The Enlightenment". This notion that if we can just figure out what is "natural" we will know the right thing to do. Maybe slavery is "natural". Again, there's a difference between reason and rationalization. I'd prefer people who trumpet the latter cut to the chase and give a straight answer. That way we all know where we stand on the battle field and my intelligence isn't insulted. Instead of proclaiming "life isn't fair" say "life isn't fair and I like it that way as long as the table is tilted in a way which favors me". Then we all know where people really stand.

Last edited by marshall on 20 Mar 2013, 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Of course life isn't fair. But we have the skills to make life more fair. And the evidence is abundantly clear that we are all safer when we do so.

And that's a fact.

As long as you expect goodness and justice in small doses, that makes a great deal of sense.

ruveyn

Thanks. That's the more succinct response.

I like to have a dialog and I admit to certain things. For one I agree that the goal shouldn't be to eliminate all inequality. I think history has shown when nation states attempts to do this it hasn't ever resulted in a utopia where people are happy and thriving. Most of the reasonable people here can agree that there is a line somewhere, a limit to what the state can do before things get worse rather than better. Even the anarcho-communists have mostly rejected the idea that a state "dictatorship of the proletariat" can lead to their ideal and instead advocate for gradual cultural change from within. The main difference is where we see the line. I have issue with people who say we're right at that line or have already crossed it and there's absolutely nothing we can do. I believe that kind of thinking will lead to the downfall of civilization.

The only person in legend who eliminated inequality was Procrastes.

ruveyn

Then it's a good thing that nobody here is proposing that we eliminate inequality.

There is a difference between eliminating inequality and narrowing the gap. The inability to eliminate inequality (and, indeed the undesirability of doing so) should not prevent us from acting to mitigate the effects of the inequalities that exist.

It is exactly what I expect.