freeman2 wrote:I think the right word is "exploitation"

Oddly, I was unsure about using that word because it might be seen as loaded too far the other way.

The lower classes 'envy' the rich. The rich 'exploit' the poor. Both expressions appear to me to be from one side or the other of the political divide aimed at making about the personal failings of the other.

I'd rather settle on the issue being that the system is unfair, which is less emotional because it's about the overall system, not saying that people are being mean about to other.

As long as fairness would mean equal treatment, not one group getting specialized benefits from the government. (corporate welfare, unequal tax rates, subsidies, welfare)

Ray Jay wrote:

With regard to household income, I have a bit of a problem with using household income. From what I understand is that your average worker over the past 30 years basically kept with inflation, the top 20% did somewhat better, and the top5% did a lot better. But household income includes everything in the household, so people could be working two jobs, the wife could be working instead of not working, etc. To me, the focus should be on the individual worker and how he has done, because that shows how fairly wealth has been distributed.

It would be nice to have some stats here. I'm under the impression that a lot of the households that are not doing well are the result of there only being one parent in the household.

You can see the effects of one family member in the home at:

http://www.familyfacts.org

Take a look at the economic well being category. That should answer it.

You may be right, Owen. Wikipedia says that the word most often refers to the use of someone's labor without adequate compensation, though. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation. We have to be able to use words that accurately reflect reality even if the Right wants to marginalize their use as being exaggerated or left-wing (read Communist) rhetoric. I agree that exploitations sounds very harsh, but I am wondering if that is the result of our culture. Any attempt to say that workers have any right to any portion of their labor is attacked as communistic. A worker only has a right to whatever the market will pay him (no matter how manipulated the market is) or so we are told.

I wanted to avoid the use of a word tied to an emotion and hence having the implication of being irrational and not valid. Exploitation is an action taken not an emotional response to said action. The focus should be on what is done to the worker, not on his emotional response to said action.

Be careful, Brad. I got the impression that RJ was making a statistical point - that single parent households would have less potential earning power than two-parent households, and likely less actual earnings, and if there's been a trend away from single-parent households it could affect the median data.

I don't think he intended for the door to be opened to a link to a Heritage Foundation front site full of propaganda (oh, sure, backed up with 'data' but from studies designed to give the answers they want).

And yes, in an ideal world, children would be brought up by two parents. But in that ideal world, there are no people who philander, engage in domestic abuse or just don't bother to hang around post-coitus.

Mind you, there were quite a few single parent (and fatherless at that) families in the late 1940s and into the 1950s? And what a terrible decade the 50s were for family values!

freeman

I disagree with you Ricky--Danivon has it right. It's about unfairness

.

Fairness or the other descriptors are all subjective. What bbauska sees as fair, freeman probably doesn't.
But I don't think there is much subjectivity when you look at the statisitcs on various components of society. (Crime, health etc.)
.
Income disparity is measurable.
So are crime rates, productivity, health, education etc
What I'm saying is that you can argue about fairness or not... But if an unfair system delivers outcomes that can be measured as more positive then perhaps fairness doesn't necessarily matter. And if you leave the subjective out, and simply say that when there was greater income and wealth equality the nation was a happier place....

I am with you Ricky that there area lot of societal problems with having a stratified society. But if a society is stratified but fair, then the argument against changing the system is that you are unfairly taking wealth from the wealthy and giving it to those that do not deserve it. Just because people disagree does not mean there is not objective evidence for one side or the another on the isssue of fairness. You are using a utilitarian rationale for changing the existing system, but I don't think that is going to be a sufficient basis for people to want to change it.

I think that exploitation is a much more loaded word than resentment.

Danivon:

. In answer to your first question, I would call it 'awareness of reality'. You do of course realise that comparing with each other is a pretty fundamental human trait. It's one of the prime movers of a consumer culture - keeping up with the Joneses - so let's not pretend it's some new lefty idea to sow discord.

Concepts of fairness are very basic to humans and most primates. However, it is certainly a lefty concept, and I don't mean that in a critical way. The left is all about equality of outcome and fairness, whereas the right is all about equality of opportunity. These differences in perspective surround all these issues and have been around for many years.

Still, it's not just about observing that others are richer than you, it's about observing why the gap is changing. If it is believed that the rich are getting richer on merit, then I doubt there'd be an issue. However, if it appears that it's not just down to hard work and talent but also luck, exertion of power, nepotism, exploiting influence, cosy deals with politicians, using the efforts of others, avoiding responsibility for error, or other means, then there'd be a different basis for what you call envy.

I think that luck happens; so does nepotism, and so do cosy deals with politicians (often by lefties who exploit these issues such as trial lawyers or Solyndra owners, and often by righties who explot other issues). There are reasons for resentment. However, some of the disparity is a function of our modern times and not the result of unfair explotive behavior. Individuals who can exploit technology (computer or bio) or organizations or consumer behavior or trade patters can make huge money in our society. A lot of times that is deserved. I have no problems with the wealth accumulated by either the Google boys or Buffett or Zuckenberg to name a few top of mind examples where the wealth appears to be gotten by hard work, intelligence, and probably a bit of luck as well.

danivon wrote:Be careful, Brad. I got the impression that RJ was making a statistical point - that single parent households would have less potential earning power than two-parent households, and likely less actual earnings, and if there's been a trend away from single-parent households it could affect the median data.

I don't think he intended for the door to be opened to a link to a Heritage Foundation front site full of propaganda (oh, sure, backed up with 'data' but from studies designed to give the answers they want).

And yes, in an ideal world, children would be brought up by two parents. But in that ideal world, there are no people who philander, engage in domestic abuse or just don't bother to hang around post-coitus.

Mind you, there were quite a few single parent (and fatherless at that) families in the late 1940s and into the 1950s? And what a terrible decade the 50s were for family values!

I was considering both Brad's approach as well as Danivon's as possible reasons. There are definitely more single parent families today then there were in the 50's.

It's not only about one dad and one mom. I know several stable families with two moms and I'm sure there are thousands with two dads as well. But it is no secret that there are many families in the US with a single very young parent without a partner where the family is struggling. It's also not unusual that that young parent's mother was also a young mother without a partner. These social phenomenon happen and we may as well acknowledge what's really happening. There are certainly families with two hard working parents who are struggling in these economic times. I was just hoping for data that would shed light on which narrative more accurately describes what is going on.

I castigate no one, Danivon. I provide a view with supported data no more biased than many left-leaning outlets.

I do agree that one parent families are more at risk for poverty, and the data supports that. RJ was looking for reasons of increased poverty statistics, and my premise (with data) shows a possible cause.

I know you are open enough consider alternative views. even those with conservative leanings...

Ray Jay wrote:Concepts of fairness are very basic to humans and most primates. However, it is certainly a lefty concept, and I don't mean that in a critical way.

It does appear to be a contradition though, unless you think 'leftism' is also a basic human/primate trait.

The left is all about equality of outcome and fairness, whereas the right is all about equality of opportunity.

Frankly I think that's a massive over-simplification and what's more untrue. The meme that socialism is all about enforced equality of outcome is almost as old as socialism itself, and yet is not actually the case. Certainly the socialism I'm all about is about equality of opportunity, not outcome.

In fact, I approach the concept of a widening income and wealth gap combined with low social mobility as being about how the rich are able to get opportunities that the poor cannot. Ricky may be complaining about the outcomes more than anything, but I think I'm making it pretty clear that it's not simply that there is inequality that is the problem, but why there is and why it is becoming greater.

Some basic 'left' tenets are not about equality of outcome at all. eg: "From each according to ability to each according to need". Given that needs are not equal, and neither are abilities, how is that about 'equality of outcome'?

Welfare is not about equality of outcome, either. It's about a minimum standard of income, and usually you get more out of it if you put more in (I'm not an expert on the US systems but that's how the UK and many European nations work). And it's an example of the 'from each.. to each' principle. As would be a proper universal health coverage.

I think it's easy to deal in stereotypes: The left are motivated by 'envy' and want to bring about 'equality of outcome'. Convenient if you don't want to go into the realities, and unfortunately helped by some soi disant lefties who engage in identity politics and the posturing that Ricky sips into.

Likewise, it would be nice to think that the 'right' was all about 'equality of opportunity'. However, to many on the right, it seems to be more of a mantra of how things are and used to attack those who 'fail' than it is an aspiration. We don't have equality of opportunity when some are born to go to expensive private schools and others can't. We don't have equality of opportunity when the rich are able to afford tax accountants who can find all these jolly wheezes to reduce liabilities, but most working people would be unable to (because for a start their taxes are payroll deducted).

I think that luck happens; so does nepotism, and so do cosy deals with politicians (often by lefties who exploit these issues such as trial lawyers or Solyndra owners, and often by righties who explot other issues). There are reasons for resentment. However, some of the disparity is a function of our modern times and not the result of unfair explotive behavior. Individuals who can exploit technology (computer or bio) or organizations or consumer behavior or trade patters can make huge money in our society. A lot of times that is deserved. I have no problems with the wealth accumulated by either the Google boys or Buffett or Zuckenberg to name a few top of mind examples where the wealth appears to be gotten by hard work, intelligence, and probably a bit of luck as well.

I don't have much of a problem with the same people either, and I'm puzzled that you may think I do. While Bill Gates gets a bad rap for the way his company operates (not as proprietorial as the hipster's friend Apple is by a long shot), and while he didn't start out with nothing, I don't begrudge him his billions. It's also great that he's using it to do a lot of good.

However, these notable new billionaires are quite often the exception, rather than the norm. Indeed, their exceptionalism makes them notable. What we tend to not notice so much is the general trend of the upper-middle and upper classes to retain their wealth even though they don't actually put much effort in and without a great deal of intelligence. For every Zuckerberg there's at least one Kardashian, indeed several. And for every Kardashian, there are many more anonymous people rich enough to own the means of production who are quietly accruing more and more wealth even as the bulk of society are worrying about the prospect of losing their jobs.

After all, the latest financial crisis was largely the result of banks making bad decisions. That means senior bankers and bank owners making bad decisions. I appreciate that the banks were bailed out to avoid an even greater crisis, but what happened next? Who is getting laid off - Is it senior bankers or is it people across the economy? And who are getting bonuses? And now banks are very reluctant to lend to businesses who need capital to expand and recover, reducing opportunities for millions but hey, it protects the assets of the banks and by extension the livelihoods of the people who benefit most from banks.

Brad - I'm well aware of the issue of one parent families. I just wish that organisations like the Heritage Foundation were more about helping the people in that situation - if nothing else but to create 'equality of opportunity' for the kids in those families - than to produce reams of statistics showing how awful they are and looking for people to blame for it, and to lobby for policies to punish the 'undeserving', while helping the two-parent 'traditional' family feel smug about how much better they are.

dan

In fact, I approach the concept of a widening income and wealth gap combined with low social mobility as being about how the rich are able to get opportunities that the poor cannot. Ricky may be complaining about the outcomes more than anything, but I think I'm making it pretty clear that it's not simply that there is inequality that is the problem, but why there is and why it is becoming greater.

I'm not complaining about the outcomes. I'm for making the arguement, rather than about a "perception of fairness" , make it about what income disparity does to society .We can all agree, at least directionally about the goals for a healthy society. Not so much are we likely to percieve fairness the same.
One of the things income and wealth disparity does is decreases social mobility. In large part because income and wealth disparity leads to a decrease in opportunity. Decreased opportunity fuels resentment and more people resort to crime.... Decreased opportunity reduces the ability of those who merit promotion, education etc. and enhances the chances of less qualified or able; people who have the advantage of inherited wealth and status. Which leads, over a couple generations, to a society with less innovation, entrepreneurship and inferior business management....
You can argue forever about whether a level or method of taxation is "fair" . There's no real appeal to authoritative neutral methods of measuring fairness.... But you can look at objective measurements over a period of time, comparing various societies, and ask whether the outcome you've achieved is what you really want.
There is an American myth about social mobility that is central to this issue of "fairness". Its always been part of that myth that "anybody can become a millionare" "anyone can better themselves". If that were entirely true then the issue of "fairness" is fundamentally settled. If anyone truly can ....
However; there's ample evidence that the US amongst western nations, is a place where social mobility is actually very low today. As that becomes an experienced reality, and as income inequality becomes seen as the root cause, then popular perceptions of fairness will move I suspect.
It doesn't take a lot to alter that perception. Most Americans see their nation from 1950 through to at least the mid 80s and certainly till 2000 as a nation where social mobility WAS possible. (Less so for non-whites and women but still...) Thats when access to education wasn't as expensive, and job security was greater, and health insecurity wasn't such a glaring threat.
That incomes for most stalled about 1999, and that wealth disappeared as well, whilst education and health care cost continued to rise ... drives the middle class to rethink their notions of fairness? Perhaps?
The only way to objectively examine this is to look at the way things used to be, versus the way they are and rationally examine the differences. OR to look elsewhere and examine how things are "over there" when conditions are different.
I don't really know that this is what happens when the debate comes down to whats fair....
I personnally resent paying taxes when I write the checks, and yet intellectually I know I have to pay my share... I "think" thats only fair.

How much disparity is too much, RickyP? If Romney has $29 dollars more than I do, should you do something about that?

We can all talk about the different fairness standards. RickyP brings a good point. What is the cause in disparity. I feel it is societal, just as RickyP does. However, we differ on what societal issues are in effect here. I agree with the data presented in familyfacts.org, and RickyP has yet to provide data as to his hypothesis.

RickyP calls for cheaper education (I assume higher education), and cheaper health care. Let's look at those. College/University costs have skyrocketed. That is because of the government subsidies of higher education. With greater Pell Grants and cheaper student loans (that might as well be grants for many who choose not to repay them) the costs have gone up. It is simple supply and demand. The demand for higher education went up, hence the price did as well.

Health Care has increased due to the insurance companies paying for the costs, and people do not have to. Therefore the middleman gets more money, the doctor gets the same amount, and that cost goes somewhere. (Hint: it goes to those who have to pay insurance. i.e the insured)

Entrepreneurship is down due to greater regulation.

I don't buy the diatribe about social mobility. Compare standard of living in the 50s compared to today.
Blacks have a better life.
Women have a better life.
Children have a better life.

What class does not have a better life today than in 1950, RickyP?

b

What is the cause in disparity. I feel it is societal, just as RickyP does

You got it ass backwards.
I'm saying that great disparity in income and wealth create effects in society that are generaly construed as negative. .
What creates disparity? thats a different question.

Great disparity causes divorce and unwed pregnancies? It causes drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and poor life choices?