This is the notion under discussion on a post by Citizen Tom. Along the way there have been a few exchanges in the comments, and these lively ripostes have inspired this post. To quote one of Tom’s comments:
The whole point of earning money is to spend it the way you want to spend it, not the way those jealous of you want to spend it.
Are Gates, Bezos, Musk and such supposed to be our favorite people? No. They are not trying to be. They are not politicians, but the created more jobs and more prosperity than you or I. Therefore, I don’t begrudge them their wealth, and you should not do so either, but, of course, you do.
As I said to Tom, I don’t begrudge them their wealth, though it is dubious as to how much prosperity they’ve created. Who exactly is prospering? Is it the average US worker, whose labour arguably provides the likes of Bezos and Musk with much of their wealth? I doubt they would share Tom’s assessment.
The rich don’t pay for welfare programs. The rich live off their investment income and they will always pay reduced tax rates and use tax shelters. The people paying for your I care sooooo much welfare programs that don’t work are wage earners. Welfare programs soak those people taxes, not the rich. Why do you want this? Apparently because you are guilt-ridden and have no idea what you are doing.
Tom has unwittingly made a point I doubt he intended to make. ‘The rich pay less tax and have means to avoid tax’, is more or less what Tom has said here. Why not close the loopholes, have them pay a more reasonable share, or possibly invest in better wages for their employees? Better wages might mean less people need to turn to welfare. That’s pretty simple logic.
Tom believes I advocate for communism, Marxism and socialism. I think his belief stems from a lack of understanding of the terms he so often conflates:
So, you want to make everyone equally poor? When people cannot keep what they earned, they lose much of their incentive to work.
When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they tried Communism. When half of them starved, they gave up the experiment. Even so-called Christian Socialism is an awful idea.
I’ve never argued to forcibly strip the wealthy of all their money, and to give it away. I have argued that there is enough to go around, that people could be better paid for their efforts, and not have to live payday-to-payday each month. Apparently, suggesting this is a means to help tackle poverty is laughable, yet I’m not seeing Tom come up with any ideas to resolve the gross inequalities in this world.
To put my position out there, I believe it is entirely possible for people to earn money, and I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the existence of billionaires. I have a problem with people like Bezos, Musk etc saying they cannot afford to increase wages, whilst they make huge sums of money off the work of others. I have an issue with Bezos spending $5.5 billion on a space rocket, when that money could have given all 1.1 million Amazon employees in the USA a $5,000 bonus.
Elon Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter. In 2012, it was estimated that to solve the problem of homelessness in the USA would cost $20 billion. In other words, Musk could have solved the problem (thus demonstrating the sort of charity that surely good, pious Christians approve of) twice over. I do not expect this of him, but could his contributions to society not be a bit higher? If Musk were to look purely at his own employees, he could easily give each of them a decent pay rise, yet he isn’t.
Instead of acknowledging these gross inequities, we get people defending the idea that one should have to work two jobs, just to keep a roof over their heads. Silence of Mind (really, his handle should be Absence of Mind) did exactly that:
Ben, I struggle to pay rent. I went out and got a second job.
Seems to me that SoM is merely a sucker then. Worse, he is so blind to how he is being exploited, that he won’t even consider that the system is inadequate.
There is something about Americans in general (not all Americans certainly, but quite a few) where they are so wedded to the idea that profit is more important than anything else, that they are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to defend the obviously rampant greed within their society. Currently, 17.8% of Americans are below the poverty line. This compares poorly with neighbouring Canada (11.6%), France (13.6%) Germany (14.8%), Norway (12.7%), and Finland (12.2%), among other countries. Instead of considering how to tackle poverty, the US religious right is more concerned with phoney battles over the ‘LGBT agenda’.
It’s all rather sad.
2
0
20
Writ large, poverty is certainly a choice for many people. We make a series of life altering choices, at least weekly. Many people, a majority I might offer……prioritize leisure and gratification over savings and betterment. I’m sure that you’ve witnessed what I have: a parent perpetually buying more expensive fast food for their kids, because it’s easier; people spending money that they don’t really have on cigarettes, beer, video games, clothes, hair/makeup, etc.
This isn’t everyone who’s poor, there are those who work tirelessly to give their kids a better future than their present. But in our culture of sloth, drive-by disposable consumerism and instant gratification…….I’m certain that this people are in the distinct minority.
So then the question is, do we continue to subsidize poor life choices?
I might have to disagree. In general terms, I don’t know anyone who’s chosen to be barely be able to get by. Some people do make bad choices, but I think the majority of people work hard, just to stand still. They don’t have the opportunity to save up.
I have worked virtually all my adult life, and yet in terms of savings, have very little, which reflects the costs of pretty much everything these days, and how wages don’t rise in line with inflation. How can it be that nearly 18% of people in the richest nation on earth struggle with poverty? That’s not a choice.
What I think you’re missing from my point is this: nobody makes a conscious choice to live in poverty……but most people don’t think very far ahead, and make the choices I received above. Can you honestly say that the series of life choice you’ve made to this point hasn’t been a factor in your current financial condition?
Yes, there are issues where action could be taken (predatory lending, the ridiculous cost of education and health care, etc)…….but yet again, personal choice plays a role. Live an unhealthy lifestyle, and your medical bills will reflect that; choose a degree path in a field that is almost certain to not yield gainful employment or a decent wage…..then those consequences are on the individual, no?
I don’t disagree that people make bad choices, but I also think it’s fair to say that sometimes, the available choices aren’t great.
You referenced fast food. Yes, some people over-indulge in the stuff. For others, it’s a quick convenience, something to grab because it’s easy and cheap. Compare the cost of McDonalds to the cost of fresh, healthier foods. I can’t speak for the USA, but here, the cost of living bit hard (especially in comparison to the rest of Europe). Everything – food, energy bills, the essentials – all went up. It’s difficult to save money in those circumstances, and a world where costs rise faster than wages only serves to make it more difficult to do anything other than live pay-day to pay-day.
I could get a second job, but then I’d never see my loved ones. That’s no way to live. There was a time when wages enabled a measure of stability, and made it easier to save, but it’s not so easy now.
As for my own circumstances… I don’t know. I’ve worked full-time for virtually as long as I have been able, and yeah, I doubt I’ve made perfect decisions my entire life, but I also know that I will have to work well beyond my retirement date, because despite paying into pension funds and National Insurance all my life, the costs of everything will prohibit my actually retiring.
I don’t think people can think far ahead these days. There isn’t enough income coming in. The costs of everything are rising faster than income.
There are some interesting articles on how wages have stagnated, whilst the people at the top are making more money than ever.
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
It goes to show that the money is there to pay people more, but the will to do so isn’t.
You said the key word in the beginning…..sometimes. Yes, sometimes life deals us a crap hand that gives us very little choice. Sometimes.
As for food choices, the cost of feeding a family of four at a fast food joint, could feed that same family for a week, over here anyway.
If more people thought ahead, and instead of buying that new gaming system that they can’t afford…..paid down debt or opened an investment account, that life choice might make all the difference when retirement comes knocking.
Don’t even get me started on the ‘minimum wage’ here……
I don’t know if we’re ever going to quite see eye-to-eye on this. I think we can probably agree that society is fundamentally flawed.
Probably correct. I presume that you want government to assign the value of labor, whereas I want that to be driven by the market.
I think it’s more a case of government needing to step in, as opposed to wanting it. The trend of wages versus pretty much everything else seems to show that most employers aren’t going to increase pay unless pressured into doing so.
If your government has that Constitutional authority, then it surely can mandate an artificial value of labor. The US government doesn’t have that power……..not that it matters anymore, our politicians do what they want anyway…..Constitution be damned.
Private businesses aren’t social welfare programs.
Perhaps not, but private businesses have also shown they will not act in the interests of the very people who make them huge sums of money, unless incentivised/forced.
That’s a pretty blanket-y statement. I don’t feel that way about the company that employs me. Don’t forget that your “forced” artificial value of labor, affects not just large corporations, but small family companies that could not survive if a wage hike were imposed upon them. But I hope you like computer kiosks, because under your plan, workers are going to be let go anyway.
I don’t disagree that there are some good employers, but consider that nearly 20% of Americans are below the poverty line. Taking into account the issue of personal choice, there’s still going to be a lot of people who are working hard, just to stand still. That will apply to many who are just above the poverty line too. The current system favours the rich and powerful, and helps no one.