21–30 of 88 posts
[flagged]
I'm not a fan of communism, but that ideology produced two of the major world powers. Entire generations of illiterate peasants were educated, entire economies were completely reconstructed in a way that is pretty much unprecedented. There was immense repression, the human cost of Stalinism for example is uncountable. But capitalism has caused immense suffering as well. It's better to simply speak plainly of the effe…
> Remote work, deglobalization, stalled technology have started eroding some advantages of higher-skilled workers Their premise is broken. The largest inequality is not between highly skilled workers and everyone else. It is between the wealthy (top 0.1% or 0.01%) and the rest.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
A classic case that was borne out this year is the dichotomy between Warren Buffet and the average railway worker. Railways took in massive profits over the pandemic, and precision scheduling literally killed workers to get there. All the while our supply chain breaks down.
> Remote work, deglobalization, stalled technology have started eroding some advantages of higher-skilled workers Their premise is broken. The largest inequality is not between highly skilled workers and everyone else. It is between the wealthy (top 0.1% or 0.01%) and the rest.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
> Remote work, deglobalization, stalled technology have started eroding some advantages of higher-skilled workers Their premise is broken. The largest inequality is not between highly skilled workers and everyone else. It is between the wealthy (top 0.1% or 0.01%) and the rest.
Wages or income? Two different things. Steve Jobs had a $1 salary, many notable others did, too [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
"Wealth inequality" is what's relevant if you're concerned about the mega-rich like Jobs. If your assets are big enough you can live off of them without any labour - through rents, dividends, sale of assets etc.
It's interesting if income inequality is going down considering that wealth inequality is worsening in the developed world due to the recent massive inflation of housing assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a broken premise at all. The focus on the ultra rich is mostly just a political ploy since it's easy to villainize extravagant wealth. But the vast majority of income (I'm including capital gains in this) is made by the middle class and wage-earning upper class, not by the ultra rich. If you take all the wealth of the ultra rich and distribute it evenly, every person would get a one-time, nice, but not life-chang…
Nonsense, you're doubling down on the false premise. The problem with the ultra rich isn't solved by a one time tax on their accumulated wealth, its solved by ongoing redistribution of the profits from industry into workers pockets. A classic case that was borne out this year is the dichotomy between Warren Buffet and the average railway worker. Railways took in massive profits over the pandemic, and precision schedu…
The focus on the ultra-rich is an obvious political ploy. In every western country with a more socialistic arrangement than another, the taxes on the middle class are inevitably higher. And the salaries for high-skill positions are also depressed to begin with, due to legal/social arrangements that force more egalitarian pay scales. You can't get what you want by just taking the income/wealth/whatever of the tippy-top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fan of communism, but that ideology produced two of the major world powers. Entire generations of illiterate peasants were educated, entire economies were completely reconstructed in a way that is pretty much unprecedented. There was immense repression, the human cost of Stalinism for example is uncountable. But capitalism has caused immense suffering as well. It's better to simply speak plainly of the effe…
[flagged]
1) labor organization (unions) are responsible for the meager gains. That’s it. If higher wage earners (like me!) actually engaged with society and organized their trade we’d get the same gains
2) inequality is not earnestly, meaningfully defined as the difference between compensation for types of labor: it’s the difference between the equity in society held by the workers versus the owning class.
this is borderline propaganda
The premise of this article is absolutely disgusting. The inequality that matters isn't the difference between blue collar workers and college grads with marketing and tech jobs. This is just propaganda to destroy the middle class.
All egalitarian, equality doctrines will end up here, why wouldn't they? What is the limiting principle?
This is why they should be rejected. Pretty funny to see the outrage when the equalizing starts moving down the spectrum. Why shouldn't that blue collar worker want you to be equalized to him, why should he care about your disgust?