Why is Wealth Inequality Bad?

--Audience Question: Why is wealth inequality bad?

-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!

Broadcast on November 2, 2018

[WA_S_S_AW]

Because on a long enough time line you wind up with way more poor people than rich and then that whole Marie Antoinette thing happens and a bunch of the rich lose their heads. Hence the idea and implementation of social welfare is really just inexpensive revolution insurance.

[yakojjy]

But the evangelical Christians in this country literally believe that wealthy people are blessed by god.

[TruthAndMoreTruth]

When too much money moves to the top, you end up with an _upside down economy._
• The people at the top don't spend enough of their wealth (how many meals and cloths can they buy). Money becomes stagnant.
• People at the bottom have no money to spend.
• The lack of spending/demand causes businesses to fail, and this causes a chain reaction that effects every business, causing a complete economic collapse.
Before every depression or recession an _Upside down economy_ can be clearly observed.
Money needs to flow for a healthy economy, but horded money simply doesn't flow, it's stock piled.
This is precisely why _trickle down reagan-omics_ will never work.
Demand, and only demand fuel an economy, and wealth equality is the ONLY way to maintain demand.

[michaelirwin]

Social stratification, doesnt matter how much it is, is negative for public health in almost any category you look at. This conversation is pointless unless using that as the starting point. We have enough physical wealth and productive capacity to supply everyone on the planet many times over with the necessities of life at a minimum.

[StarlightLancer]

*MONEY, IN GENERAL, IS A FUCKING PROBLEM.*

[MattOGormanSmith]

It's not disincentivising, it's disabling. If you can't afford a work space or the tools you need, you can't innovate.

[Cas]

Why not legalize drugs if you really want to reduce crime?

[sasoriko]

Only those who despise the poor would support a tax on peoples labor.

[matt.]

I think the issue should be framed in terms of power inequality. People with massive amounts of wealth can buy politicians and can control corporations, shifting society in the direction that leads to the wealthy amassing even more power. We have to have checks on this. Getting money out of politics is a good one. Labor representatives on company boards is another.

Once we get things like this under control, decisions inside institutions will be able to be influenced by the working class. This will allow these institutions to be guided towards benefiting everyone in the country, instead of just the rich.

[Humanistic_]

*"Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole."* -Karl Marx

Wealth inequality (inherent in capitalism) always leads to societal diseases of despair: drug addiction, suicides, gambling, mass shootings, etc.

[careneh]

Number 1 is not an argument against wealth inequality, but against bribery. Number 2 is not an argument against wealth inequality, but against bribery. My feeling is that wealth inequality is a red herring to replace the need to discuss the problem of poverty with a problem which is simple to argue against. This is not a mathematical redistribution question, as this is not a zero sum situation. To the contrary, it seems to be an established consensus that minimizing wealth inequality will not minimize poverty. And we do not know the optimal inequality that minimizes poverty, so it serves as a perfect red herring we can go about for hours and hours without addressing the actual issue, which is improving the life standards of those who need the improvement the most. And of course we can tax the rich without any need to argue that wealth inequality in itself is a bad thing.

[bgmcc]

It’s actually good. It’s the cornerstone of a free market economy, which has led (not ‘lead’ - argh!) to the wealthiest economy (-ies) in history.

ECXEPT when taken to an extreme, as we are doing now in this country, in which too many people have too little to live decently, and too many are wealthy beyond in many cases even their wildest imaginings.

THAT is when you get revolution. Just ask Marie Antoinette.

[sheikhfadhilaljahdhamy]

We see churches closing because no enough people and no enough money

[anterenic]

Let us assume that overall a large degree of inequality is objectively bad. Given that, is it moral to try to do something about it just because it helps more people overall? From a utilitarian standpoint it makes sense, but is it fair to take from the rich to give to the poor (e.g. by taxing) just because that's what's better for everyone?

In order words: is there a moral imperative even higher than the good of the society?
I don't think there is.

[jonathanhijlkema]

Money is labor. If you have the ability to spend more labor than you can actually add in real value to the economy, you spend other people's labor. Value is always labor, someone always put part of their live in that. The amount of labor any person can produce is always very similar, since peopole are just very similar. For instance, Husein Bolt does a sub 10 sec 100m sprint and a average schoolboy may do a 15 sec 100m, both of them are within a 50% margin of perfomance there. There are no human beings that can actually do labor 100 times faster than another.
Beyond that simple fact, our technology we have today is thanks to our ancestors. That means the reason we are so succesfull and prosperous right now is as a result of thousands of years of hard work. My ancestors, your ancestors, they all did the biggest part in making us prosper. For a few people to just take power for themselves and proclaim they deserve the wealth that the whole of humanity has created troughout history is rediculous. They use their power to influence our culture, through religion, education, economy and media to keep that wealth and keep the powerless majority in the dark. The simple reality is that its morally wrong and we all deserve a fair share of what humanity has created. We dont all need the exact same amount, but for people to have more than a hundred times the wealth as another is just plain wrong and in a world where people die of hunger, its evil. The way we deal with it seems very similar to a religion. A religion of wealth, where the wealthy create a version of reality where its their superiority and virtuousness that made them better than other people and made it so that they deserve that wealth. They dont have to feel guilty they spend hundred times the amount of labor than others, they dont have to feel guilty other people die of hunger, they dont feel guilty they let other people make their clothing for les than 1 dollar an hour, they dont have to feel guilty they polute and destroy our planet for future generations for their own gain. Its the disgusting side of humanity, the childish unresponsable and egocentrical side that shows most when people dont get to undergo the consequences of their actions.

[troublecaine]

Indeed. It is like going to see a Movie. You go to see it, but the tickets are $50, 000USD a piece. Now, only the wealthy can watch the movie, and the movie will only be reviewed by the wealthy who got in. SO in the USA, 3, 000 people saw the movie, but 326 Million could not afford to. The movie made JUST enough money to be shown, but not NEARLY as much as if the people MAKING the movie could afford to see it and the general population. Hence, the QUALITY of the movies does NOT advance very far or fast and the KINDS of movies made MUST appeal to a small cross section of the population. In America that means WHITES ONLY or the WHITE PRIVILEGED. IN China...only the COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS...in South Africa, today, WHITES ONLY AND five Black people who look white. etc, etc, etc! SOON, THE INDUSTRY STAGNATES. A foreign industry comes in and makes all that money from the 326 Million. They buy influence in government and the 326 Million know they care and reject their own homegrown movie makers/evil doers/the government, oops, ...movie goers overthrow their old corrupt movie makes...As they should! Gee who could have seen that coming?!

[jsbart]

Thing is tho David, by supporting capitalism are you not just accepting that wealth inequality will happen (by virtue of having a class of property and business owners, and a class of people that have to rent themselves to those owners). Social democrats seem to make some structure critics of capitalism but seem to think by massive downward redistribution of wealth by the state we can mitigate the horrendous outcomes of markets (even regulated ones).

Why not question further and think why do all these inequalities arise? Its built in to the capitalist - worker relationship and can never be undone unless you want massive taxation. Even in Norway and Germany inequality is higher pre taxes that the US.

[katieadams]

I believe that there should be some wealth inequality, but not extreme wealth inequality to the point where only a small percentage of people hold all the wealth

[mcfishyfirst]

#Hoarding the Native American Indians knew this concept is pure evil and died for this belief

[alphacause]

There should be disparities in wealth distribution, when that disparity is the result of merit. There is nothing wrong with that, because such disparity incentivizes perseverance, competition, and yields better products and services for society. Unfortunately, SOME on the political Right like to portray those on the political Left, who talk about wealth inequality, as crazy Marxists, who are hellbent on paying everyone the same, regardless of achievement - insinuating that progressives want the janitor to make the same as a neurosurgeon. Of course this not only is a false caricature of the progressive position, but it also obfuscates and stymies our pursuit of making sure that the playing field is fair. Without a fair playing field - such as equal access to educational opportunities and healthcare - and without sensible restrictions on the corrupting influence of corporate money on government, the disparity in wealth distribution will be DISCONNECTED from merit. It is when wealth distribution becomes DISCONNECTED from merit that problems arise, and that is fertile ground for things that the political Right fears, such as Marxist revolutions which inevitably leads to tyranny.