By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Wealth Inequality in America

sc94597 on 17 January 2014
Egann said:

The real problem is the millions of people who don't know how to make a comfortable beginning with money and can't make the common sense decisions to keep it once they've got it. In so many words, the culture of poverty. The combination of having nothing and knowing how to make nothing is uniquely unfair. 

Is that not an education problem, then? Possibly an emphasis on economics and finance in grade school could fix this. If one looks at other schooling and educations sytems in the world, especially privately competitive/subsidy based ones (Hong Kong, Japan, etc) one notes these courses in their curriculums and it reflects in the responsible activities of their societies. 

http://money.msn.com/investing/why-high-school-kids-are-financially-illiterate

If the U.S. education system can't teach Johnny how to read, it's not surprising it can't teach him how to balance his checkbook or calculate compound interest.

A report out this month from the Champlain College Center for Financial Literacy (CFL) in Vermont finds that the vast majority of states are doing a poor or mediocre job of educating high school students in key financial skills. The report card, which awarded each state a letter grade, gave 60% of the states a C or less; 44% of those received D or F grades.

John Pelletier, director of the CFL and author of the 2013 National Report Card on State Efforts to Improve Financial Literacy in High Schools, argues that to make programs successful at the high school level, "financial literacy topics must be taught in a course that students are required to take as a graduation requirement."

 



Around the Network
0815user on 17 January 2014

you people know what's really bad for economy? when a lot of poor people don't buy stuff because they can't afford it and a few very rich people won't buy stuff, at least compared to what they could spend, because they already have everything.



sc94597 on 17 January 2014
0815user said:
you people know what's really bad for economy? when a lot of poor people don't buy stuff because they can't afford it and a few very rich people won't buy stuff, at least compared to what they could spend, because they already have everything.

Debt and reckless spending to mindlessly "stimulate" the economy is also bad for it. Saving is just a deferred investment. 



0815user on 17 January 2014
sc94597 said:
0815user said:
you people know what's really bad for economy? when a lot of poor people don't buy stuff because they can't afford it and a few very rich people won't buy stuff, at least compared to what they could spend, because they already have everything.

Debt and reckless spending to mindlessly "stimulate" the economy is also bad for it. Saving is just a deferred investment. 

maybe for normal wealthy people but what does the 1% save for? a death star?



stlwtng4Dmdrxip on 17 January 2014
sc94597 said:
stlwtng4Dmdrxip said:
sc94597 said:
Rab said:
NightDragon83 said:
That some folks out there have more money than others? Right, like THAT'S never happened before in human history. T

Look to science to answer that one 

In most of Human existence (100,000 years) we have had little wealth inequality (hunter gather culture) people would share most resources mostly evenly, it's only roughly in the past 5000 years where moderate to high levels of wealth inequality has become common

Lets not kid ourselves we have evolved with sharing most resources most of the time, that's' how we survived to later become the dominated species of Earth, it's part of who we are, we naturally don't like it when others get far more than us, we accept it once we are conditioned, but we naturally feel most comfortable when people are mostly equal to each other.

Since agriculture we have changed this basic principle into one where some have a lot more resources than others, and the ones with the most resources often use it to control the ones with less, creating social problems because people feel less looked after and feel less valued unlike in our hunter gather ancestors who felt valued because they mostly shared in the spoils of the hunting and gathering

I don't blame people for thinking we have always have to live with inequality, it because it's all we have know and are conditioned to it, but the reality for vast periods of Human culture is that is was very different and equatable, our Human DNA has evolved to work best and happiest in as close to an equatable society as possible 

By this logic, should we revert to tribalism and hunter-gatherer life-styles? I'm pretty sure NightDragon's point wasn't that sharing common resources hasn't existed, but as an alternative wealth-inequality and capitalism exist, just as naturally as the first. Anybody literate in economics would know that with a flat, centralized, redistribution of resources productivity would not only fail to pick up, there would be no reason to (hence tribal lifestyles.) 

As for the bolded, I do wish to see biological, psychological, sociological, or economic data which substantiates your statement, otherwise it's just a conjecture.

As for the underlined, how in the world do you know this? Have you spoken with them? 

As for italics, please cite the biological source that the need for equality is a genetic feature found in all human beings, otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims as if they were facts. 

Aren't you awnsering your own question? It shouldn't be all or nothing, there should be a ballance in society and not the " rich people get everything", or "we need to go back to the jungle".

I don't agree that the society we live in today is "rich people get everything" when in fact, in the last century, poverty rates have decreased from 80% of the world's population to 20% of the world's population. In basic economics one learns about Adam Smith and his conclusion that free-trade benefits all who take part in it, not because these people have a bigger omniscence of the economic reality, but because these people all work in their own self-interest and work with others from that perspective. 

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

It was only through socialism, mercantilism, and corporatism that we were impoverished before free-trade and capitalism benefited all human beings, the rich, and the poor creating the so abhored (by socialists) bourgeoisie (middle class) in the process. 


Actually it was technology that provided the growth of the middle class, because right now it's becoming stagnant. Humans didn't change, technology did, we are as greedy as ever, and that's the root of the problem. Having a middle class means more whealth, so even if the rich get most of it, the difference in produtivity will mean that there's more for everyone until a point. Which is the moment we're in, when middle class in 2nd world country's like the US are not getting richer like the top 5 of so percent of the population.



Around the Network
Rab on 17 January 2014
sc94597 said:
Rab said:
NightDragon83 said:
That some folks out there have more money than others? Right, like THAT'S never happened before in human history. T

Look to science to answer that one 

In most of Human existence (100,000 years) we have had little wealth inequality (hunter gather culture) people would share most resources mostly evenly, it's only roughly in the past 5000 years where moderate to high levels of wealth inequality has become common

Lets not kid ourselves we have evolved with sharing most resources most of the time, that's' how we survived to later become the dominated species of Earth, it's part of who we are, we naturally don't like it when others get far more than us, we accept it once we are conditioned, but we naturally feel most comfortable when people are mostly equal to each other.

Since agriculture we have changed this basic principle into one where some have a lot more resources than others, and the ones with the most resources often use it to control the ones with less, creating social problems because people feel less looked after and feel less valued unlike in our hunter gather ancestors who felt valued because they mostly shared in the spoils of the hunting and gathering

I don't blame people for thinking we have always have to live with inequality, it because it's all we have know and are conditioned to it, but the reality for vast periods of Human culture is that is was very different and equatable, our Human DNA has evolved to work best and happiest in as close to an equatable society as possible 

By this logic, should we revert to tribalism and hunter-gatherer life-styles? I'm pretty sure NightDragon's point wasn't that sharing common resources hasn't existed, but as an alternative wealth-inequality and capitalism exist, just as naturally as the first. Anybody literate in economics would know that with a flat, centralized, redistribution of resources productivity would not only fail to pick up, there would be no reason to (hence tribal lifestyles.) 

As for the bolded, I do wish to see biological, psychological, sociological, or economic data which substantiates your statement, otherwise it's just a conjecture.

As for the underlined, how in the world do you know this? Have you spoken with them? 

As for italics, please cite the biological source that the need for equality is a genetic feature found in all human beings, otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims as if they were facts. 

What I posted is adequate for general discussion, it's to allow thought and discussion, if what I said is of any interest to you, you will look into it, a more detailed response would be counter productive to the flow of conversation, I personally don't have the time and energy to go to such depths

The evidence is there, you can look into it further yourself if your the scholarly type or continue discounting other views as it suits you (which is very Human) We all do it most of the time so I understand where your coming from

As for going back to a Hunter gather life style (not really tribalism), I don't think we ever could unless everything be build up so far crumbled, but it's very important to know where we have come from, some still live as Hunter Gatherers even today which has been invaluable to research related to our ancestors 

Fact is we have evolved from a different set of conditions that we mostly no longer find ourselves in any more, this can effect our well being and happiness in many ways, at least understanding this gives us the chance to improve the way we run our societies to best suit our DNA, much like trying to improve a Zoo to best suit an animals natural needs

I can't go into more detail as I don't have the interest or energy, so if any of this actually interests you please proceed on your own to discover if there is any truth to what I have said

Cheers

 



Egann on 17 January 2014
sc94597 said:
Egann said:

The real problem is the millions of people who don't know how to make a comfortable beginning with money and can't make the common sense decisions to keep it once they've got it. In so many words, the culture of poverty. The combination of having nothing and knowing how to make nothing is uniquely unfair. 

Is that not an education problem, then? Possibly an emphasis on economics and finance in grade school could fix this. If one looks at other schooling and educations sytems in the world, especially privately competitive/subsidy based ones (Hong Kong, Japan, etc) one notes these courses in their curriculums and it reflects in the responsible activities of their societies. 

http://money.msn.com/investing/why-high-school-kids-are-financially-illiterate

If the U.S. education system can't teach Johnny how to read, it's not surprising it can't teach him how to balance his checkbook or calculate compound interest.

A report out this month from the Champlain College Center for Financial Literacy (CFL) in Vermont finds that the vast majority of states are doing a poor or mediocre job of educating high school students in key financial skills. The report card, which awarded each state a letter grade, gave 60% of the states a C or less; 44% of those received D or F grades.

John Pelletier, director of the CFL and author of the 2013 National Report Card on State Efforts to Improve Financial Literacy in High Schools, argues that to make programs successful at the high school level, "financial literacy topics must be taught in a course that students are required to take as a graduation requirement."

 

Partly, but it's also because some of the subcultures in the United States don't value money skills while others do. It could sure use being taught in school, though.



sc94597 on 17 January 2014
stlwtng4Dmdrxip said:
sc94597 said:
stlwtng4Dmdrxip said:
sc94597 said:
Rab said:
NightDragon83 said:
That some folks out there have more money than others? Right, like THAT'S never happened before in human history. T

Look to science to answer that one 

In most of Human existence (100,000 years) we have had little wealth inequality (hunter gather culture) people would share most resources mostly evenly, it's only roughly in the past 5000 years where moderate to high levels of wealth inequality has become common

Lets not kid ourselves we have evolved with sharing most resources most of the time, that's' how we survived to later become the dominated species of Earth, it's part of who we are, we naturally don't like it when others get far more than us, we accept it once we are conditioned, but we naturally feel most comfortable when people are mostly equal to each other.

Since agriculture we have changed this basic principle into one where some have a lot more resources than others, and the ones with the most resources often use it to control the ones with less, creating social problems because people feel less looked after and feel less valued unlike in our hunter gather ancestors who felt valued because they mostly shared in the spoils of the hunting and gathering

I don't blame people for thinking we have always have to live with inequality, it because it's all we have know and are conditioned to it, but the reality for vast periods of Human culture is that is was very different and equatable, our Human DNA has evolved to work best and happiest in as close to an equatable society as possible 

By this logic, should we revert to tribalism and hunter-gatherer life-styles? I'm pretty sure NightDragon's point wasn't that sharing common resources hasn't existed, but as an alternative wealth-inequality and capitalism exist, just as naturally as the first. Anybody literate in economics would know that with a flat, centralized, redistribution of resources productivity would not only fail to pick up, there would be no reason to (hence tribal lifestyles.) 

As for the bolded, I do wish to see biological, psychological, sociological, or economic data which substantiates your statement, otherwise it's just a conjecture.

As for the underlined, how in the world do you know this? Have you spoken with them? 

As for italics, please cite the biological source that the need for equality is a genetic feature found in all human beings, otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims as if they were facts. 

Aren't you awnsering your own question? It shouldn't be all or nothing, there should be a ballance in society and not the " rich people get everything", or "we need to go back to the jungle".

I don't agree that the society we live in today is "rich people get everything" when in fact, in the last century, poverty rates have decreased from 80% of the world's population to 20% of the world's population. In basic economics one learns about Adam Smith and his conclusion that free-trade benefits all who take part in it, not because these people have a bigger omniscence of the economic reality, but because these people all work in their own self-interest and work with others from that perspective. 

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."

It was only through socialism, mercantilism, and corporatism that we were impoverished before free-trade and capitalism benefited all human beings, the rich, and the poor creating the so abhored (by socialists) bourgeoisie (middle class) in the process. 


Actually it was technology that provided the growth of the middle class, because right now it's becoming stagnant. Humans didn't change, technology did, we are as greedy as ever, and that's the root of the problem. Having a middle class means more whealth, so even if the rich get most of it, the difference in produtivity will mean that there's more for everyone until a point. Which is the moment we're in, when middle class in 2nd world country's like the US are not getting richer like the top 5 of so percent of the population.

Technology would never have developed without incentive (reward.) 



sc94597 on 17 January 2014
0815user said:
sc94597 said:
0815user said:
you people know what's really bad for economy? when a lot of poor people don't buy stuff because they can't afford it and a few very rich people won't buy stuff, at least compared to what they could spend, because they already have everything.

Debt and reckless spending to mindlessly "stimulate" the economy is also bad for it. Saving is just a deferred investment. 

maybe for normal wealthy people but what does the 1% save for? a death star?

They save so that they can invest back into business. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Facebook, etc, etc all were created by current "1-percenters." All of these have made peoples lives better, not worse. Wal-Mart is a highly valuable shopping source for poor Americans, Microsoft has greatly contributed to the existence of the personal computer, a device which extremely empowers individuals, and Facebook allows people to connect with old friends and be more happy socially. I live in the city of Pittsburgh. There are many renmants of Andrew Carnegie here, who would be equivalent to today's onepercenters. I go to a top-tie university partly created by his efforts (Carnegie Mellon University), mostly on private grants, throughout the city there are multiple libraries, museums, and other publicly used buildings all maintained by the Carnegie Institute. Even 100 years after his death, he has influence on the lives of people in this city and people's lives are better because of it. So, certainly, long-term savings, even by the ultra-rich, help fuel the economy. 



Rab on 17 January 2014
sc94597 said:

Technology would never have developed without incentive (reward.) 


Rewards can be many things, many times that reward is simply and naturally to help others

We have been developing technology since before we where Humans