The answer to all of these is NO and there is no way to make all of them YES.
You’re thinking too hard. I think the question is more “Do all classes of worker over the last few decades share equally in the broader economic growth of the economy as a whole.”
This isn’t about every single person have equal access to everything.
X2. I agree with every one of your answers.
Ditto. Multiple choice in LR takes way too much thought.
x4
x5
X2. I agree with every one of your answers.
Ditto. Multiple choice in LR takes way too much thought.
x4
x5
x6
Not a lot of time tonight but I’ll take a stab at it.
Do you think that the economy works for everyone
Kind of a loaded question. What do you mean by “works for”? Provides sustenance? Provides purpose? Let’s take someone with an IQ of 75 living in a developed, western society. Odds are they’ll have sustenance and shelter which is something that economic structures that were present 500 years ago couldn’t reasonably guarantee to significantly more intelligent people (or for a modern example of how horrible economic ideas could fail to provide the same even with abundant natural resources, Venezuela).
Now what about providing purpose? In the modern economy, someone with an IQ of 75 has grim job prospects and flat-out might not be employable in any capacity twenty years from now which basically leaves them as wards of the state. Put that same person into a medieval town and chances are they worked in the fields just the same as ~80% of the population: similar income, similar social status, similar purpose in life.
And to pre-empt any “but John Smith had an IQ of 75 and did XYZ” I’m talking about broad statistical outcomes. We’re talking about ~5% of the population which in a country like the U.S. is a not-so-insignificant 16,500,000 people.
Do you think globalisation has harmed segments of society
Definitely. Fundamentally capital is mobile and labor is not. That alone creates a fundamental imbalance which is going to harm certain segments of society. Separately, technological change is moving very rapidly which will inherently harm segments of the population as the industries that they work in are disrupted.
Do you think inequality is an issue that needs to be addressed - not how
Yes
Is the current trend of increasing inequality sustainable
This is a more loaded question than you know. There’s two types of inequality but people only talk about one of them which is the distribution of wealth and income. This is static inequality. The more important measure of inequality, IMO, is dynamic (that is mobility which should be measured throughout one’s life not just at the beginning and the end which is naturally biased one way).
https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46
Consider that about ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top one percent and more than half of all Americans will spend a year in the top ten percent. This is visibly not the same for the more static –but nominally more equal –Europe. For instance, only ten percent of the wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years ago; more than sixty percent of those on the French list were heirs and a third of the richest Europeans were the richest centuries ago. In Florence, it was just revealed that things are really even worse: the same handful of families have kept the wealth for five centuries.
39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 % of the income distribution, 56 % will find themselves in the top 10% for a year, and 73% percent will spend a year in the top 20 %.
regarding all of the statistics regarding wealth inequality. There is a STAGGERING difference in the US between the top 1% (700g a year) and the top .1% (2.5 mil a year), compared to top 10% $110g a year.
So it is really nice to say a family will be in the top 10%. Almost no one except for the already rich will be in the top .1% Since the 80s the top 1% has accumulated like 150% more wealth, while the top .1 has accumulated 340%., the rest 50% around 70%.
The numbers at the tip top are staggering.
In October of 2018, the Economic Policy Institute published a study showing that the top 1% reached the highest wages ever in 2017. But when you read all those stories about the 1% – or even the top 5% or 10% – how much money do you need to pull in to be in one of those groups?
Top 0.1% of Earners$2,757,000.
Top 1% of Earners$718,766
Top 5% of Earners$299,810
Top 10% of Earners$118,400
edit: The data itself shows that the economy has “worked” for everyone. Meaning that even the lowest have accumulated more total wealth. However, it also shows that relatively, the economy has “worked” much more for the wealthy. I am not arguing for socialism, but the wealth accumulation did not need to go mostly to the rich. There have been tax laws and loopholes that have been passed for years allowing the rich to accumulate more money. This will continue because our system, more now than ever, values passive income growth.
Do you think that the economy works for everyone
Do you think globalisation has harmed segments of society
Do you think inequality is an issue that needs to be addressed - not how
Is the current trend of increasing inequality sustainable
No. Yes. Yes. No.
Why do I think this? You have teachers on government assistance. Nuff said. You shouldn’t have a full time job and be on government assistance in a first world country.
Why this one? Clearly the larger players in the world economy are or were the major military and empire holders around the world at some point in time. They utilized this influence to reap the biggest possible reward. The impact of that lasts until today.
Why yes? You’ll always have inequality and the poor. Not a Jesus quote, as that quote is always used out of context. But, I mean it in the sense that it should be managed to a level that a country is both stable and has a low relative crime/incarceration rate. Less equal countries tend to have worse crime rates, extremely generically speaking. I don’t agree with handouts, I prefer things like universal care and services. Education, healthcare, etc… Cover the bases, don’t give cash.
I said no because it’s a very regional question. Different parts of the world are seeing different levels of inequality. For Denmark, Sweden, and maybe even most of that general area…I’d say the ratio is pretty good in fact. Move east, or move to central/south America…it’s clearly off kilter enough to drive a crisis in immigration/refuge seekers.
I don’t think when discussing inequality I am thinking of San Francisco v’s Kinshasa just within regional areas of the us
Does the tax code perpetuate and worsen inequality generation to generation?
What should be done?
I don’t think when discussing inequality I am thinking of San Francisco v’s Kinshasa just within regional areas of the us
Does the tax code perpetuate and worsen inequality generation to generation?
What should be done?
Well, you would need to create a parallel universe to fully answer that, and examine different policies. It is obvious that inequality is worsening at the same time that relative tax rates are dropping. Incomes for the top earners has exploded. Most importantly, wealth remains largely untaxed and gets handed down directly to the next generation. Looking forward, it is clear that mobility in countries like the USA has plummetted, and will be much worse in the future than it was previously, unless policies change. It is equally true that we are reliant on capital growth, and we have few good alternatives at present that aren’t deflationary in the short-term.
You really need to expand the question to include all government policy. Government policy certainly gives enormous benefits to folks with captial and certain investments (lower/deferred taxation, specific tax breaks, artificially low interest rates, preferential treatment due to lobbying, etc.). Regarding income, we have been in the top 1% exactly once, but that was when the cut-off for the top 1% was WAAAAY lower, and that will not happen again.
X2. I agree with every one of your answers.
Ditto. Multiple choice in LR takes way too much thought.
x4
x5
x6
x7
Just a little bit of added context could never hurt…
It is obvious that inequality is worsening
Worldwide inequality is shrinking. The story with globalism and the steady proliferation of neoliberalism – so far – is shrinking inequality. That is the broader story and the net effect. The United States – whose labor pay rates have been suppressed by globalization and immigration – has experienced a rise in inequality. The rise in inequality in the USA due to globalization (but also the rise in net wealth and net income) was rather uncontroversially predicted.
Most importantly, wealth remains largely untaxed and gets handed down directly to the next generation.
To the extent that wealth gets untaxed it’s because it has remained unconsumed. Wealthy people that consume less end up competing less with the poor for scarce resources.
Vague reference: When Ebenezer Scrooge bought that prize winning turkey – based on the threats from those ghostly terrorists – some other family went without it that Christmas.
Looking forward, it is clear that mobility in countries like the USA has plummeted, and will be much worse in the future than it was previously, unless policies change.
Not so sure this is universally true. I’ve heard places like Utah have as much mobility as Denmark. (I’d need to check data better when I have more time). Anyway, I find it a bit strange when people browbeat Americans about accepting more illegal immigrants, and then turn around and wonder pejoratively why America doesn’t have better mobility.
Government policy certainly gives enormous benefits to folks with capital and certain investments (lower/deferred taxation, specific tax breaks, artificially low interest rates, preferential treatment due to lobbying, etc.).
Government policy gives enormous benefits to everyone. I’m not sure we can say these benefits to the rich are either a.) a critical factor in describing recent phenomenon, and b.) outside any historical norms.
Most data I’ve seen is meticulously cherry picked. The more robust and universal conclusion is that the rich are simply earning a lot of money buying and selling goods and services.
Regarding income, we have been in the top 1% exactly once, but that was when the cut-off for the top 1% was WAAAAY lower, and that will not happen again.
The 1% is tough to get to. People need to realize those numbers are AGI (adjusted gross income) and not total income or total yearly wealth increase.
Income inequality has not improved
I think the evidence is that wealth inequality has not changed substantially in centuries
That the chances of those from the lowest socio economic groups moving up are no better today than historically
.
I think if you look at really rich people. The majority of them think that they should be taxed more.
The majority of charities are also set up just so the rich can pay themselves on the back for pet projects. I know some really rich people and they donate to either their own charities because it gives their wives something to do / gives them access to sporting events / tax write off/ etc.
All of these people I am not talking about people like you or me. I am talking about the really wealthy pulling in 25+ mil a year. I am not saying take their wealth. But at some point the tax loopholes shouldn’t be used for these people. If you make a shit ton of money you should just be taxed at 33%-50 of things over annual income more than 10 mil and be done with with.
Income inequality has not improved
This is the World GINI over time…
I think if you look at really rich people. The majority of them think that they should be taxed more.
I never understood this sentiment. If I had millions of excess dollars, and I wanted to do something good (at best) or just give it away (at worst) I’d just start companies that paid people whatever I wanted them to do for the world. Instead of just throwing a bit more money onto the world’s largest financing pile, and enabling more bureaucratic governmental malaise, I’d create high paying jobs.
They might even do something valuable enough to turn a profit.
Income inequality has not improved
I think the evidence is that wealth inequality has not changed substantially in centuries
That the chances of those from the lowest socio economic groups moving up are no better today than historically
I think that is overstating it. There are plenty of examples of folks coming to Canada and the US and within a generation doing very well. Almost everyone I grew up with (dutch immigrants to Canada) had parents who came here with nothing and within ten years were solidly middle class some doing much better. I don’t see that happening 300-400 years ago in North America nor 100 years ago in Europe.
More regulation won’t help as the wealthy are really good at regulatory capture. Turning college admissions into a meritocracy won’t help either as it also institutionalizes intergenerational wealth.
I’m not sure it is overstating it
Social mobility has not improved. If your grandparents or great grandparents were poor. It’s likely you will be as well.
Its because of the excess wealth they can do both. You tax a billionaire at 30% vs. 15%, and they are still a billionaire. At some point, the money doesnt matter to start a company vs. taxation, because you still have the money to do whatever you want.
s://http://www.fraserinstitute.org/...live-and-well-canada
https://www.theglobalist.com/social-mobility-canada-the-united-kingdom/
Canadians are quite socially mobile. This has been my experience with immigrants and with the community I grew up in.
One thing that impairs social mobility is people’s lack of self restraint of their vices. Freedom from self destructive behavior is the one freedom gov’t seems most unable to give us.
I’m not saying the taxation system doesn’t need fixing or that the legal system has not be captured by the rich but one can move up if one wants to, at least in Canada.
Its because of the excess wealth they can do both. You tax a billionaire at 30% vs. 15%, and they are still a billionaire. At some point, the money doesnt matter to start a company vs. taxation, because you still have the money to do whatever you want.
If I’m worth one billion and you tax me at 15% then I’ll be worth $850 million, right? If you tax me at 30% I’m worth $700 million. In this example I wouldn’t still be a billionaire. Think about those ratios on your own fortune and tell me what you feel.
“You still have the money to do whatever you want” – I think important parts of economics are getting by you when you make this kind of declaration. Sure, from a figurative, relative, or even spiritual standpoint this statement could be useful. I grant you that. As a literal economic statement to help guide us with policy, it couldn’t be more wrong.
"Think about those ratios on your own fortune and tell me what you feel. "
Its not what I think. its that most rich people feel that way. Its also totally fair that you dont understand why the wealthy would want to do that. It doesnt matter that I think the wealthy should be taxed more, the majority of wealthy people think that they should be taxed more (not all, jsut the majority).