chris89 wrote:This kind of stuff jars with what your saying, not because I think you're wrong or immoral in your deductions, but because I don't see how what you're saying can possibly be the point.
...
Lazy scroungers and their payouts (mathmatically speaking) don't seem to me to be even a tenth of the problem.
That's why I think before looking at the lazy scroungers, we should look at the 1% holding onto 40% of the wealth. I know lots of rich people have worked hard to get where they are but in my mind there's a big difference between earning a living (which is admirable) and gaming someone else's living, or rather millions of other peoples' livings. I don't think it's physically possible to "earn" a billion dollars. I honestly don't think there are enough hours of hard-work in a day. I'm not convinced it's even possible to really "earn" a million dollars. There has to be a point where so many people in full-time work are on foodstamps and so few billionaires have so much, that you start to ask what sort of a system is it that creates this kind of imbalance. Is Mitt Romney really working that much harder than a Walmart employee? With an honest asnwer to that question, surely you have to ask whether cutting a bit of everything to do with government is really an even handed approach to dealing with these two groups?
Thanks Chris. I appreciate your reply too, especially now that I see more of where you're coming from. (It's really nice to actually have a productive conversation and gain insight into a complex issue from another person's perspective on the internet, amidst so much "angry shouting" that goes on ad nauseum -- (whether we actually end up agreeing or "solving anything" or not)).
You bring up difficult issues. To me, at the end of the day life will never be fair. For whatever reasons, there will always be a certain degree of inequity -- unless the government runs everything and dictates all resources by fiat -- and clearly THAT system has plenty of problems as well (IMO).
So, I strongly suspect the real key is WHAT is a "reasonable" balance? And of course, how do we reach some sort of level of social agreement about it?
One person I really like who discusses this in an intelligent and relatively balanced way (again, IMO) is Fareed Zakaria on his GPS (Global Public Square) series on CNN. He often points to models that seem to be working quite well in other countries -- often rich European or Scandanavian countries, for example. They clearly have struck much more of a balance -- and yet have some VERY rich folks. I watch some of his ideas, like on his "Putting America back to work - global perspectives" GPS special recently on CNN, and I think "WHY can't WE try some things along these lines"?
I will strongly disagree with you on one point (which Planet alluded to via productivity and knowledge allowing a highly skilled person to EARN quite a high wage rate -- a truly skilled estate lawyer, a heart surgeon, and the architect responsible for the safety of skyscraper safety come to mind as examples).
So, as someone who has personally earned a million dollars (including saving and reinvesting a huge percentage of the earnings instead of spending it) over a career -- given that in today's dollars a million dollars isn't enough to be "filthy rich" -- I do disagree with your assertion that it is "impossible" to fairly earn a million dollars. (I worked a lot of 80 hour weeks and gave up a LOT of holiday weekends, built a lot of software, and frankly, saved quite a few large corporate ASSES when they messed up databases by doing the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot, and asking me to (do the equivalent of) magically repairing the damage with no medical treatment). This was after spending my college career working my way through school and studying a LOT, instead of partying. So call me selfish or insane -- but I think I EARNED my financial independence -- and I paid plenty of taxes along the way, and still do, and have no problem with that. (I'm single and aside from charitable deductions have essentially zero tax breaks).
Now, when you scale that up and go to say a hundred million dollars or even a Warren Buffett $50 billion-ish dollars, that may be a whole other kettle of fish. Having no clue what it is like to be as smart as Buffett -- I don't feel qualified to judge someone like that, quite frankly, since by all indications he is a very moral person.
Again -- to me, the question of keeping incentives "reasonable" is key. My objection to the "scroungers" is FAR more in terms of a moral and incentive principle than the magnitude.
I'm fairly sure the far left will want to flame me now. Oh well. I honestly mean well!
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.