People Power

[ArrowsFA1]

And instead of answering those specific questions, you come back with a red herring of a question.

It's no red herring. It's a very simple yet specific question which, in my view gets to the core of what Occupy is about. It doesn't relate to the concentration of wealth generally, but the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands. It relates to concern for the individual but more so the bigger picture. The world does not have unlimited resources. What there is is owned by fewer & fewer people.

Look at it like this: Was the increasing concentration of land, wealth and resources in the hands of the British Empire good for everyone as it grew, or did people begin to question why one nation should exert such power and influence?

[anthonyvop]

Let's make it simple.

Do we believe that the concentration of wealth in fewer & fewer hands is a good thing for all of us?

Yes/No

It isn't a matter of good or bad but Right and Wrong.

In a society that embraces the free market and renounces crony-capitalism then it is GOOD because it is what the Free Market decided.

In a Fascist/Socialist Society then, of course, it is bad.

[chuck34]

It's no red herring. It's a very simple yet specific question which, in my view gets to the core of what Occupy is about.

Then we're back again. What are they specifically protesting to change? How do they propose changing it?

It doesn't relate to the concentration of wealth generally, but the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands.

You keep saying this, but it is meaningless. In the real world the top x percent is always going to own a vast amount of wealth. By changing that from 1 to 2 percent let's say (a few hundered to a few thousand people), how will the materially effect anyone's lives?

It relates to concern for the individual but more so the bigger picture. The world does not have unlimited resources. What there is is owned by fewer & fewer people.

So somehow you are saying that even though the individual has the ability to effect his lot in life, the "bigger picture" can not? And there you go again thinking that economics is a zero sum game. It is not. Yes resorces may have a finite limit to them, but that does not mean that in economics that there is a limit to wealth. And even if I would buy into your argument, there are laws on the books at least here in the US (Sherman anti-trust act) that prevents anyone from having a monopoly. I would not advocate for getting rid of that law.

Look at it like this: Was the increasing concentration of land, wealth and resources in the hands of the British Empire good for everyone as it grew, or did people begin to question why one nation should exert such power and influence?

The fact that the British Empire was increasing it's concentration of land and wealth was not good or bad in and of itself. The fact that it was stealing said land and wealth, and depriving inhabitants of their rights was what was bad. Are corporations stealing anything from you? Are they depriving you of any rights?

[race aficionado]

. . . . . Are corporations stealing anything from you?

Are you sure you want to go there? I'm sure we can find many corporations out there that are getting away with "murder" - pardon the expression.

[chuck34]

Are you sure you want to go there? I'm sure we can find many corporations out there that are getting away with "murder" - pardon the expression.

Sure, I can too. Is that what is being protested? How is the "wealth gap" generally stealing? If the CEO of company X has stolen from you, why go to the streets and protest? Why wouldn't you sue?

[Rollo]

Correlation is not causation. Do you not understand that concept?

Correct, Correlation is not causation. So then, how about a look at the causes?
This four page abstract is a good starting place on the subject:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/InequalityMobility.pdf

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

If you move from the bottom of the wage ladder to the top, the marginal utility of money decreases and the marginal propensity to save increases. People earning a subsistence wage or not much better than it, do not experience the same abilities to invest or save if indeed at all.
The thing is with the income derived from savings and investment, it still has to be generated by the production of goods and services. This means that people who do derive incomes from savings and investment are being rewarded for other people's labour.
Also, the actual aggregate supply curve for labour kinks to the left at some point. There is either a point where people can not physically provide any more labour by working longer hours and/or the other reason is that generally the aggregate supply curve for labour bends back on itself and we reach a point where higher wages are demanded for less work.

There is also the issue of market power when it comes to wages. Workers and Business Owners never have the same power when it comes to the negotiation of wages. Once upon a time when workers collectively bargained they did hold more power but government policies in a lot of Western countries have actively cut union's power and membership of unions have been generally falling for the past 30 years anwyay.
In most industries, wage earners are price takers whereas business owners are price makers.

Just as much evidence that is abailable to support the idea that inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility.

The thing is though, if you do "fall behind" as everyone else moves on at a faster rate, then the chances of you or your children having the ability to catch up decrease.

Please explain how someone being many times richer than I am, stops me from becoming rich. Or how 50 years ago when someone was "only" 50x more wealthy it was "easier" for me to move up. That makes no sence, unless you believe that economics is a zero sum game.

Several questions need to be adressed: Has a university education become more expensive relative to wages? Are people who have wealth in a position to change legislation to ensure they keep it? Have wage earners gained or lost market power over the past 50 years?



And in answer to your question:

Money ... As I asked before, do you believe economics to be a zero sum game? Do you believe that in order for someone to have $1 more that he/she must steal that dollar from someone else?

A zero-sum game is one in which one participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of other participant(s). Since accounting for losses, gains, profits and expenses is always balanced (credit and debits are always equal), the net result at any given time is ALWAYS zero.

Philiposhically over the long run? I'm sure I don't know the answer.
Economics might be a zero sum game. In a broad sense, externalities are never accounted for and maybe one day when the world has been buggered up environmentally, then maybe it is.
At some point the Baby-Boomers will start wanting pensions as well; there's about 80 million of them in the US and they sure as heck didn't pay for it.
Maybe our great-grandchildren will be paying a hideous price for the debt accumulated and the environmental destruction of the planet. Who knows?

[BDunnell]

It sounds to me that you are also one who has succeeded. So I ask you what makes us special? Why were we able to become successful, but others are not? What barriers are in their way? How do we remove those barriers?

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

[BDunnell]

What if they are protesting both the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the system itself, a system built by the government and the corporations?
What if they are protesting the fact that the government, the lawmaker and the corporations are indistinguishable to the points where they have common interests that do not involve the well being of the masses?

I am just asking.

What, equally, if some don't actually know anything about any of the protesters and are automatically assuming, given either their own viewpoints or the contents of their chosen media, that it's all against the public sector?

As I have stated repeatedly, I know some people who have been involved. I know what they are like as people, what they are protesting.

[Roamy]

Well consider this: This sh!t ain't gonna last much longer and the next wave of protesters are going to get higher up the rung. GE needs a good asskicking for this

As if we need any more evidence that Obama is the most anti-American President our country has ever seen, we see this…



Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......Their biggest employer just moved out.General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha, WI to Beijing.In addition to moving the headquarters,the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States.So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.Thanks Jeff, you're a "real" American....give Barrack our Best !!If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does. Please pass this information to others and think about it before you buy a GE product.For Snopes verification of this information, go to:snopes.com: General Electric China Move

[Rollo]

Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......Their biggest employer just moved out.General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha, WI to Beijing.In addition to moving the headquarters,the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers.

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:

And you have just described the free market system my friend. The market will pay what the value of an employee is. If a boss fires a high value employee simply for asking for a raise, then they deserve the quality of employee they get. Which will be lower, if you hadn't figured that out.

Or do you take the personal responsibility for your own situation, and get the education you need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced? And if you don't currently have the education, do you also take the responsibility to work menial jobs (fast food and what-not) to make it through? Or do you just protest?

The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.