Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Actually, MM, if you look at what I was saying, I was positing that there is a level of income below which we should be concerned about the person. In a rich society like ours everyone should have access to basic nutrition, clothing and shelter. But if a person's basic needs are taken care of, then no, I don't think income inequality in and of itself is a problem.
At some point, railing against the "rich" is just plain and simple envy, which is a poisonous emotion, more for the person who has it than that person's target. And then there is the question of how you define "rich" - I have yet to get a coherent definition from the redistributionists that amounts to anything other than "someone who has more than I do." And bear in mind that that works both ways: there are people who have less than you who would want some of what YOU have, too. To them, YOU'RE rich. Whatever principle you might articulate to justify taking stuff away from people who have more than you merely because they have it can also be used to justify taking stuff away from you.
Where I'm going with this is here: at least in this country, simple inequality of income in and of itself is not a bad thing, unless the inequality came about because of theft or some other kind of bad conduct. If you're talking about ancien regime France, or Tsarist Russia, with a hereditary and useless aristocracy, that's one thing. But that's not this country. Most wealth in this country is earned. Yes, there is a luck element - there always is - but it doesn't explain all the disparities even remotely.
I have yet to hear an explanation of why simple inequality of income, in and of itself, is something we have to somehow "fix", when there are so many other unequal endowments people have that no one seems to be interested in fixing. Some people happen to be very good at making money. Other people, like me, are good at other things. So?
|
I don't feel it is something that has to be "fixed". Why? Income, by and large, is earned and it's earned based on several factors, not the least of which is education. So, you may argue that the poor can not afford an education that would get them out of their poverty....but our higher education institutions reward hard work in high school with scholarships. Armed services pay for education as well. If someone in poverty does well in high school, they could even go to West Point and that costs nothing-they get paid while going because it's Army. There are ways around everything. But there has to be that desire to get there first.
A few years back, the news magazine, 20/20 did a report on poverty in the US. They visited what was, at the time, the poorest area in the country-a neighborhood in the Bronx. In visiting apartments, they found VCR's, microwave ovens, color tvs among sparsely furnished dilapidated apartments.
When the article quoted in the OP speaks about the spending disparity lessening among the income groups, this is what they mean.
To bring it further into perspective, a personal anecdote: I just completed our tax report. After deductions, our income came to just over $21k( $15k alone was the mortgage interest deduction). We are a family of four. Our monthly bills are over $3,000. 12x3 is more than 21k, obviously. Yet, I am typing this on a brand new Dell, taking photos with two DSLR's, we have two more computers, a total of 7 digital cameras, 3 cell phones, a house and two cars less than 10 years old. By any standard, we would be considered, at best, lower middle class. The net income puts us at poverty level, but we probably have more than some people that have much more income.
Are we hurting monetarily? We were. Our credit card debt is about $15K and isn't going down very quickly. Are we happy with our lot? Yep. Does one have to do with the other? To an extent. It's no fun being in deep debt. It weighs heavily on everything, controls everything you do or attempt to do. Are we happier than those who are wealthy? Don't know, don't care.
Perhaps the editorial felt that those on the lower scale of income were on the higher scale of consumption in some mistaken belief that things bring contentment? That's where that data is useless to an observer. Without reasoning behind the disparities, no one can say what makes a group happier as a rule than not.
Hope that made sense.