Wealth creation vs wealth distribution...

[Seattle]

The left seems to focus only on wealth distribution. If you want the poorer members of society to do well why is there so little focus, by the left, on educating and creating wealth? It's all about taking and very little about how to create your own.

Since there is a lot of talk about wealth inequality is seems odd that so little focus in on wealth creation. If you want wealth equality, logically, you have to create wealth.

The flippant answer is that the poor have no money and can't save or invest but we know that isn't a serious answer. So what is a serious answer?

 

[billvon]

The left seems to focus only on wealth distribution.

I am far more left than right, and I focus on both.

why is there so little focus, by the left, on educating and creating wealth?

In this economy, one of the primary sources of new wealth is new intellectual property - new medical treatments, new scientific discoveries, new inventions, new industrial processes and procedures, new materials, new vehicles. And we get those via funding for research and education - some private and some public.

Republicans, in general, try to cut spending on public education, from K-12 through funding for higher education. They also try to cut spending on research, calling such spending foolish or useless. Democrats, in general, try to increase it. I agree with the democratic approach in this case. It is NOT something that can come from private corporations; corporations, due to the demands of stockholders, do not have an event horizon beyond about 10 years. Thus funding public education will not provide a return for that company in time for stockholders to approve of it. That falls to public sources.

We now have a president who has actually come out and said that he loves the poorly educated, and that he wants to shutter the US Department of Education. This is a federal institution that protects student civil rights (think desegregation,) disburses Title I funds for students in poverty and students with disabilities, and administers federal student loans for higher education. This will decrease the overall quality and availability of education in the US. And with a less educated workforce we will not be able to make those scientific discoveries that, in the past, has made the US the world leader in new technologies and industries.

The flippant answer is that the poor have no money and can't save or invest

A better answer is that a poor kid can go to a good public school, then a good public university, get a loan to pursue a PhD, and then go on to make the discoveries that make commerical fusion possible - making themselves, and the US, richer in the process. Even if their families are poor.

 

[Olga]

I am far more left than right, and I focus on both.

In this economy, one of the primary sources of new wealth is new intellectual property - new medical treatments, new scientific discoveries, new inventions, new industrial processes and procedures, new materials, new vehicles. And we get those via funding for research and education - some private and some public.

Republicans, in general, try to cut spending on public education, from K-12 through funding for higher education. They also try to cut spending on research, calling such spending foolish or useless. Democrats, in general, try to increase it. I agree with the democratic approach in this case. It is NOT something that can come from private corporations; corporations, due to the demands of stockholders, do not have an event horizon beyond about 10 years. Thus funding public education will not provide a return for that company in time for stockholders to approve of it. That falls to public sources.

We now have a president who has actually come out and said that he loves the poorly educated, and that he wants to shutter the US Department of Education. This is a federal institution that protects student civil rights (think desegregation,) disburses Title I funds for students in poverty and students with disabilities, and administers federal student loans for higher education. This will decrease the overall quality and availability of education in the US. And with a less educated workforce we will not be able to make those scientific discoveries that, in the past, has made the US the world leader in new technologies and industries.


A better answer is that a poor kid can go to a good public school, then a good public university, get a loan to pursue a PhD, and then go on to make the discoveries that make commerical fusion possible - making themselves, and the US, richer in the process. Even if their families are poor.

Ваш президент такой не один. Наш, в одном из недавних интервью, открытым текстом заявил, что с умными проблемно, а легче с теми "кто сытый, пьяный и нос в табаке". Прямо как у Стругацких:" умные не нужны, нужны преданные". Видимо, это становится общемировой тенденцией.

 

[Sarkus]

The left seems to focus only on wealth distribution. If you want the poorer members of society to do well why is there so little focus, by the left, on educating and creating wealth? It's all about taking and very little about how to create your own.

You need to give them the opportunity to create their own. Poor people generally don't have the same opportunities.

Since there is a lot of talk about wealth inequality is seems odd that so little focus in on wealth creation. If you want wealth equality, logically, you have to create wealth.

No, not logically. There are three logical ways of achieving an equality:
1. if the lowest has 1 and the topmost is 10, remove wealth from everyone until everyone has 1. This requires wealth destruction, not creation.
2. if the lowest has 1 and the topmost is 10, give wealth to everyone until everyone has 10. This requires wealth creation.
3. if the average wealth is 5, take from those who have more, and give to those who have less, until everyone has the same. This requires neither creation nor destruction.

Now, noone is advocating for the absolute equality of wealth, but the above highlights the logic of achieving it.

Secondly, if you just start with wealth creation, this in itself does nothing for wealth inequality. One can create wealth overall but if it all goes to the already wealthy then equality just gets worse, as was the case under Trump's first term, for example.
E.g. if the lowest as 1 and the topmost is 10, and there is wealth creation of an additional 10, this could be entirely in that topmost, raising them to 20, while everyone else remains the same. Wealth creation but greater inequality.
Alternatively that wealth creation could be split evenly across the groups, everyone moving up 1, so now the inequality is 2 to 11 rather than 1 to 10. This would be wealth creation and a reduction in inequality.

The flippant answer is that the poor have no money and can't save or invest but we know that isn't a serious answer. So what is a serious answer?

Give people the opportunity. Don't let their poverty deprive them of the opportunity. Lift them out of the cycle of poverty that they would otherwise be in. If they are always in shitty jobs getting shitty pay then their families won't have the means of taking opportunities that would be available to those with greater wealth. For example, increasing the minimum wage would lift millions out of poverty. Yes, it would impact inflation, but would also boost the economy due to the increased disposable income. Those families would then be able to afford taking opportunities that they might not otherwise be able to.
So the Democrats seem to be in favour of supporting those who lack the means to take advantage of opportunities that would otherwise be available, while the Republicans... don't?
The Democrats also seem to be in favour of increaseing the minimum wage, while the Republicans... don't?

Simply creating wealth with the current inequality of where it is created simply maintains, if not increases, the wealth inequality, and does little to lift people out of poverty and giving people the opportunities otherwise available to them. Wealth inequality itself is not a bad thing. Wealth creation is also a good thing, but it could be better apportioned than is currently the case. If a wealthy person and a person in poverty both increase their wealth by 10%, the person in poverty is likely to still be in poverty. Whereas if you give each the same $value increase in wealth (at the other extreme) then, lo and behold, you'd have lifted millions out of poverty. I'm not advocating for this latter, just highlighting the difference.

 

[Seattle]

You need to give them the opportunity to create their own. Poor people generally don't have the same opportunities.

No two people have the same opportunities. However Bill Gates and his neighbor probably had the same opportunities and Bill did much better.

I didn't have the same opportunities but I did fine even though I don't have billions.

This is the reality of it.

No, not logically. There are three logical ways of achieving an equality:
1. if the lowest has 1 and the topmost is 10, remove wealth from everyone until everyone has 1. This requires wealth destruction, not creation.
2. if the lowest has 1 and the topmost is 10, give wealth to everyone until everyone has 10. This requires wealth creation.
3. if the average wealth is 5, take from those who have more, and give to those who have less, until everyone has the same. This requires neither creation nor destruction.

Now, noone is advocating for the absolute equality of wealth, but the above highlights the logic of achieving it.

That's not the logic of equality of wealth. Wealth doesn't come from the government giving it. This is redistributing income but without considering the incentives of creating wealth in the first place.

Secondly, if you just start with wealth creation, this in itself does nothing for wealth inequality. One can create wealth overall but if it all goes to the already wealthy then equality just gets worse, as was the case under Trump's first term, for example.
E.g. if the lowest as 1 and the topmost is 10, and there is wealth creation of an additional 10, this could be entirely in that topmost, raising them to 20, while everyone else remains the same. Wealth creation but greater inequality.
Alternatively that wealth creation could be split evenly across the groups, everyone moving up 1, so now the inequality is 2 to 11 rather than 1 to 10. This would be wealth creation and a reduction in inequality.

Again just redistribution and not learning to create wealth oneself. It doesn't take the realities of incentive into account.

Give people the opportunity. Don't let their poverty deprive them of the opportunity. Lift them out of the cycle of poverty that they would otherwise be in. If they are always in shitty jobs getting shitty pay then their families won't have the means of taking opportunities that would be available to those with greater wealth. For example, increasing the minimum wage would lift millions out of poverty. Yes, it would impact inflation, but would also boost the economy due to the increased disposable income. Those families would then be able to afford taking opportunities that they might not otherwise be able to.
So the Democrats seem to be in favour of supporting those who lack the means to take advantage of opportunities that would otherwise be available, while the Republicans... don't?
The Democrats also seem to be in favour of increaseing the minimum wage, while the Republicans... don't?

Increasing the minimum wage doesn't lift millions out of poverty. It just penalizing the least skilled. In the US it does very little because very few are affected by the minimum wage for very long.

Simply creating wealth with the current inequality of where it is created simply maintains, if not increases, the wealth inequality, and does little to lift people out of poverty and giving people the opportunities otherwise available to them. Wealth inequality itself is not a bad thing. Wealth creation is also a good thing, but it could be better apportioned than is currently the case. If a wealthy person and a person in poverty both increase their wealth by 10%, the person in poverty is likely to still be in poverty. Whereas if you give each the same $value increase in wealth (at the other extreme) then, lo and behold, you'd have lifted millions out of poverty. I'm not advocating for this latter, just highlighting the difference.

All that matters is that the poor are doing "well" I'm doing fine, for example, Bill Gates is doing fantastic. That takes nothing away from me. If you change the tax of capital gains you affect him but you affect me as well. You likely affect me more because he can afford to research other options so it will be me that is affected most not him.

If you teach the poor how to lift themselves out of poverty, it doesn't matter what the rich are doing. I don't see any such education going on regarding the left. It's all about redistributing what someone else created.

Everyone can put money in an index fund rather than the lottery. Everyone could learn more about the time value of money. Everyone could learn to delay self-gratification. Everyone could learn that having 1 kid vs 6 kids is going to help you get out of poverty.

You can continue to push for more opportunities but why totally neglect all education as to how to create wealth for yourself?

 

[parmalee]

I don't see any such education going on regarding the left. It's all about redistributing what someone else created.

That's because you don't read much and you're always saying that you "don't need a study" to make idiotic claims and because you seem to find the meanings of words unimportant (ad hominem, strawman, relevant, etc.). Your ignorance is not our problem.

 

[Seattle]

That's because you don't read much and you're always saying that you "don't need a study" to make idiotic claims and because you seem to find the meanings of words unimportant (ad hominem, strawman, relevant, etc.). Your ignorance is not our problem.

Another Parmalee contribution. Keep them coming...

 

[TheVat]

A new word for the lexicographer: strawmaniac.

 

[billvon]

Secondly, if you just start with wealth creation, this in itself does nothing for wealth inequality. One can create wealth overall but if it all goes to the already wealthy then equality just gets worse, as was the case under Trump's first term, for example.
E.g. if the lowest as 1 and the topmost is 10, and there is wealth creation of an additional 10, this could be entirely in that topmost, raising them to 20, while everyone else remains the same. Wealth creation but greater inequality.

Exactly. Increasing the number of billionaires does nothing to help the lower earners, and indeed takes away their power to effect change.

Funding public education - especially programs intended for the poor - does. Fun fact: JD Vance was a DEI college admission. He was admitted not because he was qualified, but because he was poor, and the college wanted more diversity of income. How ironic that his administration wants less of that.

 

[parmalee]

Another Parmalee contribution. Keep them coming...

Sure. This thread is quite amusing given that your contempt and disdain for education is amply documented here. You seldom provide any sort of citations for your ridiculous claims, and when pressed, you'll provide a link to something which either contradicts what you are saying or has precisely nothing to do with whatever is being discussed. As I noted before, you do a quick Google search and go with a hit from the first page of links--and that is pretty much the extent of your "research" on any and every topic.

 

[billvon]

If you teach the poor how to lift themselves out of poverty, it doesn't matter what the rich are doing. I don't see any such education going on regarding the left. It's all about redistributing what someone else created.

Like I said, I am far more left than right.

I teach an electronics course at a local school for interested middle schoolers. I also judge FIRST Robotics competitions - they give middle and high schoolers a chance to build robots and compete against other schools. For years I worked with Saura Naderi at Thinkabit, a program that got low income middle schoolers into a lab for between 1 and 5 days to learn STEM.

How about you? I don't see you doing any education; all you seem to do is complain about the people actually doing the work.

 

[Seattle]

Sure. This thread is quite amusing given that your contempt and disdain for education is amply documented here. You seldom provide any sort of citations for your ridiculous claims, and when pressed, you'll provide a link to something which either contradicts what you are saying or has precisely nothing to do with whatever is being discussed. As I noted before, you do a quick Google search and go with a hit from the first page of links--and that is pretty much the extent of your "research" on any and every topic.

All I see from you is your opinion about me. Interesting.

 

[Seattle]

Like I said, I am far more left than right.

I teach an electronics course at a local school for interested middle schoolers. I also judge FIRST Robotics competitions - they give middle and high schoolers a chance to build robots and compete against other schools. For years I worked with Saura Naderi at Thinkabit, a program that got low income middle schoolers into a lab for between 1 and 5 days to learn STEM.

How about you? I don't see you doing any education; all you seem to do is complain about the people actually doing the work.

My posts invite discussion and therefore education if anyone on here decides to get past the name calling. In an open discussion, I would expect someone to agree that nothing is currently being done to educate the poor to improve their own decisions. That doesn't mean that it's the entire answer but it's odd that it's never discussed or implemented.

 

[parmalee]

All I see from you is your opinion about me. Interesting.

Based upon your extensive survey of this single thread? Interesting.

Your claim that "the left" does not concern itself with education and educating people is utterly and completely ridiculous--see Billvon's first post in this thread. That said, it is not our job to educate you--your ignorance is your own problem. Educate yourself. Try reading, perhaps--don't simply Google US vs UK contributions to the WHO, and then post whatever misinformation you gleaned from, presumably, the AI summary at the top. Do some actual research.

 

[Seattle]

Based upon your extensive survey of this single thread? Interesting.

Your claim that "the left" does not concern itself with education and educating people is utterly and completely ridiculous--see Billvon's first post in this thread. That said, it is not our job to educate you--your ignorance is your own problem. Educate yourself. Try reading, perhaps--don't simply Google US vs UK contributions to the WHO, and then post whatever misinformation you gleaned from, presumably, the AI summary at the top. Do some actual research.

The left is all about easy student loans. The political rhetoric isn't about self-help or financial literacy at all.

 

[gmilam]

From my observations, it's the Republicans who are siphoning funds away from the public education system.

 

[billvon]

I would expect someone to agree that nothing is currently being done to educate the poor to improve their own decisions.

?? Why would they agree when that is incorrect?

Save the Children, Head Start and Early Head Start programs are federally funded early educational programs targeted at low income and rural areas to provide education for children at the pre-K and kindergarten levels.

Summer Boost is a federally funded program that gets poor/disadvantaged kids exercising, doing schoolwork and working for the community during the summers.

Save the Children also has a program that gets parents involved, and teaches them to make better decisions about their kid's education.

The Rural and Low-Income School Program is a federal program that provides funding, training and resources for teachers in low income areas.

The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act is a federal program that provides education for poor/disadvantaged adults, including basic English and math, civics, family planning, financial competence and basic work skills (how to work with a boss, how to understand your job, how to show up on time etc.)

It is noteworthy that Trump has said he is going to cut all of these. How do you feel about that?

 

[billvon]

My posts invite discussion and therefore education if anyone on here decides to get past the name calling.

Followed two posts later by:

The left is all about easy student loans.

Funny.

 

[Sarkus]

No two people have the same opportunities. However Bill Gates and his neighbor probably had the same opportunities and Bill did much better.

Everyone, though, should have sufficient opportunity, and not everyone does.

That's not the logic of equality of wealth. Wealth doesn't come from the government giving it. This is redistributing income but without considering the incentives of creating wealth in the first place.

Again just redistribution and not learning to create wealth oneself. It doesn't take the realities of incentive into account.

Okay, you're now arguing cross-purposes to your OP. Your OP said: "If you want wealth equality, logically, you have to create wealth." This, as explained, is patently untrue. True communism is an example where wealth is equal, and it requires no wealth creation for it to be so. I have explained the logic of how wealth can be equalised. It's just a matter of maths, and not all of them require wealth creation. You can dismiss the arguments if you want, but that won't change the maths.

What you're instead trying to argue, it seems, is that wealth equality should not be the aim, but instead that if you lift up everyone, those at the bottom will be "doing fine", and that this can be achieved through wealth creation etc. But, to reiterate the point, this is nothing to do with whether or not wealth equality needs wealth creation or not.

Please can you therefore clarify just what it is you're trying to argue for here? Thanks

 

[billvon]

Ваш президент такой не один. Наш, в одном из недавних интервью, открытым текстом заявил, что с умными проблемно, а легче с теми "кто сытый, пьяный и нос в табаке". Прямо как у Стругацких:" умные не нужны, нужны преданные". Видимо, это становится общемировой тенденцией.

네. 똑똑한 사람들은 정치인들의 거짓말을 간파할 수 있고, 그리하여 그들의 권력 야망을 좌절시킬 수 있습니다. 이것이 바로 트럼프가 "교육을 제대로 받지 못한 사람들을 좋아하는" 이유입니다. 그들은 속이기 쉽습니다.