On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:34:18 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Sure it does:
>>
>> 45 - 15 = 30
>>
>> 180 - 60 = 120
>>
>> 120 > 30
>>
>> The factor isn't the important thing, the disparity is the important
>> thing.
> 
> The problem is if you try and keep the arithmetic difference constant,
> whilst still allowing economic growth, the "bell curve" of income will
> get narrower and narrower until everyone is earning essentially the
> same. I don't know whether that's a good idea or not, but that's the
> only option to allow what you are arguing for.

The problem is that those at the top of the scale now make 6-7 times (or 
more) what those at the bottom of the scale make.  That makes for a 
massive amount of income inequality.

Since in the US, money = speech (thank you, supreme court & citizen's 
united), that means that those in the upper income brackets have far more 
political power and control - and what those in that upper bracket have 
tended to do is get people elected (through the use of their massive 
ability to "speak" (or "spend") to get policies passed that allow the 
income inequality to continue and to hamper upward mobility.

Jim

Post a reply to this message