The fact I made about the chart above is that is misrepresents the so-called issue of income distribution and begins with an assault on folks who have worked hard, accumulated wealth and now enjoy a higher degree of financial freedom. What’s next? Racial quotas for hoe much you are allowed to accumulate?

Put on your thinking hat and tell me if I am wrong. Can you even calculate the S&P’s 10 yr return adjusted for inflation? Do you even care? Your pension certainly does, even if you don’t want to.

Is “try some original thought” something like “cater to my ideological biases?”

That information came from Professor G. William Domhoff (UCSC, Sociology Dept.)
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It’s consisitent with data discussed in Race Class and Gender, a course I took a couple of years ago, and consistent with data I used in a paper I wrote for that course.

But I can see that no amount of data and facts will sway the opinions in which you’re so heavily and emotionally invested. In fact, here’s a paper about that, which I did not get from wikiwhoo-hoo:

When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

The real issue is you have a career politician trying to make policy premised on some warped sense of class warfare and it will backfire big time because the center of the country is fundamentally adverse to welfare.

Share of capital income, 2003, top 1%: 57.5%
Share of wealth held, 2007, top 1%: 34.6%
Wealth distribution for all investment assets, 2007, top 1%: 49.7%
Financial wealth distribution, 2007, top 1%: 42.7%
Distribution of net worth, 2007, top 1%: 34.6%

I, uh… Yeah. I wouldn’t feel too sorry for the top 1%.

Knowing that weekly unemployment benefits are generally 60% of the base income amount (based on a 26-week history) with a cap of (depending on the state) between $360-600, AND that taxes must be paid on the unemployment comp received, I’m just not seeing this as being an issue.

Different strokes, I suppose, but ‘m thinking the potential of 100% of historical wages vs. 60% (a MINIMUM increase of 67% vs. not working) is PLENTY of incentive.

I’m working, thank goodness, but I would change jobs in a heartbeat if somebody offered me a 67% increase.

And I’ve spent time at home burning vacation that needed burning and had no money to go anywhere. I’m just not seeing staying at home doing nothing for low wages as being any kind of incentive at all.

But, that’s me.

First off, they keep drinking here because we’ve got the best beer on the planet. Secondly, the reason they are all drinking together in the first place is because they work together. In fact, they own the bar. The 10th man is the bar manager and he employs the other nine. The next three are the successive supervisors in the bar who are paid according to 10′s perception of their worth (i.e. shifts managed, ability to get customers to buy more beer, or maybe just because he likes one better than the other managers). The bottom 4 are the manual labor (bartenders, waiters, busboys), and the middle 2 are the manual laborers who got bonuses for productivity. (For the sake of discussion, let’s just skip the question about drinking at work and lost productivity due to hangovers)

The fact is, none of them would have any money for beer if they weren’t all working together to produce the wealth that enables them to buy the beer in the first place. Admittedly, you could probably lose one or two of the manual laborers and still have the business function but total productivity would go down as would their collective wealth.

The other aspect of this analysis is to what extent should each benefit from a reduced price of beer? The fact is, they aren’t always able to go to the bar together, at the same time. If the manager or some of the supervisors aren’t there they can’t always afford as much beer as they might want to drink. #10, the bar manager can afford all the beer he wants anyway so a price reduction won’t significantly impact his ability to satisfy his desire for beer. The 3 supervisors are probably in a similar position although it is possible that one of them might be in a position that a reduction in the price of beer would entice him to occasionally buy another one. The bottom six however can’t afford nearly as much beer as they would like. If the price was reduced they would almost always buy more beer. This would increase the profitability of the bar and ultimately make them all richer. In fact, the manager and supervisors would benefit the most since they collect a higher proportion of the profits of the bar in the first place.

In other words, if you reduce the price of beer for the bottom six, the top four get richer.

Yes, I hope.

keddaw: and no incentive for anyone to do anything.

No, not at all. There will always be someone who looks around and thinks, “How we’re now (all) living can be better. Let’s do the thinking and working to make it better. Even if I can’t get you all to join me I’m going to do it alone.”

That’s progress based on the best humanity’s best instincts, instead of what your basis seems to be: people will only be motivated if the benefit is to themselves ALONE. A selfish, immature, and somewhat heartless motivation in my opinion.

I repeat, In my opinion. But that’s what I believe.

@inthomp Have you ever been on unemployment? When I drew unemployment, it was not enough to make me want to stay home on the couch.

The problem you face is that every argument for taking the initial amount is equally valid for taking the rest. The logical conclusion of which is an equal share for everyone and no incentive for anyone to do anything.

Not necessarily. It’s just a matter of degree. Every society gives up some freedom (and selfishness) in exchange for living with other people. The classic “social contract.” I don’t want or expect people to give up all of their freedoms. But I do want and expect people to be less selfish than they are…. and I expect our society to enforce these less-selfish principles through our laws.

Is that Totalitarianism? Socialism? Communism? Compassionate Conservatism? I don’t want to label it, because people react non-rationally to labels.

Indeed, and we should be searching for that solution if possible.

In the mean time though it is completely misguided to attack income disparity when (virtually) everyone is getting better off.

J – I am no fan of arguing from authority which is what you appear to be doing. Bear in mind that the logical conclusion of what you and egc propose is socialism or communism.