|
Originally Posted by Renton
The stagnating wages of middle class people is mostly stat cooking. The poor and middle class have gotten richer (in America) during the last 30 years. It's valid to say that the rich have gotten richer at a faster rate, though. This is probably due to globalization more than anything. The money isn't being displaced from the poor and middle class in our country, it is being created by free trade with other nations.
I'm not familiar with your sources on the middle and lower class getting richer during the past several decades, but if I were I'm sure I could claim "stat cooking" just the same. But if we agree that the disparity in wealth has been increasing, I think we share enough common ground to have a meaningful discussion.
Re. wealth disparity, it exists because people are disparately productive in the economy. Pure egalitarianism is a vulgar concept because it supposes that incomes and standards of living should in no way reflect how much we contribute to the economy. So yes, I believe that in a free market you will have some disparity, and it is not inherently a problem. Its only a problem when things stop becoming continually better for us all, which hasn't happened.
Vulgar seems a bit extreme. I think the fact that we appreciate things outside of their monetary value is beautiful. I think the fact that we offer special care for babies, children, and people in general with abnormalities, diminished cognitive fucntions, etc. is a big part of what makes us modern humans. That's the extreme, but you can see that these people aren't contributing their fair share-- at least I assume they're not in your view. But in my view, they are. Taking care of them allows us to live in a world in which people don't die in a ditch because they don't flow with the current ebbs of the market. Again, this is the extreme, but I think it illustrates the point and you can fill in the spectrum of grey from there.
[quote]
This is the part where I extoll the virtues of free markets. I'll try to go as little on faith as possible. A completely free market and free society approaches a state of higher equality by increasing everyone's standard of living. It does this by continually reducing the costs of everything we need and desire through competition, increased efficiency via capital accumulation, and decreased inefficiency through the profit and loss system. So while there will be wealth disparity, even the poorest people will be able to afford healthcare when the industry hasn't been cartelized by a state. We approach a state of basically infinitely cheap goods/services and infinite wealth to spend on goods/services, and nearly everything a government does slows down this process by some degree.
[quote]
I am not sure I disagree with the virtues of your end game scenario, but I don't think I can agree that there is a path that leads there. I think that you ignore the potential destabilizing effects of wealth disparity. When there is a smooth gradient of wealth, and a thick buffer of a middle ground between the absolute destitute and the filthy rich, society will be most stable. The more egalitarian the society, the smoother the transition will be from rich to poor, again having a stabilizing effect. While I like the idea of your endgame, I don't think it can be reached without hitting the critical point of disparity.
As an honest concession, I think on the flip side, total egalitarianism is a pitfall to avoid, because those who work hard won't feel reward for their work. As with most things, I'm under the impression that balance is key here. Middle ground, balance, stability-- funny how they all positives which warn against extremism. Maybe an example of linguistic Darwinism?
Fair enough, but the thread was titled globalization and a shrinking middle class. And even though dozer stated that he didn't think going back on globalization was the answer, its still an original post that is skeptical of free trade at least on some level.
Like you said, fair enough. I don't mean to jump down your throat on this and throw it at you constantly, but I think it's a good thing for us all to look out for. I know I've done it to you-- hell, I even (albeit jokingly) made my whole OP in "Organized Labor" a dichotomatic call out addressed at you. It's just that I think ideas are far more interesting than policy trumpeting and bashing. Of course there will be some of that, but we can at least let discussions naturally plot their course... maybe we'll find some gems along the way.
|