Income Inequality Impairs the American Dream of Upward Mobility
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic ladder move further and further apart, conventional wisdom says that it will become much more difficult to climb them. Opportunities for upward mobility-the American dream-will disappear as the deck becomes stacked against the middle class and the poor. But others see inequality as a positive, a sign of a dynamic and robust economy that, in the end, helps everyone. And contrary to public opinion, mobility has remained stable over the past few decades. If the American dream is dying, is it the result of income inequality? Or is disparity in income a red herring where more complex issues are at play?
A key issue that is not addressed is the definition of "upward mobility." I think a reasonable definition is "rising from a lower to a higher socioeconomic class or status."
The "size of the pie argument" fails because, even though it may be true that incomes have risen over time (the pie has gotten bigger), the amount of money one needs to earn to "move upwardly" has grown disproportionately to that income growth.
I don't know why the point wasn't made about why Americans are working so much more now. The against side suggested we worked more because we were more motivated to increase our status, but I get the impression we are working more because we have to just to stay even, or not fall back as much. The for side really missed that one, I think.
I wish our representatives debated like this
I know Im asking the wrong place but does someone know of a trick to get back into an instagram account?
I stupidly lost the password. I would love any tips you can give me
@Easton Colten instablaster ;)
@Leonel Houston I really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm in the hacking process now.
I see it takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.
@Leonel Houston it did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I'm so happy!
Thank you so much, you really help me out!
@Easton Colten No problem :D
For so many smart people, i think the point was missed. Climbing wealth is a function of the compounding of roi over time. the middle class being unable to rise is based upon an increase in barriers to entry, preventing competition in larger industries which would both grow the pie and spread the shares around.
"Employment has grown faster" is not a good boast... what that means is that the US is supplying more low wage jobs for the same qualifications. Thus the money you spent on your education has a lesser return on investment. And if you cannot afford more education then you can only apply for even lower wage jobs. Thus the lower and middle classes in the US and other countries are facing a reduction in self value from several directions in the economy.
The "increase in employment" benefits the corporation owners more than the company employees.
Stephen Cotton what do you mean by education? college? because right now we have thousands of kids with worthless college degrees because all the jobs are already filled (since only a little over 20% of all jobs in the US require a degree) and we now have over 1.3trillion of unpaid student Loan debt from the government supplying loans to anyone including lazy fucks instead of earning your college degree threw your work ethic by working hard to supply the money needed to afford it like we use to do when college degrees were a major success!
Blazingg Llama regardless of your comment he is right.
Union boss greed killed the jobs in Australia
Also, in response to 1hr 3min. the reason why wages have not kept pace across the board is because of globalization. a larger supply of workforce for a similar size of demand equates to depressed pricing on labor.
It’s just that simple. We have a glut of labor
That whole debate didn't even scratch the surface of the issues surrounding income inequality! All it did was shift the definition from the idea that something is unfair to the idea that it's fair you're just not working hard enough. Mind blowing how little the 'for' actually defended their argument
The problem is dead cash... the rich don't spend their money and the economy gets anemia.
Z4RQUON The rich are cash hoarders, but they keep making the middle class poorer. Then they wonder why the Apple Watch isn't selling as well as they hoped. It seems too many stupid people are rich and not enough smart people are rich. Supermodels and idiot football players make more than most scientists and writers even though scientists and writers are more useful to society. It's absurd.
The lefty party in Australia shrunk the self retrie class
@@GenerationX1984 But, as sad as it is, the american populace is what fuels the salaries of football players and supermodels. We are fallible beings, so much so that we don't know what's best for ourselves, maybe what's good, but not best. We seek that which we covet, and we covet that which we perceive. The work of scientists and writers flows beneath that of supermodels and professional sports players. The broad appeal of the latter is too much for the former. Find a way to level the playing field in this regard, and society will be better for it. The best reply I can think of lies in genetic engineering.
The debaters for the motion were absolutely horrible. This debate should have been shattered for the motion. Ugh this truly makes me mad.
In my opinion, the debate question is wrong and would be far more beneficial to the public if it were "Does income inequality impair democracy". Obviously those at the top 1% have enormous influence on policy making in the country, including minimum wage and other income affecting policies!
Very good point. Also, the distinction between Income and Wealth Inequality, the former less unequal than the latter. But still both being more unequally distributed as time progresses.
I understand what you're saying but there's NO SOLUTION to that problem & that's why we have a republic process so we never end up with a tyrannical government dictatorship. We elect our Congress members for this process every 2 years that have the power to impeach & pass policy & also can prosecute any elite government official. Take a look at socialist/communist country's there elections turn into dictatorships from pure democracy & instead of inequality being amongst the people it's amongst the people vs the government. Even the Nordic country's Bernie Sanders likes to point to all the time have inequality Sweden for example has a top 10% which consist of all government officials. Look at what Hugo Shavies did to Venezuela the poor ate the rich & now everybody's equally in poverty starving. Inequality never goes away it's either inequality amongst the people or inequality between the government & the people. I trust the people with this power more then I trust the government. History is replete and the best example of pure democracy with no republic process is Rome which is just one of hundreds of examples. Yes money has influenced politicians but because our founding fathers rebelled against a government & created a republic we can elect non corrupt politicians to kick the corrupt ones right in the ass!
Atheist Ghostbuster That's actually only true with corporate welfare or super regulation. If big businesses aren't antagonized by the Government, then they have no incentive to alter it.
Do we? do we elect our representatives, and do said political leaders truly speak on behalf of their constituencies, with little fear of commercial, as political and power elite interests, or with little hesitation for the upholding of ideals central to erecting a better world...?
www.amazon.com/WALLS-Racism-Sexism-dont-matter-ebook/dp/B07231X18Y/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1495649159&sr=8-1
I honestly can't fathom the "inequality as a driver of growth" argument, especially when it rests on the idea that the wealth of the few is an incentive for the population to try and better itself.
How do you expect people to better themselves if:
1- Every waking hour is already spent just trying to make ends meet.
2- There is little to no safety net, so an unsuccessful attempt will very probably leave you indigent.
If you want people to actually take the plunge and better themselves, on a systemic level, then you need them to have the opportunity to do so, and the knowledge that they won't end up dying under a bridge somewhere if it fails.
Nick says where there is more inequality, there is less mobility, but he avoids the evidence to the contrary that the other side has presented which proves its a mixed bag.
It could be argued that the evidence to the contrary was cherry picked.
My step father is a mail man & my mom works at a regular manufacturing plant and together there household income puts them in the top 2% ....Let that sink in before assuming all these people are billionaire CEOs when in reality those people only make up 1/10 of the 1% majority are small business owners & regular family's that work hard!
There is no reason to expect incomes to be equal.
Individuals should be held ultimately responsible for their success or failure in life.
Have a plan
If you plan to have.
It's not about inequality but fierce competition. Like mentioned in this debate, there are more people competing for a limited supply of jobs.
Why did no one compare the first half of the 20th century (when income inequality was very large) with the data we are seeing today?
Ed Connor is a good debater
How did the opposition win?! The only scientific argument was on the other side. Which was the one linking different levels of wealth to brain development. There are also negative psychological and sociological effects caused by someone’s perceived worth in the society.
They won because every single study on the topic, aka science, supports their point of view. And the bit regarding children's brain development wasn't even relevant to the debate topic.
Mindset Is to Win
That's obviously not true. Theres a difference between economic studies and scientific studies. Economics is not science, if it was there would only be one economic method.
That brain development study was the "only" scientific study that was mentioned.
I would say lack of brain development is very relevant because it very clearly impairs how well you can do in life. And many of the factors that impair brain development is directly linked to a family's level of income.
To argue otherwise would literally be arguing against everything we know about the human brain, aka real science.
xoviat xo What the hell are you talking about, the premise is NOT weather income inequality has a negative effect on the economy. It's about weather it hurts people's chances to succeed. (america dream)
There are many reasons to address income inequality, many were mentioned in the video and other physiological, sociological and psychological effects I refered to above.
If you don't regard those points as valid, that's just your opinion. You can choose to ignore science to hold a certain economic belief.
But statistically income inequality has lots of negative effects on society, people's physical and psychological well being. And the pattern of capital accumulation leads to a society where less and less people controlling more and more capital. So your ability to reach the "american dream" is directly effected by being born into a particular income bracket.
And remember scientifically capital is finite, so infinite growth paradigm does not fit with science.
xoviat xo
Income inequality in the current system means some people have far less income than other people, to the point some don't have food and housing.
Income is linked to everything from where you can live (housing/environment), the level of education you can get to the level of nutrition you get.
"Success" is subjective but I very reasonable to assume the factors I just mentioned has a huge effect on what most people would consider success.
Economics is not a science, it's just a belief. That's why there are different economic schools of thought. And why many economists can interpret or predict different outcomes from the same economic data.
What’s not a belief is the scientific studies that shows a direct correlation between a country's level of economic inequality and levels of health and social problems in that society. (considering the countries are of a similar level of development, no civil wars, famines etc)
What do you mean there's no reference to justify that statement?
Either you don't understand what capital is or you don't realize the earth is finite.
And yea obviously in the richest people will be in countries where people don't try to control income inequality. I don't see how that's even relevant.
We live in a finite world, therefore the concept infinite growth seems absurd with what we know about the world.
xoviat xo
1. You ignore all demonstrable negative consequences of economic inequality and provide no solutions.
2. I don't think you have understood the concept of "infinite growth" because none of your quotes are evidence of it.
Also econ papers written by random people with affiliations to economic institutes are not scientific journals.
3. If you really think "infinite growth" is possible on a finite planet, there is a huge logical disconnect between your economic beliefs and the empirical data we have on the material reality. To believe in this concept at this point in time is to ignore everything we know about resource availability, rates of consumption, increasing population, damage to ecology etc
Basically you have to ignore so much science and deny sustainability is even an issue, to believe infinite growth is possible and that a market economy based on this principle is a good idea.
We really, really have to prevent people from redefining income inequality as a problem caused by the increased revenue of the top earners.
We couldn't care less what the top earners make as long as conditions for the lower income shares of the population had improved as well. However, when you see that a huge share of the population is struggling while a select few look down from their ivory tower, and that the lowest door into that tower is a dozen feet above the tallest ladder available, then you start getting suspicious.
Isn't upward mobility elusive I mean If it means rising the ladder in comaprison to other people then how can it increase ,as the poor becomes new rich or middle class some people will be the new poor , shouldn't people focus on increasing living standards instead of people's position relative to others .
I agree.
Focus on making the pie bigger, rather than getting a bigger slice.
The primary statistical contention in this debate appears to be the assertion that countries with a more equitable distribution of wealth still rank about the same as America in terms of economic mobility. Judging by some of the comments on here, many people against the motion think that this one statistic is definitive proof that the 'pro' side lost the debate. But if, ceteris paribus, a more egalitarian distribution of wealth does not promote *nor hinder* economic mobility, then wouldn't the more egalitarian distribution still be more favourable?
Moreover, if economic mobility is such a stagnant state regardless of wealth redistribution, then would it not make sense to reduce the extremities so that fewer people will remain stagnant in both the lower and upper classes?
I need to respond to the second half of round 1, the statement that when there’s no longer a scarcity of workers that employment grows instead of wages. That ignores some of the factors that have been driving that growth. In 1979, most “working mothers” were single, either because of widowhood, divorce or other separation from the father of their children. Most married women were stay at home mothers, or were married to stay at home dads. Today, stay at home parents are a rarity, as the income of just one parent isn’t enough to sustain the family. Out of need, mothers join the workforce. And the leading cause of divorce? Money. The mother needs a certain business suit or smartphone for her job, but it seems like an extravagance to her husband or vice versa. An argument breaks out about the necessary extravagance not being spent on the kids, or savings. Continuing enmity over such subjects grows until it tears the family apart. The argument would never happen if one parent were a stay at home who didn’t perceive their “job” as paying for the others extravagance. Even better when the employer didn’t require the employee to buy the suit or phone, but actually bought it on company funds and issued it to employees.
1:43:21 Despite all the applauds the For side received, at the end the Against side won by a significant margin. And I gotta agree with them. Income inequality does not inherently cause reduced upward mobility. But the income inequality we have today in which the top 0.1% are rigging the system against everybody else (trough corrupting politics with their donations) is really what reduces upward mobility. I have no problem for the rich getting richer, as long as the middle class is getting the same amount of benefits from the wealth creation that's happening thanks to all the parties interacting in that economy. And right now the richest people are reaping all the benefits while the middle class and the poor are in stagnation. That's not the good type of inequality.
at 36:15 he says we have "transferred more to the poor" and that's true. but it's in welfare programs and other government assistance, not JOBS! what's happening to the american dream is a company starts up in america and after 15 to 20 years or so, THE GOOD JOB GETS SHIPPED OUT OVERSEAS SO THE RICH GUYS CAN MAKE 1 CENT MORE ON THE DOLLAR AND CRAP JOBS STAY! it's not hard too see this if you are in the trenches and actually have to work in real life. think how our economy would be if we brought all the jobs that left back to there home. our own powerful countrymen do not care about his fellow countrymen anymore.
Mike Mac My friends hairdresser told her that pantene pro v is like lighting your hair on fire. Its that damaging. Not sure how true that is though LOL
At the end of the day, both sides are correct, and it's more of a decision about how we want to define mobility and which type of mobility we are interested in using to define the American Dream.
Does mobility mean ease of individuals rising and falling in terms of their socioeconomic class relative to the rest of the population? Or does mobility mean the ability for any given individual to have a higher standard of living relative to the previous generation?
At about 1:14:10 minutes, a man asked the opponents to the resolution if they thought that, in order to improve the economy, income inequality should be increased. One answered no, that that should be left to the consumer to decide. A proponent responded that the consumers don't decide. Which means that, if she thought income inequality came from consumer choice, she wouldn't be objecting to it. So that's really the real debate -- does income inequality come from consumer choice -- the free operation of the market -- or not?
o_O
~38:00
"But employment has grown!"
Right...And those employed people aren't making enough money to *be* affluent consumers themselves...So why are you hand-waving? Is it just *having* a job that makes things so great; even if that job is paying you too little to survive, let alone *thrive*, on?
Sure, the peasant works...but that doesn't immediately make them a consumer; it just makes them a producer *for* someone that consumes.
Talk about abusing statistics...
~53:45
"But there are many, many people that *can* lift themselves out of poverty."
Focus on the exception, not the standard, eh?...Make the exception the standard and you don't even have to look at everyone else! Problem solved!
~1:06:00
Well said, Mr. Hanauer.
The argument from those against the motion is equivalent to saying that if you walk the wrong way up an escalator and the super-rich sit at the top and slowly increases the speed, that you are increasing the rate at which you conquer individual steps and so you are more "upwardly mobile" than you were when you started... but you're still at the bottom of the damned escalator.
Z4RQUON Great analogy.
Yeah, but it's on you to work harder to get up the steps at a faster rate than the escalator. Them controlling the speed nob has nothing to do with whether or not you have prepared yourself for the challenge. (sarcasm here.) lol
Well-earned debating victory, setting aside the truth of the motion.
Inequality is a natural state. Equity allows you to reach someone else's potential, not your own.
To properly discuss income inequality, and purchasing power for the low - medium income people, it is necessary to talk about the devaluation of the currency as a result of speculation with foreign exchange, derivative debt instruments, and the need of expansive monetary policy originated from the revenues in concept of interest/speculation by the prime capitals of the world.
Analyzing this problematic may not reach all causes of inequality but it definitely tops in the most prevalent reasons why the poor become poorer.
Revenue from speculation and interest increases the demand of money while producing in exchange no goods or benefit whatsoever but to the speculator or creditor. And while these operations continue to take place in the magnitude they actually do, being usually enough to have an impact on local or even global economy, nothing will change unless that revenue is reinvested and redistributed, which is not always the case.
As a result, the purchasing power of money diminishes, affecting only those who have fixed wages/low income.
The proper solution would be: to regulate the financial market. But the question is, who can regulate them?
The wages began to stagnate in the 1970s because of changes in trade policy. You can't have this argument without talking about the freedom of international trade. While trade was liberalized tax policies did not encourage capital flight. Low cost goods from asia first began making their appearance driving down the demand for American goods combined with some energy problems as well as women entering the work force which increased competition and drove down wages. It is all way more complex and can't be parsed as easily as this discussion attempts.
Cost of living would be twice as much if everything was made here . Because things will cost more to produce in USA compared to Asia
I don't really understand how the against the proposition side can use the stagnant mobility argument. It completely ignores the possibility of a time-lagged correlation.
Additionally, when they say that any type of income redistribution would impact more the economical growth than the gain in mobility. What is the basis for that?
The problem with the US? Important debate: 55k views in 7 years. WAP: 384 MILLION views in under 7 months.
Hmmm, maybe I didn't listen to the against side well enough. But also, I think the for side speakers were a bit weak in strengthening and crystallizing their own supports and weakening their opponents'. There should have been more focus, and there was some, on how rising inequality has allowed the top 1% the power to suppress wage growth at the bottom. To continue, using the argument of the against side against themselves, why, even with an increased labor pool across the board, have the salaries of the top 1% exploded, while the bottom 50% have stagnated. To reiterate, why have both wages and labor supply grown in the top 1% of the population, but not the bottom 50%? Obviously, stagnant wages on this scale have a profound effect on this portion of the population, especially in the face of inflationary costs. From this foundation, the for side could've used the other arguments, such as how limited financial resources impairs child development, due to stress and other factors, and limits access to college, which in turn both affect upward mobility. I feel there was a lack of preparation and collaboration on the part of the for side. It's so obvious that income inequality hurts economic mobility.
On the Great Gatsby curve
"The curve relates intergenerational income elasticity-a measure of the persistence of incomes between parents and their children-and inequality in the United States and twelve other developed countries,[7] though some versions of the curve include developing countries.[8] Countries with low levels of inequality such as Denmark, Norway and Finland (all located in European Scandinavia) had some of the greatest mobility, while the two countries with the high level of inequality-Chile and Brazil-had some of the lowest mobility."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
Perhaps a less aggressive moderater or a better formulated question would have been good...
I agree, a better debate prompt would have helped this. To say that income inequality directly impairs the "American Dream" is a poor choice.
i love John Donvan as moderator. It's better than a moderator who just sits silently and allows the discussion to get off track.
Theo Koblesky
Agreed, Donvan is a fantastic moderator for keeping both sides on point. The question needed to be more specific though. The flip side to that however is - on previous IQ2 debates they have had issues where they make too specific a prompt - at which point a single technicality on either side can lead to both sides agreeing to that prompt, while still disagreeing with the broader spirit of the debate.
If I had to choose - I would rather an aggressive moderator that steers through a vague prompt, than a specific prompt that results in a false victory: maybe they recognized that this is the better alternative too.
E.T. Harris
It would have been, because it's a vague concept. Except they define the American Dream as Upward Mobility in the title... oh yeah
1. It's not about capping income: it's about paying your fair share and preventing crony capitalism
2. "Immigrants come across the border and succeed" uhm, very few actually succeed. The immigrant story is nice to tell but again you are erasing the majority who are still struggling.
i think this debate could have been much improved if they had had someone from a lower income bracket debating
What's yours is mine. What's that? You don't want me to steal from you? Well I claim I own the product of my labor and deserve it! It's not theft, it's just taxation/fairness!
Customers do not decide what people get paid! Customers decide what they are willing to spend for a product. The businesses take the profits and decide how they will distribute them among employees and investors. The data clearly show that the people at the top who make these decisions are increasingly inclined to give themselves and their investors a larger percentage of the income while the line workers and middle management receive a smaller percentage.
Why did nobody bring up the automation of low-skill (and moving into higher-skill) jobs, which seems to be a huge part of the root causes of both income inequality and reduced upward mobility
***** Outsourcing is an issue, but i refer specifically to automation, in areas such as automotive manufacturing. When factories can produce the same amount of product with significantly fewer workers, it can only contribute to higher profit margins, and thus income inequality. It's one of several reasons why I support a Negative Income Tax or Universal Basic Income policy.
***** sure, and I'm not saying that "keep all employment local" is the solution, because eventually even the jobs that are now being outsourced will likely be mechanized. I think the solution when there are more people than there are jobs people can do better or cheaper than machines is to give people a universal basic income enabling them to live at a subsistence level indefinitely even without work. this would enable much easier living for creative professionals, researchers in non-lucrative fields (what I myself am), and others.
***** that was exactly my point, which I guess I phrased poorly. I'll try to rephrase. Machines will generally do a task better and cheaper than people. Therefore, you're suddenly cutting unskilled labor almost entirely out of the workforce. Even if goods are cheaper than they are now, a $500 item that is now $300 is STILL beyond somebody with no income whatsoever. Thus, you implement a UBI or NIT to make sure that everybody ends up with a guaranteed $X in their pocket (usually defined as barely enough to support themselves at a bare subsistence level)
***** I think we have a fundamental disagreement on whether prices will fall faster than wages, and I know I don't have the data at hand to resolve that conflict at this point. Should we just agree to disagree until more information becomes available?
***** I do my best to be, but I'm far from perfect on that front
Have a plan if you plan to have.
Love how one of the main shareholders of Amazon is trying to say wealth inequality is wrong whilst his company dodges tax
Dicky's Sports Amazon is allowed to do what the Governments allow it
@@sharann3482 and @Dicky's Sports - You got that totally backward, Sharann. It's the government that does what companies like Amazon allow it to do, not the other way around.
pro side was not very persuasive...I intuitively agree with them, and admittedly so given my economic situation, but the against side proved their point far more effectively. imho
I wish Elizabeth Warren was in this debate.
I never knew he was John Donvan
Do people realise if USA was a self reliant country . You would pay twice as much for everyday items as everything would be made here on high wages . Things a cheap now because the made in Asia wow !
The American Dream and Success are objective concepts. Although we use an economic ladder of stratification to measure the growth of wealth generally/collectively; it also can and should be utilized to assess individual financial progression. Income inequality has undoubtedly increased, but whether it's an impairing expansion is a matter of perspective. Going from unemployed to employed, receiving a small raise or promotion is upward mobility and can be personally defined as obtainment of the American Dream.
All this talk of income inequality ...
What about the welfare state? What about the warfare state? Doesn't government spending distort the market?
We don't know what the economy would have looked like had the government stayed out of it.
+gideondavid30 Yes we do. Go research the 1860s - 1930s and there you go.
+Rocko1II
Federal Reserve was created in the 1913. Income tax was passed around the same time as well.
The Great Depression happened under the Federal Reserve's watch.
Ohh so you are arguing that the Federal reserve aided in ending the most agregiouse abuses of the Guilded age? Interesting. :)
+Rocko1II 1913 .... the end of the markets.
+gideondavid30 The Federal Reserve didn't end markets. Google "The Long Depression." The Federal Reserve didn't exist there at all. Income inequality has grown, which is what this video is about. How did we get here?Taxes on the rich 36 year lowsFederal Government spending per capita at 25 year lows Student Pell Grants cut by over 85% since 1989 Glass Stegall and financial regulations cutI want to say, I am not a whiny millennial. I'm a 23 year old millennial. I'm in the Army Reserves, I'm a analyst a Fortune 200 company, have over 20K in the stock market and 60K in checkings, 20K in savings and a 10K in my 401K. I just want to end that because usually someone tells me your being a whiny millenial
That's not newton's third law...
In away customers do decide however what Connard mentions there is precisely why governments have to intervene. Capitalism lends itself towards monopolies. That is what we saw in the 19th century and early 20th. That is why increasing competition artificially is a husbandry techniqe for the market. 100 medium size banks will employ many more people than 2 large ones...
+Rocko1II Actually monopolies are caused by government intervention, not the market. It happens when anti-capitalist businesses, aka cronies, get their friends to enact legislation to help themselves. Its pretty difficult to topple monopolies and cartels when they are protected by the state.
there can't be any mobility if all income is equal, and just how anyone is going to make all income equal is beyond me specially when each and everyone of us are different
so a workaholic who works a 12 hour shift 7 days a week gets paid the same as a part timer? doesn't make sense and like Judge Judy always say, if it doesn't make sense it usually isn't true
That wasn't the debate, total nonsense on your part.
Steve Wagner dang, you think too highly of yourself with your nonsense crap
unfortunately in a global economy if we raised the average workers pay to higher levels that would do two things that would cause companies to increase prices to make up for the gap because the top CEO's salary cannot pay for a large portion of workers maybe a few workers here and there this would cause other products made in other countrys to be cheaper for consumers to buy and thus overall lowering the entire portion of our pie. and secondly it would cause greater immigration of people seeking those easier higher wages which would increase the labor market simultaneously increasing un-employment. vote against this motion.
wow... the results make me wanna throw up. The voters must have been well off and never experienced poverty. I mean, you don't experience poverty and end up squaring it off intelligently. However, the truly upsetting part is how many couldn't hear the main points the supporters of the notions are making: More great minds should be able to reach a standard of living that allows them to own a home and a car at least. Is it really necessary to have 4 summer houses, 3 boats and servants IN ADDITION to a bank account that only goes up? Last week Bernie Sanders proposed a tax on wall street transactions (simple and genius) to pay for free college education in the US. This brilliant idea will never see the light of day because no one seems to be listening to reason. Money is louder than justice. :(
America is unique.
Stop trying to compare the US to other countries and cultures.
How about a country where people are net producers not net parasites.
shareholders lifesavings , is why companies are sitting on millions of cash
Nick had no business being on that stage, no one is saying that there is no income inequality and nobody is saying its "really, really, really good." It just is, its not good or bad, its just the reality of markets. Capitalism does not need inequality to grow or shrink, it will survive no matter. He also says that growing inequality will kill it? So the same thing it needs to survive will kill it?
The arguments against the motion are faaaaaar more factual.
Over the whole debate "Redistributions" were confused for "WAGE INEQUALITY." Which was the question at hand...
Grow the pie vs. grow the slice
The vast majority of the wealth in the US was created not by productivity, but by the ponzi scheme that is the Federal Reserve . how economists do not factor in $20 trillion of debt (and this is just the amount that is known) as the imaginary source of the US wealth is fascinating. It leads the economic enslavement by imaginary debt.
Most families now are struggling to survive with two working parents to ridiculous debt loads that are entirely the result of fiat usury by private banking.
I was rather disappointed by the showing of both sides. Neither really made a compelling argument or pointed out the other side's selective use of relative or absolute differences in measurements to support their side.
I'd love to see an analysis of Board pay per million USD of revenue in US companies and compare that to the Boards in more socialist countries. I mean if the argument is that US CEOs get more money than EU CEOs because they sell more, we should be able to make an easy comparison. Of course, I think the whole comparison is silly - you get paid less in Europe but you get more holiday, less worry (more job security and "free" healthcare) and a life outside of work. You know who could have earned a shit load more than Bill Gates and Mark Zukerberg? Tim Berniers-Lee. What did he and CERN choose to do? Gave the internet to the world for free.
As a poor person that is trapped in poverty because there aren't enough hours in the day for me to work my way out of it, I got pretty passed at that Bain ceo guy. For me not having a wage increase or the opportunities that someone with money would have means that yes this issue has ruined the "American dream" for me.
Pissed*
I don't understand why can't you move up the ladder in life like everybody else that has money? If you're "stuck" then that's your own choice. If you want a better wage why don't you set a goal for a better job & do whatever it takes to get there? If you're living in poverty then you're by American standards making less then minimum wage so how can you argue that you're "stuck"? Obviously you either have no work ethic & are lazy. There's 18 year olds making more then minimum wage so why can't you do it as an adult? You aren't poor because of the rich, you're poor because of your own individual decisions & are just making a sorry sap story of excuses for a free hand out! It's pathetic, grow up!
By the way why do you have a computer with internet if you're living in supposed "poverty"?🤔🤔
Blazingg Llama I have a phone which is necessary for my job. Poverty is being extremely poor, not making less than the minimum wage. The minimum wage is too low to sustain anyone so you have a whole class of working poor people, which I fall under.
I don't "do better" because I already work around 60 hours a week in a town with zero opportunity and not enough money to "just move" or go to school, which I'd love to do.
I am also now taking care of my disabled mother on top of all this, but yeah I should just do better right? I'm just not working enough, better make it 70 or 80 hours a week.
Matthew Perry 1st off the minimum wage was never designed to live off of that's why it's called the "MINIMUM"-wage. 2nd, You can go to school right now for free threw student loans but depending on what you would go for I wouldn't recommend it because since only a little over 20% of America's jobs require a college degree we currently have around a total of 1.5trillion in unpaid student Loan debt because it turns out most jobs are obtained threw moving up the ladder & learning hands on trades or starting your own small business & working your way up with a business loan. 3rd, You're saying you have no opportunity to make more then minimum wage? Where do you live I'll google Map it & obtain numbers of local businesses including McDonald's which pays more then minimum wage or Walmart Distribution I'll look for any local manufacturing plants and name everything I find around you that says they're currently hiring for more then minimum wage in my next reply and help you out because I think you're full of shit & making excuses (prove me wrong though)?? Give me your city state & zip & give me a week tops.
The increase in Gov transfers to the poor since 06 is simply because people are more poor. They are qualifying for more programs. How about pay better wages and give less aid? Direct wages are way more efficiant than inefficiant government programs AND increases self esteem which leads to greater liklehood that children will see work as valuable and rewarding. No one caught that!?
Well that wasn't shocking given the audience.
I really like IntelligenceSquared but I think the moderator is way too aggressive and I have noticed that in a number of debates.
what trade off is he's saying at 42:30?
Why couldn't ben shapiro be in this....
Hey, chestypants78, did 7% of the audience become poor between the first and second votes?
my grand parents were poor . why my parents wealthy ?
He kept using Germany as a example, yet Germany faced the same Problems as the US, both have stagnating wages since the 80’s. Germany’s Real wages stagnate unstopped since 1991. In this Last 30 Years the poorest 40% has lost income and Wealth.
Also the US gone more into state debts than Germany to invest into the economy that were redistributed to the US citizens.
Japan is also Stagnating it’s Real Wages for now 40 years, so it’s no wonder why the US is doing a bit better.
Not to forget that these countries didn’t had enormous employment supply as Ed even pointed himself out but all 3 Countries have get weaker Unions at the same time their real wages started to stagnate.
Of course this is an extremely short sighted debate. I do side with the motion, but on the long term, and that is probably within the next 50 years, life on planet earth will become unbearable because of the politics of growth at all cost. These people are actually arguing whether or not a system that is clearly wrong, and has reached the limit of the planet, is impairing upward mobility. Yes it is, but guess what? Even if we fix things and lift what we call the "working poor" into middle class, in 50 years still have no fish in the ocean, huge amount a pollution and an even bigger climate change problem. Nice fighting windmill debate, though. I really do love the fact that Edward Conard's name sound like asshole in French. (Connard)
EFFORT INEQUALITY
That is the real source of income inequality.
"Increase in the supply of labor" "employment grew instead of wages"
What do these statements mean in practical terms? Basically if you have 300 people applying for 1 job then you can pay a cheap wage for that job. If that person working in that job leaves you can easily replace them. Thus you can drive down wages or stagnate wages. You can fire 1 person getting paid $100,000 then employ 2 people and pay them $25,000 each. Thus you have more employment but lower cost in wages. This is just the situation in the current economies as corporations move jobs overseas and the jobs available in the US become less.
And corporation owners can easily justify reducing wages or stagnating wages - as they can easily replace workers due to the disparity between qualified people and positions available.
So can this hamper mobility? Yes it does - as it keeps more people in the economy desperate and overworked. Since the wages are not increasing at the rate of inflation - a good wage 10 years ago buys a lot less today - and then you have to reduce what you spend on education, or other activities which could help you climb the ladder...
And if you complain the corporate owners can easily replace you with another more desperate individual who will work without complaining. The system is rigged in favor of the already rich. And mobility is hampered. But just because you can still move up the ladder doesn't mean the system is still working in favor of the lower classes... what it means is that lower classes have to work 10 times harder now.
The questions debated in these debates are problematic most of the time. I feel that Rosencrantz is a fairly conservative guy as I have heard his bias come through in earlier debates. The question was stated so that the statistics could support it rather than talking about the actual effects of income inequality, they focus on a very small window of debate which restricts complex ideas and issues into simple questions in a very narrow field of inquiry. I applaud the supporters of this notion for their bravery in approaching this question. I know I would not have entered this debate myself with such a limited question.
the government creates inequality , growing government
This topic is almost always framed within classist terms, typically as a battle between the 99% vs. the 1%, failing to address the inequality within the 99% itself, which is of greater consequence for upward mobility. That inequality is the result of an educational and skills gap, both being entirely independent of the 1%'s antics. MIT has published a ton of research on this topic (see The School Effectiveness & Inequality Initiative, otherwise known as MIT's SEII); you can also review the research on skill-biased technical change.
I realize this isn't a very sexy argument, but reality is unfortunately rather drab at times.
IQ is real, and it matters.
I'm sick of the leftist narrative that income disparities prove discrimination.
The responsibility of the "individual" is dead to the left.
It's about "the group" and forcing equal outcomes..
Read this brilliant comment brilliant:
This leftist premise that individual people aren't responsible for their own stupid decisions is dumb AF..
"Income inequality" is a bullshit leftist term that gets used to pander for votes and nothing more... Just like "white privilege"
Read below:
People who "work hard" and "can't pay their bills"? .Are we talking about those people who CHOSE to make their Walmart job a career, get married, have 3 kids, buy a house they can't really afford , run up their credit cards, etc... And then complain because they are struggling???
THEY MADE BAD CHOICES.
it's that simple
when you make this argument, you are implying the poor people WERE FORCED TO CHOOSE A BAD CAREER and FORCED TO OVEREXTEND THEMSELVES FINANCIALLY.
the govt does not owe citizens a great wage. Walmart does not owe it's employee $25/hr just because the employee wants that much..
People need to make better decisions
stop taking the responsibility from the individual ..
Alan Lloyd Nobody owns anyone wages, but if you don’t pay your workers their wages compensated to the country’s productivity, you kill off your customers in the long term.
when Australia had highest tax rates 1970 , wages shrunk private sector
Also moving from $2/hr to $7/hr is not economic mobility in reality... it is moving from virtual slavery to poverty... moving up to $15/hr puts an American into the month to month survival mode... any thing below this should be considered the same status economically... as they are one paycheck from being on the street.
And going to school no longer increases your mobility, as student debt ends up hampering mobility more than the degree helps it, on average. Again due to debt based monetary policy.
If it's so easy, why doesn't everyone just jump to $15/hr? Maybe because economic reality dictates that such is a ridiculous concept, and that scales of economies can't equally be measured across the board. Because, you know, living costs don't differ anywhere or anything.
chbrules get rid of usury on imaginary debt created by private banks and true free markets can start to take shape... until then, provide people with a basic living wage, scale it with what ever regional variables are needed to live in that region... as long as people aren't in perpetual survival mode.
leddsaliva There's nothing wrong with usury. Usury is a free market principle. Where do you think it came from?
Most people make a living wage. The only reason people are putting up with lower than living costs wages is because government subsidizes the difference.
There is a problem with usury when the money loaned out is created out of thin air by private entities.
+leddsaliva As long as the economy stinks and there isnt enough jobs, there wont be any upward mobility.
How can they compete to get into schools?
THE INTERNET and SELF ACTUATION!
There is no excuse in this modern information age for anyone not getting an education.
You are talking about kids!!! Children without test prep tutors and mommy and pappy pandering to them. Instead they live in neighborhoods scourged by poverty and violence and they have to sell in the streets to fend for themselves and protect their siblings while their parents work grave night shifts.
@@barovierkevinallybose1040
Who creates the environment those children live in? It's a culture problem. When minorities mature the culture will stabilize and their children will begin to make progress.
At 1:25:50 you could clearly tell what her politics were.
what about when the us patent office steals ideas from private inventors I KNOW!
small business and medium business owners , aren't wealthy millionaires
There is no "national in one". There is only individual in one.
shareholders investment , is why ceos earn that
I hear the question and my response is “Ya think?”
She thinks only low income workers have made more wages? Lol.
Wealthy people often work far more hours than the average worker.
The Spirit Level was published in 2009. I guess no one here read it.
What the fuck is the criteria for winning?? The Pro side still had the higher number. Huh?
+boones circles That is stated clear both at the start and at the end.
Talking about the median incomes across the entire economy is a sly way to hide the truth... What is that truth? The the 1% are earning more and bring up the median wage. If you look at shares of net income and median wages in each class/strata then you see that wages have gone down for the middle and lower classes. And the income has gone up dramatically for the upper classes.
wages private sector shrunk when government grew in Australia . Your argument is stupid it failed in Australia
Here is what I find ironic, why can't liberals apply the pie argument logic not only to the rich, but also to government? If rich people having a larger share of the pie has a negative effect on income mobility because it leaves less of the pie for the rest of us, than by definition so should any other group or entity that consumes larger and larger shares of the pie, something like oh I don't know, government. If government consumes more of the economic pie, than that should also be harming income mobility.
+Sam Taylor Except the government, in theory, should use the money to provide public services which in turn would help everybody, especially the poor.
- Which Dream are they talking about - ? ? ? ?
small business profits , down 30 yrs Australia
53 percent to 37 the 53 percent won!
I guess it was an interesting intellectual exercise, but the limits of the question completely deflated its potential. Meetings like this one that only want to split hairs over abstract economic theory contribute nothing to the larger debate on what this question is really about: our poverty. Economic philosophy has its place in the discussion, to be sure, but when it's completely divorced from questions of morality and justice it sounds like mental flatulence. They all seemed like pretty smart people, but the premise they agreed to was meaningless.
I'm shocked at the result. Wow. There is no hope for humanity. Ed Conard was awful, yet his side won. Audience is obviously wealthy, so that's that.
Umm, the majority still believe that income inequality affects upwards mobility by a wide margin. The other side was just starting from the bottom, which just like the economy has the highest potential for growth. There is so much more I can say about the debate, it was overall good.
+chestypants78 they are unable to relate to poor ppl
i came to Canada as refugee with nothing.. 13 years later I became part of high middle class (i pay shit load of taxes .. and i don't mind it cuz i know that $$ is gone help needed person like me).
I'm able to relate to poor ppl cuz i been there and without the government help i would never be where im now ..
I stopped listening at the atrocious statement regarding the "transferring" of income/resources to the "working poor" and the arrogant idea that $25000 is A LOT of help compared to the billions made without lifting a finger by the rich. It is men like this who need a cold hard lesson in what it means to be alive. Every subsequent word out of his mouth makes my skin crawl in disgust.
"Trickle-down" economics is far from being the "virtuous cycle it is proposed to be.
They don't lift a finger, except they work hard to invest money into businesses to grow them and hire more people. Ouch.
Through the Neither Either Ethers are you a real person? I think you might be my soulmate rofl
chbrules they don't hire more people in the US, they move all those jobs overseas to increase their profits.
leddsaliva Because we've outpriced ourselves to compete on a global scale. Are you suggesting that cheaper labor around the world is a bad thing?
To pit our workers against labourers in Asia...yes, that is a bad thing. There would be no local jobs left unless, for example, engineers could compete with Indians working for $7/hr; or production line workers working for $7 a day like Chinese workers.
Thank god the crowd saw through the leftist lies.