Try to refute income inequality

Try to refute income inequality

>protip: you cannot

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4
youtube.com/watch?v=OQq5gKYUoPc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It exists and it's a bad thing, but the best way to fix it is MORE CAPITALISM. The reason why the West and the US in particular are in the mess to begin with is big government and lobbyists who can easily fuck over poor people.

Surely the people in the top worked hard backbreaking jobs to get there

No, a big portion of them did not.

How about George Soros? Are you okay with him having so much money he can never even use it all? Was it earned honestly? Do you realize there are thousands of people just like him?

Because rich faggots keep importing cheap labor

It's only going to get worse thanks to automation taking away more and more trade and skilled Labour jobs that used to be the backbone of north America's middle class. Trickle down economics only works when there's a negative to the majority.

...

Why are you concerned about people having money? If you were truly concerned about the less fortunate in our society you'd be thinking of ways to raise the poor out of poverty rather than new ways of stealing money from the rich.

Income Inequality is a meme, guys.

Do you realize my post was ironic?

Wow. How will the 1% ever recover?

>Why are you people so concerned about slavery? If you were truly concerned about slaves you'd be thinking about ways to make slavery more pleasant rather than trying to steal slaves from the rich.

The problem isn't people making money, the problem is people with money using their government connections to import cheaper labor from overseas or Mexico

Way 2 english the above post, but what's wrong with someone like Soros having money? Just need better laws in place to keep him and his ideas out of the political system

Truth. Corporate interests lobby both parties to stifle competition. Telecom providers have regional monopolies so there's no competition and they can gouge customers who have no other option. Pharmaceuticals can prove drugs however they want because there's an import ban and the government gets the cheap pills to hand out to Medicare recipients. Insurance companies made it illegal to not have insurance

How does income inequality violate your or anyone's Human rights?

Not an argument
Businessmen are always going to conduct business in their own self interest. The government has to provide incentives for manufacturing to stay here, and has to protect the border so that illegals aren't taking away American jobs.
>fyi Trump will do both of these things

How does slavery violate human rights? Slavery is as old as humanity. Interns are, in some ways, worse off than slaves. At least slaves got free food and shelter.

Close, but the real best way to fix it is remove Jews. Once we remove the heebs then we can go high trust white capitalism.

Because they're being forced into labor under penalty of death. You can choose not to be an intern. Your boss won't kill you for not working he/she will just fire you.

Fuck off with your implied classless society.

1) Wealth can be created. Someone else being rich doesn't take away from your potential.

2) Inequality is natural in a free economy. What if you don't want to be rich? What if you're lazy, or provide nothing that others are willing to trade for currency?

>B-but I work hard...
Go make your mudpies where people want to buy them.

>Because they're being forced into labor under penalty of death.

And capitalism doesn't force people into the labor under penalty of death? If I don't work, I can't afford to eat. If I can't eat, I die.

Go hunt some food then you dumb cuck. You have to work to live. That's life friend. Even in gommunism you have to work if you want to live, despite what modern leftists seem to believe. Maybe once we're star trek tier in terms of technology that will stop being true.

look at the way the chart is scaled, no shit it looks unfair

What, do you think you deserve something for doing nothing? Not even Marx believed in that

There's nothing to refute. It's real. Women get paid less because they work less and educate themselves into lower paying jobs.

Never said I was a leftist. I'm saying it's bluepilled af to fall for the "capitalism is freedom" meme.

There's nothing to refute.

There's also nothing wrong with it.

I never called you a leftist tbqh. I just said you have to work to live.

It's the closest thing to freedom

With Central banks and fiat currencies, what's easy to refute is the notion that income inequality is a "problem" that even matters in the first place.

Arguing about what proportional size of the pie you get is only meaningful when the size of the pie is fixed. Except it isn't. We don't have a static, finite amount of money. Hence if someone else makes more, that does not mean you somehow magically make less.

If you think the rich have to "steal from the poor" to get rich, you're not only fucking retarded; but also a bit pathetically naive.

People aren't equal. Some produce more than others and thus earn/create more wealth, bill gates for example

No it just destroys everything and will eventually destroy itself. Marx was right about that but he was wrong to believe that the destruction of capitalism would lead to some communist utopia. It will most likely end in a global holocaust followed by a new dark age. We came close during WWII.

It's called pareto distribution read a fking book.

No he wasn't, the 1 % isn't static new people go in and out in a free society.

Capitalism is the freedom of making and losing money.

I think money is logaritmic.

Judt because Goldberg Shekelstein makes 20 trillion dollars doesn't mean you make less. Stay mad pleb.

It's nothing to refute, it's the basic effect and goal of capitalism. Capitalism serves to concentrate the means of production in order to produce goods more efficiently than was possible in the feudal/mercantile system, but as it requires, the profits from this are reinvested as little as possible for the greatest return possible. Therefore, the guy who owns the factory can invest 10 cents to make 10 dollars, while the worker's wage remains constant - or declines with inflation. It's the natural consequence of capitalist concentration, and it's that way by design to incentivize further concentration and increases in efficiency. Eventually, like we're seeing now, it stops being a driving force for innovation, and starts stagnating (there are no new phones, just shinier versions of the old ones, for example), and that's when the revolution has to happen for the economy to advance. So, while it sucks for people right now, that graph is actually a good thing - we're getting closer to the last fight.

Yup, George Soros is a great example and his cronies too. Fucking with currency via govt lobbying to acquire billions is completely fine and in fact respectable.

I love it when kikes drain our economy and make us poor

Marx never saw the technology we possess today, we have different problems

We're in a correction. We need more ways to spend money, there's just too much of the same shit being produced. The engines of growth have slowed-- we need to produce new shit.

Sure this may sound morally repugnant because "muh planet" and "muh greed" but hollywood has simply made you believe that.

Cultural goods are the future

All lefty cucks need to watch this whole series and not come back until you're finished.
youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

>stops being a driving force for innovation, and starts stagnating
There's constant innovation even today. Look at the biotech or computer market for example. And in markets where innovation is little the production just gets streamlined.

This.
If the world decided to give a nice shiny ribbon to the guy who built a spacecruiser, there will always be rich fucktards reinvesting into research. People will try to be their best both for money and stupid recognitions of their worth in the eyes of others.

My man.

This commie romance on equality has been tried, several times. It only creates a political class similar to the aristocracies of previous eras. You just can't found society on the premise that people have to have the same shit. The game is there for it to be played.

Safety nets are good. Hell I'd even go as far as fall for the universal basic income meme. But for things to be organized under some cucked ideology, that's just fucked up. Where's the democracy there. Where's the freedom

youtube.com/watch?v=OQq5gKYUoPc

When even a black men can answer...

T. Intern

1 out of 5 people are living the life making 200K or more. I hope to be one of those people, top 20% isn't that unattainable.

Well for one he singlehandedly collapsed banks from a couple countries and he funds these so called progressive groups that start trouble. Finance has been and always will be a kikes way of making money and creating money out of thin air

This is common in brown countries, it's only going to get worse as America becomes more brown.

Are you challenging us to refute it's existence or its immortality?

the other ones are getting a higher income too. you can't expect to make $10k and suddenly make millions (unless you get lucky or something), but when you make millions it's easier to make another million, it's incremental

Wealth cannot be created from nothing.

>what is work
>what is gathering/refining natural resources

>Muh fixed pie!

IQ tracks closer with income than education.

So, I, and quite a few other people, are just smarter than you.

Why is it a bad thing?

Human capital create wealth.

Have you read Human Action you eco cuck?

Internal social rifts and whatnot, and it creates a snobby elitist attitude among the 1%.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against a classless society like communism (unless one creates itself but I don't see that happening) and there should always be some income inequality, but what we're seeing is the withering of the middle class and a creation of only two classes; the elite and the dirt poor.

If we would cut regulation like hell, cut all social services and taxes to near zero digits, wealth would be distributed equally in no time.

STRAWMAN, IT'S A STRAWMAN

Income brackets are a statistical category, not people. This mean the the top 1% maybe totally different persons from one year to the next.

People don't earn the same every year. Sometimes they get a raise, a new job, inheritance, etc., and they move up a few brackets. Sometimes they are fired, lose a mortgage, or get caught in a lawsuit and they move down a few brackets. The changes can be great or small, and depending if you're close to the edge of a bracket small changes can make big changes.

The top 1% are generally from the financial market. Most of what they have is tied up in investments and not easily liquid-able. They can and most have lost millions over a year, thus moving them from the top 1% to the bottom 99%. But it's the freeness of that market that provides opportunity to move back up.

What makes some people more durable at higher income brackets has to with things that affect wealth accumulation.

I'm on the same page.

Mostly, I just want the government out of our way. One of the reasons I'm stoked out of my mind for Trump. As a small business owner, I am sick of these socialists spending my money on frivolous crap.

Small business has to die. Either get big or get out. Trump will see the light. Global supply chains necessitate large firms for low prices. No one is going to bail you out. In fact wage increases will probably rape the shit out of you. You should probably just sell your business as soon as possible.

fight for 15.