Rand Paul Dismisses Concerns About Income Inequality, Says Some People Just ‘Work Harder’

[Truth200]

Capitalism has no moral basis... Vote Bernie Sanders.

 

[Tate]

I think he was too PC if you ask me. He should of flat out said that ppl are not equal in skills or genetic potential, therefore the results wont be either, so the best we can ever hope to achieve is equal of opportunity. Disparities are not the exception, they're the rule of human nature.

Also, I really enjoy how that article only cites one attribute from his tax cut so they can push their narrative, and the data they cite for the growing income equality is just a abstract screenshot of income brackets at a giving time frame, not studies of human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time which is important for the long run.

For example, did you know that more than half the people who were in the top 1 percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. Of course libs will go on about their "top one percent" of income earners who are supposedly getting an ever-increasing share of the countries income which is true if you are talking about income brackets. But It is totally untrue if you are talking about actual people. Yeah, this might shock ppl, but there is this thing called Economic mobility.

I'd assume a lot of the richest 1% from 1996 fukking died by 2005.

Funny how this doesn't correlate at all with the whole "market allows social mobility" thing you're referring to here;

"Genetic potential?" You read Charles Murray or something ?

 

[DEAD7]

Build your entire country off the backs of forced labor from slaves and immigrants, and then tell the descendants of said slaves and immigrants that they don't work hard enough without acknowledging that your own wealth and status is directly tied to the forced labor of their ancestors librehtarians

There is nothing libertarian about chattel slavery

 

[Tate]

There is nothing libertarian about chattel slavery

Wage slavery is very libertarian though

 

[DEAD7]

Capitalism has no moral basis... Vote Bernie Sanders.

 

[DEAD7]

Wage slavery is very libertarian though

How are you defining slavery?

 

[Tate]

How are you defining slavery?

Total dependency on a wage with little or no workers rights in regard to workplace safety, wrongful termination, or unionization.

 

[DEAD7]

Total dependency on a wage with little or no workers rights in regard to workplace safety, wrongful termination, or unionization.

Cool, nothing about that is libertarian either.

and to expand on that the term "wage slavery" is an anti-concept.
A job under capitalism is a transaction between a buyer and a seller.
If this transaction is made voluntarily to exchange labor for a consideration, usually money(wage) then it cannot possibly be slavery, because slavery is involuntary servitude.

... but as I have learned definitions are tricky around here lol.

 

[Tate]

Cool, nothing about that is libertarian either.

and to expand on that the term "wage slavery" is an anti-concept.
A job under capitalism is a transaction between a buyer and a seller.
If this transaction is made voluntarily to exchange labor for a consideration, usually money(wage) then it cannot possibly be slavery, because slavery is involuntary servitude.

... but as I have learned definitions are tricky around here lol.

A transaction implies a lack of coercion. In a libertarian world, with no or next to no protection for laborers, coercion is inherent. Is it a free and fair transaction when the only choice is between doing a task and starvation? How is this scenerio voluntary?

 

[AJaRuleStan]

snip

>Karl Marx avy
>Swarvy Karl Marx
>Joined aug 2/2015
kek, I can't front, I almost didn't respond just off this.

>I'd assume a lot of the richest 1% from 1996 fukking died by 2005.
>I'd assume
so you don't know it for a fact, okay.

>Funny how this doesn't correlate at all with the whole "market allows social mobility" thing you're referring to here;
It does. Well, in your case it depends. If your working on the premise that mobility is measured by inter-generational earrings, which I don't know why you would, than maybe you will reach a different conclusion(a false one). But if your approaching it from a rational perspective and use the premise of "age", than my argument is pretty sound. It takes years to acquire the skills/experience that high income paying jobs require, therefore it's only logical to measure mobility from the perspective of a humans entire life span.

"A University of Michigan study showed that most of the working people who were in the bottom 20 percent of income earners in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point by 1991. Only 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of them were now in the top quintile."(hard-facts)

 

[Billy Hoyle]

 

[Tate]

>Karl Marx avy
>Swarvy Karl Marx
>Joined aug 2/2015
kek, I can't front, I almost didn't respond just off this.

>I'd assume a lot of the richest 1% from 1996 fukking died by 2005.
>I'd assume
so you don't know it for a fact, okay.

>Funny how this doesn't correlate at all with the whole "market allows social mobility" thing you're referring to here;
It does. Well, in your case it depends. If your working on the premise that mobility is measured by inter-generational earrings, which I don't know why you would, than maybe you will reach a different conclusion(a false one). But if your approaching it from a rational perspective and use the premise of "age", than my argument is pretty sound. It takes years to acquire the skills/experience that high income paying jobs require, therefore it's only logical to measure mobility from the perspective of a humans entire life span.

"A University of Michigan study showed that most of the working people who were in the bottom 20 percent of income earners in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point by 1991. Only 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of them were now in the top quintile."(hard-facts)

Your arguments contradict each other. If age is the primary factor in how much wealth you have then obviously a large amount of the top 1% is gonna die off in a decade.

Measuring direct income is a narrow way to look at things. I assume most of the bottom 20% of earners in 1975 were minimum wage workers. And, being 1975, a good amount if not a majority of those people were just joining the labor force. Meaning many of them were probably from better off or middle class families and thus moved up and on to better paying jobs. So the trend of social mobility, the frequency of members of a population group rising or falling in economic class, wouldn't really be measured by such a statistic.

Also, use statistics from 25 years ago measuring events from 40 years ago to discuss current economic matters brehs

 

[DEAD7]

A transaction implies a lack of coercion. In a libertarian world, with no or next to no protection for laborers, coercion is inherent. Is it a free and fair transaction when the only choice is between doing a task and starvation? How is this scenerio voluntary?

when is that not the case? Sounds like nature is oppressive
how this is a product of capitalism.?

Which system is laboring for basic needs not part of?
I think you are taking for granted the ability to decide what work you will and will not do(voluntarily labor), a choice that did exist for much of human history...




... anywho, libertarianism centers around non aggression as a core principle, to make a voluntary exchange and do no harm can never be aggression. Even if a person suffers harm from "nature"(starves) or becomes sick due to insufficient resources this cannot be blamed on some third party's non-action.

 

[DEAD7]

Your arguments contradict each other. If age is the primary factor in how much wealth you have then obviously a large amount of the top 1% is gonna die off in a decade.

Measuring direct income is a narrow way to look at things. I assume most of the bottom 20% of earners in 1975 were minimum wage workers. And, being 1975, a good amount if not a majority of those people were just joining the labor force. Meaning many of them were probably from better off or middle class families and thus moved up and on to better paying jobs. So the trend of social mobility, the frequency of members of a population group rising or falling in economic class, wouldn't really be measured by such a statistic.

Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.
Yet the 'economic mobility is dead' argument remains alive and well... go figure.

 

[88m3]

all lives matter