Since Detroit is GZNL...

**Henry Whalley** · December-10-20, 08:03 AM

[[GZNL meaning ground-zero for neo-liberalism) and neo-liberalism being the economics of Hayek, Friedman, et al., here's a RAND report on the counter-factual. Where would the middle-class be without forty-five years of trickle-downism?

Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018 | RAND

**123456789** · December-10-20, 06:00 PM

Income inequality in the way it is measured [[by quintiles/quartiles of the population) is largely irrelevant and is discussed only because the average person is not very bright and politicians can easily exploit that fact.

Ask yourself these questions:

1. What is the cause of income inequality?
2. How often does a person / household stay in the same quartile/quintile of income for their entire existence?

My thoughts: 1. The 1% typically become incredibly rich through entrepreneurship - they start a successful company that provides whatever type of good or service - at a greater quality/less price than the rest of the competition. This results in profits / wealth for the owner but also benefits all of society, and the result is a higher standard of living for everyone. You [[assuming you are in the bottom quintile of income) are not poor because someone else is rich. It is quite the opposite actually - your standard of living would be quite worse without the motive of people getting rich - because the only way to do that is to generate profits - and the only way to generate profits it to offer a good or service at a higher quality or lower price. - Take this a step further, knowing that the only way to reduce income inequality is to ban entrepreneurs - what would that do for society in the long run?

2. You would have to be incredibly inept or unmotivated to stay in a certain income bracket your entire life. Through education and experience it would be almost impossible for any functioning adult to stay in the bottom income bracket. So why do we measure income brackets over period of time? We never seem to discuss [[and you will never hear from your liberal echo chamber) how people / families move through the income brackets over time.

The portrayal of income inequality and the minimum wage in our culture / news really speaks to the ineptitude of education in this country.

**Jimaz** · December-10-20, 06:36 PM

**Henry Whalley** · December-10-20, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by 123456789

We never seem to discuss [[and you will never hear from your liberal echo chamber) how people / families move through the income brackets over time.

Social mobility is not what it used to be.

**123456789** · December-10-20, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Henry Whalley

Social mobility is not what it used to be.

How do you know this to be true? Is there a study that you can reference? Or is this anecdotal [[evidence-free) blather? Also, is there a place on this planet where social mobility is more accessible than in this country?

More importantly - the poorest people in our country live at a much higher standard of living than 99% of the people to ever inhabit this planet. It's only been 4-5 generations since even the president of this country had to shit in a hole in the ground. Look how far we have come!

Maybe the problem is that "capitalism" is viewed as a "system." In the end, it's really freedom. The ability to work [[or not), transact with [[or not), hire [[or not) based on only the true market value of each of these inputs. There is no "system" available that allows these things. Anything else is coercion, or the opposite of individual liberty or freedom.

**123456789** · December-10-20, 08:42 PM

80% of millionaires in this country are first generation wealth - are you poor because they are rich? Obviously not - you are poor if you have not developed any value for society.

If all the millionaires in this country did not exist - how much shittier would your life be? Think of all the the products and services that they have created, pushing the boundaries of what was thought possible to deliver greater technology and productivity at lower and lower prices.

Income inequality being viewed as a negative in the context of this country is utterly absurd. It defies any sort of logic - all you have to do is think what damage would be done if it didn't exist.

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...real-1-percent

**Henry Whalley** · December-11-20, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by 123456789

How do you know this to be true? Is there a study that you can reference? Or is this anecdotal [[evidence-free) blather? Also, is there a place on this planet where social mobility is more accessible than in this country?

Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

What you say was true once upon a time. The U.S. is twenty-seventh. Used to be first before forty-five years of neo-liberalism. Going down a rung every twenty-two months.