Indignation, Fury, Anger, Rage, Disapproval, Wrath, Resentment, Scandal, Offense, Insult, Injustice, Disgrace, Atrocity, Crime, Wrong, Barbarism, Enrage, Infuriate, Incense, Anger, Scandalize, Offend, Affront, Shock, Horrify, Disgust, Appall, Evil, Violation, and the list goes on...
Before you begin, CLICK HERE to learn about the Counter-Intuitive Impact Of Economic Inequality upon the problems of health and society. This speaks to the very core of the matter; Economic Inequality Is Harmful.
1) A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
2) A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.
3) A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.
Merriam Webster Dictionary
1) drudgery, toil
2) submission to a dominating influence
3) the state of a person who is a chattel of another
Let us know your thoughts and feelings on this state of affairs.
Feel free to express your outrage!
By way of reference, a recent article by Aaran Fronda, May 1st, 2015, is attached
for your review.
http://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-mana ... -conundrum
This is now slavery and on a grand worldwide scale. No longer is it restricted to small regions but rather large swaths of society are affected. Arguably one could say there are more slaves now than ever before because of population growth and the economic chains of Income Inequality encircling the planet. The resentment this is causing is growing. A ratio of 335:1 is better reserved for the gods, not CEOs who put their paints on one leg at a time like the rest of us mortals. Sooner or later merely expressing outrage will not be sufficient; it will be replaced with the fury of action.
I recently read a TechCrunch article with the title, "Robots To Eat All The Jobs." I offer the link for your review: http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/09/basic- ... eateathon/ It is an interesting piece of journalism given the bleak and depressing subject matter of what to do with the masses once the Robots take our jobs. How do you provide financially for so many people let alone give them purpose and meaning in their lives? But the one thing missing from the discussion, the silent elephant in the room, was what do you do with that many slaves?
Slavery seem to be embedded in our DNA. I do not know of a major ethnic or religious group around the world that was not enslaved at some point in time. And with slavery comes annihilation. It is in our history that the sick, weak, and troublemakers are culled from the herd first. Then come the legal justifications for mass extermination. History does not treat the slave well and I surmise this will carry on into our future. Do you really think they will take care of all of us? Why should they?
There is always the one individual who presents the idea this cannot happen because the masses will need money to buy the products the Robots make to maintain the financial status of the wealthy. This is nonsense. The Robots will be designed to be self replicating, taking the resources and substrates they need without money as will be stipulated by future laws on their behalf. As for the wealthy, it is obvious power is more alluring than wealth for most of them. Why have money when your Robotic minions can provide you with today's unimaginable future power.
I am not a Luddite. To the contrary I am a progressive who embraces the coming technological revolution with great hope. But we need to all wake up and smell the inhaled Nanoparticles before they imbed themselves in our cerebral tissue. There is little time for reasoned thought before we are all crushed beneath the heels of the elite few who wish to remain that way.
Doctor A, can we really stop economic inequality or just reduce its affects in the short amount of time we have?I am not a Luddite. To the contrary I am a progressive who embraces the coming technological revolution with great hope. But we need to all wake up and smell the inhaled Nanoparticles before they imbed themselves in our cerebral tissue. There is little time for reasoned thought before we are all crushed beneath the heels of the elite few who wish to remain that way.
By stopping Wage Inequality I do not mean we drag it to the bathtub and drown it. By stop I mean we reduce it to tolerable levels so it stops having such a detrimental effect upon the rest of us.
The first order of business is to stop the 1% from telling us what is good for us, that their salaries are justifiable. We need to be the ones controlling the narrative, not them. The average person in our country thinks a CEO should only receive an order of 7 times larger than what the average line worker makes, not 335 times. In the time some of these executives take to relieve themselves at the urinal they have made much more than the average line worker makes all day. They are not that special. Even Peter Drucker says the ratio should not exceed 20 to 1 or so much resentment would ensue as to significantly decrease productivity. Remember, these are the upper limits we are talking about here. If we just took an average of these upper limits it is somewhere on the order of 14 to 1. Certainly this is a good starting point from my view but it is still a maximal figure. An optimal figure for effectiveness would be even lower than this.
Ultimately this question needs to be put before our community to determine what is optimal and not just maximal. As you are likely aware, some differentiation is needed as an incentive for a CEO to do their jobs. But are they really that much more intelligent, educated, productive, and insightful than the rest of us? I think not. Although they currently have the authority to create such excessive ratios, we in our community have the power to change this. By expressing our power collectively through this site, laws can be enacted to reverse this ratio and then we can control the narrative such that we determine what is appropriate. At the very least, we need to create an aura of shame around the greed of these CEOs and not exalt them to a God like status. Cultures can also be changed.
Physicist Stephen Hawkings has made statements in a Reddit AMA warning that technological advances can leave many people behind and increase inequality. While many people benefit from technological advances in terms of better medical technology, safer cars and nearly ubiquitous cell phones the financial benefits of those advances are not distributed across society. Most of the benefits in terms of wages are concentrated within a narrow segment of the population. Better medical technology also means more expensive technology out of reach for many people.
According to links in the article the median income in the use is about the same as it was in 1995. That does not mean that wages were just stagnant over that period. It's that the increased wages of tech workers have only been able to keep the average wage level from falling and just balance out the larger number of people who have seen their wages fall as production and factory jobs moved over seas to be replaces by service sector jobs. Current trends in technology are now putting even those service sector jobs at risk. This will probably not happen over night but should be seen as a trend taking place over the next 10-20 years.
Here is another take on inequality that focuses on the structural aspect of inequality and its relation to African Americans, Latin Americans and women.
From the article: "The disparities in wealth that we term “income inequality” are no accident, and they can’t be fixed by fiddling at the edges of our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom. The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access to the most basic tools of life are almost nil."
The article then goes on to challenge 1 percenters like Mark Zuckerberg who has pledged to give away 99% of his facebook shares. While on the surface this sounds like a noble gesture, he is giving away the wealth on his terms and under his control. This will do nothing to change the structural elements of inequality or improve the lives of those most effected by inequality.
No doubt many a congressman, attorney, and staff member has spent countless hours plying their craft to enact just such structures. Although many profess to embrace the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, they are really espousing a different golden rule, "those with the gold make the rules." No wonder those who have been victimized by Economic Inequality are relegated to the bottom rung of the social dung heap. Adding insult to injury, the victim is then blamed for being lazy, stupid, insolent, or uncaring to account for their social position.
But how can this be?
From Wikipedia: Learned helplessness is behavior typical of an organism (human or animal) that has endured repeated painful or otherwise aversive stimuli which it was unable to escape or avoid. After such experience, the organism often fails to learn escape or avoidance in new situations where such behavior would be effective. In other words, the organism seems to have learned that it is helpless in aversive situations, that it has lost control, and so it gives up trying. Such an organism is said to have acquired learned helplessness.
Surely if you kick Pavlov's mongrel dog enough times it learns to stay out of your way. Like the dog, those who have been maligned learn through conditioning not to be uppity or the punishment is just around the corner.
But for those powerful elites who are shaping the rules, a sense of learned optimism comes into play. They continually get rewarded and profit from their behavior especially if there is no counter force to oppose them. Why shouldn't they be optimistic? Repeating the reward cycle just becomes habitual for them. And so the structures remain in place over and over again.
In India there is the story of a dog who is thrown an old dry bone. The dog chews and chews on the bone crushing it between its teeth until the bone shatters and cuts its mouth. As the blood rushes into it mouth the dog it thinks to himself, "my what a juicy and tasty bone."
Likewise our poor and downtrodden masses are thrown a bone in the form of philanthropy every now and then as if this will solve the hunger people have for a better life. But do not be deceived by this red herring.
The bottom line is quite clear as Bob Lord reports on January 24th, 2015 in his article, "Can Philanthropy Fix Our Inequality?" http://inequality.org/philanthropy-solution-inequality/ He states, Does the Bill Gates argument that philanthropy can save us from inequality have any merit?
In a word: no. A recent Family Wealth Transfers Report from researchers at Wealth-X, a Singapore-based consultancy, and the NFP financial services company suggests just how misplaced Gates’ faith in the generosity of his peers happens to be.
The world’s ultra-wealthy — those with fortunes of $30 million or more — will pass $16 trillion in wealth at death over the next three decades, this new report projects. Only $300 billion of the total, less than 2 percent, will flow to charities. And a sizeable portion of those relatively stingy charitable transfers will undoubtedly flow to family foundations, from which the children of the ultra-wealthy will draw handsome salaries for deciding how to dribble out the income of those foundations to real charities.
It is not far-fetched to think the dog from India is faring better than most of us.
I just found this article by Thomas Piketty http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tho ... 945fed3e38Most assuredly Wage Inequality causes slavery, just not the type stereotypically portrayed on television or in the movies.
He and I both agree that Economic Inequality is definitely a form of slavery that ultimately breeds terrorism. Has anybody read this article yet?
Looks like time is running out as the middle class is no longer dominant in the USA. One has to wonder how many of these individuals still have the illusion of freedom. It is a milestone indicating we are further along into an ever increasing Economic Inequality by the rich and the subsequent enslavement of those who are not.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-mid ... story.html
Here is a research article to help explain the mindset of the rich and why these disparities happen by design.From the article: "The disparities in wealth that we term “income inequality” are no accident, and they can’t be fixed by fiddling at the edges of our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom. The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access to the most basic tools of life are almost nil."
"Income Inequality Makes Rich People Stingier" in Bloomberg Business November 2015
A new study found wealthy people in states with skewed income scales were less generous.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-stingier
What's behind the findings? The authors say concentrating wealth in the hands of a few may lead to "the belief that one is more important and deserving than others." That sense of entitlement may make the rich less altruistic and lead them to "believe that resources rightly belong to them."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest