Not financially well-off. Maybe not a crock of shit, but I don't exactly think this is significant information.
Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Necronic
Staff member
I was going to take issue with that video until I saw that cheating section. I have always felt that greed and self-interest are good, but ONLY if the players don't cheat. If they cheat the equation flips wildly and greed/self-interest becomes very destructive. That cheating and the candy thing.....ugh. Makes me sick.
I've seen some interesting studies linking cleanliness to conservatism. When viewed in the scope of cultural evolution, it's really quite interesting.
Sourcity source source.
Sourcity source source.
GasBandit
Staff member
When was the last time you washed behind your ears, Bowie?
Ooo! Necro! Another study has been done, but this one was not so much about income as it was about the sorts of liberties a person is willing to take and the motivation behind them.
The upper class isn't less ethical, just more likely to lie for selfish reasons.
So...glad to know the reality is that we're ultimately on or about on par with each other as regards our level of ethics, I guess.
--Patrick
The upper class isn't less ethical, just more likely to lie for selfish reasons.
So...glad to know the reality is that we're ultimately on or about on par with each other as regards our level of ethics, I guess.
--Patrick
TIL lying to help other people is just as bad as lying to help yourself...
TIL, you need to be unethical if yo want to be a good person.
I'm sure it's more a question of extreme cases of "Spirit of" v. "Letter of" than one of being unethical. See also "jobsworth"
--Patrick
I almost expect this video to be taken down at some point. (EDIT: It was!)
As the plot for a reality show, I can get behind Give + DocumentIt. People could learn a lot from such a show. A lot about people, about finance, about budgets, etc.
...but Give + PitThemAgainstEachOtherANDThePublicEye + DocumentIt? It's like watching someone place two piles of meat in the big cat enclosure at a struggling zoo and then poke the animals with sticks just to see what they'll do. Dramatic entertainment? Sure...but also infuriatingly void of any genuinely altruistic sentiment.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Looks like a variation of the prisoners dilemma. Except it's a "reality" show, meaning it'll be scripted and fake.
Yes... But that's why we shouldn't model society on the foundations of evolution and "life".
If anything society is constructed exclusively to take nature out of the equation. Nature is indifferent to suffering. Society and civilization is constructed to circumvent the notion of survival of the fittest.
I saw this a couple of weeks ago and it struck me as being particularly evil. The entire concept is just gross.
In the show "Deal or No Deal," it was just one person against one person, and it was all-or-nothing. In this case it's not so extreme (doesn't have to be all-or-nothing) but instead of it being an elective like a game show, they're messing with people's actual lives.
--Patrick
..who give consent and sign a waiver to be on t.v. Should we feel sorry for the ignorant masses that play the lottery or walk into a casino?
From what I've read, they were told they'd be involved in a documentary about money. Which is technically true, I suppose.
No, we should feel outrage at the institutions who prey on these people.
--Patrick
I support the efforts of the hashtag #GiveYourMoneyToWomen
That's called being in a relationship.
You're gross.
Technically relates to the thread topic.
I found some genuinely entertaining and insightful moments in here.
Redditors who grew up filthy rich, what did you think was normal till your [sic] learned otherwise?
--Patrick
I found some genuinely entertaining and insightful moments in here.
Redditors who grew up filthy rich, what did you think was normal till your [sic] learned otherwise?
--Patrick
Last edited:
To the thread's title, when one person's decision to relocate actually threatens the economy of the entire state of New Jersey, I think that's a definite thing you can point to and say, "Hmm, perhaps there really is some threshold beyond which income inequality could be considered unjust."
From the article:
From the article:
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Or, you know, exactly what everybody has been saying about progressive taxes coming home to roost.
Since this is apparently "everybody but me," can you expand on this a little?
Because the only thing I know "everybody" has been saying about progressive taxes is that it was dumb to cap them at some sort of max instead of maintaining the sort of asymptotic relationship they had in the late 30's/early 40's.
--Patrick
He's implying that since rich people have the ability to be as mobile as they wish, taxing them progressively is unwise because it will simply encourage them to move to state/countries that charge them less, hurting local economies when they move.
Part of the problem of this is that the extremely wealthy have the means to avoid virtually all the downsides of leaving the vicinity of family: they have the means to connect with them over long distance, travel virtually anywhere, or bring them along for the ride. Part of them problem is that state/national barriers dissolve for the Rich in ways they don't for even exceptional middle class or poorer people; the common man cannot escape the effects of economic issues as readily as the Rich can.
But really, the main problem is that the Rich feel no accountability to their communities and view other human beings as replaceable, as well as that the suffering they cause by their actions is irrelevant as long as they themselves suffer no consequences. We should really be testing the Top 1% of Wealth Holders for psychopathy the same way they do for stock brokers now... I'd bet we'd see the same correlation.
Yeah, that's clearly the problem, and not the fact that one person has managed to accrue so much of the wealth that they're single handedly able to ruin a states economy...
Nah, that's totally ok as long as you keep them there by having them pay less taxes...
GasBandit
Staff member
New Jersey decided they'd rather have 9% of nothing than 6% of what they were getting. Somehow Texas manages to get by better than most with 0% income tax.
Maybe the REAL problem is that income taxes are just a bad idea poorly executed in just about every situation.
I didn't realize this was a thing.
I mean, it makes perfect sense, given the studies, but I didn't realize there was anything formal.
--Patrick