• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Inequality VS Wealth difference

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
There’s a problem with the way we define inequality

The above is an article on the BBC about what inequality really means. Wealth is not really something that we see as inequality in fact no wealth difference according to the article is perceived as inequality.

3 Ideas from the study quoted from the article

It’s important to remember that, as we figure out ways to combat inequality, that there are three separate (but related) ideas.

First, the idea that people should have equal opportunity in society, regardless of their background, race, sexuality, gender and so on.

The second idea is fair distribution, which says that benefits or rewards should be distributed fairly based on merit.

The final idea is the notion of equality of outcome, or that people receive equal outcomes regardless of circumstance. This last one is a little trickier to grasp. Many of the experts BBC Future talked to brought up the phrase ‘inequality of outcome’: say if you were given £5 and your friend was given £10. That represents inequality of outcome, since the two of you have different amounts of money, regardless of how that came to be.


I agree with the first 2 but there 3rd one seems to differ with the rest of the article and then in the end of the article they say we need to concentrate on making less poverty which seems to be completely against their findings.

I believe we need to definitely concentrate on the first 2 to combat inequality. What I'd like to do is debate what they are stating. Debate their solution and find out what other people believe the solution to be.
 

idea

Question Everything
However we got here, this is what it looks like now:

It is not as simple as equal pay for equal work - those who grow up in poverty, without a chance to go to college... life is not fair. The 1% issue really is an issue though.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
However we got here, this is what it looks like now:

It is not as simple as equal pay for equal work - those who grow up in poverty, without a chance to go to college... life is not fair. The 1% issue really is an issue though.

I think if you read the op or the article you will find that is what both are saying.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
There’s a problem with the way we define inequality

The above is an article on the BBC about what inequality really means. Wealth is not really something that we see as inequality in fact no wealth difference according to the article is perceived as inequality.

3 Ideas from the study quoted from the article

It’s important to remember that, as we figure out ways to combat inequality, that there are three separate (but related) ideas.

First, the idea that people should have equal opportunity in society, regardless of their background, race, sexuality, gender and so on.

The second idea is fair distribution, which says that benefits or rewards should be distributed fairly based on merit.

The final idea is the notion of equality of outcome, or that people receive equal outcomes regardless of circumstance. This last one is a little trickier to grasp. Many of the experts BBC Future talked to brought up the phrase ‘inequality of outcome’: say if you were given £5 and your friend was given £10. That represents inequality of outcome, since the two of you have different amounts of money, regardless of how that came to be.


I agree with the first 2 but there 3rd one seems to differ with the rest of the article and then in the end of the article they say we need to concentrate on making less poverty which seems to be completely against their findings.

I believe we need to definitely concentrate on the first 2 to combat inequality. What I'd like to do is debate what they are stating. Debate their solution and find out what other people believe the solution to be.

I think what they are saying is that promoting jealousy or demonizing the folks that are rich does nothing to deal with poverty.

In the US, our laws are geared to fairness. Where unfairness can be proven, it can be taken to court.

First step IMO to eliminating poverty is getting an education. Probably even more important than health care. Free, open, equal access to education.

Internet education programs. The internet doesn't care who you are, where you are from. No teachers pets. No name bias.

Teachers are the weak link in the education system.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There’s a problem with the way we define inequality

The above is an article on the BBC about what inequality really means. Wealth is not really something that we see as inequality in fact no wealth difference according to the article is perceived as inequality.

3 Ideas from the study quoted from the article

It’s important to remember that, as we figure out ways to combat inequality, that there are three separate (but related) ideas.

First, the idea that people should have equal opportunity in society, regardless of their background, race, sexuality, gender and so on.

The second idea is fair distribution, which says that benefits or rewards should be distributed fairly based on merit.

The final idea is the notion of equality of outcome, or that people receive equal outcomes regardless of circumstance. This last one is a little trickier to grasp. Many of the experts BBC Future talked to brought up the phrase ‘inequality of outcome’: say if you were given £5 and your friend was given £10. That represents inequality of outcome, since the two of you have different amounts of money, regardless of how that came to be.


I agree with the first 2 but there 3rd one seems to differ with the rest of the article and then in the end of the article they say we need to concentrate on making less poverty which seems to be completely against their findings.

I believe we need to definitely concentrate on the first 2 to combat inequality. What I'd like to do is debate what they are stating. Debate their solution and find out what other people believe the solution to be.
I agree that the first two are what counts. But the article did not address power - where the wealthy have much more power in society than the poor. And the worse wealth disparity becomes the more the very rich have more power. And that is a big problem.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I think in most cases number 2 is already being done; and number three is ridiculous.

I don't think number 2 is always being done, Plenty of rewards and promotions are done based on favoritism. They also promote and reward based on a certain type.

Personal experience. I work in a customer driven field as a technician but have been involved with all levels of management. I took over a site where they were throwing our company out. After 6 months they changed there mind after a year they bought more equipment. The customer and my manager both stated it was only because of me. I got a $25 target card for my efforts. The contract was 1 million a year and the the equipment 1.2 million each.

Another customer wanted a beta machine. I worked with the engineers for weeks away from home to get it to customer acceptable. We were able to get it to do 80% of what the customer wanted. I informed sales and they still showed it and the customer accepted the machine 1.2 Million only if I would be on-site the first 3 months to get it running. I got a V-Neck company shirt for my effort.

I am highly technical and proved myself number of times in the company but do not have a bachelor's degree so I get passed by for promotion. I have been frozen for years because my salary grade is maxed out. If I was awarded based on merit I would be promoted.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Extreme wealth disparity is an issue - not only for individuals, but for the economic and social health of the country.

Of course, there will always be many people who will live their life out in poverty, no matter how much support or opportunities they have. Many people seem to be in denial of the fact that there are many people who simply don't want to work for anything.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I think what they are saying is that promoting jealousy or demonizing the folks that are rich does nothing to deal with poverty.

In the US, our laws are geared to fairness. Where unfairness can be proven, it can be taken to court.

First step IMO to eliminating poverty is getting an education. Probably even more important than health care. Free, open, equal access to education.

Internet education programs. The internet doesn't care who you are, where you are from. No teachers pets. No name bias.

Teachers are the weak link in the education system.

I would agree equal access to education is important to equality but equalizing education must be done. A trained car mechanic is of equal importance as any 2 year degree. An apprenticed carpenter is considered an associate a master a bachelor's degree. With education we put more emphasis on Sciences and not mechanical or artistic work which can be at times more important.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I agree that the first two are what counts. But the article did not address power - where the wealthy have much more power in society than the poor. And the worse wealth disparity becomes the more the very rich have more power. And that is a big problem.

I equate the power one with equal opportunity. The have power because wealth gives them greater opportunity.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I don't think number 2 is always being done, Plenty of rewards and promotions are done based on favoritism. They also promote and reward based on a certain type.

Personal experience. I work in a customer driven field as a technician but have been involved with all levels of management. I took over a site where they were throwing our company out. After 6 months they changed there mind after a year they bought more equipment. The customer and my manager both stated it was only because of me. I got a $25 target card for my efforts. The contract was 1 million a year and the the equipment 1.2 million each.

Another customer wanted a beta machine. I worked with the engineers for weeks away from home to get it to customer acceptable. We were able to get it to do 80% of what the customer wanted. I informed sales and they still showed it and the customer accepted the machine 1.2 Million only if I would be on-site the first 3 months to get it running. I got a V-Neck company shirt for my effort.

I am highly technical and proved myself number of times in the company but do not have a bachelor's degree so I get passed by for promotion. I have been frozen for years because my salary grade is maxed out. If I was awarded based on merit I would be promoted.

What did you ask for before you took on these challenges?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Extreme wealth disparity is an issue - not only for individuals, but for the economic and social health of the country.

Of course, there will always be many people who will live their life out in poverty, no matter how much support or opportunities they have. Many people seem to be in denial of the fact that there are many people who simply don't want to work for anything.

If wealth didn't grant you excessive opportunity or unfair distribution it wouldn't be a problem. We cater to wealth they get Tax breaks, Easy loans, Free Stuff just because of wealth. A flat tax would be an equalizer. Law's stopping companies from having pricing ranges. If you can buy 10 you get a break but if you can only buy 1 you have to pay full price. Every price is equal no matter how many you buy.
 
Last edited:

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
What did you ask for before you took on these challenges?

I took on the challenges because they were challenges, I do the best job I can because that is who I am. I expect those the know it to give me the credit for my accomplishments but that is not how society works.

I was working at another company they had me pegged to be their next supervisor. Lots more responsibilities than the other guys. One of the guys we had trouble with and were going to get rid of found a new job. He told me he was going to take a slight pay cut but thought it was a better match and told me the salary. It was 5000 more than what I made. I had a sit down with my manager where he showed me the pay chart. I was the lowest paid. Quit that day, they called and offered me what ever I wanted to come back. I want to be paid for my ability and not the lowest that they can get away with. All companies do this, its why women's salaries don't equal men's.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I took on the challenges because they were challenges, I do the best job I can because that is who I am. I expect those the know it to give me the credit for my accomplishments but that is not how society works.

I was working at another company they had me pegged to be their next supervisor. Lots more responsibilities than the other guys. One of the guys we had trouble with and were going to get rid of found a new job. He told me he was going to take a slight pay cut but thought it was a better match and told me the salary. It was 5000 more than what I made. I had a sit down with my manager where he showed me the pay chart. I was the lowest paid. Quit that day, they called and offered me what ever I wanted to come back. I want to be paid for my ability and not the lowest that they can get away with. All companies do this, its why women's salaries don't equal men's.


I would say that in the instances you cited you got more than what you asked for. One secret to wealth is that you're not afraid to ask for what you think you are worth.
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I don't know but I believe we should take it up at the casino. Tell them every time I pull that lever and don't win the pot is inequality, and I demand justice. please.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I would say that in the instances you cited you got more than what you asked for. One secret to wealth is that you're not afraid to ask for what you think you are worth.

I don't want wealth I want equality. Wealth is only a measure of inequality.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I think what they are saying is that promoting jealousy or demonizing the folks that are rich does nothing to deal with poverty.

In the US, our laws are geared to fairness. Where unfairness can be proven, it can be taken to court.

I wish that were true. The laws are heavily skewed to favor the rich. The rich often complain about the U.S. becoming a nanny state when the truth is, it already is... for the rich. They get huge tax breaks, don't pay enough taxes in the first place, and many of the large companies - even profitable ones - get huge subsidies which the rest of us pay for.

First step IMO to eliminating poverty is getting an education. Probably even more important than health care. Free, open, equal access to education.

Internet education programs. The internet doesn't care who you are, where you are from. No teachers pets. No name bias.

Teachers are the weak link in the education system.

Internet education programs tend to be several decades behind state of the art. As for teachers being the weak link, I think that's absurd. They're paid peanuts, they have overly large classrooms, they are constrained as to how and what to teach, schedules are designed in ways we now know are counter to how kids best learn, the list goes on and on. The reasons our education system is weak have far more to do with those companies in the mix who are in it for profit, not for good education, and because of a population that doesn't understand how important education is and so underfund it.

Given all that, most of our teachers are doing an incredible job.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I don't want wealth I want equality. Wealth is only a measure of inequality.

What exactly does that mean: equality? Do you actually think everyone is equal? Do you think, in your job, that you are equal to a worker who may have struggled through college, maybe working one or more jobs, to acquire that Sheepskin? Do you think that someone who refuses to work at all is equal to you come payday? Aren't you already equal to everyone else in this world? Do you really want equality or do you simply want everyone to exist on the same level of misery?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't think it's possible for everyone to have an equal outcome, although some of the disparities in income and wealth seem rather arbitrary. There's the implication that someone earning more money is somehow "superior" to those who make less money, but with the huge gaps in wages and income out there, it's hard to swallow that anyone is that superior or somehow worth that much more. That's what seems far more difficult to justify and the probable reason why there's so much resentment and consternation over this issue.

Few people would question that a doctor would earn more than a janitor or a fry cook, but the fact that there's such a huge disparity (and people living on starvation wages) give people a valid justification for questioning and challenging the economic system we live under.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be like this. This is not about making the economy more productive or efficient, nor is there any particular logic or rationality to it. The main explanation for why things are the way they are is because those at the top have insatiable egos that have to be placated constantly. The wealthy believe that they're superior to the poor, and the only reason they rub the poor's nose in the dirt is purely emotional, not logical or practical.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I don't think it's possible for everyone to have an equal outcome, although some of the disparities in income and wealth seem rather arbitrary. There's the implication that someone earning more money is somehow "superior" to those who make less money, but with the huge gaps in wages and income out there, it's hard to swallow that anyone is that superior or somehow worth that much more. That's what seems far more difficult to justify and the probable reason why there's so much resentment and consternation over this issue.

Few people would question that a doctor would earn more than a janitor or a fry cook, but the fact that there's such a huge disparity (and people living on starvation wages) give people a valid justification for questioning and challenging the economic system we live under.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be like this. This is not about making the economy more productive or efficient, nor is there any particular logic or rationality to it. The main explanation for why things are the way they are is because those at the top have insatiable egos that have to be placated constantly. The wealthy believe that they're superior to the poor, and the only reason they rub the poor's nose in the dirt is purely emotional, not logical or practical.


As long as you wear the blinders of "wealth envy" you'll never really see the truth. I have met many wealthy people and none of them every did anything as juvenile as "...rub the poor's nose in the dirt..."; they were usually to busy working to waste time this way. BTW, the richest people I know started out with absolutely nothing and worked like demons toward their dreams; they never b****hed about their circumstances or setbacks. Are there elitist snobs out there that feel entitled because of their wealth? (There are also people out there that feel entitled because of their poverty.) Certainly, but this is the exception, not the rule, at least in my experience. But,I have met people on all levels of social strata that thought they were better than someone else. These people I have written off out of hand. No one owes you anymore than you earn.
 
Top