What percentage of Americans are poor?

[Kontiki]

That only tends to happen in countries that were non-settler colonies at some point (ie: certain areas of Africa and central Asia). Just about all Latin American and Carribean countries, save Cuba, have an extremely wealthy elite.

[Kuciwalker]

Plus, what is the problem with wealth inequality? If you believe things like this:

Conservatives value being Rich over being wealthy, so for example it would be beter to have 10 Dollars and everyone else having 1 then for you to have 100 and everyone else 50.

Then you would have to admit that Liberals (actually, the Left) would rather everyone have 1 than for everyone but one to have 50 and one person to have 100.

[DanS]

Well, only a small portion of the world is Latin American.

In any event, it doesn't make sense to say that the U.S. has an income distribution like a developing country, because the income distribution among developing countries is all over the map.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kucinich: That is actually the choice that John Rawls would make.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Plus, what is the problem with wealth inequality? If you believe things like this:

Conservatives value being Rich over being wealthy, so for example it would be beter to have 10 Dollars and everyone else having 1 then for you to have 100 and everyone else 50.

Then you would have to admit that Liberals (actually, the Left) would rather everyone have 1 than for everyone but one to have 50 and one person to have 100.

Well, I wouldn't classify myself as being a member of "the Left", but it's pretty obvious why you don't want too much inequality. To name but a few problems, you tend to greatly elevate the risk of large-scale civil unrest, infrastructure generally starts to become inadequate and health concerns grow. Take a look at the average Latin American country and you can see this all too well.

Having some wealth inequality is not problematic, however. The trick is to not let it get out of hand. Different people put that line at different places, though.

[Al B. Sure!]

what does Rawls and his impractical moral theory have to do with this?

[Kuciwalker]

Well, I wouldn't classify myself as being a member of "the Left", but it's pretty obvious why you don't want too much inequality.

You don't want inequality in the sense of people starving to death while others feast. Most problems disappear if people have a reasonably comfortable quality of life.

To name but a few problems, you tend to greatly elevate the risk of large-scale civil unrest

This "unrest" is the argument we're having in this very thread. You are effectively stating that we should choose a particular side of an issue because otherwise people on that side of the issue will argue with us.

(And I already pointed out why a general insurrection would not be likely.)

infrastructure generally starts to become inadequate

examples of this being due to inequal wealth distribution amongst an affluent society?

and health concerns grow

Huh?

[Kontiki]

Kucinich:

Don't lump me together with people like Che. I would never say that an insurrection is likely or even plausible in any "first world" country in the forseeable future. I was simply addressing your question about the problems of wealth inequality. You might notice that in my post, I said that some inequality is fine - you just don't want it to get too crazy. And as I say, Latin America provides some great examples.

To more directly address your points though:

1) Discussion on an internet forum is hardly large scale civil unrest. Think more of Venezuela in the past few years, or Haiti more recently. Note again that I don't think the US, Canada, etc. are anywhere near that state of affairs.

2) An "affluent" society by definition doesn't have rediculous wealth discrepancies. And since you never used that descriptor before, you're changing the rules of the game. The closest example to that, though, would probably be Argentina. And before you get all pedantic about it, obviously the mere presence of a wealth gap doesn't create problems, it's the getting there that does.

3) Health concerns function the same way. If a large proportion of the population is very poor and cannot afford (and the lack of infrastructure does not provide) proper medical services, the general level of health will deteriorate. If you're a member of the upper class working in an office where some of the janatorial and support staff are quite ill, but can't afford to take the time off or get proper medical treatment, then you're chances of getting sick greatly increase.

Anyway, again, I'm just pointing out potential problems with huge wealth gaps. I'm not saying that the US is anywhere close to this point, nor am I suggesting that it's going to get there anytime soon, if ever.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Then you haven't been to the right American slums, or driven outside the cities.

It's RIDICULOUS that you even compare them. People in the third world sometimes have to cope with less than A DOLLAR a day. And I'm not talking about a few people, i'm talking about millions. Please show me in what American slums kids grow up malnourished as in Somalia. I seriously don't understand why you even dare to debate this.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Master Zen


It's RIDICULOUS that you even compare them. People in the third world sometimes have to cope with less than A DOLLAR a day. And I'm not talking about a few people, i'm talking about millions. Please show me in what American slums kids grow up malnourished as in Somalia. I seriously don't understand why you even dare to debate this.

For a long time my family was the poorest one I knew. I had one or two pairs of pants/shirts. I did not get any presents from my parents for Christmas or birthdays. I went without eating. Several times in my life I had to wear shoes with large holes in the bottom. We did have a phone and several black and white tv's that other people no longer wanted. The phones were cut off several times. We were evicted several times. Of course this is not Somalia poor but it's close enough for me. All of this happened without drugs or any other type of criminal or immoral activities contributing to my family's plight.
Today, I pass homeless and other poor people on my my way home from work. I think that these peoples situation should have more focus than the Iraqi's. I think that until the U.S. is a Utopia we don't have room to worry about what goes on in Iraq. We need to worry about what goes on in America. I don't understand the people who have more concern for Iraq than the U.S. When I say concern I mean advocate spending money on an invasion of that country when things need fixing right here.

[Al B. Sure!]

Today, I pass homeless and other poor people on my my way home from work. I think that these peoples situation should have more focus than the Iraqi's.

i think it should be noted that we don't live in the 19th century when widows, orphans, cripples, the blind, and others who had no control over their plight were homeless...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't understand the people who have more concern for Iraq than the U.S. When I say concern I mean advocate spending money on an invasion of that country when things need fixing right here.

So Americans are the only people who matter is what you are saying?

[Al B. Sure!]

umm... i would think our tax dollars are best spent domestically... i mean we should personally gain from that federal theft known as income tax... right, imran the libertarian?

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes. Have you ever been through the United States?

I lived in Mississippi.

'nuff said.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
umm... i would think our tax dollars are best spent domestically... i mean we should personally gain from that federal theft known as income tax... right, imran the libertarian?

What difference does it make to spend our "stolen" money on someone from Newark or someone from Namibia?