Income Inequality?

[MaxVel]

The US remains the only nation in the developed world where Christianity can still effectively influence the national discourse. It is sidelined to the point of irrelevance in Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.



"Charity begins at home". 1 Timothy 5:8: "But if any provide not for his own, & specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel". The fact is that the overtly Christian US has, by a large margin, the most grossly inequitable distribution of wealth of any developed nation. "In the U.S., the bottom 90% of the population own only 24.6% of all the privately held wealth, whereas in most of the developed world, the bottom 90% own around 40%".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4408647.html

The Christian US also has far more gun-violence than the comparable countries of “Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-of-the-world

AND the Christian US has by fivefold the highest number of incarcerations. “Since 2002, the United States has had the highest incarceration rate in the world. Although prison populations are increasing in some parts of the world, the natural rate of incarceration for countries comparable to the United States tends to stay around 100 prisoners per 100,000 populations. The U.S. rate is 500 prisoners per 100,000 residents”

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Arti...rceration.aspx

Thus, the overtly Christian US ranks among the most violent and inequitable nations in the developed world. Why is this? Either Christianity has a negative influence on the average person’s quality of life OR Christianity doesn't have any effective influence on the people that adhere to it. Which is it?

The answer is right in your own post, in the verse you cited. The "...overtly Christian US..." by and large is not actually Christian in practice, at least according to what the Bible teaches.

[Tassman]

The answer is right in your own post, in the verse you cited. The "...overtly Christian US..." by and large is not actually Christian in practice, at least according to what the Bible teaches.

Neither is the rest of the developed world. So why does the US, which has a much higher percentage of church-going Christians, rank among the most violent and inequitable of comparable nations?

[MaxVel]

Neither is the rest of the developed world. So why does the US, which has a much higher percentage of church-going Christians, rank among the most violent and inequitable of comparable nations?

1. 'Church-going' does not necessarily mean 'actively practicing what the Bible teaches', especially in countries with a background of cultural Christianity, eg. America.

2. Correlation does not equal causation.

[Sparko]

This largely appears to me to be the same sort of thing that happens when healthcare premiums continue to increase after reform: this "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc for the pedantically inclined). The move towards robotics and automation is neither new nor caused by increases (or potential increases) in labor costs — it's simply becoming comparatively dirt cheap to have a robot do the work that humans used to do.

right. comparatively dirt cheap compared to human labor costs. Even you admit it without realizing it. Why else would a fast food restaurant want to automate their front line? Friendly human contact is valuable in their business. So there must be a reason to eliminate that. Like eliminating labor costs.

Set labor costs ridiculously low and we'll still be soon at a point where a robot does it better for cheaper. It's unlikely that a higher minimum wage accelerates substitution by automation by a very significant amount.

You have it exactly backwards. If you set labor costs too high, then it is worth using a robot instead. Setting labor costs lower makes human labor more attractive.

It does raise an important question, though: if many of these "stepping stone" jobs are replaced by robotics and automation and technological workarounds to the great benefit of shareholders, we're looking at yet another factor increasing economic inequality. What do we do then? Tax the beneficiaries more so as to offer training in higher-skilled jobs? Increase welfare for the newly unemployed? Argue that people should find a way to "make it work," despite having dramatically fewer benefits and prospects than before? I've seen an almost gleeful schadenfreude response from some Conservatives when arguing that demands for a higher minimum wage will just lead to companies cutting labor through automation. I haven't seen any of them really tackle the aftermath of that inevitable phenomenon.

The pendulum will swing the other way, perhaps. When nobody can get a job because they keep demanding $15/hour to take an order for a burger, then they will lower their expectations in order to get a job. I think businesses like McDonald's wants to use young, friendly people to interact with the public instead of some cold, kiosk. And they will use people if they can afford it.

[Sparko]

Because I was on my way out the door when I posted. Patience, grasshopper



It comes from the Catholic Church, actually, but we can get to that later. But just for accusing me of being a communist (and for not knowing the difference between Vladimir Lenin and John Lennon), you're gonna have to wait until tomorrow to get my explanation of avarice*

*actually, I want to dig up Augustine's sermon on the parable of the rich fool to quote-mine. If it's not available online, I probably still have it printed out from my class on Christianity and commerce from this past spring. Either way, you have to wait

Okay.

[seer]

1. 'Church-going' does not necessarily mean 'actively practicing what the Bible teaches', especially in countries with a background of cultural Christianity, eg. America.

2. Correlation does not equal causation.

And just imagine how much more violent we would be if we were all amoral atheists!

[lilpixieofterror]

The US remains the only nation in the developed world where Christianity can still effectively influence the national discourse. It is sidelined to the point of irrelevance in Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Yep, now the US is magically a Christian nation when it is convenient for Tazzy Wazzy because he hates Christians. Funny how he argues the opposite in post like this:

In a multicultural, morally diverse nation like the USA, what is “right” is what is deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

America is only a 'Christian nation' when it serves his hatred of Christianity, but when it doesn't serve his hatred of Christianity. America is not a 'Christian nation'. Of course, this isn't the only mistake you make Tazzy because your entire post is full of selective quoting and picking and choosing what you want to believe as I'll show below.

"Charity begins at home". 1 Timothy 5:8: "But if any provide not for his own, & specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel". The fact is that the overtly Christian US has, by a large margin, the most grossly inequitable distribution of wealth of any developed nation. "In the U.S., the bottom 90% of the population own only 24.6% of all the privately held wealth, whereas in most of the developed world, the bottom 90% own around 40%".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4408647.html

What Tazzy Wazzy ignores here is that the US also has far more wealth than any of these developed nations and that is pretty easy to demonstrate by showing the GNP data:

US: 17.2 trillion

To give an idea of how much this is, the next biggest economy would be China with an GNP of 8.3 trillion dollars. 24.6% of 17 trillion dollars is 4.23 trillion dollars. So that would mean that only China, Japan, and the rest of the US would have even 1/4th of the GNP that the US enjoys. Yet, for all of Tazzy Wazzy's ranting, he fails to account for the fact that the US currently has the forth largest average household salary too. Beating even his beloved Australia out, despite the fact that Australia boast a far higher min wage rate than the US currently has. So much for that idea that raising the min wage makes people wealthier . Of course, Tazzy Wazzy ignores data that disagrees with him because he wants Christians to look bad. Quote mining, so much fun, when you have an agenda to press (as Tazzy Wazzy and the Huffington both do).

The Christian US also has far more gun-violence than the comparable countries of “Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-of-the-world

More selective quoting. Never mind the fact that these other countries have something we don't have. Peaceful neighbors and you select only one measurement, gun violence and ignore total levels of crime because again, your goal is to make Christians look bad. Out of murder rates, the US does rank higher than other western countries, but what that data ignores is that the US also has an unstable neighbor that exports violence to our shores because of the illegal drug trade. I grew up in a quiet neighborhood where nothing really interesting every happened. Most I heard about this stuff was in news papers of stories going on somewhere else. Now, to show how selective this is, let me help you out here and change the topic to rape. The US has a lower rape rate per 100,000 than Sweden and New Zealand and we tie with Australia. Sweden actually has the highest cases of rape, in the industrialized world with 66. Now there is variations of what each country calls 'rape' (Sweden has a more broad definition than most other countries do), but again... selective facts do not make your argument for your Tazzy Wazzy. It really isn't that hard to make about any group of people look bad, if you search around long enough for the stats you want to hear and decided to ignore the rest of the data and/or pick and choose what you want to hear. Got to love an agenda pressing media though (attacking gun violence) while ignoring the fact that the many of the most violent countries in the world, also have the most strict gun laws (IE Mexico). Selective facts and quote mining, so much fun when you have an agenda to press without a care in the world as to the facts behind them...

AND the Christian US has by fivefold the highest number of incarcerations. “Since 2002, the United States has had the highest incarceration rate in the world. Although prison populations are increasing in some parts of the world, the natural rate of incarceration for countries comparable to the United States tends to stay around 100 prisoners per 100,000 populations. The U.S. rate is 500 prisoners per 100,000 residents”

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Arti...rceration.aspx

More selective facts. What Tazzy Wazzy ignores, yet again, is that the US is more likely to throw you in jail than most of these other countries are. He could of read stuff like this, which says things like:

"A major contributor to the high incarceration rates is the length of the prison sentences in the United States. One of the criticisms of the United States system is that it has much longer sentences than any other part of the world. The typical mandatory sentence for a first-time drug offense in federal court is five or ten years, compared to other developed countries around the world where a first time offense would warrant at most 6 months in jail. Mandatory sentencing prohibits judges from using their discretion and forces them to place longer sentences on nonviolent offenses than they normally would do."

Or another point they make is:

"The "War on Drugs" is a policy that was initiated by Richard Nixon with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and vigorously pursued by Ronald Reagan. By 2010, drug offenders in federal prison had increased to 500,000 per year, up from 41,000 in 1985. Drug related charges accounted for more than half the rise in state prisoners. 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges, approximately 1 in 10 Americans."

But again, the facts don't make Christians look bad and thus, Tazzy Wazzy ignores it because his goal, as of now is try to make Christians look bad, so he can gloat and feel better about himself. What this should tell us is the dangers of using only stats to make your case and only selective stats to make your case, at that. It really isn't that hard to make any group of people look bad, if you try hard enough and select enough quote's to make you look like you know what you're talking about.

Thus, the overtly Christian US ranks among the most violent and inequitable nations in the developed world. Why is this? Either Christianity has a negative influence on the average person’s quality of life OR Christianity doesn't have any effective influence on the people that adhere to it. Which is it?

Note the dishonest in Tazzy's statement above right in the first sentence where he says:

"Thus, the overtly Christian US ranks among the most violent and inequitable nations in the developed world."

Yet, he ignores that the US has a neighboring country, steep in violence, which results in lots of violence spilling over to the US (AKA the drug war). He ignores the fact that when you take this out of the equation, the US does not have any higher or lower violent crime rates when compared to other countries. Our cases of reported rapes are about the same (or lower) than most other western nations are. Even assuming the 24.6% figure is correct, we still enjoy a higher household income than most of these other western nations do, with quite a bit more money to go around, than most of these western nations do even only using 1/4th of our total GNP. Likewise, our higher incarnation rates are not due to violence, but due to the fact we tend to sentence people to longer jail sentences, have a more diverse population, and we tend to throw more people into jail for non violent crimes vs other countries. When the facts are actually made, Tazzy Wazzy's claims evaporate into a puff of smoke.

Don't worry, I know you'll not answer the above, due to a reason you made up (IE your claims of me having a major mental disorder, despite your inability to prove it), but I know you'll read this (your ego will not let you pass it up) and others can see your partial facts, made up stats, and quote mining for themselves. I know the only thing you hate more than Christians, is being proved wrong, so that makes it even more fun for me. Don't worry, unlike you, I am quite content with you not responding to me. Your silence speaks volumes; all by itself.

[lilpixieofterror]

And just imagine how much more violent we would be if we were all amoral atheists!

The US is only a 'Christian Nation', per what Tazzy Wazzy says because it serves his current purpose, but when it doesn't. The US is not a 'Christian nation'. As I quoted above, here is what he said earlier about the US:

In a multicultural, morally diverse nation like the USA, what is “right” is what is deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

America is well...

What is deemed best to make Christians look bad, at the current moment.



And yet... I'm the one, who is claims has a severe mental disorder.

[Sam]

right. comparatively dirt cheap compared to human labor costs. Even you admit it without realizing it. Why else would a fast food restaurant want to automate their front line? Friendly human contact is valuable in their business. So there must be a reason to eliminate that. Like eliminating labor costs.



You have it exactly backwards. If you set labor costs too high, then it is worth using a robot instead. Setting labor costs lower makes human labor more attractive.



The pendulum will swing the other way, perhaps. When nobody can get a job because they keep demanding $15/hour to take an order for a burger, then they will lower their expectations in order to get a job. I think businesses like McDonald's wants to use young, friendly people to interact with the public instead of some cold, kiosk. And they will use people if they can afford it.

I'm not sure how I could "admit it without realizing it" when the very next line talks about automation being cheaper even when labor costs are "ridiculously low." Maybe you have me confused with someone else's argument?

And, no, it's not backwards. If we both agree that robotics and automation is "dirt cheap compared to human labor costs" then it might be the case that increasing labor costs significantly accelerates the move over to lower costs through automation. Since the traditional problem has been the efficiency of automated service and the ease-of-use factor, I find it unlikely that relatively modest increases in wages is the primary driver of technological substitution.

Any road, your proposed solution to what we agree is the most efficient market-based solution is that "the pendulum will swing the other way, perhaps." I find this, to be blunt, utopic. You're arguing that even though the market can achieve higher efficiency and shareholders stand to greatly increase their holdings, hopefully customers appreciate human contact enough for companies to preserve these much higher costs. I think anyone who has been watching how self-checkout kiosks at Wal-Mart have steadily increased in use over the years while human cashiers coincidentally dwindled would find this proposition highly unlikely.

So let's assume that you're wrong and that the most efficient and profitable (capitalistic!) business model will win out. What then? What do we, as a society do in the face of these lost "stepping stone" jobs? If minimum wage jobs were meant to just get enough money to get up to the next rung in the career ladder, what are you proposing when those jobs are gone or the wage for those jobs is dramatically less than it is even today? Do you just expect people to find work for $5/$3/$1 an hour wherever they can get it? How do we, as a society, ensure their basic needs are met under this proposal?

I don't think you've thought this through!

[Spartacus]

http://thedivinelamp.stblogs.com/201...the-rich-fool/

There's the sermon.

4. Thou hast petitioned for a kindness; hear counsel. “I say unto you, Beware of all covetousness.”8 “Perhaps,” he would say, “thou wouldest call him covetous and greedy, if he were seeking another’s goods; but I say, seek not even thine own greedily or covetously.” This is “Of all, beware of all covetousness.” A heavy burden this! If by any chance this burden be imposed on them that are weak; let Him be sought unto, that He who imposes it, may vouchsafe to give us strength. For it is not a thing to be lightly regarded, my Brethren, when our Lord, our Redeemer, our Saviour, who died for us, who gave His Own Blood as our ransom, to redeem us, our Advocate and Judge; it is no light matter when He saith, “Beware.” He knoweth well how great the evil is; we know it not, let us believe Him. “Beware,” saith He. Wherefore? of what? “of all covetousness.” I am but keeping what is mine own, I am not taking away another’s; “Beware of all covetousness.” Not only is he covetous, who plunders the goods of others; but he is covetous too, who greedily keeps his own. But if he is so blamed who greedily keeps his own; how is he condemned who plunders what is another’s! “Beware,” He saith, “of all covetousness: For a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” He that stores up great abundance, how much does he take therefrom to live? When he has taken it, and in a way separated in thought sufficient to live upon from it, let him consider for whom the rest remains; test haply when thou keepest wherewith to live, thou art gathering only wherewith to die. Behold Christ, behold truth, behold severity. “Beware,” saith truth: “Beware,” saith severity. If thou love not the truth, fear severity.

1. one can be greedy with respect to things one already possesses
2. once we have enough on which to survive, we must think carefully about what God wishes us to do with the extra-- the cause for which He intended those resources

8. But that ye may not commit iniquities, “beware of all covetousness.” I will tell you in its full extent, what is “of all covetousness.” In matter of lust he is covetous, whom his own wife suffices not. And idolatry itself is called covetousness; because again in matter of divine worship20 he is covetous, whom the one and true God suffices not. What but the covetous soul makes for itself many gods? What but the covetous soul makes to itself false21 martyrs? “Beware of all covetousness.” Lo, thou lovest thine own goods, and dost boast thyself in that thou seekest not the goods of others; see what evil thou doest in not hearing Christ, who saith, “Beware of all covetousness.” See thou dost love thine own goods, thou dost not take away the goods of others; thou hast the fruits of thy labour, they are justly thine; thou hast been left an heir, some one whose good graces thou hast attained has given it to thee; thou hast been on the sea, and in its perils, hast committed no fraud, hast sworn no lie, hast acquired what it hath pleased God thou shouldest; and thou art keeping it greedily as in a good conscience, because thou dost not possess it from evil sources, and dost not seek what is another’s. Yet if thou give not heed to Him who hath said, “Beware of all covetousness,” hear how great evils thou wilt be ready to do for thine own goods’ sake. Lo, for example, it hath chanced to thee to be made a judge. Thou wilt not be corrupted, because thou dost not seek the goods of others; no one giveth thee a bribe and says, “Give judgment against my adversary.” This be far from thee, a man, who seekest not the things of others, how couldest thou be persuaded to do this? Yet see what evil thou wilt be ready to do for thine own goods’ sake. Peradventure he that wishes thee to judge evilly, and pronounce sentence for him against his adversary is a powerful man, and able to bring up false accusation against thee, that thou mayest lose what thou hast. Thou dost reflect, and think upon his power, think of thine own goods thou art keeping, which thou dost love: not which thou hast possessed, but in whose power22 rather thou art thyself unhappily fixed. This thy bird-lime, by reason of which thou hast not the wings of virtue free, thou dost look to; and thou sayest within thine own self, “I am offending this man, he has much influence in the world; he will suggest evil accusations against me, and I shall be outlawed,23 and lose all I have.” Thus thou wilt give unrighteous judgment, not when thou seekest another’s, but when thou keepest thine own.

9. Give me a man who has given ear to Christ, give me a man who has heard with fear “Beware of all covetousness;” and let him not say to me, “I am a poor man, a plebeian of mean estate, one of the common people, how can I hope ever to be a judge? I am in no fear of this temptation, the peril of which thou hast placed before mine eyes.” Yet lo, even this poor man I will tell what he ought to fear. Some rich and powerful person calls thee to give false witness for him. What wilt thou be doing now? Tell me. Thou hast a good little property of thine own; thou hast laboured for it, hast acquired, and kept it. That person requires of thee; “Give false witness for me, and I will give thee so and so much.” Thou who seekest not the things of others, sayest, “That be far from me: I do not seek for what it has not pleased God to give me, I will not receive it; depart from me.” “Hast thou no wish to receive what I give? I will take away what thou hast already.” See now prove thyself, question now thine own self. Why dost thou look at me? Look inward on thine own self, look at thine own self within, examine thine own self within; sit down before thine own self, and summon thine own self before thee, and stretch thyself upon the rack of God’s commandment, and torment thyself with His fear, and deal not softly with thyself; answer thine own self. Lo, if any one were to threaten thee with this, what wouldest thou do? “I will take away from thee what with so great labour thou hast acquired, if thou wilt not give false witness for me.” Give him that; “Beware of all covetousness.” “O my servant,” He will say to thee, “whom I have redeemed and made free, whom from a servant I have adopted to be a brother, whom I have set as a member in My Body, give ear to Me: He may take away what thou hast acquired, Me he shall not take away from thee. Art thou keeping thine own goods, that thou mayest not perish? What, have I not said unto thee, ‘Beware of all covetousness’?”

Augustine goes a step further yet and says that any time we value material things-- even our lives-- above God's will, we are being covetous or avaricious. So avarice is placing too high a value on material. Or, as Jesus said, we cannot serve both God and mammon. That's not to say that we cannot own material goods, but we must be careful that we control the possessions and not the other way around.

[Sparko]

http://thedivinelamp.stblogs.com/201...the-rich-fool/

There's the sermon.



1. one can be greedy with respect to things one already possesses
2. once we have enough on which to survive, we must think carefully about what God wishes us to do with the extra-- the cause for which He intended those resources



Augustine goes a step further yet and says that any time we value material things-- even our lives-- above God's will, we are being covetous or avaricious. So avarice is placing too high a value on material. Or, as Jesus said, we cannot serve both God and mammon. That's not to say that we cannot own material goods, but we must be careful that we control the possessions and not the other way around.

as an ideal, I agree that we should strive to help and care for our neighbors and not horde things and money and I try to live by that. But not everyone does, and you can't legislate that. You can't even look at someone and easily decide if they are being greedy or not.

In fact, don't you think the perhaps wanting $15/hour to flip burgers in an entry level job is being greedy? I do.

[Spartacus]

as an ideal, I agree that we should strive to help and care for our neighbors and not horde things and money and I try to live by that. But not everyone does, and you can't legislate that. You can't even look at someone and easily decide if they are being greedy or not.

Augustine would disagree about legislating virtue, but that's not the point.

In fact, don't you think the perhaps wanting $15/hour to flip burgers in an entry level job is being greedy? I do.

If a CEO seeks out or even just accepts a raise from $1 to $1.5 million in salary, how is that not at least as greedy? I only ask because you now seem ready to judge greed based on appearance.

[Paprika]

In fact, don't you think the perhaps wanting $15/hour to flip burgers in an entry level job is being greedy? I do.

Let us recall your earlier post:

and who decides what is avarice?

If I want to maximize my salary and profits so I can help others, is that avarice? Do you have insight to a company owner's thoughts or what he does with his money?

So you're the one deciding what is avarice, eh? If a minimum-wage worker wants to maximize his salary so that he can help his family or others, is that avarice? Do you have insight to a his thoughts or what he does with his money?

[Jedidiah]

The wrongness of this being an "ultra liberal society" is the immediate stopper to that train of thought. Consider that an argument being made here by the liberal side is that income inequality has increased partly because the minimum wage has not even matched inflation over the past 40 years. Someone earning minimum wage in the late Sixties was earning ~$10/hour, about the same wage that many liberals are currently pushing the federal government to adopt. So there's no use arguing there that an "ultra liberal society" or government has perpetuated this discrepancy. Likewise, welfare benefits now are less than they were in the mid-1990s before the Conservative Congress led by Newt Gingrich pushed Clinton to help pass welfare reform. Reagan came before that, cutting taxes for the wealthier (and wealthiest) Americans while deregulating the financial sector, allowing the 0.1% (and especially the 0.01%) to accumulate wealth to a much greater degree than before. After Clinton came G.W. Bush, who tried to do the same things that Reagan did, with consequences that were so immediately disastrous his entire economic policy history is spoken in whispers by the Conservative bloc to this day.

No, we are by no means in an "ultra liberal society," especially if you compare the present-day USA to European countries or yester-day USA.

I disagree about the liberality of this nation's government, but I will put that aside.

Do we, as a nation, have things better today than 50 years ago? You can try to make excuses (minimum wage too low, etc.) but we are still not as well off financially as we were 50 years ago. And it is still recognized widely that the government does really not help us.

[Sam]

I disagree about the liberality of this nation's government, but I will put that aside.

Do we, as a nation, have things better today than 50 years ago? You can try to make excuses (minimum wage too low, etc.) but we are still not as well off financially as we were 50 years ago. And it is still recognized widely that the government does really not help us.

I'm sorry but when you say that "you can try to make excuses (minimum wage too low, etc)" when comparing 2014 with 1964, I have to think you're not being serious. The minimum wage in 1964 was $1.25. Adjust to 2014, that's $9.60 per hour. Current minimum wage is $7.25/hour. So right there, you're arguing that a direct comparison of the federal minimum wage should not be a factor in the discussion about whether the economy in 1964 was better for more people than the economy in 2014. If income has stagnated or declined for the majority of Americans in the past three or four decades, how can that not be a very relevant part of the discussion?

Calling those factors excuses is kinda ludicrous. It only makes sense if the person making the argument doesn't want to understand why the economy is worse for many people in 2014 than in 1964.