More evidence that the gig economy is actually making people poorer

[Zzzz1]

yes, please leave. Your lack of argument is boring people. I am denying the slightest hope for communism or socialism to ever work. And I have lived in a region where I was directly exposed to the ills of socialism. But you seem intolerant to listen to any arguments, in summary you add zero value and it would make sense for you to just keep the mouth shut or talk where you feel you add value. Just my 2 cents.

at anyrate, I'm about done arguing with communists, if they haven't figured it out by now there is no cure for stupidity and I can just hope they all die off and don't reproduce.

 

[java]

yes, please leave. Your lack of argument is boring people. I am denying the slightest hope for communism or socialism to ever work. And I have lived in a region where I was directly exposed to the ills of socialism. But you seem intolerant to listen to any arguments, in summary you add zero value and it would make sense for you to just keep the mouth shut or talk where you feel you add value. Just my 2 cents.

I was only replying to the guy who said I started an argument and never finished it. I'm intolerant because it is the same alchemic wish everytime of turning lead into gold with no understanding of gold. When you get to the part about how to own gold I'll listen again.

 

[Michael J. Fletcher]

Wrong. Lack of opportunities makes people poorer.

That's only partially true, in the 21 century most of the people who can afford laptop and internet connection already have an opportunity.

 

[CyJackX]

Socialism. Because that is what income equality basically is. It leads to massive unproductivity.

And your rational is erroneous, outdated econ 101 gone rogue: Income inequality in itself is nothing bad. And it is natural and desirable. Because we are all born with different skills, different passions, and we are all born with a free will. We can choose to work hard and attain something in life or we can choose to be complacent and reject continuous education, retraining, ...it is a free choice. Which leads me to argue that not everyone should be compensated equally for their labor because different efforts went into such labor. Hence paying and compensating people differently is desirable, else nobody would want to attain the harder to attain qualifications, needed, to perform a certain job. Why would you undergo med school and work your butt off for years without pay to get your med qualifications if you are promised the same low pay of a grave yard digger? You would never bother with med school. I think this whole argument completely disproved your points.

I continue to claim that it is the lack of opportunities that really strangulates an economy. The truth is that not everyone with equal qualifications will get the same opportunities. Put two applicants into one room, one Jew, one Black guy. I promise you that in virtually all cases the Jew will be taken for an investment banking job at Wall Street. For no apparent qualification related reason, but nepotism. Put a woman into the same room with a male sports athlete and let them compete for a trading position. Again, otherwise identical qualifications. Yet, it is very apparent that in most cases the guy is taken.

Lack of opportunities are not always character or race/religion related. Often times it is because the lack of opportunities creates a chain reaction. Some parents simply cannot afford the education of a private boarding school which unarguably offers a better education than a public school in a slum neighborhood. So, this lack of equal opportunity almost certainly places an applicant for a Wall Street job, for example, on the bottom of the list of applicants, with all the other candidates having attended pristine private education. Not that this would be a hindering point to a strongly driven person to succeed but it simply presents unequal opportunities.

@sle perfectly described it, privileged upbringing does not force someone to work like nutcase in order to attain certain opportunities, but someone on the bottom rung hardly ever is presented with such opportunities to start with and most often it either requires an incredible amount of luck or an iron willpower and effort to otherwise shine, or both.

Without nitpicking over the differences between a state where the workers own the means of production versus state interventionism and welfare systems, I want to say when I argue against income inequality, I am not arguing for equal pay.

My conception of income equality is equal/proportional upward mobility, however that can be conceptualized. That, assuming some equal standard of effort/labor, a lower class person can increase their lot by the same proportion as a high class person. However, we know that is not currently the case, as high class people get higher returns than lower class people who have to fight the drag of cost-of-living as well as being more vulnerable to setbacks.

In any case, whether we agree or not on the conflation of the ideas semantically, correcting lack of opportunities is a great goal. Lack of opportunities being synonymous with "privilege" or lack thereof. We want people to be able to succeed proportionally as much as anybody else if they work hard while normalizing away anything based in luck, like birthplace, parents, inherited wealth, and of course, the usual discriminated qualities.

P.S. Where did you live and what needed to be fixed? And is it a problem with implementation or theory, or both? In theory, all socialism requires is workers owning production. Something as simple as encouraging Employee Stock Ownership Programs would encourage productivity while also giving back equity from the owners to the workers, answering the socialist critique of wage-labor. Market forces would still exist on compensation. Instead of making it workers vs the capitalists, allow the workers to be capitalists as well and to take part in the profits beyond their wages.

 

[Zzzz1]

What you described is your strive for equal opportunities not being against income inequality. I guess we agree then.

Without nitpicking over the differences between a state where the workers own the means of production versus state interventionism and welfare systems, I want to say when I argue against income inequality, I am not arguing for equal pay.

My conception of income equality is equal/proportional upward mobility, however that can be conceptualized. That, assuming some equal standard of effort/labor, a lower class person can increase their lot by the same proportion as a high class person. However, we know that is not currently the case, as high class people get higher returns than lower class people who have to fight the drag of cost-of-living as well as being more vulnerable to setbacks.

In any case, whether we agree or not on the conflation of the ideas semantically, correcting lack of opportunities is a great goal. Lack of opportunities being synonymous with "privilege" or lack thereof. We want people to be able to succeed proportionally as much as anybody else if they work hard while normalizing away anything based in luck, like birthplace, parents, inherited wealth, and of course, the usual discriminated qualities.

P.S. Where did you live and what needed to be fixed? And is it a problem with implementation or theory, or both? In theory, all socialism requires is workers owning production. Something as simple as encouraging Employee Stock Ownership Programs would encourage productivity while also giving back equity from the owners to the workers, answering the socialist critique of wage-labor. Market forces would still exist on compensation. Instead of making it workers vs the capitalists, allow the workers to be capitalists as well and to take part in the profits beyond their wages.

 

[Zzzz1]

To do what? Freelance website developer? Wow. I am sure that pays for the mortgage, car loan, credit cards, education for the kids, health insurance.

I don't think so. As long as people are favored for jobs because of their social background and network rather than purely based on merits you will have a class society and the poor get poorer and rich get richer.

That's only partially true, in the 21 century most of the people who can afford laptop and internet connection already have an opportunity.

 

[Zzzz1]

We don't need you to start to listen again. We need you to keep the mouth shut.

When you say " no cure for stupidity and I can just hope they all die off and don't reproduce" then you pretty much disqualified from the slightest shimmer of hope of adding value here even in the future.

I was only replying to the guy who said I started an argument and never finished it. I'm intolerant because it is the same alchemic wish everytime of turning lead into gold with no understanding of gold. When you get to the part about how to own gold I'll listen again.

 

[CyJackX]

What you described is your strive for equal opportunities not being against income inequality. I guess we agree then.

Yes, although perhaps we disagree on how inclusive they are of each other. It is easy to see how different incomes by themselves beget different opportunities. Obviously we should not make incomes equal, so how ought we handicap to promote equal opportunity? One of the simplest is progressive taxation which we already implement, although it has gotten significantly flatter over time.

 

[Zzzz1]

Disagree with your suggestion. I am strictly against progressive taxation. In fact I would prefer one flat income tax for everyone. It is a myth that a 20 or 25% tax will disable the poor from living and meaningfully participating in life and pursuing opportunities. What hamstrings the poor is lack of access to opportunities. We should never subsidize the poor, it achieves no purpose. What we should work on is to provide them with equal opportunities, and I provided many suggestions in the work place that would achieve that. Furthermore, the educational system in the US has to be completely restructured if the will is there (I know the will is not there) to provide equal opportunities. Just as in Japan or Germany or many European countries, we need to stop to worship private education. All education shall be equal. That means, whether a poor or rich person enters the educational system will have zero bearing on their future prospects and opportunities. That is how it works in Japan, in Scandinavia, in Germany. The poorest of the poorest can enter university virtually free of charge. That is what provides equal opportunities.

Furthermore, we need to stop the endless loopholes the rich enjoy. A progressive tax is a disincentive for the hard working and successful to invest and innovate. What we need is the loss carry forward system, private equity bs, offshoring of asset holdings to escape proper taxation, and especially we need to properly tax any assets, preferably simply at the same tax rate than a flat income tax. Calculations and numerous studies have shown that this would wash plenty enough money into the government coffers to provide completely free education for everyone and still leaves the government with huge surpluses. Furthermore, the government has to stop to cling on to 2% of GDP spending for defense. It is ridiculous to spend such amounts given one made the pledge to not play world policeman. Future wars will not be fought with conventional weaponry but it will be wars around information and cyber attacks. All those steps will provide the government with more budget surpluses than ever before. It will also greatly simplify tax code which will add billions in savings.

I left my home country a long time ago because I was charged close to 50% in income tax plus various social security taxes and it did not provide any motivation or incentive to work harder than I already did. It gave me zero marginal advantage to work harder because I would have even paid more, percentage wise, in taxes. Hence I find a progressive taxation to be counter productive.

I know I am talking about a virtually impossible scenario, because too much vested interest will fight such ideas. The rich are tightly in control and will do anything to prevent their virtually tax free asset investments to be touched. But one should be allowed to dare to dream, right?

Yes, although perhaps we disagree on how inclusive they are of each other. It is easy to see how different incomes by themselves beget different opportunities. Obviously we should not make incomes equal, so how ought we handicap to promote equal opportunity? One of the simplest is progressive taxation which we already implement, although it has gotten significantly flatter over time.

 

[newwurldmn]

Disagree with your suggestion. I am strictly against progressive taxation. In fact I would prefer one flat income tax for everyone. It is a myth that a 20 or 25% tax will disable the poor from living and meaningfully participating in life and pursuing opportunities. What hamstrings the poor is lack of access to opportunities. We should never subsidize the poor, it achieves no purpose. What we should work on is to provide them with equal opportunities, and I provided many suggestions in the work place that would achieve that. Furthermore, the educational system in the US has to be completely restructured if the will is there (I know the will is not there) to provide equal opportunities. Just as in Japan or Germany or many European countries, we need to stop to worship private education. All education shall be equal. That means, whether a poor or rich person enters the educational system will have zero bearing on their future prospects and opportunities. That is how it works in Japan, in Scandinavia, in Germany. The poorest of the poorest can enter university virtually free of charge. That is what provides equal opportunities.

Furthermore, we need to stop the endless loopholes the rich enjoy. A progressive tax is a disincentive for the hard working and successful to invest and innovate. What we need is the loss carry forward system, private equity bs, offshoring of asset holdings to escape proper taxation, and especially we need to properly tax any assets, preferably simply at the same tax rate than a flat income tax. Calculations and numerous studies have shown that this would wash plenty enough money into the government coffers to provide completely free education for everyone and still leaves the government with huge surpluses. Furthermore, the government has to stop to cling on to 2% of GDP spending for defense. It is ridiculous to spend such amounts given one made the pledge to not play world policeman. Future wars will not be fought with conventional weaponry but it will be wars around information and cyber attacks. All those steps will provide the government with more budget surpluses than ever before. It will also greatly simplify tax code which will add billions in savings.

I left my home country a long time ago because I was charged close to 50% in income tax plus various social security taxes and it did not provide any motivation or incentive to work harder than I already did. It gave me zero marginal advantage to work harder because I would have even paid more, percentage wise, in taxes. Hence I find a progressive taxation to be counter productive.

I know I am talking about a virtually impossible scenario, because too much vested interest will fight such ideas. The rich are tightly in control and will do anything to prevent their virtually tax free asset investments to be touched. But one should be allowed to dare to dream, right?

Will you eventually go back to your home country to live - consuming services others have paid for?

How do you feel that the "city-state" you live in ranks as one of the worst in inequality? Are opportunities more equal for the son of a street sweeper in Germany or in Hong Kong? You don't think progressive taxes have anything to do with it?