Justin Fox has an outstanding piece on the effect of income inequality on economic growth. The gist: too much income inequality hurts economic growth, but businesses have pushed for — and will continue to push for — policies that increase income inequality. Read the whole thing.
There is an equivalent of a Laffer curve for inequality, but the variable of interest is economic growth rather than tax revenue. We know that a society with perfect equality does not grow at the fastest possible rate. When everyone gets an equal share of income, people lose the incentive to try and get ahead of others. We also know that a society where one person has almost everything while everyone else struggles to survive — the most unequal distribution of income imaginable — will not grow at the fastest possible rate either. Thus, the growth-maximizing level of inequality must lie somewhere between these two extremes.(This is a quote from Mark Thomas)
Assuming we’re near or have passed that growth-maximizing level of inequality, in the U.S. at least, the business community as a whole would be better off if the trend toward inequality slowed or reversed. But business people are accustomed to pushing for policies that tend to increase inequality, and are loathe to reverse their stances on tax rates, free trade, and free financial markets. As a result, businesspeople who worry about inequality have over the years tended to focus on improving educational opportunities. But you can’t say those efforts have made a noticeable dent in the inequality trend.
Business folks would seem to be stuck. They need a more equal distribution of wealth and income to continue thriving. But it doesn’t seem to be in any businessperson’s immediate interest — and in many cases contradicts deeply held beliefs — to make the sort of decisions or support the sorts of government policies that might halt the trend toward more inequality.
I would not be surprised to see income inequality get worse and worse in the United States for the foreseeable future. Indeed, “business people are accustomed to pushing for policies that tend to increase inequality”, and corporations run our government. On the other hand, income inequality tends to rise more rapidly on Republican presidents than Democratic ones, so maybe things will stabilize somewhat.
Dave
I guess we’re on our way to being Brazil. The downside is that most of us will live in abject poverty and deal with insane levels of crime. The upside is our domestic soccer league will improve immeasurably.
General Stuck
These idiots think magic tooth fairies buy their products, and not people with decent jobs with decent money. Out of short term greed, they are willing to cook the goose AND boil the golden egg.
RalfW
Henry Ford was right that his workers should be able to afford the product they made on the salary they earned.
What a rank soshulist he turned out to me.
Napoleon
I don’t think the trajectory of the country is going to change until some event sends people into the streets and the left has a leader that can confront the right/business class, something Obama is completely inept at.
Poopyman
I look forward to the time when the conventional wisdom in this country is that an educated populace drives economic development. I just doubt that it’ll be in my lifetime.
The desire for sweet, sweet cash is hard to overcome.
Downpuppy
But what happens when the growth era ends?
The little bit of recovery since 2008 is already pushing commodity prices back to their limits. Fighting over the share of an economy limited by energy & other resources makes more sense. In fact, it becomes so obivous that the non-rich might finally take it up, too.
Who gets to be Madame Defarge?
RalfW
More broadly, Wall Street and much of big business has never really accepted that the recession was a demand-destruction recession. They think it was a liquidity crisis prompted by or in concert with the real estate bubble popping.
But those were the outward, visible consequences of the demand destruction caused by wage stagnation for all beloe the top 10%. That was masked by ever-spiraling consumer debt + realestate refinancing.
But once a narrative gets fixed in the minds of the giant corporatist-bankster Borg, that is it. So it was all about liquidity and taxes (and that bogeyman, “regulatory uncertainty”) and not at all about how the “bottom” 90% of America has seen real purchasing power declines, thus the crappy retail economy.
Duh.
cleek
wait, so are people really saying that an economic model founded on the concept of individual greed is fundamentally unable to produce results which benefit all people because there is no incentive for anyone to allow their own financial situation to decline even temporarily for the sake of the greater good ?
fucking commies.
leinie
Stuck has it. This is the thing that I don’t understand. Who do they think is going to buy anything if the masses have no money? He’ll, they were making money gambling on mortgage bonds, and there weren’t enough of the damn things so they had to resort to fraud and absurd loans to keep providing fodder for their revenue stream. And that wasn’t even actually producing something. Is China’s emerging market really gonna be enough?
Fargus
@Dave:
Don’t slander Brazil like that. They’ve got a very effective program for dealing with poverty: giving money to the poor.
piratedan
well Doug if this keeps up, we can read them the Riot Act as they keep catering to the Big Boys. If they keep parlaying this High Fidelity to the richest of the rich, we’re gonna eventually see the stratification of America and that’ll make the whole structure susceptable to being burnt down by the Motel Matches of the left. They do say that Accidents Will Happen and from there perhaps a few of our Jack of all Parades can help with the Shipbuilding of a New Amsterdam with the help of Oliver’s Army, y’know.
Dave
@Fargus: No argument here. Bolsa Familia is a great plan. But Brazil still has a problem with income distribution. And the problem is that the US is barreling down towards them at a rapid rate.
Gian
nearly 15 years ago PBS had a profile of a family in San Diego, parents and two returned adult kids, all grad degrees. At least three working in a grocery store.
Education and job training doesn’t actually create jobs, it just makes people qualified to work them.
Fargus
@Dave:
Yup, absolutely. The difference is that Brazil seems to actually have some interest in arresting that problem, whereas we’ve got one party actively looking to dismantle impediments to that gap blowing open and another party looking, as a compromise, to only take away some of those impediments.
jinxtigr
@piratedan:
o_O
clowntime is over… :D
PurpleGirl
I thought the piece would be longer and explore the adverse effects of income inequality more. Or was the article multi page and I didn’t see the other pages?
Chris
@RalfW:
Yeah, and Adam Smith was right when he argued for progressive taxation and government regulation, too. In fact, most of the fathers of modern capitalism seem to be well to the left of the teabaggers.
@cleek:
There used to be a concept known as “enlightened self-interest,” which meant sometimes taking the long view when it came to things like this. The Henry Ford concept (pay your workers more so enough of them will buy your products) is one example.
No one thinks in those terms anymore; it’s get in, make as much money as possible as fast as possible, get out as soon as possible and, after you, the flood, but hey, who cares? You’re rich!
In most other areas of life, this would be considered a heist, but those guys are the productive class (emphasis on the singular). Questioning them makes them uncertain, and you don’t want that.
FlipYrWhig
@Napoleon:
How long has the left been longing for the people to rise up and spontaneously generate leaders who think like lefties? It would be great. I have no hope of seeing such a thing. I’m pushing 40 at this point and I don’t think I’ll live to see it.
piratedan
@jinxtigr: I guess so, I guess its time to resume living in the Black and White world…. ;-)
Chris
@Napoleon:
Personally, I’d really like to know what it’ll take for people to start actually directing their outrage at the right/business class rather than the poor, the minorities, and all the rest of these folks. For the foreseeable future it’s going to remain the fault of our fellow victims as far as the “populists” are concerned.
And I don’t blame Flip for doubting he’ll live to see real populism.
The Republic of Stupidity
Hmmm…
I wonder who this ‘Douglas J. Balloon’ character is… ya know, the one who posted a comment over at HBR…
I hafta say… a name like that just SCREAMS for a ‘Jr’, or even ‘the Third’ after it…
Douglas J. Balloon, III, Esq.
Even…
El Cid
The leadership of most of these bigger businesses don’t give a shit what’s going to happen in 10 or 12 years, but about how much money they can get as soon as possible. One, two, three years.
Davis X. Machina
@Chris: U3 at 20% and U6 at 50% — just a guess…
rageahol
this premise is horseshit. people have always sought positional goods, and always will.
Bob In Pacifica
@RalfW: But Henry Ford was wrong about Hitler, whose war economics used lots of Jews and Slavs as slave labor and who never bought cars.
This is the problem with how capitalism works. When the board game Monopoly ends the winner goes to bed feeling good about winning. In the real world if you have pounded your employees to the point where they can’t buy your cars, and other capitalists have pounded their employees so that they can’t buy their own refrigerators, then you reach a critical point.
Of course, the game is different now. With manufacturing jobs shipped overseas GM can make cars cheaper and sell them cheaper. In China. All of that doesn’t help American workers, but the corporation thrives, at least as long as the entrepreneurial class there expands.
Eventually, though, too much of the potential market will be driven into poverty and corporations will have to make adjustments.
Enjoy the ride down.
NickM
@FlipYrWhig:
I have to say I agree. A financial crisis comes along demonstrating that the middle class is dangerously depleted, and who are Democrats and Republicans both blaming for the crisis? Bankers? No – unions of course.
Michael
@Chris:
I blame suburban/exurban white fundevangelical Christians and their “spiritual” leaders, each and every one of whom need to be breaking rocks in a re-education camp.
I just had an ugly ass piece of news – a well-connected thief of a Christian developer who swindled banks, subcontractors and customers out of millions while siphoning 60K per month in personal living expenses out of his company just settled 3.5 million dollars of claims with one bak for the whopping sum of 300K, payable at the rate of $400.00 per month.
Yes, you read that right. Nobody could get any traction out of the local prosecutors’ offices. We couldn’t generate interest out of the US Attorney’s office, nor could we get the attention of the US attorney or the FBI on the BK fraud.
Of course, it helps that this fine Witness for Jesus*spit* is a big contributor to and member of a congregation fondly called “Six Flags over Jesus”, and was one of the organizing congregations of “Justice Sunday” (aka “Just Us Sunday”, the event that was the post Terri Schiavo waterloo of spooky).
I hate him, I hate his deity. In terms of ordinary, hard working local vendors, he stole about 3 million – his total tally, including banks, was between 10 and 20 mil. I’m figuring that the taxpayers covered their losses on him, and he gets to go into business again.
With luck, next time around, some vendor will just shoot him and be done with it.
DougJ DougJson
@piratedan:
That’s just a rumor that was spread around town.
El Cid
@Davis X. Machina: I don’t know. It’s not guaranteed no matter how bad it gets. It always could be white reaction against the coloreds and the immigrants, the Christians against the godless. No matter how illogical.
El Cid
@NickM: When there used to be more leftish leaders, they weren’t so much spontaneous as they were coming out of and/or heavily backed by the sorts of mass organizations like labor unions etc. which mattered. What have we got now?
Bob In Pacifica
@FlipYrWhig: Without understanding the terrain you never win the battle, and most people, left or right, have no clue as to the political terrain of this country.
First off, it’s not even left or right. It’s top or bottom. The teagaggers are merely willing dupes who swallow the mythologies of their betters. As one poor white man once told me during my time in the army, “Ah may be poor and stupid but at least Ah’m white.” (He actually phrased it a little differently, but in deference to ABL I’ll substitute this.) The starting point is the hierarchy, and knowing that there’s someone below you that you can step on is a core belief.
But the left has their own blinders. Obama, and Clinton before him, and Carter before him, and Johnson before them all were beholden to interests that controlled their political success. Actually, you could say the same about JFK. But it’s not necessary to shoot Presidents anymore. The process is so controlled that no one in the plutocracy has to worry that some radical will accidentally end up in the White House. Like I’ve said before, American politics is like professional wrestling. The result is preordained.
Ash Can
@Michael: His deity is money. Everybody loves money. Link, BTW? This story sounds interesting, in a car-wrecky sort of way.
shortstop
I think they don’t know what they’re doin’.
If they don’t know by now, nobody’s gonna tell them.
kindness
OK so I’m jaded. When FDR created Social Security I don’t think he was completely altruistic. I think there was some enlightened self interest there. Same thing with the big laws of the 60’s, including the Civil Rights laws in addition to the welfare & medicare increases.
Some of why these laws passed was because those in power didn’t want another French Revolution happening here in the US of A. How much was covering your ass(ets) and how much of it was being a generous soul? I’ll let you decide for yourself. Seriously though, it wouldn’t take too much more for the rabble out there to start offing the top 2%. Especially with all the guns in so many peoples closets.
shortstop
@kindness: First the people with the most guns would have to stop blaming the people at the bottom instead of the people responsible. And they’re a long, long way from getting it.
liberal
I don’t think this has cause and effect right.
Too much rent collection causes both income inequality and hurts economic growth.
PeakVT
But it doesn’t seem to be in any businessperson’s immediate interest — and in many cases contradicts deeply held beliefs — to make the sort of decisions or support the sorts of government policies that might halt the trend toward more inequality.
Inequality and the power that comes with it are exactly what people in charge want (at least those who aren’t obsessed with their work). I wish more people would recognize this problem.
Chris
@kindness:
Yes, but the guns have to be pointed at the top 2% first. If the top 2% can get the “rabble” to point them at the bottom 2% instead, they’re good.
gene108
I think if employment improves, that will have a short term impact on closing the income gap. The real problem is how to create jobs to employee the marginally skilled, who used to make middle-class money, but who no longer have jobs, which pay what their former jobs did.
I don’t think everyone can become a white collar worker, but there is also an attitude in business that people who can’t transition to the “new economy” should just be left behind or that business cannot do anything to address this issue.
I think part of the attitude comes from the need for business to constantly meet or exceed investor expectations and that the performance of CEO’s is based mainly on the market value of the firm. There’s no incentive for businesses to put money into developing human capital or invest in other areas, where those people could get jobs.
I don’t know what government can do to address this problem. I think investment in new technology is a start, but the reality is there are some jobs, which just aren’t coming back due to automation and jobs going overseas.
I really don’t know how to address that employment problem, because it has been dogging the U.S. since the 1970’s, when stagflation started eroding people’s standard of living and has continued unabated, except for a brief pause in the late 1990’s.
elvis nixon (formerly Judas Escargot)
@Chris:
No one thinks in those terms anymore; it’s get in, make as much money as possible as fast as possible, get out as soon as possible and, after you, the flood, but hey, who cares? You’re rich!
This attitude’s been around for at least 30 years, and will never go away.
It might be more useful to ask/answer the question: what mechanisms allowed these people to take charge like they have?
What’s changed since Eisenhower to drive this shift? Education? The culture? Journalism? Globalism?
I don’t pretend to have an answer. Would be nice to know, though.
PIGL
@Dave: it’s more like the two nations are moving in opposite directions, and will not meet in the middle.
I’d sooner invest my meager savings in Brazil than in Amercian securites. The American equities market is fundamentally corrupt. Brazil’s is backed by a growing economy with many positives.
les
I’d be shocked to see anything else.
ericblair
@leinie:
This is a real key point. Once you’re far enough down the banana republic path, there’s no point to investing in most productive industries since they don’t exist anymore or turn enough of a buck once there’s a big enough pile of money chasing the good ones. Instead, the elite and their ever-growing pile of idle cash have to look for more and more abstract financial instruments that have less to do with making stuff and much more to do with the financial equivalent of sports betting.
So a lot of the financial crisis CDS/CDO bullshit was pushed by the big banks trying to create synthetic financial instruments just because the big hedge funds and other banks were running out of shit to buy. (Read The Big Short by Michael Lewis.) If they don’t have a bubble, they’ll have to invent one to skim a percent off of it, and it will blow up too because it will be bullshit as well, and this instability will continue until the income disparity gets better somehow.
Xecky Gilchrist
@rageahol: Thanks, this is the point I was about to make. The statement is either a very poorly worded expression of “if everyone is forced to have the same income” or else it’s just ass-talking.
gene108
@Napoleon: If liberals quit bitching about how Obama and Democrats have failed them again today, and focused on liberal victories, they would get more mileage out of trying to shift the political discussion in this country to the Left.
Democrats did push for liberal policies, while they had control of Congress, including an expansion of sCHIP, the minimum wage, and after President Obama came into office, passing near universal health care coverage, a fair pay law for men and women to be paid the same for doing the same work, and repealing DADT.
Yes, President Obama isn’t a liberal; he’s a centrist, but President Reagan wasn’t nearly as conservative as the standard bearers in the Reagan Revolution – Grover Norquist, Jerry Falwell, etc. – were. Those guys realized Reagan did some things they wanted, even if it didn’t work, but at least he got the ideas out there and they kept pushing their agenda, rather than throwing Reagan under the bus for things like the 1986 Budget Bill.
I just wish the Left would take this page from the Right’s playbook and keep pushing, so the political discussion in this country can shift to the Left.
slag
Didn’t Timothy Noah, in his recent Slate series on this subject, just elucidate many of the ways in which this particular meme is fairly nonsensical?
rageahol
@Xecky Gilchrist:
but even if everyone is forced to have the same income, there will still be positional goods, like fame, trophy spouses etc etc. there will never be a lack of things that people can use, either materially or otherwise, to institute a social hierarchy. I happen to think that we would be better off if the social hierarchy wasnt so tied to material wealth, but if that were the case, I guess economists wouldnt have a whole lot to do.
piratedan
@DougJ DougJson: ahhhh DougJ, that’s why you’re so Loveable!
gene108
@FlipYrWhig:
You don’t get liberal leaders to spring up out of the mud. You need to push the voters to demand more liberal policies. Once voters start going to town hall meetings and scream hysterically that “we want single-payer, god dammit!”, then you will see politicians start to do something.
Politicians usually respond to what will win them elections. Right now liberal policies aren’t big vote getters, because liberals get drowned out by the right-wing media machine.
I don’t think tearing into politicians will endear voters to liberal ideas, though it may feel good as a way to release stress.
kindness
@Chris: Yea, I agree with you and Shortstop that most those with guns here in the US are more inclined to be Tea Party KoolAide drinkers. But just imagine if Congressman Ryan’s ‘roadmap’ became law, and taxes went up on the bottom 90% and dropped substantially for the top 2%….well, those idiots in the Tea Party are a fickle (and not all that educationally trained) bunch. The possibility of the Plutocrats getting assasinated/lynched would drive some to join in on the ‘fun’.
Let’s face it, this country is stock full of folks who would revel in it, and it isn’t primarily the left that would do it. The populists on the right (the ones that are middle class/lower middle class) are the real dangers. There are some on the left that would join in with a zeal, but I feel they are a much smaller subset of the whole.
Liquor, guns and a little foaming at the mouth is all it would take.
Michael
@Ash Can:
Sadly, this story has gotten no news coverage, although it should – there’s a shitpile of embarrassment to go around on it.
I’ve got one electrical contractor and one HVAC contractor that I’ve managed to top out at getting 30 cents on the dollar for – other creditors didn’t fare as well. Even crediting the amount I’ve recovered, my folks are still out about 80K apiece on this developer’s Christian lifestyle.
gnomedad
@liberal:
I had some trouble looking this up. I think you mean rent seeking.
gene108
@Bob In Pacifica:
Very few Chinese factory workers can buy what they produce for export. That might be changing as wages are going up in China.
The reality is there have been huge disparities between Third World and First World countries, in terms of wealth. That gap is closing, which is a good thing, but there will be economic adjustments the U.S. will have to deal with as this process goes on and as money and investments aren’t as concentrated in First World countries, as they were a generation ago.
Ash Can
@Michael: Yeesh. This does sound like something worth alerting your local media over. I know that it’s ironic that I should say this on a morning when newsie-trashing abounds on this site, but I should think the sheer sensationalism of this story should get it a sympathetic ear. Maybe if contacting the press compromises your own position too much, there’s someone else in your area who could do it.
Blogreeder
Economics is an area that progressives shouldn’t write about. Like logic, it’s a concept they really can’t grasp. Sure, it’s fun to read. But it’s sad too.
For example, someone who writes: “When everyone gets an equal share of income, people lose the incentive to try and get ahead of others.” You really have to wonder. So what is it about having an equal share that brings about this lack of incentive? It’s not explained. We’re not all hippies on a commune.
Maybe I can rewrite that to make economic sense: “When everyone’s income is confiscated over some arbitrary amount to satisfy someone else’s idea of income equity, people lose their incentive to earn above this amount.” See? Much better and one can relate. I didn’t even have to use that “…to try to get ahead of others.” crap.
LongHairedWeirdo
Well, one of the best way to reduce income inequality is to have a higher marginal rate at the upper levels. If you’re at the point where you’re making boatloads of money, but the next dollar you make gets taxed at 90%, you’ll spend that on worthless, deductible expenses, like salaries. Or, if not on salaries, on other allowable business expenses (why not? it’s only ten cents on the dollar to you!), which promotes economic growth.
When the marginal rate is 35% (or 15% for hedge funds), every dollar you spend is that much more precious.
I’m not saying 90% is the right rate (and I’m certainly not saying that, if it was, it should be at a certain dollar figure), but it’s clear that the idea that low marginal rates will “trickle down” has been definitively disproven. What trickles down looks suspiciously yellowish. (Or in extreme cases, brown.)
LongHairedWeirdo
You won’t have perfect equality without it being controlled, somehow. And if you’re going to get paid the same, no matter how hard you strive, you’ll strive exactly as hard as you need to keep bringing in a paycheck. Won’t some people strive harder, just because they enjoy whatever work they’re doing? Sure. But some will slack off more than others.
It’s basic economics – if there’s a greater reward for working harder, a lot of folks will work harder. If there isn’t, most won’t.
You shouldn’t mock people when you haven’t done any basic thinking about the issue.
Blogreeder
@LongHairedWeirdo:
Sorry to mock you, I didn’t know there were anymore hippies around.
I agree with you, but the quote I commented on wasn’t quite written that way. It seemed to imply if everyone has an equal share of the pie that somehow that would make everyone content.
aimai
I think we make a mistake talking about business interests as if they are all the same. Small, local businesses rise and fall with their customer base. If the customer has no money, those local businesses can’t make any money. Those are bookstores, restaurants, movie theaters, car rental places, hairdressers–things like that. But big business? They’ve proved they can build what they want overseas, and sell it there too. And the financial business? They’ve gotten out of the lending and funding biz and gotten into the casino biz. They don’t need the little guy except for fees and charges on credit cards. It will take quite a while and extremely stringent pro-consumer legislation before the financial titans lose out enough to even notice massive unemployment and social dislocation.
So I don’t think there’s any incentive for the real money boys, the ones who buy and sell our representatives, to turn away from low tax/screw society policies and politicians in the near or far term. The real businessmen–the ones who live and die with their communities? No one is listening to them.
aimai
aimai
I’m in moderation for mentioning credit cards, fees and charges. Oh for gosh sakes.
aimai
Bob Loblaw
@leinie:
It’s all about creating an environment of easy credit, coupled with influencing the state to write laws in lenders’ favor regarding the accounting and discharging of non-performing loans once the consumer is tapped out. Then it’s just a matter of securitizing everything that isn’t nailed down to create a suitable revenue stream in the meanwhile to keep the engine churning forward.
DearOldDad
@DougJ DougJson:
Yeah well, ‘times are tough for English babies’…
Cerberus
@gene108:
Uh yeah, that’s what’s happening. I mean, that’s part of why there is such criticism from the left about aspects of passed legislation that doesn’t look to go far enough. And you can see it in the contemporary statements in the 80s about Reagan. Reagan was deified after office.
A man problem we seem to run into is that people who agree on the end goal can’t agree on procedure. Do we shift the Overton window, take a moderate gain and run with it to sell a stronger shift or do we accept whatever moderate gains we can and never criticize or suggest more could happen (and I do mean in the near future) for fear of feeding toxic narratives.
I’m not sure myself, but it certainly is the central issue of the circular firing squad phenomenon.
I don’t know if shutting up and pretending that the health care legislation is at all finalized with regards to what this country needs is a good idea, on the other, I can see where making democrats the only players in the game (because it is believed they are the only people who’s opinion can be swayed) can end up letting the real culprits off the hook.
I think at the very least there should be recognition of gains (if only even to steel oneself for the next fight) and there should always be push for better laws (because even Obama admits that these are merely stepping stones towards a better system, not the better system in its entirety).
But I could be entirely wrong on that perspective.
alwhite
Laffer curve – it purports to show that there is an ideal level of taxation, that increasing or decreasing the rate will decrease the revenue. Why has nobody mentioned that we have cut or raised taxes several time since this brain damaged idea was proposed. Each time the rates have been cut revenue has gone down, every time rates were raise revenue went up. Would that not be proof that we are on the left had side of the curve & tax rates should be higher?
Or does that make too much sense?
Blogreeder
@alwhite:
Just because you increase rates, doesn’t mean you increase revenue. Lower tax rates in a robust economy can produce more revenue than high tax rates in a poor economy. Also a high rate will drive money into tax shelters lowering revenue. That’s why they have those high priced tax accountants.
LongHairedWeirdo
There’s this meme going around that, if a writer doesn’t consciously eliminate all possible mis-readings of a text, it’s the writer’s fault for not spoon-feeding the reader and eliminating possibilities of misunderstanding.
And that’s fine – for children’s books. But adults have adult responsibilities. That includes playing their part in communicating.
alwhite
@Blogreeder:
That may be true but it does not disprove my premise – every time in the last 30 years that tax rates have been reduced revenue has gone down & when raised revenue has gone up. The laffing assholes are still arguing that revenue will go up when rates go down & nobody is challenging that bullshit which would be easy to do with a couple of charts covering the last 30 years.
blogreeder
@LongHairedWeirdo:
Now if the author wanted it to read a different way I think he might not have started it with When everyone gets an equal share of income… What an odd way to express income.
When is “income” a share? On a pirate ship maybe. In the usual sense income is earned, isn’t it? With a job. I don’t think anyone thinks that when they earn their paycheck they are sharing something with their coworkers. A communist may think that, the proletarian rising up against the bourgeoisie and all. (Sorry to offend any communists here)
Jrod the Cookie Thief
@blogreeder: Yes, I suppose that when you’re obsessed with the commies coming to siphon away your precious bodily fluids, everything you see looks like communist propaganda.
Do you protest kindergarten classes for promoting commie sharing and friendship? Are you always railing against the Bolshevik plot that is the insurance pool? Do you check under your bed every night for the boogie-Mao?
Yes, people who work for the same company share their incomes. That’s the word you use when people get their resources from the same source. That’s basic English vocabulary, not another tentacle of the international red plot.
LongHairedWeirdo
I think if you wanted to be read as making a valid criticism, you should have done it in a straightforward manner. Trying to appear to have superior understanding of econ when you have not established this just made you look like a blowhard.