Wealth Inequality in America

[Du5t1n 57]

Edited 6 Mar 2013 by Du5t1n (see edit history)

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

About 43 seconds into the video, he uses the word "unfairly". Just a thing to consider. He is talking about skewed ideas, yet this entire video gives a skewed perspective. What someone else earns doesn't affect what I earn. It will only affect how I feel about what I earn. A video like this is only to manipulate people's emotions into being unhappy with the amount of money that they have. Looking at distribution of wealth in a country is no more valuable than comparing distribution of wealth in a family unit or a classroom or some other arbitrary group. This video is just playing off of people's greed, but the video seems to be against greed?

 

Trying to be informative, but in truth it's really manipulative. The subtle changes in his tone at like 2:30 minutes in annoyed me a bit.  It can't be totally objective, but yeah. This guy is just calling stuff out for his cause, which is what I feel like I am doing?

Edited 6 Mar 2013 by ∟ ∟ (see edit history)

[Chase 390]

To put your comparison in perspective, you said that "looking at distribution of wealth in a country is no more valuable than comparing distribution of wealth in a family unit or a classroom or some other arbitrary group."

 

In a family, a father and mother are above their children in "class" so to speak. The two are incomparable. The 1% are not my father; they are my equals. A very important distinction to make. It would be more similar to say that my father gave them a million dollars and gave me a penny. That's the point he's trying to make here. The gross distribution of wealth is so skewed toward the wealthy that the poor, even the middle class, are barely scraping by. And people are doing nothing to help by saying "I worked for my money. I earned it. You won't see a cent." You want to talk about greed? Corruption? How malevolent and blind do you have to be to ignore the suffering of others? When helping them would not take the food from your table, the roof from your head, or the clothes off your back. Sure, you might have to give up your 10th Yacht...but is that so bad? Would giving up your summer-home be such an inconvenience? Do your possessions mean more to you than your honor, integrity, or virtue of charity? 

 

This is not the equivalent of a hand-out. I want to work. I want to contribute. But how can I? Racking up over 20,000 dollars in debt to an institution for a piece of paper? A degree? And for what? There are many my age with degrees waiting tables. Because they did not get the same opportunities. As the "1%" I'm sure they worked very, very hard for their money. That's fine. I don't deny anyone their contribution. But they DID NOT do it alone. And I consider it a sin to not help those who did not receive the same opportunities as you. 

 

Once again, no hand-outs. I just want to be able to pay my bills, so that I can have the same opportunities. There is a distinct difference.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

Saying "Yeah, but they're more greedy" doesn't solve anything. This video is manipulative and plays on the idea that people think that they're entitled to money. Owners of money can do with their money as they please. People who agree to take out loans and agree to pay money should pay money.

 

I am okay with the amount of money that I earn. If I meet a multimillionaire today, is that going to affect my life? Does it make my income less impressive? Not to me. But when you compare it side-by-side with other people's income, it looks pretty pathetic. And what's the problem with that? Is it not "fair"? It's just a trap to feel bad about yourself. You don't have to compare your money to other people's money. The poverty line is relative. It's a word that just scares people. This video isn't news. It's an advertisement.

 

Since you are talking about sinning for some reason, here is a bible excerpt:

Matthew 20: 1-16

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. ² After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius^[a] a day, he sent them into his vineyard. ³ And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, ⁴ and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ ⁵ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. ⁶ And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ ⁷ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ ⁸ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ ⁹ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. ¹⁰ Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. ¹¹ And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, ¹² saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ ¹³ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? ¹⁴ Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. ¹⁵ Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’^{[b] 16} So the last will be first, and the first last.”

Edited 6 Mar 2013 by ∟ ∟ (see edit history)

[Chase 390]

What does your Bible verse have to do with this scenario, considering God has abundant grace to give for all? 

 

His grace is sufficient. The distribution of wealth is not. Is that the answer? To have a wealthy man say "God will take care of you" to a poor man, pat him on the back, and send him on his way? I don't think that's what the Bible teaches at all.

 

Don't quote a parable in response to something like this, because the parable is meant to conceal a hidden message and it doesn't necessarily apply. All money and wealth belongs to God. He can distribute as he pleases. Even the wealth of the 1% is not theirs, but was given to them by God. 

 

To continue with the meaning behind this parable, you have to understand the context. Peter had asked Jesus what he would receive for dropping everything and following him. Jesus was trying to convey that it's not about the time or seniority. God pays everyone according to his grace. Peter isn't necessarily special because he was a leader, or because he joined early. The last person to join God is just as much entitled to grace, forgiveness, love, etc. as the first person who joined.

 

The parable makes no economic sense. You pay people based on their time worked. But God's grace doesn't work this way. It's a gift, not a distribution of wealth. 

 

"Sometimes a man dies full of years and full of honor, with his day's work ended and his task completed. Sometimes a young person dies almost before the door of life and achievement have opened at all. From God they will both receive the same welcome, for both Jesus Christ is waiting, and for neither, in the divine sense, has life ended too soon or too late." -William Barclay

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

The simpler point, without all of that, is that they were pissed off because they looked around at others' pay and suddenly believed that they were owed more. It's entitlement. It's not even about anything in the Bible or religious at all. It's an established example of this kind of entitlement.

 

 

 

I work for tips. My pay is $4.25 per hour. I cannot be mad if  another employee who works with me consistently gets big tips and I get very little tips. I can be upset if I am not paid my hourly $4.25. The amount that he makes is actually none of my business.

 

Preying on people and telling them that they deserve more is a tried-and-true way of manipulating people. Count how many commercials you see on TV that tell you that you "deserve" something. "Deserve" is one of the most annoying and most exploited words, in my opinion.

Edited 6 Mar 2013 by ∟ ∟ (see edit history)

[Chase 390]

No, it's entirely different.

 

God's grace belongs to God. In this case, the money is the equivalent of that grace. God can choose to give whatever amount to whoever he wants. It would not be wrong of him, because it belongs to him.

 

The wealth of the 1% does not belong to them. It also belongs to God. Even disregarding that, the 1% did not achieve their wealth on their own. God already had everything on his own. 

 

Once again, I'm not trying to take all their money. Goodness knows I don't need all of their money. I want them to give money back to the people that need it. I'm not asking for food off their table. I'm asking for the equivalent of what's in their garbage can, or the change in their pocket. That does not make me greedy. I do not want or need to be wealthy. I want to be able to pay my bills and do work that contributes to society. That does not make me greedy. 

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

You want them to give money. That's fine. All you can really do is cross your fingers and hope that they do.

 

No one is talking about God. God. You missing my point would be like Peter saying, "Jesus, what vineyard? Where?" It's a metaphor that happens to be from the Bible. Jesus used it as a metaphor. I am using it as a literal example.

Edited 6 Mar 2013 by ∟ ∟ (see edit history)

[Chase 390]

It doesn't apply as a literal example, because it makes no economic sense. 

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

My Wii U friend request never went through to you

[Chase 390]

I'll check it later

[PrimaGaga 1025]

Guys you forgot that God is dead. He died of AIDS from too much gay sex.

 

If you are gonna talk about money then talk about money.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

[PrimaGaga 1025]

Dont make me sit on your cakes.