[PEN-L:125] Re: Re: Re: The Left and Inequality

["Gar W. Lipow" <lipowg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually I think that even in terms of income that this is plain
wrong. I recently saw the figure cited on the LBO list that if the
U.S.GDP were distributed equally per hour worked (after substacting
capital investment) then pre-tax earnings would be $22 an hour.

This means a single earner family would earn $44,000 a year for a
forty hour work week. A dual earner family would earn $88,000 a year.
This means that within the U.S. 80%  plus of the work force would be a
hell of a lot better off after such income restribution than before
(The upper limit of the 80th percentile in 199t was $68,000 -- $20,000
a year less than that.)  Of course such redistribution would only be
part of socialism . As Louis P. pointed out, socialism involves a lot
more than just income redistribution. But the point is that the
advantages of income redistribution are not trivial -- and should not
be dropped either programatically or as a long term goal. Complete (or
damn near complete) equality of income distribution would make for a
beter society in the long run.   And decreases in inequality whether
through highers minimum wages, more social spending , and (as Doug
puts it) "soaking the fat boys" are worthwhile goals in the shorter
run.

Eugene P. Coyle wrote:
> argument that is pointed out by Nove -- "that the Left is misguided when it
> puts too >>much emphasis on the wealth of the super-rich, on the grounds
> that
> >>redistributing the wealth or income of the super-rich will not go very far."
>