I don’t know. I guess I have a different opinion on this here. I see inequality as a state of mind. I see nothing wrong with someone being richer than someone else. I don’t see an inequality there. There might be a huge diversity between incomes and/or level of savings/investments. But I have never been jealous of anyone else who has a different lot in life than I have. And I truly believe that those who feel that there is an inequality here is jealous. Not trying to be insulting, just trying to explain my opinion here. But if you remove the emotion out of this so called inequality, then who cares?

Here is the definition of inequality:

Dictionary.com:
noun
difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality.
"social inequality"

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of inequality
1 : the quality of being unequal or uneven: such as
a : social disparity
b : disparity of distribution or opportunity
c : lack of evenness
d : the condition of being variable : CHANGEABLENESS

While my time in Hawaii was limited to only 11 years, most everyone I met was happy with their position in life. They were happy with what they owned and how things have turned out for them in their lives. Certainly not jealous of the rich or ultra rich. And certainly not cognizant of the inequality in wealth between themselves and others. Most people I know there are not in good financial shape. And some live in pretty bad conditions. The only ones I know that were concerned with with this were SJW or those who were on government support.

Let’s face it, the difference between those that have a lot and those that have very little is just a number. How one feels about that disparity are the only ones concerned with social/wealth inequality.

 

“That dam is not leaking because of structural integrity issues, it is crying tears off freedom!”

This is true but the next question is whether we should try to bring the things closer together.

Question? Not for folks who aren’t willing to work hard or give nothing but excuses for why they can’t make a living while quitting jobs because it “doesn’t suit them”.

Equal opportunity, not equal results. Don’t Want to work for yourself, why should I care or help?

a lot of measures to "make" thing equal are not fair.
For example, student loan forgiveness. What about those that worked instead of getting a loan? Not fair for them.

a lot of measures to "make" thing equal are not fair.
For example, student loan forgiveness. What about those that worked instead of getting a loan? Not fair for them.

I agree.  While I didn't have student debt, I worked for it in a way through working at a family business since I was "old enough".  I busted ass at that job in a warehouse.  So when I hear about people whine that they can't make it with the amount of debt they have, I have zero sympathy if they didn't do anything to help themselves. 

a lot of measures to "make" thing equal are not fair.
For example, student loan forgiveness. What about those that worked instead of getting a loan? Not fair for them.

College prices are completely overinflated due to state-sanctioned predatory lending practices, in other words the financial industry created a huge bubble (another term for money going to the 1% at the expense of everyone else) which is leading to the collapse of the university system because kids and parents are waking up to the scam. Better regulation could have nipped it in the bud, but banks and lenders wanted access to bankruptcy-ineligible debt slaves while university administration salaries and perks soared with the groundswell of guaranteed cash.

But yeah looking at it from ideological coke bottle glasses it can all be conveniently crammed into "kids being lazy and wanting free stuff"

The age of consequences arrives regardless

College prices are completely overinflated due to state-sanctioned predatory lending practices, in other words the financial industry created a huge bubble (another term for money going to the 1% at the expense of everyone else) which is leading to the collapse of the university system because kids and parents are waking up to the scam. Better regulation could have nipped it in the bud, but banks and lenders wanted access to bankruptcy-ineligible debt slaves while university administration salaries and perks soared with the groundswell of guaranteed cash.

But yeah looking at it from ideological coke bottle glasses it can all be conveniently crammed into "kids being lazy and wanting free stuff"

The age of consequences arrives regardless

I agree that "higher education" prices, the accreditation thing, etc is a big issue.  However, while I think "kids being lazy and wanting free stuff" isn't far from my belief, I do understand that there are some that hard workers and could greatly benefit from relief.  That said, I think too many are viewing education as a right and something that they deserve. 

Coming from a non-practicing economist, non-economist hobbist, etc. . .

This is true but the next question is whether we should try to bring the things closer together.

It's up to the individual to bring things closer,  not anyone or any other systems.
Everyone is free to stay at their job,  quit, get more education,  change occupations,  work harder,  etc

College prices are completely overinflated due to state-sanctioned predatory lending practices, in other words the financial industry created a huge bubble (another term for money going to the 1% at the expense of everyone else) which is leading to the collapse of the university system because kids and parents are waking up to the scam. Better regulation could have nipped it in the bud, but banks and lenders wanted access to bankruptcy-ineligible debt slaves while university administration salaries and perks soared with the groundswell of guaranteed cash.

But yeah looking at it from ideological coke bottle glasses it can all be conveniently crammed into "kids being lazy and wanting free stuff"

The age of consequences arrives regardless

I did not inject stereotypes into this argument. I just stated that there are college students who choose not to borrow money but instead work to pay their tuition. The argument of tuition price is separate.

It is not a separate argument. You want to talk about government intervention enabling the lazy so then let us have that conversation.

As a conservative my opinion is that higher education should face the same consequences as a small business for providing bad customer service and inferior quality products. Same goes for the financial industry. By giving them a free ride we are only shifting the liability of their crappy business model on to taxpayers and guaranteeing a system-wide contagion when they inevitably self destruct.

It is not a separate argument. You want to talk about government intervention enabling the lazy so then let us have that conversation.

As a conservative my opinion is that higher education should face the same consequences as a small business for providing bad customer service and inferior quality products. Same goes for the financial industry. By giving them a free ride we are only shifting the liability of their crappy business model on to taxpayers and guaranteeing a system-wide contagion when they inevitably self destruct.

It is a separate argument. Nobody but you referred to them as “lazy kids that want free stuff.” The question is how fair is it for kids that WORKED for their degree? That doesn’t somehow mean that those that didn’t choose to work are “lazy”. It just means you took out the loan so now don’t cry that you’ll have a hard time paying it back. You saw the LoAn amount, and you saw the monthly payments, yet you still took out the loan. Predatory or not it is still your responsibility to pay it back, period.

Question? Not for folks who aren’t willing to work hard or give nothing but excuses for why they can’t make a living while quitting jobs because it “doesn’t suit them”.

Equal opportunity, not equal results. Don’t Want to work for yourself, why should I care or help?

A very fair point but where a strong argument can actually be made is for those younger in age. People who start out significantly farther behind not through their own laziness but through the fault of their parents. There are development windows as children mature and if a child misses one of those windows it can be difficult or sometimes even impossible for them to catch up. I am not just talking about someone never having learned good manners but actual deficits due to a person's upbringing. There is some evidence that there is a window for language and if you don't develop that skill within that window you can't just go back and relearn it. Stresses as a child like abuse and hunger have found to correlate with lasting negative effects. These are some of the things that we (society) can do which would help close the gap and I think doing so ends up benefiting them as well as ourselves. Certain problems that plague society, like crime, show strong correlations with problems at him as a child. Thats why things like a safe place for kids to learn and improving literacy rates are going to do more to lower gun violence than gun bans.

I was not referencing the lazy when I made my comment but the situations that we (society) have the power to influence which can help ensure certain individuals don't end up starting so far behind. And no, I don't mean one of those "you don't know what its like to be black/asian/mexican" type things either.

Who is "we"? and what criteria do "we" use to decide what is close enough, and what needs to be closer?

Should McD cooks get a $10/hour raise because a shift supervisor gets paid salary vs. hourly wages?

We can be society in general, or our country, or our state, etc.

What criteria we choose to measure and where to set a goal is certainly up for discussion.

Personally I am not a fan of this new "living wage" idea. I don't think you can just legislate something and expect the laws of economics to follow suit.

A very fair point but where a strong argument can actually be made is for those younger in age. People who start out significantly farther behind not through their own laziness but through the fault of their parents. There are development windows as children mature and if a child misses one of those windows it can be difficult or sometimes even impossible for them to catch up. I am not just talking about someone never having learned good manners but actual deficits due to a person's upbringing. There is some evidence that there is a window for language and if you don't develop that skill within that window you can't just go back and relearn it. Stresses as a child like abuse and hunger have found to correlate with lasting negative effects. These are some of the things that we (society) can do which would help close the gap and I think doing so ends up benefiting them as well as ourselves. Certain problems that plague society, like crime, show strong correlations with problems at him as a child. Thats why things like a safe place for kids to learn and improving literacy rates are going to do more to lower gun violence than gun bans.

I was not referencing the lazy when I made my comment but the situations that we (society) have the power to influence which can help ensure certain individuals don't end up starting so far behind. And no, I don't mean one of those "you don't know what its like to be black/asian/mexican" type things either.

I don’t think anyone disagrees with you EEF. The problem arises when the solution is “ pay taxes and let the government fix the problem”. IF I help it’s going to go to an organization of MY choosing and I will determine how much I donate.

Hey slave/serf, I see inequality as a state of mind. I see nothing wrong with someone (us slave owners/feudal lords) being richer than someone else (you slaves/serfs). I don’t see an inequality there. There might be a huge diversity between incomes and/or level of savings/investments (amongst other slave owners/ feudal lords). But I have never been jealous of anyone else (any other slave owners/ feudal lords) who has a different lot in life than I have. And I truly believe that those (you slave/serfs) who feel that there is an inequality here is jealous. Not trying to be insulting, just trying to explain my opinion here. But if you (slave/serfs) remove the emotion out of this so called inequality, then who cares?

With all due respect Inspector, I have to passionately disagree with your statement above.  Your interpretation of inequality could of just as been spoken by slave owners or feudal lords in past history to explain and justify to a slave or serf regarding their place and lack of equality in their respective society, as I superimposed in your response above, as an example.

While my time in Hawaii was limited to only 11 years, most everyone I met was happy with their position in life. They were happy with what they owned and how things have turned out for them in their lives. Certainly not jealous of the rich or ultra rich. And certainly not cognizant of the inequality in wealth between themselves and others. Most people I know there are not in good financial shape. And some live in pretty bad conditions. The only ones I know that were concerned with with this were SJW or those who were on government support.

Well, as a born and raised Hawaiian, I have seen nothing but a preponderance of social and economic disparity among Hawaiians and many other non-white minorities.  The majority of Hawaiians are not happy at all and are sad/disgusted/angry/envious/jealous of the ultrawealthy who have sapped the wealth of Hawaii that was made possible due the illegal annexation of their nation by the US.

Let’s face it, the difference between those that have a lot and those that have very little is just a number. How one feels about that disparity are the only ones concerned with social/wealth inequality.

Not if the rules of the game differ across the social classes in any society.

Was there equality during the Hawaiian Monarchy?

Was there equality during the Hawaiian Monarchy?

Apparently so, just like Socialist countries never have a huge disparity of wealth. 

Those who get to divide the wealth always -- ALWAYS -- get the biggest cut.  it's not a US-created situation.

What the US did was make it possible for the poorest among us to attain as much wealth as they are willing and able to work for.  It's unusual to see the lower classes from other countries rise to the ranks of the wealthy and powerful.

I guess in Kuleana's imaginary Hawaiian Kingdom that never became a state, there would not have been a smidgen of wealth inequality, no drug addiction, no prostitution, no violent crime, .....  The corrupt Hawaiians that now oversee the Bishop Estate, Hawaiian Homelands, etc. are only corrupt because they were annexed as a US state.  Had that not happened, greed and dishonesty would have never become a Hawaii problem.   

What the US did was make it possible for the poorest among us to attain as much wealth as they are willing and able to work for.  It's unusual to see the lower classes from other countries rise to the ranks of the wealthy and powerful.

The US did manage to achieve what you are propagandizing in some parts of its history; however, what you are highlighting contradicts the obvious huge wealth gap in the US today.  If what you say is true, there should not be such a disparity of wealth in the US.

The corrupt Hawaiians that now oversee the Bishop Estate, Hawaiian Homelands, etc. are only corrupt because they were annexed as a US state.  Had that not happened, greed and dishonesty would have never become a Hawaii problem.   

So all what you are trying to argue is Hawaiians are better off being screwed by corrupt Hawaiians under the umbrella of the American empire.  What utter imperial nonsense?   

Sorry, Hawaiians would rather have and deal with our own corrupt criminals within our own nation.   

Was there equality during the Hawaiian Monarchy?

What kind of uneducated question was that?  The Hawaiian Kingdom was a free market / capitalist society and intrinsically had economic inequality amongst the classes.

If you are talking about freedoms, Hawaiian nationals had as much as or more freedom than Americans at the same time.

The US did manage to achieve what you are propagandizing in some parts of its history; however, what you are highlighting contradicts the obvious huge wealth gap in the US today.  If what you say is true, there should not be such a disparity of wealth in the US.

So all what you are trying to argue is Hawaiians are better off being screwed by corrupt Hawaiians under the umbrella of the American empire.  What utter imperial nonsense?   

Sorry, Hawaiians would rather have and deal with our own corrupt criminals within our own nation.   

Who are these corrupt Hawaiians? I want to make sure I dont vote for them