Income Inequality: Biblical and Earthly Perspectives (Guest Post)

By 15 Comments 1,332 views

income_inequality2

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) views income inequality as a moral issue that governments should address. Warren also says that a minimum wage increase is needed to stop income inequality. She equated the minimum wage to income inequality. Warren said that concentrated wealth as the result of a rigged system that funnels the gains from workers’ productivity to their bosses, who suppress minimum wages.

Isabel Sawhill, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, about a minimum wage increase: “It will reduce inequality.”

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama loves the idea of income inequality. Obama says “I take this personally.” In his State of the Union speech, Obama called for an across-the-board increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25.

Those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by, let alone to get ahead. So our job is to reverse these trends.

About the minimum wage, Ben Carson of The Washington Times says:

Many hope that through a simple declaration, the poor can be elevated to a higher social status. Such people fail to realize that pay is associated with value – otherwise, we could just pay everybody $1 million a year and let everybody be rich. In a capitalistic society, those individuals who produce the wherewithal to obtain income tend to be paid quite handsomely, while individuals who don’t generate significant income
are paid accordingly.   [emphasis mine]

So, it all comes down to value. That inescapable truism applies to both the minimum wage and to income inequality. All the harping by Progressives/Liberals/Democrats (P/L/Ds) will never change that fact.

As reinforcement, consider this statement by W. James McNerney, chairman of Boeing, and chair of Obama’s Export
Council:

In many cases, if the workers are not productive commensurate with increased labor costs, we’d move to places where cost is commensurate.

How plainly can the value concept be presented? Still, P/L/Ds argue that legislating an increase in the minimum wage will have no effect on employment.

Carson hit upon another issue that Obama abhors: “a capitalistic society.” Obama cannot overturn the laws of economics, so he is trying to overturn our capitalistic society and replace it with socialism. And, so far, with the help of Democrats, a majority of voters who cannot/will not function in our capitalistic society, and the MSM, he is succeeding.

The minimum wage and income inequality have become inextricably linked. And they have become political tools. “The Obama administration [will push for] … a minimum wage increase and a campaign against what Democrats call ‘income inequality’.”

What, then, is income inequality? It is “The unequal distribution of household or individual income across the various participants in an economy. It is often associated with the idea of income ‘fairness’. It is generally considered ‘unfair’ if the rich have a disproportionally larger portion of a country’s income compared to their population.”   [emphasis mine]   So, income inequality, like fairness, can be anything P/L/Ds define it to be. And a relief for income inequality can be achieved only, according to P/L/Ds, through social justice. This five minute video about social justice by Johah Golberg is well worth your time.

What causes income inequality? From Warren L. Dean Jr., an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, we get these reasons

  • Previous presidents (of both parties) have known that improving middle class economic prospects is the only way to reduce income inequality. Obama, without the benefit of any private-sector experience, does
    not know this.
  • Obama has done more to promote income inequality than any other president. His economic policies have injected $1 trillion a year into the economy, but it has done nothing for the middle class.
  • Obama’s failure to consider even modest reforms to entitlements has aggravated income inequality. Federal Reserve data shows that the vast majority of wealth recovery since 2009 has been by older Americans. And older Americans receive generous benefits that the country simply cannot afford. The income inequality between the rich and poor in America today is more of a generation gap than a class conflict.
  • The primary beneficiaries of ObamaCare are, again, older Americans. Young, middle-class taxpayers, struggling to get ahead, are the ones who can least afford the added costs of ObamaCare.
  • The national debt will (at least) double under Obama. His spending on older Americans will have to be paid by future generations. He furthers income inequality by making young taxpayers pay for his vote buying.

I’ll bet we don’t hear about any of these reasons from the MSM.

We now examine a religious reason. In her research report “Why Does Income Inequality Exist? An Economic and Biblical Explanation,” Dr. Dr. Anne Bradley offers this : “People are born with different gifts, they choose to pursue them differently, and they value those gifts differently. As such, our gifts carry unequal earthly rewards, one of which is in the form of income.”

Dr. Bradley continues, we are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). Every person has a unique genetic code, making us all unique. Comparativeadvantage is the economic name for this uniqueness, and leads to specialization, which permits us to utilize our gifts most productively. She then says:

All of this comes down to the fact that each individual is born with unique skills and abilities. The uniqueness and purpose in our creation is quite evident in scripture. … income inequality is an economic reality woven into the very
fabric of our creation, and some of us will earn higher incomes than others.

Dr. Bradley concludes with a very powerful statement, one that succinctly answers why income inequality exists, one that transcends politics, religion, and human nature: “It’s not just what we are endowed with, it’s how we use what we have been given. ” [emphasis mine]

But this Biblical explanation is an anathema to P/L/Ds, so let’s examine income inequality from a “what is actually happening on earth” perspective.

Consider the Bush economic expansion period (2002-2008), the Obama recovery period (2009-2010), and these
facts
: “Bottom 99% Incomes Real Growth” was 6.8 percent under Bush, and 0.2 percent and Obama. So, real income growth for the bottom 99% was slower under Obama, thus increasing income inequality. But what is most damning is that under Bush, “Fraction of total growth captured by top 1%” was 65 percent, while under Obama it was 93 percent. Got that? The top 1 percent’s income grew faster under Obama.

Income inequality expanded during Obama’s first two years. But what about since then? The next four “considerations” address that.

1. Consider that the median household income in June 2009 was $54,478, and it was in June 2013 $52,098, a 4.4 percent drop.

2. Consider the ten reasons why income inequality continues, written about by Jennifer Rubin in her article “10 problems with Obama’s income inequality speech.” I particularly like Rubin’s reason #4: “Obama is pushing around scraps of relief (unemployment benefits) as substitutes for dealing with the underlying drivers of income inequality…[.]”

3. Consider what Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said about the continuing cause of income inequality – ObamaCare:

24%
[of employers] say they reduced hiring to under 50 workers. The President has been talking about income inequality. This exacerbates income inequality,…[.]

Income inequality is increasing and, Mr. President, what have the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Democrats done to protect Americans from Obamacare? The answer is simple. Nothing.

4. Consider what Clinton operative Dick Morris had to say:

The fact is that while income inequality has been getting worse, it is the policies of the Obama Administration that are causing the trend.

During the Clinton years, 45% of all personal income gains went to the top 1% of the population. Under Bush it was 65%. Under Obama it is upwards of 85%.

So, Obama certainly has his nerve. He preaches about income inequality, says it’s “the defining challenge of our time.” Yet he continues, in the face of mounting evidence of being incorrect, to pursue policies that cause and exacerbate income inequality. But there are three facts that let him (continue to) get away with this: =

  • The MSM will never report these facts.
  • The public education system has been so dumbed-down that a majority of voters cannot understand what is actually happening.
  • Saying he’s going to equalize income is good politics.

You will be prepared with facts the next time you hear “income inequality.”

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer , my very conservative web site.

15 Responses to “Income Inequality: Biblical and Earthly Perspectives (Guest Post)”

  1. 2

    Kraken

    Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) views income inequality as a moral issue that governments should address.

    Well, we know that Blue States and liberal cities lead the nation in income inequality. This plainly tells us that the correct governmental solution is to embrace conservative and libertarian economic policies.

    Warren also says that a minimum wage increase is needed to stop income inequality. She equated the minimum wage to income inequality. Warren said that concentrated wealth as the result of a rigged system that funnels the gains from workers’ productivity to their bosses, who suppress minimum wages.

    The minimum wage is indeed connected to income inequality, because as we know, states with higher minimum wages also have higher unemployment.

    Isabel Sawhill, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, about a minimum wage increase: “It will reduce inequality.”

    Only if the entitlements gained as the result of liberation from job-lock match the income earned from gainful employment.

  2. 3

    Nanny G

    Ben Carson here:

    Many hope that through a simple declaration, the poor can be elevated to a higher social status.

    Is trying to reason on one aspect of income inequality: that the poor cannot be elevated to a higher social status by getting more money.
    I would say it this way: No matter what the lowest paid bottom quintiles earn, they will always be the BOTTOM QUINTILE.
    In other words, better workers will politic for higher (than the lowest pay) and get it.
    The business owners will still pay themselves first….but not, consistent with that higher pay at the bottom they will pay themselves MORE.
    Anyway, gov’t stats rate pay by quintiles, the lowest will always be between 0-20%, next the 20-40%, then 40-60%, then 60-80% and the rich at the 80-100%.
    Individuals can move up from poverty (the bottom TWO quintiles) to middle class or even rich as long as they have incentive to do so.
    Give them too much for doing nothing to better themselves and they will never bother.

  3. 4

    Ditto

    The true income inequality, is how monied interests of all kinds influence the writing of legislation, drive what our government does, and how they own our politicians. Politicians no longer represent their constituents, the represent their elite crony friends and campaign backers.

  4. 7

    Kraken

    Very interesting article:

    Why Are Liberal Cities Bad for Blacks?

    Minneapolis-St. Paul. San Francisco. Chicago. Even Madison, Wisconsin. If you are politically liberal and value relatively high levels of income equality, you might live in one of these quintessentially liberal U.S. cities. Yet all four lurk in the bottom half of the 2014 National Urban League’s State of Black America report on income inequality between blacks and whites. Among the many places where black-white income is less skewed are Phoenix, Arizona, Nashville, Tennessee and Columbia, South Carolina.

    Nationally, blacks and Hispanics earn less than whites and generally have higher rates of unemployment. But there are significant regional variations. And looking at the Urban League rankings, I couldn’t help noticing how many northern liberal cities fared poorly on the racial equality index.

    Mathew Kahn, an economist at UCLA, e-mailed, “Educated liberals are tolerant people who are willing to live in racially integrated areas even if the minority neighbors are poor. Such liberals are more willing to vote for redistributionist policies and this may attract poor people to collect such transfers.”

    “I certainly don’t think a city’s ‘progressive’ image is very relevant here — it is more a question of the history of black labor market incorporation, which varies a lot and keeps changing, especially in the South.”

    It’s always funny to read drones make things up off the top of their heads, as they struggle to explain the inherent failure in the Collective’s policy pursuits.

  5. 8

    Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)

    @This one: Re: comment #6, This one, How can you make that statement after reading the article? Or did you bother to read the article? Do you think I just make this stuff up?

  6. 11

    Coldwarrior57

    I guess she has not read Thessalonians 3:10. For even when we were with you, We gave you this rule.: ” the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. “

  7. 12

    JustAl

    It’s hard to imagine that “income inequity” is worse now than it was in the early 19th century, when a large percentage of the people here were enslaved. . . by democrats. Now the democrats are working feverishly to enslave entire generations to poverty, for exactly the same reason; personal gain.

    In the 1860’s democrats lost the ability to buy black people, in the 1960’s LBJ not only showed them how they could do it again, but also how to do it with other peoples’ money.

  8. 13

    Nanny G

    PIVOT ALERT!
    Obama has largely abandoned talk of ”income inequality.”
    Do a google search ans see….it is gone.
    He got the votes of the OWs’ers and then threw them under the bus!

    Finger-to-the-wind alert:
    Gallup’s May survey found that just 3% of Americans cited the “gap between rich and poor” as the most important problem facing the nation. Findings like that prompted Obama to abandon the income inequality rhetoric.

    How will Democratic activists and voters will react to Obama and Democrats’ abrupt muting of the income inequality message?
    To being thrown under the bus?

  9. 14

    ilovebeeswarzone

    BUT , do they expect that all the citizens are equal, that is a failed concept they still pushing and that is far backward, they want all the people to be paid equaly ,that is insane,
    the only inequality is what the UNIONS DEMAND FOR THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
    PAID BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID LESS THAN THOSE TOO MANY AT THE SAME JOB BECAUSE THE OTHER DO NOTHING BUT COLLECT THE UNION’S FEES, PAID BY THE PEOPLE,
    IN THIS HARD TIME LOW ECONOMY,
    EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS PAID TOO MUCH ALONG WITH THE HUNDREDS MORE LAWYERS DOING HIS JOB,AND PAID UNREASONEBLE MONEY, AGAIN BY THE PEOPLE,
    IF YOU WANT TO RAISE THE PAY OF EMPLOYEES IN STRUGLING BUSINESS,
    START WHERE YOU ARE OVERPAID FOR DOING WHAT?
    WE STILL DIDN’T FIND HOW USEFULL AND WHERE IS YOUR VALUABLE POSITION,
    ALONG WITH ALL THE UNIONYSE EMPLOYEES IN THAT CROWDED GOVERNMENT,
    THE PEOPLE SHOULD DEMAND AN EVALUATION OF EACH AND ALL WHO HAS BEEN HIRED BY GOVERNMENT IN THE LAST 6 YEARS AND HOW MUCH THEY EACH GET PAY,
    BEFORE YOU TREND ON THE BUSINESSES AFFAIRS, WHICH ARE NOT YOURS TO DECIDE WHO GET PAY AND FOR WHAT,
    HAVE OBAMA FORGOT THIS IS A STILL FREE COUNTRY,
    THE PEOPLE DECIDE ON WHAT TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *