Topic: What impact will Bitcoin have on income inequality? - page 2. (Read 7471 times)

When businesses move operations from high-wage regions to low-wage regions, that:
- increases the supply of free potential workers in the high-wage region
- increases demand for workers in the low wage region

leading to supply/demand rebalancing resulting in:
- increased wage rate in the low-wage region
- decreased wage rate in the high-wage region

thereby trending toward greater absolute wage equality.

I'd say that it would "look like" what we've got today, I figure that some of the people with wealth these days got it by good fortune or work of ancestors that they cannot replicate, so probably only 50% of the same folks would get it, and the other 50% (Of the 1% and each other tier) would have spotted chances and got a leg up from below.

Anyway, wouldn't affect a whole lot of the people on the hand to mouth survival level. However, I'm more of a believer in "trickle up" economics than "trickle down" figure to create economic activity you need to make the greedy bastards work for it.

Yes you're  right , the real problem of bitcoin is the first distribution  (in '09 -'10  & '11).

Deflation also helps the rich much more, than the poor.
You can postpone the purchase of a luxury good, but you can't postpone the purchase of something essential like food or rent.
Either inflation or deflation: The question is, can you afford to save money?
I don't see any difference in either we have inflation and the rich just buys some real estate to increase his wealth over time or we have deflation and the rich keeps his money to increase his wealth over time.

I thought you guys in the abitcoin thread would know their stuff and why Bitcoin was started in the first place. Satoshi clearly by using a news article as some kind of finger print in abitcoin that related to the BOE printing money then you can be sure he had the expansion of fiat, Central banks, the Federal Reserve and inflation as an agent of inequality in his sights.


The simple fact is governments and big banks inflate the currency for various self serving reasons. Without the ability to print ie sound money we would have deflation, the terrible situation where we have to pay less for the same stuff. The amazing thing is how people have swallowed the idea that that is bad for us! So the poorest at the fringes of society are most affected by inflation, the rich with assets however can increase their wealth. Bingo inequality. But also I want to be clear there will always be inequality and it's not nessecarly a bad thing but the extreme inequality we are seeing today is due to money printing and also even if we have inequality the poorer are more able to live a better life if saving is encouraged and prices for basic goods that the poorest have to buy are not inflated. Inflation is the thief of particularly the middle class who try to save and earn but are on a treadmill of keeping up with inflation. It drives me nuts that the governments twist the figures and say we have almost no inflation when ina few years most people have to pay almost 50% more for the same goods or even more.

 http://imgur.com/O8D4LUV

Buy bitcoins now.

When one bitcoin is enough to run a full country, you can then distribute it equally to everyone.

But as it has been said.

If tomorrow all of the money and wealth were equally distributed to everyone. Within a generation the wealth distribution would be right back to where it is today.

1. people on minimum wage are not on that much of a tax rate no matter what state/country they are in.
2. the difference between $6.25 and $9 is over 40% difference in income.. again tax differences wont offset the spread
3. if you think that not many people work for minimum wage, check out the news, in regards to mcD wage protests (which gave me the idea)
4. example: californias state website shows someone under $28k/year pays only $300 in income tax
more importantly
5. if EVERYONE was on the same value minimally world wide that ensured no matter where you lived your income was above "living costs" then there would be equality. $15 is the highest 'living cost' minimal thus i think it fair to set that as a fair market value for a bitcoin employee.

and for those that think start ups should move to arkansas to pay people at $6.25 or move to africa for $2 a day.. then that act alone proves that greed of companies will always outweigh any attempt to improve world equality. unless businesses treat the sweat of one mans labour the same no matter what zip code they are under, inequality will continue

No law that Bitcoin income must be equal, like Marx's illusion of a communist society, as it is a utopia

the early adopters , innovators and rich people buying btc now will hold 99% of bitcoin total supply while the 99% laggards who will enter the scene after bitcoin goes mainstream will hold 1% of bitcoin...

nothing will change inequality... not even bitcoin

You fail to take taxes into account as well as the overall labor market of both states.

CA generally has a much higher tax burden so just because their minimum wage is higher does not mean that a worker has more after-tax income. Plus there are several federal transfer payment programs that fade away as income increases, making someone's effective tax rate >100% once the net effect of these transfer payments are taken into account.

Plus very few people earn minimum wage so this is a bad comparison (even for workers who work at MCD or WMT)

if Bitcoin goes really hugely mainstream and becomes like a world reserve currency,
then I think it will help income inequality because the rich won't be
collecting endless fiat interest while getting richer and richer...
they'll actually have to spend their coins to live their lifestyle.

It definitely helps, since it removes the biggest unequal actor out of the system

For normal people that working honestly, the income due to different efficiency can be 1-2 magnitude different, that is acceptable variance considering different education and experience level. However, for bankers and corrupted government officials, their income could be several magnitude higher without any advantage in education or experience, due to that their cost of making money is almost zero

This kind of large difference in income (not wealth) is not going to happen in bitcoin's world, you always do real work to get coins, no shortcut

Heh, I can't help reading that as "There's too much shit in California already, go open your startup business venture in Arkansas."

Income inequality is exacerbated by the wealthy manipulating the state for their benefit. Fiat is either controlled by the government or by the wealthy bankers themselves(with some regulation) as seen in the US. Decoupling those levels of controls allow individuals to fail or succeed to a greater degree on their own merits.

Income inequality will always exist . Bitcoin may nudge it back where it wasn't so extreme however.

No appreciable impact at all.  Why would you expect it to have any impact on income inequality?

there is a large difference in income if we compare america vs africa for instance

but lets stick closer to home for my next example.

in california, a guy working at walmart or mcdonalds gets paid $9 an hour (minimum wage of that state)
in Arkansas, a guy working at walmart or mcdonalds gets paid $6.25 an hour (minimum wage of that state)

that means right now, this second.. it take 57 hours of labour to buy one bitcoin from arkansas
that means right now, this second.. it take 40 hours of labour to buy one bitcoin from california

for things like people buying bitcoin.. the minimum wage laws makes it harder for some peple to buy bitcoins rather than others.

but for anyone working and getting paid in bitcoin. i truly hope that no matter what state or country they are in. they are paid at a $15/hour rate (0.042)..

i think we should ALL agree on an acceptable bitcoin minimum wage for any bitcoin paid employee no matter what country they are in. EG 0.042btc (~$15) as that brings EVERY country inline with america, and exceeds america to ensure people are not on bare minimum living costs. it will also cause people to prefer to be paid in bitcoin

@gratefulcoin -- sadly, you may be right.  A system that does not create power structures for the spiders to scurry over to supremacy would be ideal.  Rigorously free markets and Bitcoin are a start.  Hopefully nobody would suggest the solution to redistribution is more centralized redistribution (overseen by the aforementioned spiders).

@bitusher -- there will always be early adopters and risk-takers and sometimes that may even be one of us (hooray, right?).  Without the perception of future reward, we lose the vitality those risk-takers bring to a productive society.  You have some good thoughts but it is well known (Communist Manifesto) that Karl Marx saw the middleman as unnecessary or even a blight.  Personally, disagree with Karl and his carbuncles.

Its already helping merely from the fact that many of the new "Bitcoin Millionaires" are Nouveau riche, largely funded by wealthy investors who came later. Additionally, every time one uses bitcoins they are cutting out very wealthy middlemen from taking their cut.

Income inequality is the direct result of redistribution.

Bitcoin probably won't have a ton of impact except maybe getting rid of a few artificial obstacles like reliance on centralized banking systems, and of course it can also eliminate having to deal with the Foreign Exchange. A Bitcoin is a Bitcoin regardless of whether it's held by a Canadian, an African, or an Argentinian. Income inequality is a phrase that has been used to demonize people who are fortunate enough to have easy access to markets in which they can sell their goods and services and get good prices for them. If somebody develops the right kind of system, Bitcoin can help to level the playing field without punishing the people who already have it good, simply by making it easier for more people to participate in the same marketplaces. As Deep Space Nine's Quark put it once, "Earning money, and spending money!"