"In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others. Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich. The desirability and effects of redistribution is actively debated on ethical and economic grounds."

Take it from someone and give it to someone else. The intent here is not to bash those who suggest the wealthy should not have what they have and give it to those who don't. That it discourages advancement in society and encourages those who might be otherwise productive to kick back and get welfare checks. There's enough bashing without my assistance.

The typical high school student may or not be weighing out his future. Most probably are to some extent. Should I go to college and where? Should I enroll in a trade school? Should I go straight to full time work and get the car I've always wanted? If the choice is straight to work, many will find wages and benefits in a labor union situation to be well above the same work in a non-union setting.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics states that 12.3 percent of wage and salary workers in the U.S. belong to unions. So, a non-union plumber makes $20/hr and his union counterpart makes $30/hr plus better benefits for an equal output of work. Sounds pretty good for the union guy. Not only does he get the wages and benefits, but he gets new guidelines for what he has to do and does not have to do.

Every so often a labor contract between a union and it's employing company expires and it becomes time to renegotiate. Then the union asks for more and the company offers less and must expose their accounting numbers for scrutiny to show if they can or cannot give more. What's wrong with that?

If an energetic entrepreneurial young student out of high school originates and builds a company that really takes off, at some point he may be face to face with employees wanting to unionize . Successful upstart companies are often purchased by larger groups who get to enjoy unionization.

Getting back to the 87 percent of our citizens that don't belong to labor unions, what does the existence of unions mean to them? Does it mean they pay more for all the products made by the companies with unions? Sometimes. What it mostly DOES is give the edge to importers who in turn make most of the products we buy. That entire process seems to redistribute wealth straight out of our country!

Redistribution of wealth doesn't always move up or down the food chain and moves laterally as well. Large companies sue each other constantly. Especially technology companies. You'd be hard pressed to find a time when legal action wasn't active between Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, AMD, H-P, IBM, Sony and other tech entities.

Another method of redistribution is through fines levied against large companies. Often without a lot of press, these fines can be huge. Billions aren't uncommon. The European Union just got billions from Microsoft. AMD just got $1.25 billion from Intel. The FTC is and should be feared. In fairness, at the same time, we couldn't do without the FTC.

Maybe if the huge companies are destroyed, that would end the lawsuits and we wouldn't have to work 'cause there wouldn't be companies to work for. We could all work for the government.