Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I have to agree with him

Some people will work harder than others

Some people will be smarter than others

Instead we should be focused on raising the standard of living of the "poor"

AngieB · 36-40, F
I see where this comes from and I do agree. However income inequality[i]is[/i] a problem with it leads to social and legal equality (and educational and political) further down the line.

We see this in nature too (the famous experiment 'paying' 2 chimpanzees with cucumber vs grapes....if the cucumber-recipient knew his/her partner was getting grapes, ie 'more', they threw a fit (and didn't want the cucumber either). If they both got cucumber, they were happier. But the solution to the problem isn't to hide the grapes, but to make sure everyone has more similar options to start with).

The problem isn't so much people being payed vastly more than others, people object to the vastly-paid having undue influence over politics, or the media (or both), and being totally insulated from the consequences of their actions, by their money. It's the consequences of income inequality that people despise: of course (unless you're so far outside the system [*cough* communists *cough] that you're not worth considering for practical solutions), it's natural some get paid more. The issue is the consequences of this compounded over time, and where a few people can inherit rather than earn vast sums. (Does anyone seriously think Eric Trump would be doing much more than running a McDonald's franchise, but for his father?)

It's easy to say 'let's have a positive "build game"', but where's the solution?

Clearly, huge tax rates on the rich. But if they choose with huge salaries not to keep their cash in the Cayman Islands, but instead to reinvest in their own national economies (eg paying their workers more, starting/investing in new businesses, etc), they can have a huge tax break as far as I'm concerned.

Lots of people who are distressed or angry about inequality just want to soak the rich: the equivalent of the cucumber-recipient throwing food around in a tantrum, just to feel better. The smart thing to do is to incentivise the better off, if they can't be persuaded by the force of moral argument.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Many of us work harder than others.
Many of us aren't considered for the roles that would see our economic wealth rise to a higher standard.
Reasons for that are/could be many fold from being unable to train to the same standard either because of the time it would take to do so.(Right now,could you afford to be without an income if you were to go back to college for four years ? I couldn't) or straightforward 'preference' 'discrimination' as is the case when you apply for a role and somebody else is appointed even though their experience/current position may be beneath yours.
Miram · 31-35, F
An obvious appeal to nature.
Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M
I agree, can't get rid of the pareto distribution. Standards of living for relative poverty are better than they've ever been, and will continue to get better.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M
@SW-User Lol
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
rickfreeman15 · 22-25, M
@SW-User well, do you know that if all the wealth in the world was distributed equally down to the last penny, within a few years that same 10% would find themselves owning most of the world's wealth?
AngieB · 36-40, F
@rickfreeman15 That's probably true but also a straw man: that's not what those who favour limited redistribution advocate (unless they're off their rocker)
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment