"Or here's a more political example: this measure would have counted Bill and Hillary Clinton, right after they left the White House, as among the poorest people in the world. They were, after all, millions of dollars in debt. But as Matt Yglesias wrote, you have to be pretty damn rich to get that poor."
Originally shared by Benjamin Ljung
You must read this!
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7871947/oxfam-wealth-statistic
Can't find decent top hats in the US.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The real wealth inequality statistics are scary enough that the don't have to be padded with rich people that are poor on paper.
ReplyDeleteOn the flipside however, we just have to be careful not to assume that nobody is poor in developed nations because they have flush toilets.
"By any sensible standard, the medical student is richer, but because her student debt still outweighs her financial assets, the net worth measure counts her as poorer than the Chinese peasant."
ReplyDeleteYeah, but guess who is going to have lots of spending money to go nice places and do nice things . . . even with her debt?
Make no mistake. The 1% control the 99%. Though, not so fortunate for them or us, the 1% are also under the control of higher powers.
I think it's abundantly clear that a very small minority of people have far more purchasing power and political clout than others. Whether it's really the case that 1% have 50% of the wealth or if 2% have 25% of the wealth is not really the point, though it is worth remembering that quantifying this is not trivial. $500 will get you much further in India than it will in America, though it still won't let you buy any more Western imports.
ReplyDeleteSome level of wealth inequality is a good thing. However, the current situation is that a handful of individuals are able to reach levels of wealth that most people, no matter how hard they work, will ever achieve. Some actors earn more for pretending to be scientists for 30 minutes than real scientists earn in a lifetime. The majority of people aren't seeing much in the way of social mobility, while the few at the top are able to buy the media and control election campaigns.
That's not how a meritocracy or a democracy is supposed to work. You don't really have rule by the people if you're controlling the information the people access.
I have never seen a good explanation of why some inequality is supposed to be good. All data shows that healthcare and violence goes up in unequal societies.
ReplyDeleteI believe in equal pay for equal work. And unequal pay for unequal work. Simplest case : if someone works twice as many hours doing the same job as someone else, they should get paid twice as much. What's wrong with that ?
ReplyDeleteEqual pay for equal work is not necessarily a good solution either. Think about soccer players only getting paid for scoring a goal. Would that make a fair system?
ReplyDeleteBut why is some level of wealth inequality a good thing?
Well, most jobs aren't so ruthlessly performance driven. Pay is usually determined by number of hours worked more than it is performance. Performance-related pay is usually added as a bonus. I don't see why someone who chooses to work more hours deserves to earn less per hour than someone who works fewer hours. That doesn't strike me as fair. People who do more work deserve more money, within reason. Fairness isn't always the same as equality.
ReplyDeleteSome level of inequality provides a motivator for people to opt for certain jobs or work harder, to improve themselves. In my view wealth inequality is not a fundamentally bad thing until it becomes extremely high. I don't want a hairdresser to earn as much as a brain surgeon - that is not just. Equally, I don't want footballers (or brain surgeons for that matter) to earn enough to buy a mansion every week.
There are many types of equal work. Equal work hours. (all players paid for amount of hours in game)
ReplyDeleteEqual performance in game. (players paid for scoring).
Equal physical input (a construction worker uses much more physical power, needs to retire earlier and use more healthcare compared to the surgeon). Who actually works the hardest? It is impossible to say! Maybe it's the one that dislikes the activity the most that performs the most work. (it is not work if you do something you really enjoy, it is more like play if you enjoy it)
Actually, The payment is relatively unimportant as long as the individual have a certain amount of living standard provided and enjoys the work.
Research disproves most of your argument for having inequality and money as motivation. Money is not a good motivator. It simply doesn't work like that.
RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about w…: https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc
Aside from moving toward a moneyless (not to be confused with cashless) society, implementing universal basic income would be a great thing.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus could you link an article explaining the difference between a moneyless and cashless society. I didn't know they could be separated.
ReplyDeleteGo to michaeltellinger.com.
ReplyDeleteIn Britain the top one thousand are worth more than the bottom forty percent after five years of LibDem/Conservative government and thirteen of Labour. Among the top thousand are people like Tony Blair and David Cameron.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus do you mean creditless should not be confused with 'payment system'-less?
ReplyDeleteYes David Lazarus. I read that cash and trade was to be eradicated. Even barter. Not even measures of value for any material thing should remain.
ReplyDelete" A society that functions without the concept of money, any form of barter or trade, or the attachment of value to material things."
Then I started to think about what you could have misunderstood on the page. And my question was the best I could come up with at the time.
Benjamin Gustafsson - Watch the video in its entirety if you want a better understanding.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Gustafsson
ReplyDelete"Who actually works the hardest? It is impossible to say! Maybe it's the one that dislikes the activity the most that performs the most work. (it is not work if you do something you really enjoy, it is more like play if you enjoy it)"
While I agree that it's impossible to precisely define who's done the hardest work, or who's done the best work, I think it's relatively easy to define who's done the most work. Pay per hour is a good approximation, especially for low skilled labour. If you work at a supermarket checkout you don't work very much harder one hour than another. Maybe a little bit since the customer rate will vary, but not much.
Even for more skilled, creative jobs, it still works reasonably well. Artists often charge based on how long they estimate it will take to finish a piece.
So, I'd say equal pay for equal work means an equal amount of work. It's unfortunate that some people won't enjoy their jobs as much as others, but it's really up to them to find a job they enjoy.
"Actually, The payment is relatively unimportant as long as the individual have a certain amount of living standard provided and enjoys the work."
I willingly took a 75% pay cut to get the job I have now (which, being science, is paid as a fixed salary with no bonuses for extra hours worked). I'm happy with this decision, but this isn't a salary can I live on forever. However, many people are not so fortunate as to do something they enjoy. Few people aspire to work in a supermarket or a factory or be a lorry driver. Surely, these people should be paid more if they work longer hours.
Will watch the video later.
David Lazarus I watched the entire video. Moneyless and cashless never got separated into different concepts. I got a bit disappointed because I thought I would experience a new way to think about money.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Gustafsson - Cashless = BitCoin and similar schemes. Moneyless = contributionism. We will have to learn to be contributionists if we want to be a successful space faring society. Two things we absolutely do not want to take off this planet: 1) a military mentality and 2) consumerism.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus Michael tellingers "contributionism" consists of the following:
ReplyDelete1) NO Money
2) NO Barter
3) NO Trading
4) No value attached to anything greater than anything else – because all our efforts and contributions are equally valuable.
5) Everyone contributes their natural talents or acquired skills for the greater benefit of all in their community.
The moneyless (cashless) society is not even close to contributionism. It only fulfills the first criteria.
I am very interested if you can show me someone separating a moneyless and cashless society into different concepts. Because Michael tellinger does not separate them.