Is Economic Equality Achievable in Today's Society?

[Zero]

Hmmmm...ran across this phrase in the political poll that kat posted. I don't think that is an unworthy goal, does anyone else? I don't mean that we should all have exactly teh same amount of money and possesions, but just the idea that if you work 40-50 hours a week, you should get paid enough that you don't live in poverty.

 

[russ_watters]

Its far too vague of a concept (without explanation) to have an opinion about. In general, I think phrases like that are thrown around to elicit a knee-jerk 'of course!' reaction when the reality is far more complicated.

And your answer doesn't fit with what the phrase 'economic equality' means to me. However, using your definition, I would say that in general (a huge generalization) I agree.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its far too vague of a concept (without explanation) to have an opinion about. In general, I think phrases like that are thrown around to elicit a knee-jerk 'of course!' reaction when the reality is far more complicated.

And your answer doesn't fit with what the phrase 'economic equality' means to me. However, using your definition, I would say that in general (a huge generalization) I agree.

I'm not saying anything like that no one should be a millionaire, or even a billionaire...I'm just saying that the world would probably be a better, and certainly more stable, place if everyone who works and works hard gets paid enough to live a decent life.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not saying anything like that no one should be a millionaire, or even a billionaire...I'm just saying that the world would probably be a better, and certainly more stable, place if everyone who works and works hard gets paid enough to live a decent life.

"... works and works hard ..." translates as what?

 

[Kerrie]

you can't have much economic equality when so much manufacturing is going overseas...i see the gap between poverty and wealthy growing wider, and the middle class is getting split into one or the other (just my opinion working in the industry that i do)...i think one major step in keeping the economy equal (and strong) is to buy what is made in america...it's a viscious cycle really-america is a free enterprise country, thus business owners have the ability to go overseas to keep manufacturing costs down, in turn laying of their employees they no longer have to pay (benefits, retirement, wages, etc)...the prices of goods and services the company offers will remain the same but the profits of that business will go the one person's pocket, instead of being equally shared by the americans the company once employed...

so, buy american (if you are in america)

 

[selfAdjoint]

What do you folks think of Marx's labor theory of value? I could almost be a Marxist if it wasn't for that and a couple of other things like the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The idea is that each worker's work is his own and he should benefit from it. If someone (a "dirty capitalist") makes him work longer, in order to produce a profit for said someone, then that's exploitation, and should be ended.

Now I believe that the fellow who put up the money to get the whole thing started should have a fair share in the result, along with the guys who contributed physical work. As to what's fair, that's a matter for negotiation, which is why I am a strong supporter of unions.

But what we have now, in too many industries, is just what Marx criticized in the 19th century: The big corporations are in a position to coerce their workers to accept anything the company will grant them, and unions are becoming moribund. It sucks.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
"... works and works hard ..." translates as what?

Hard work...I'm sure you've seen someone do it at least once in your life?

 

[Kerrie]

selfadjoint, marx's theory sounds good in theory, was it ever put into play?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
selfadjoint, marx's theory sounds good in theory, was it ever put into play?

Late night, Kerrie?


Didn't Marxism go the way of Animal Farm, where in the end even though the system changed, there were still tyrants at the top exploiting the people at the bottom?

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
Hard work...I'm sure you've seen someone do it at least once in your life?

Yeah, yeah, yeah --- "work" is another very flexible term; I've seen lots of people work very hard at doing nothing, and I've seen lots of people do a hell of lot without it ever looking like work --- as have you. A wheat farmer can put several hundred tons of food on the table with maybe a month's work out of a year making little clods out of big ones --- the rest of the year involves waiting for rain that doesn't come, and hoping for clear weather at harvest --- is it work? It's productive. Artists sweat, and strain, and bleed their souls into something that is gratifying to them, if to no one else. Is it work? Is is productive? Should the NEA/NEH pay them large sums of tax money?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
Yeah, yeah, yeah --- "work" is another very flexible term; I've seen lots of people work very hard at doing nothing, and I've seen lots of people do a hell of lot without it ever looking like work --- as have you. A wheat farmer can put several hundred tons of food on the table with maybe a month's work out of a year making little clods out of big ones --- the rest of the year involves waiting for rain that doesn't come, and hoping for clear weather at harvest --- is it work? It's productive. Artists sweat, and strain, and bleed their souls into something that is gratifying to them, if to no one else. Is it work? Is is productive? Should the NEA/NEH pay them large sums of tax money?

Farmers? Yes.


Artists: probably not.

COme on now, you are looking for trouble, aren't you? I'm talking about your average American who works a regular average job.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Kerrie
selfadjoint, marx's theory sounds good in theory, was it ever put into play?

The various communist states claimed to, but the claim was in every case a lie.

Marx said the workers should own the means of production (the factory or whatever). Communist governments said that meant the government should own them. nd that's what they did. The workers had no more choice than under runaway capitalism.

Suppose somebody had been able to achieve something like this. Banks that are just like western banks except their profit goes to the people, according to some formula. Similarly corporations all send their profits back, but otherwise the free market rules. Innovation is rewarded with perks and raises, not with a piece of the pie.

Wouldn't that satisfy the Marxist requirement? But that wouldn't happen because it wouldn't be in the interest of the selfish jerks who run all governments, or at least determine how they run.

 

[Monique]

Zero, are you talking about minimum wages? Do those exist in the US btw?

I definitely believe in economic equality if you are talking about the citizens of a country. Ok, there will be some people in there that really don't deserve the money and should go to work, but there are a lot of people who are unable to find proper jobs.

The Netherlands really strives to create this economic equality and people with minimum wages get all kinds of subsidies from the government.

Recent budget cuts though (to stay under the 3% stability pact (which we will exceed in 2004)) have meant the decrease in buying power of the minima with 8%, while the government had promised them not to cut them more than 1%. This has really created an uproar and people are very concerned that the poor will become poorer if this goes through.

Guess what: really stupid idea, they have opened a bank account (they: the government) and the rich people are free to make donations that will then go to the minima. Will it work? Don't know, but it is an initiative.

Ofcourse, this has lead some people to be lazy and not want to find a job, I know such a person, young 20 year old girl on government subsidy without a job, living on her own in Amsterdam.

But: they have found something for that too: such young people will soon (if it passes the voting) be forced to do voluntary work (what's that called, working without wages) otherwise they won't get the subsidy. Voluntary work is always around: scraping gum from streets, picking up cans from the park. They have my support 100%, boy this country would become so clean :)

 

[BoulderHead]

...forced to do voluntary work...

Interesting way to word it.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Interesting way to word it.

I know, I don't think a word exists for that yet.. forcetary?

 

[kat]

Mandatory community service is the term I think you might be looking for... This is the method used in the U.S. or at least in the state of Maine (States vary) I believe that as long as people are doing at least 30 hours a week community service they are still eligible for government support which, I believe, includes foodstamps, cash benefit, medical along with many other benefits inludcing money paid to them according to mileage to get to doctors appts etc.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by kat
Mandatory community service is the term I think you might be looking for...

Indeed I am willing to pay higher taxes if that means the people who need it benifit from it and that the public safety and neatness will increase.

These people doing mandatory community service also get more incentive to find a real job, it keeps them from becoming potato-couches (or was it couch-potatos?, lol).

 

[BoulderHead]

I’m thinking about a normal relation between work and pay. That is; you must work and we will then pay you. With the community service system it becomes; we will pay you, but then you must work. Isn’t this similar to the bottle being half empty verses half full?
In effect does it not simply become a system where the government provides jobs?

No doubt many people will receive support even if they are unable to work, but what will happen to the young healthy ones who refuse to perform community service, preferring to live on the streets?
How should someone pushing for economic equality handle such a situation?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
No doubt many people will receive support even if they are unable to work, but what will happen to the young healthy ones who refuse to perform community service, preferring to live on the streets?
How should someone pushing for economic equality handle such a situation?

I agree: work then pay. The truth is that not everyone can become a CEO or manager or head of staff or engineer or *fill in blank*. That is why economic equality should be a goal, that doesn´t mean there shouldn´t be a difference along with the effort and responsibility a job holds. That doesn´t mean that the poor deserve to live in the gutter.

In your example, if the young ones choose to not work and refuse community service, let them live on the street. I mean, everyone in a good state of health is able to perform community service. If not I´d put them on mandatory counseling and see if depression is the root cause. If they refuse counseling, let them be free and find a niche for themselves on the street.

 

[Njorl]

Economic equality would be wonderful. The problem is arriving at it. It would be great for the economy if everyone had a decent disposable income. Middle class spending habits drive the markets. The problem is giving them that disposable income without earning it tends to reduce productivity. You wind up with too many dollars chasing too few goods.



The international labor market is in a dicey situation these days. Barriers are coming down, so cheap foreign labor looks very attractive. I am torn by this. I feel it is exploitative for us to obtain cheap goods from workers who endure conditions we would not tolerate here. On the other hand, those workers are often in those jobs because they provide the best possible standard of living they can attain.

Hopefully, when other countries improve their living standards, international labor unions will form to counter the power of international corporations. As it is, ownership derives inordinate advantages from globalization over labor.

Note- in the discussion of cheap labor above, I'm not including things like Chinese slave labor prisons, or child labor sweat-shops. Those are catagorically immoral in my view.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Wouldn't that satisfy the Marxist requirement?

No, I don't think it would. Thats not equality if some people are rewarded for performance. Its been a while, but the way I understand it, a janatir and a doctor make the same amount of money and the doctor accepts it because its for the good of the country. And maybe you can argue that the rewards would be small, but how small can they be while still keeping the doctor happy? And how big can they be without making the janitor mad?

Setting aside for a moment the government ownership and the ruling elite, the USSR really did strive for equality and lack of class for everyone not in the ruling elite. The result was that people were motivated toward mediocrity, corruption, or fleeing the country and the economy gradually destroyed itself. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was fear and enforced ignorance.

 

[Zero]

I think something to look at would be the difference in pay between the bottom and top employee in any given company. In Euroope, the average difference runs to something like 30-50 to 1. In the US the number is closer to 200 to 1, and there is no telling how gigantic it is in China, with a minimum wage that is pennies an hour.

 

[Zero]

The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program.

Really, I looked it up: the minimum wage for people 23 years and older for a 37,5 h work week (as you seem to have taken) is $9,40 an hour, $18,314 a year.. quite a difference. But I think life in Europe is more expensive than in the US, so that is not accounted for.

 

[Monique]

[offtopic]Can you imagine that we pay 4 times as much for cargasoline than Americans? The price per liter is the same as per gallon Ofcourse, our cars have a better milage :)[/offtopic]

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Monique
[offtopic]Can you imagine that we pay 4 times as much for cargasoline than Americans? The price per liter is the same as per gallon Ofcourse, our cars have a better milage :)[/offtopic]

To pay for all those social programs, I would suppose.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Monique? Remember your criticism of US power distribution by poles and wires that get blown down "by every wind"? The burying of power cables is expensive, and has to be paid for. In the US the power consumer pays through a higher bill. In Europe the taxpayer pays through, for example, gas taxes. But you can't excape paying the men^* who dig the trenches, the men who lay the cables, and all the people who worked to supply them and bring the whole thing about.

^*Including women, of course.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
The minimum wage in America is $5.15, which translates to about $10,000 a year, before taxes. Some people in America see the minimum wage as one step from an entitlement program.

Actually minimum wage varies from state to state. For instance Maine is at 6.15, Mass at 6.75(?) and then New Hamphsire is at 5.15 (home of the Libertarians ) California has minimum wage standards higher then this with additional minimum wage standards for overtime.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
Farmers? Yes.


Artists: probably not.

COme on now, you are looking for trouble, aren't you? I'm talking about your average American who works a regular average job.

"Average job" equals "service industries" if we base "average" on largest employment category --- so, how many of these people are starving on the streets? If you wanta pay $10 for a hamburger and fries, that's your business --- MacD, BK, TB, S-way, and everyone else in service businesses will be automating their outlets --- you've just annihilated that many more jobs. Dunno if you've run into the "scan it yourself" checkouts --- the economic driver for developing automated checkstands is checker wages/salaries.

Certain job classes are worth only so much --- if that value is less to a potential employer than it is to social engineering principles, the job disappears, or is automated, which is the same thing socially.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Monique
I know, I don't think a word exists for that yet.. forcetary?

You might be looking for the word "corvee;" the Great Wall is an extreme example. Slaveholders take some degree of care for slaves as economic assets, whereas governments take no care of "corvee" levies --- "free" citizens "voluntarily" contribute to a variety of public projects/improvements out of pocket, and further are expected to feed, house, and otherwise maintain themselves.

"Workfare" is something of a hybrid of slavery and corvee --- it's probably going to be about as much a success in the long run.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bystander
"Average job" equals "service industries" if we base "average" on largest employment category --- so, how many of these people are starving on the streets? If you wanta pay $10 for a hamburger and fries, that's your business --- MacD, BK, TB, S-way, and everyone else in service businesses will be automating their outlets --- you've just annihilated that many more jobs. Dunno if you've run into the "scan it yourself" checkouts --- the economic driver for developing automated checkstands is checker wages/salaries.

Certain job classes are worth only so much --- if that value is less to a potential employer than it is to social engineering principles, the job disappears, or is automated, which is the same thing socially.

So you are saying that the idea that everyone can be rich is false?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Actually minimum wage varies from state to state. For instance Maine is at 6.15, Mass at 6.75(?) and then New Hamphsire is at 5.15 (home of the Libertarians ) California has minimum wage standards higher then this with additional minimum wage standards for overtime.

Well, I meant the federal minimum wage, but thanks for the extra info! $6.75 is still nothing to write home about.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Zero
So you are saying that the idea that everyone can be rich is false?

In anything but the poetic sense, yes. Can everyone be satisfied? No. You've met people who wouldn't be satisfied with the entire planet waiting on them hand and foot.

Is there sufficient productivity to satisfy some minimun standard needs for everyone on the planet? That's a tossup. If so, is there an adequate distribution system for ensuring that everyone gets his share? No.

If Solzhenitsyn's "Gulags" are believed, Stalin pretty well nailed down the absolute minimum standard of living --- nothing too attractive about pursuing that as a social goal.

Are there initial steps to take toward establishing conditions under which it could be said it's possible for everyone to at least begin life with a chance at "making it" to the point of being comfortable? Great Britain spearheaded the global abolition of slavery in the 19th century, (insert edit) of slave trade, and eventually slavery, which ain't been accomplished to date (end edit) that's not too bad for starters --- kinda throws a whole lot of people out on their own, but from my perspective at least, social mobility of a sort beats the job security they had. Free trade? When and how large should protective tariffs be? Dunno. Global minimum wage? Cart got ahead of the horse here --- the U.N.'s human rights declaration(s) ain't been anywhere close to an adopted practice by more than a minority of its membership, not that it matters all that much --- all the HR rhetoric was more a matter of Cold War tactics/politics/posturing for the unaligned nations than anything else. Export democracy? My ass. Export education? Mebbe, but I'd prefer 3Rs to the crap in this country's public schools.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Monique? Remember your criticism of US power distribution by poles and wires that get blown down "by every wind"? The burying of power cables is expensive, and has to be paid for. In the US the power consumer pays through a higher bill. In Europe the taxpayer pays through, for example, gas taxes. But you can't excape paying the men^* who dig the trenches, the men who lay the cables, and all the people who worked to supply them and bring the whole thing about.

^*Including women, of course.

..and the point is? :P My point was that in a 'socialistic' country the government is concerned with things like that and will find money to improve such technologies, while in 'capitalistic' countries the government has no say, the companies don't want to spend the money, so things will stay the way they are.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In my experience the companies are at least slightly more attentive to the people than the government. The company says do you want buried cables? It will cost you X dollars. And some neighborhoods say yes and some say no. The govenment says you are going to have such and such and here is what it will cost you. And the citizens say &%@@@! and pay.