Equal Distribution of Wealth, or "Would You Take one For the Planet"?

[Mise]

I've been thinking about it, and this is what I think will happen...

1) Average prices in the West will decrease, prices in the third world will increase, because people have less/more cash to spend.
2) The standard of living in the West will still remain higher than in third world countries, because third world countries still lack industries. However, within the same country, obviously the standard of living will be homogenised and no-one will live without.

Aside from that, not much else will change. There will still be some entrepreneuring and exceptionally hard working, but far less than before, so we won't "advance" as quickly as we do now. But I think that's a small price to pay to know that we don't have any poverty, at least in the West. Third world countries might still be screwed though.

Incidentally, for the people's standards of living in the West to remain the same, everyone must work, so there is incentive to work, otherwise you don't get any food or clothes or anything.

 

[Gogf]

I forget which thread it was that made me come up with this one (probably one of the Communism ones, but not sure). One day I pulled out my calculator and divided the world's total GNP by its population.

I came to a final figure of $11,000 per person.

So, the poll question is this: would you be willing to accept $11,000 a year for life in order to finally have true Global Economic Equality?

For simplicity's sake, those who aren't getting paychecks (still in school, disabled, too young to work yet, etc) will just be assumed to receive a government handout of $11k a year. $11k per capita, all around, regardless of what job you have, if any.

Absolutely not. I am no communist. People can work to get their money. If there are no poor, everyone is poor.

 

[Perfection]

No, and the poll has bad answers, none of them is adequate.
This would be strict communism, and communism like that can't work.
Propose me to give every person between 5000 $ and 25000 $ according to his work, and THEN, yes, it starts to seem a good idea.

I disagree, because income caps are bad, there'd be little economic incentive to better oneself once someone got $25,000, with capitalism many people strive to get higher income. Greater economic flexibility is a good thing. And besides if someone can live off of $5,000 you can bet that there'll be a whole lot of freeloaders

 

[Yom]

No. Making a certain amount of money is not tantamount to economic prosperity. Moreover, the 11,000 a year wouldn't last very long before differences in wages appeared. If there was a law against a change in wages, then people would be discouraged from the more difficult jobs and go for the easy ones, which would surely result in major economic recessions. Less developed nations must industrialize to increase their standards of living and wages. Once all nations are on an even playing field, then more equality would be a good idea, but never full equality between jobs, as there must be economic incentives to ensure that certain jobs are done, even if few want to do them.

 

[Amenhotep7]

No, becsause neither true communism succeed. Fact is that in Communism, corruption is a given. Give a man or small group of men that much power, and they will abuse it. Who is going to dole out these funds? May I do with this money as I please? What if I wanted to have a garage sale to make extra dough? Can I pick my own job? And will this be a democratic society?

 

[North King]

Who says there's money? Why ought there to be money?

 

[h4ppy]

So we could buy stuff. (barter system doesn't work very well in large amounts or online)

 

[North King]

So we could buy stuff. (barter system doesn't work very well in large amounts or online)

Why buy stuff when everybody will be able to have everything?

Standard of living is not dependent on money.

 

[Perfection]

Why buy stuff when everybody will be able to have everything?

And when will that be? When there is only one human left alive?

 

[Godwynn]

Never would I accept living like that. I'm going to get what I earn [or deserve].

 

[North King]

And when will that be? When there is only one human left alive?

You're kind of missing the concept of "equal distribution here".

 

[Amenhotep7]

We need money, because people expect to be rewarded with something tangible for their services.

 

[downtown]

thats bullcrap. I want equality of oppertunity, but not equality of results! Why would we bother working then? Im with AAA...I'll give all sorts of folks a hand up, but im not giving everybody a hand out

 

[Mise]

but never full equality between jobs, as there must be economic incentives to ensure that certain jobs are done, even if few want to do them.

How about..... "you work or you don't get your $11,000 a year"? (Or more realistically, "you work or we shoot you".)

 

[Amenhotep7]

How about..... "you work or you don't get your $11,000 a year"? (Or more realistically, "you work or we shoot you".)

Then they'd do a half-assed job, and then they'd protest the brutality, thus leading to a breakdown of the system, because good and services will not be provided to a people of a region, who in turn will not provide for neighboring regions, etc.

 

[Mise]

Then they'd do a half-assed job, and then they'd protest the brutality, thus leading to a breakdown of the system, because good and services will not be provided to a people of a region, who in turn will not provide for neighboring regions, etc.

Huh? The goods will still be sold on the open market and distributed in the same way they are now. The only thing that will change is the price -- they will all go down because people only have $11,000 to spend, not $35,000.

As for people doing a half arsed job, that's why the Soviet Union had quotas and production targets. Besides, there are plenty of unemployed people who will enable goods to be produced less efficiently (in terms of man power per unit) but of equal quantity and quality.

 

[newfangle]

That 11K would quickly drop to damn near zero. When the poeple used to making 100s of K per year realize that their work is for nothing, they will stop working.

As easy as a decision as this poll was, its surprising that some people still long for economic equality. It takes a healthy dose of economic and ethical ignorance to take on such a view, methinks.

 

[amadeus]

So I get $11,000 a year for doing nothing and the same amount for working? Well, gee, what will I do?

 

[Mise]

I think the assumption is that people will do so willingly, like the 7 people in this poll, so arguements such as "people won't work" are less effective.

 

[Padma]

Why would people willingly work at disagreeable jobs, when they can sit on the couch and earn the same money?

And if you *force* them to work, then you have a totalitarian system, which would be overthrown as soon as enough people realized what was happening (like, less than 24 hrs).