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

[Mise]

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

Seven people here would. I'm one of them, and would willingly work at disagreeable jobs because otherwise the economy would collapse and we'd all live in poverty, which is the very thing I endeavor to prevent by advocating such a distribution of wealth.

 

[amadeus]

Mise, $11,000 is poverty.

 

[Yom]

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

Well, you could do that, but how long would that government last? Even if you were able to pull it off, it is much less than the economic prosperity that each individual can gain if there is modernization in the less developed countries.

Mise, $11,000 is poverty.

It will be poverty for a very short time, and only in industrialized nations (you would be wealthy in unindustrialized ones). There will be massive deflation in developed countries and massive inflation in less developed ones. Prices will adjust accordingly, so everyone would have the same standard of living. The only thing is, there's not flexibility, so how would companies function if they're not under governmental control? Even if they are under government control, and people are assigned jobs that they must do or die, then the lack of economic incentives would mean lower production (or you could always do it Stalin's way: force them to meet quotas or die).

Really, the average standard of living could go down simply because so many people would have to die to meet production quotas and work.

 

[Rhymes]

Absolutely not, I may sound very leftist from time to time, but I think extreme communism is as worst, or even worst, as extreme capitalism.
Whats the point of living if you allready know what your gonna be doing and having for the rest of your life. I need challenges.

 

[JohnRM]

I reluctantly voted yes. It would solve a lot of problems, and create a few, but it would be nice to know that people weren't living in poverty.

Incidentally, the actual value ($11k per year) doesn't really mean much. It might as well be $1 per year, or a pack of cigarrettes, people would still charge a proportional amount for their goods.


You didn't think this through did you. If everyone had the same amount of money, the value of that money would be homogenised also. I'll leave you to think this through properly...

Why do half of your posts involve shooting people?

Apparently you do not read most of my posts. I suppose it is just my way of saying that the quoted poster's opinion being enacted in reality would cause violence.

 

[Mise]

Well, you could do that, but how long would that government last? Even if you were able to pull it off, it is much less than the economic prosperity that each individual can gain if there is modernization in the less developed countries.

Yeah, in less developed countries, the system would never improve, but I would still argue that, at least in an reasonable idealised approximation, the "average" standard of living in the west wouldn't decrease (or if it does, it won't be unsufferable). I can also outline a procedure leading to an increase in standard of living that doesn't involve invention (i.e. entrepreneurship, which is undoubtable stifled under communism), just innovation (which is commissioned internally in a company).

The only thing is, there's not flexibility, so how would companies function if they're not under governmental control? Even if they are under government control, and people are assigned jobs that they must do or die, then the lack of economic incentives would mean lower production (or you could always do it Stalin's way: force them to meet quotas or die).

The flexibility, IMO, would be in the supply (much as it is now actually). In general, prices are determined by the cost per unit of production. The price per unit of production is in general fixed (and this is even more the case if everyone must be paid $11,000 p/a), and the demand at that price is met by the number of units produced (i.e. the supply). So if the price per unit of a good is decreased by lower wages, so too will the prices (this would fall in line with the deflation caused by assigning a higher value to the dollar). Circularly, the price of the raw materials required to produce the goods will also fall, further reducing the prices in line with expectations based on deflation. But we already knew this.

In general, prices increase when the cost of labour increases and decrease when the company increases efficiency per unit of labour. Assuming this is true and the only truth, lets say demand for a particular good increases. An increase in demand would lead to an increase in supply, which would lead to an increase in profit without an increase in prices. The company can now invest in improvements that would increase its efficiency, which means lower prices. Lower prices means people can buy more stuff; more of our company's stuff, or more of other company's stuff, i.e. an increase in demand for goods from other companies. These companies experience similar effects, and similarly invest, and similarly reduce prices. Thus the standard of living can increase through an increase in demand for a certain good.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

No way. One it would never work. Sure that GDP starts at 11K/yr watch how fast it would fall once people learn no matter how much work they do they get the same as someone who doesn't work at all. Communism will never work and should never be attempted especially at that large a scale.

 

[cgannon64]

$11,000 a year is inadequate to live in modern countries, yes? So, if I made everyone earn that, all countries would either regress to third-world status, or most people would starve.

So, no, I wouldn't make everyone equally poor.

 

[Mise]

Do people deliberately ignore my posts, or just post before reading all the rest? (and Yom's for that matter)

 

[crystal]

Yeah, in less developed countries, the system would never improve, but I would still argue that, at least in an reasonable idealised approximation, the "average" standard of living in the west wouldn't decrease (or if it does, it won't be unsufferable). I can also outline a procedure leading to an increase in standard of living that doesn't involve invention (i.e. entrepreneurship, which is undoubtable stifled under communism), just innovation (which is commissioned internally in a company).

The flexibility, IMO, would be in the supply (much as it is now actually). In general, prices are determined by the cost per unit of production. The price per unit of production is in general fixed (and this is even more the case if everyone must be paid $11,000 p/a), and the demand at that price is met by the number of units produced (i.e. the supply). So if the price per unit of a good is decreased by lower wages, so too will the prices (this would fall in line with the deflation caused by assigning a higher value to the dollar). Circularly, the price of the raw materials required to produce the goods will also fall, further reducing the prices in line with expectations based on deflation. But we already knew this.

In general, prices increase when the cost of labour increases and decrease when the company increases efficiency per unit of labour. Assuming this is true and the only truth, lets say demand for a particular good increases. An increase in demand would lead to an increase in supply, which would lead to an increase in profit without an increase in prices. The company can now invest in improvements that would increase its efficiency, which means lower prices. Lower prices means people can buy more stuff; more of our company's stuff, or more of other company's stuff, i.e. an increase in demand for goods from other companies. These companies experience similar effects, and similarly invest, and similarly reduce prices. Thus the standard of living can increase through an increase in demand for a certain good.

I recall Marx applied (roughly) this kind of thinking in Communist Manifesto. "Price of the goods is determined by the amount of labour that went into it" or something utter nonsense like that. In reality, prices are determined by how much people are willing to pay for that particular product at most.

And about the scenario which this thread is about, I think the global economy would crash, because people who earn above $11000 would stop working. When the supply decreases, there's no way you can compensate it by printing out more money or redistributing wealth. (Both of those methods do not create wealth.) Heck, probably there would be mass starvation, because producing food would become unprofitable at some cases. Also mass deflation or inflation would be likely. Reasons are a bit too complex to analyze here.

 

[cgannon64]

Do people deliberately ignore my posts, or just post before reading all the rest? (and Yom's for that matter)

(Post before reading.)

OK, so I was trying to make a practical argument before resorting to the intellectual one: Forced equality is bad. And even if it is unforced, and magic, I beleive that earning should reflect value. Some work is more valuable than others,and so deserves to be paid more.

 

[Perfection]

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

Everybody won't be able to have everything "equal distribution" doesn't mean "unlimited distribution"

Seven people here would. I'm one of them, and would willingly work at disagreeable jobs because otherwise the economy would collapse and we'd all live in poverty, which is the very thing I endeavor to prevent by advocating such a distribution of wealth.

So you're willing to take a dangerous job just because society tells you too?

Sorry, I value freedom.

 

[Padma]

So you're willing to take a dangerous job just because society tells you too?

Sorry, I value freedom.

I agree with Perfection.

(My GOD! Did I actually say that?!?)

I currently make 6-7 times that "equal" amount. I enjoy my job. Would I do it for 1/6th my current salary? Not on your life. If I'm making the same money as a "WalMart Greeter", why should I bust my butt? I can be a WalMart Greeter, too! Better yet, I can sit on my couch while the 1/5th of the people who are willing to work support me!

 

[BasketCase]

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.

"Communism can't work" goes under "Bad idea for the world".

 

[Akka]

No, because it's not the distribution of wealth I have a problem with, it's just the absolute strict equality regardless of merits.

 

[amadeus]

Well, let's see how good you are at dictating what people are worth.

 

[Cheetah]

This is a hypothetical question, and I am leaning to say yes.

But the problem is that you don't know what level the prices would land at when everyone has $11,000.

But, ignoring the price level, would people support one year where everyone gets $11k? Just to give everyone a fair playingfield.

I think I would.

 

[amadeus]

Tell me what you think $11,000 is worth, Cheetah.

 

[BasketCase]

When I tossed the figure of $11,000 out there, that number simply happened to be the current fraction of world GNP each person would get. The basic idea I was thinking of was giving everybody an equal share of the world's goods--and GNP was pretty much the best measure I had available.

$11,000 a year will get you this and that amount of food, a small car, an apartment or small house (probably in a not-so-great part of town) and such and such. Probably not enough for a computer that can run Civ3 though, WHICH WOULD REALLY SUCK. I took a look at what $11,000 would probably get me, based on my past experiences at spending my money. Would I be willing to accept that? Hell no.

 

[Perfection]

What's kind of ironic is the innate unfairness of doing this by giving people the same amount of money for different ammounts of work in the name of fairness.