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

[Cheetah]

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

Currently that would get me 74,470 NOK. It's about 15,000 short of what I currently have to live for during a year while studying.

So it means I wouldn't be able to get that new cell phone I'm planning to buy during January, and I probably would have to cut down on some DVDs or CDs, and there really wouldn't be much money left for me to save, but I would manage.

I rent a house with 3 other friends, I got enough clothes and enough food. I don't have a car, nor could I afford it currently, but there is very little parking lots around University and the collective transportation is satisfactory (It's still 8 minutes to go to the bus).

Also considering that Norway have some of the highest prices on goods in the world, I think everyone would be quite able to survive on $11,000. That is of course, as long as you don't consider the price changes that will come when everyone has $11,000.

And of course it wouldn't work in reality, it's only a hypothetical question.

But what do you think of my suggestion of doing this for one single year, just to level the playing field to give everyone the same opportunities?

 

[amadeus]

I think it's a ridiculous idea and would take 20 years just to repair it.

 

[Cheetah]

Why is it rediculous? Everyone on this board agrees that everyone should have the same opportounities, so why not give everyone the same opportunities?

And if this is a bad idea, what would need 20 years to repair because of it?

 

[Vladyc]

In an ideal situation, everyone would get an amount of money and/or products directly proportional to the amount of work they do for society.

 

[amadeus]

It's ridiculous because the world's economy would collapse. The first thing I'd do under such a system is take up arms against the U.S. government for allowing it.

 

[sourboy]

$11,000 isn't enough to live on in most advanced countries. If such a thing were to happen, I think people would be more "neighborly" and help make the most of the income. At least there wouldn't be anymore reality tv or pop stars...

I'm in.

 

[BasketCase]

Almost everybody in advanced countries would see their standard of living plummet. So much for the Paradise that Communism promised.

On the flip side, while most of the world's poorest people would finally have food and a decent roof over their heads, they would eventually come to take those things for granted, and--like us in the First World--they would begin to want more. Those of us in the First World who are already at the $11,000 level call it poverty and a crime against humanity. Married couples at the $22,000 level want more. $44,000-a-year families of four are scraping out a meager living, and they want more.

Great, now I got myself all depressed. Gonna log off for a while and go get some pizza.

 

[Fetus4188]

Actually, I don't think that $11,000 would do much good for those who are in poot countries, all it means is that they would have some paper and nothing to buy with it, there would still be few luxury goods and meager amounts of food.

 

[Vladyc]

People seem to be forgetting how much the value of money would change in this situation. As long as there are enough goods (e.g. food) to go around, prices will be adjusted accordingly so that everyone can afford enough to live on.

 

[Fetus4188]

There aren't enough goods though, which is the problem for many third world countries in the first place.

 

[Vladyc]

There aren't enough goods though, which is the problem for many third world countries in the first place.

There are not enough goods in those countries, but there is definetly a surplus in well developed countries like the U.S. This situation might decrease the standard of living somewhat, but not to the level that a family of four is only getting the equivalent of $44,000 worth of goods.

However, there is still the problem that these third world countries are not as developed, so actual equality would now be impossible.

I agree that the world is not ready for such a massive economic change. I voted "bad for the world".

 

[CenturionV]

No way, if you don't work(or can't), you should starve, and if you work hard, and work smart you should be rewarded, simple as that, this is the way things are, and this is the way things should stay, forever.

 

[boogaboo]

I voted "great idea", but you know I'm pro communism, so that isn't a surprise.

Problem lies with those who already have wealth (yes, those who think they are "entitled" to more).
These people don't understand/care that others are being abused in all variety of ways in order for them to get their money.

This is true in the micro (employer/employee) and in the macro (US/African nations, say).

The fact that one lives good is by one way or another a result of others' suffering.
Sure, we can do good things for humankind, produce more food, help to advance technologically, etc.
But one doesn't do this for "others", just for oneself, thus creating the rich/poor gap (also in the micro and macro).

I'm sure you people are aware that poor people don't nessesarily caused their situation, and most rich people just have a rich family.
So, it is a human inclination to be egoistic and ignore others' needs.
Humankind found a formula to suppport this egoistic cause and turned it into a moto - capitalism. (aka rmsharpe, yes )

Capitalism creates the rich/poor gap and social hate between clases.
It may be uncomfortable for the poor majority, but what do the rich care??

And so, as I see on this poll too, I don't think humanity is going on a good road.. again.. don't make kids.

 

[Mise]

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.

You obviously don't understand economics, and are spouting buzzwords like labour theory of value. I never mentioned that at all. I said that CHANGES in the cost of labour are reflected in CHANGES in prices. That's not Marx, that's just basic common sense. If you want to see the demand side of things, read Yom's post, or my post #21 (basically, if people only have $11,000 per year to spend, they're not going to buy a car for $20,000 are they, so prices will fall in line). I was just verifying it with what I know about business and industry; which, incidentally, has nothing to do with Marx, and is mostly basic common sense.

Also mass deflation or inflation would be likely.

That's the point, and why the actual value of $11,000 doesn't mean anything, as Basketcase said in one of his posts.

Almost everybody in advanced countries would see their standard of living plummet.

Why would they? As has been said time and time before (by right wingers, incidentally) is that the problem with global poverty is with the distribution of goods -- it is impossible to transfer in an economic manner the excess of food, electricity, industrial goods, etc we have in the West to third world. That problem will persist (unless you created a scenario where goods can be distributed immediately to all parts of the world for free).

Just to reiterate to those who didn't catch it the first time:
The actual value of $11,000 doesn't mean anything -- it may as well be $1,000,000 or a pack of cigarettes, prices will fall in line with the value of the currency.

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.

The amount of work done is the same, perfection... A hard job won't be done by one person and an easy one done by fifty, it will be the other way around, due to economic principles... Again...

I think people need to get some preconceptions out of their heads and actually think about the possible economic consequences before dismissing it out of hand.

 

[Mise]

(Post before reading.)

OK, so I was trying to make a practical argument before resorting to the intellectual one:

The practical arguement is over simplified, IMO.

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.

If the work is more valuable, it can be done by two people instead of one. Whereas before, a highly skilled accountant wouldn't work for less than $110,000 p/a, that accountant will now refuse to do more work than is worth $11,000 (as MANY have said), so we just need 9 more accountants. And whereas an unemployed person would do work worth $0, he now does $11,000, so that job requires less other workers. Overall, assuming people can be trained and re-trained, it would still work.

Oh, and before somebody cries Freedom (again), I'll give you a little story. When I was a kid, I wanted to be a professional chair. Unfortunately, there was not enough demand for it, so I had to do something else instead. Oh well.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

The fact that one lives good is by one way or another a result of others' suffering.
Sure, we can do good things for humankind, produce more food, help to advance technologically, etc.
But one doesn't do this for "others", just for oneself, thus creating the rich/poor gap (also in the micro and macro).

I absolutely couldn't disagree more. You seem to think economics is a win-lose situation. I know it can be and often is a win-win situation. By everyone performing different tasks, we all become wealthier. The US citizen who ranks at the bottom 10% point of wealth has a better standard of living today than the US citizen 100 years ago who was at the 90% point. Through sciencetific advancements everyone enjoys better health systems, sanitation systems, transportation systems, communications systems, etc.

It is through regulated capitalism, limited socialism and democracy that the US achieved this. I've been to North and South Korea, to Western Europe and Eastern Europe, to the US and Mexico. I see what works, working together.

Yes, there may be a bigger gap between rich and poor than there was 20 years ago, but as long as the poor are getting richer we are moving in the right direction. Only a little more socialism is required, not a change in system.

 

[BasketCase]

Almost everybody in advanced countries would see their standard of living plummet.

Why would they? As has been said time and time before (by right wingers, incidentally) is that the problem with global poverty is with the distribution of goods -- it is impossible to transfer in an economic manner the excess of food, electricity, industrial goods, etc we have in the West to third world.

Absolutely. That's one problem with poverty, anyway--in some parts of the world we can't get the surplus goods to where they're needed. However, in order to ask the question I asked in the original post, it's necessary to assume that goods can be easily distributed among everybody.

So this boils down to "it can't work for this reason, but if it could, everybody in the developed world would end up with a lower living standard".

 

[Mise]

Absolutely. That's one problem with poverty, anyway--in some parts of the world we can't get the surplus goods to where they're needed. However, in order to ask the question I asked in the original post, it's necessary to assume that goods can be easily distributed among everybody.

So this boils down to "it can't work for this reason, but if it could, everybody in the developed world would end up with a lower living standard".

Oh. Then I misunderstood the question entirely, and would DEFINATELY vote differently! Simply put, I will argue in favour of equal distribution of wealth within an industrialised nation (since it would, by and large, preserve the current average standard of living, which is pretty decent in the West, and still allows a level of freedom), at the expense of economic/industrial growth.

But in the third world, without the free market (or some economic driving force, be it the invisible hand or the iron fist), developing countries will cease to develop and will stagnate in the poverty they currently have. Of course, their standard of living will increase, but it will only be by very very little, and will never increase beyond that.

Equal distribution of goods in the third world is bad on so many levels and its benefits are negligable, IMO. So while in principle, I would argue for equal distribution of wealth in the West (or at least, that it could satisfy economic theory and form a workable system), but in the third world, it wouldn't be beneficial at all.

 

[BasketCase]

From what I've observed, Third World countries are gladly polluting the bejeezus out of their environments in order to catch up. When presented with the possibility of improving their economy, the question of pollution hazards goes straight out the window.

 

[boogaboo]

I absolutely couldn't disagree more. You seem to think economics is a win-lose situation. I know it can be and often is a win-win situation. By everyone performing different tasks, we all become wealthier. The US citizen who ranks at the bottom 10% point of wealth has a better standard of living today than the US citizen 100 years ago who was at the 90% point. Through sciencetific advancements everyone enjoys better health systems, sanitation systems, transportation systems, communications systems, etc.

It is through regulated capitalism, limited socialism and democracy that the US achieved this. I've been to North and South Korea, to Western Europe and Eastern Europe, to the US and Mexico. I see what works, working together.

Yes, there may be a bigger gap between rich and poor than there was 20 years ago, but as long as the poor are getting richer we are moving in the right direction. Only a little more socialism is required, not a change in system.

The US developed not because of its' own capitalism, but because WW2 ruined Europe, while most other nations were never stable.
The US exploited many countries, which are poor, especially for work labor - slaving kids and cheap labor in other nations.
Do you think these people are getting better??

The US "poor" are not poor at all, since they can work and be in a middle class.
Most poor people in the world have no real option but to enslave themselves to some boss who pays them minimum wage at the most.
No, these people will not get rich, they will only survive.

You could say that the poor people are getting better from generation to generation, but that's just because the world as a whole has many more resources and technologies, not because the "system" gave them anything.
And still in the world today, there are many starving people, unlike many nations even in the far past, who usually knew how to distribute the wealth so that people would at least have the basic water/food/house needs.

I'm not saying everyone should get exactly the same, but close to that, and especially start by supplying food for all.
Capitalism encourages abuse of people by other, richer people.

Also, 100 years ago, many many people in the US were (by definition or not) - slaves.