5 ms·

>Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account

>Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? Or would you tax the already low wages these people have earned at a rate sufficient to give those groups a similar standard of living as those whom happen to be employed and not old or sick? If you did so with 100% efficiency you would have an after tax income at a number somewhere between yours and mine. That number would be very likely less than the federal minimum wage. And even so the government hasn't built a road or a school yet. >And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000. Children of single mothers would have it pretty rough then. Typically communist systems will give extra resources to parents of children in order to assist with the cost of raising them. I suppose this will not be the case in this brave new world? A bold choice as early childhood mortality will likely be very high as well as the numbers of parents abandoning children they can't afford. >Are you confusing median and mean here? Neither was mentioned in this context. The US federal minimum wage (FYI Walmart has a national minimum wage that exceeds that number by roughly 25% very few actually make this little) earned for 40 hours a week work, 52 weeks a year will give you a gross income of a little over 15 thousand dollars annually.

EthanHeilman 9y ago
>Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? This makes no sense. I pointed out you were comparing income statistics incorrectly (which was also noted by another poster) and in response you: 1. made up a political program which is entirely missing from my post, 2. ascribed it to me out of the blue, 3. and then wrote two paragraphs attacking me for this fantastical program. I'd hate to be your math teacher: Math teacher: "cmdrfred, you got this problem wrong 2 + 3 is not 6" cmdrfred: "Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve?".
- cmdrfred 9y ago
  I merely mentioned the median income in passing to highlight how low many will fall. (US GDP per capita is 53k if you are really concerned about apples to apples) and you fixated on it for some reason ignoring the rest of the argument. "The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system." The fact is if you had income equality globally you would either have to allow the sick and elderly to starve as well as essentially suspend every governmental function or even the lowest paid workers in the US would be much worse off as the economy would shrink to 1/5 of its original size. My point stands, "Fight for $15" and making income "fair" are mutually exclusive goals unless you are a nationalist whom is really saying "hey, give me more money!"

EthanHeilman 9y ago

>Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? This makes no sense. I pointed out you were comparing income statistics incorrectly (which was also noted by another poster) and in response you: 1. made up a political program which is entirely missing from my post, 2. ascribed it to me out of the blue, 3. and then wrote two paragraphs attacking me for this fantastical program. I'd hate to be your math teacher: Math teacher: "cmdrfred, you got this problem wrong 2 + 3 is not 6" cmdrfred: "Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve?".

cmdrfred 9y ago
I merely mentioned the median income in passing to highlight how low many will fall. (US GDP per capita is 53k if you are really concerned about apples to apples) and you fixated on it for some reason ignoring the rest of the argument. "The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system." The fact is if you had income equality globally you would either have to allow the sick and elderly to starve as well as essentially suspend every governmental function or even the lowest paid workers in the US would be much worse off as the economy would shrink to 1/5 of its original size. My point stands, "Fight for $15" and making income "fair" are mutually exclusive goals unless you are a nationalist whom is really saying "hey, give me more money!"