4 ms·
>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 wer
by EthanHeilman 10y 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 10y agoI 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!"