4 ms·
The solution to this is to eliminate wealth disparity.
by pmoriarty 5y ago
The solution to this is to eliminate wealth disparity.
- faeyanpiraat 5y agoWe tried that already. It wasn’t pretty.
- Tostino 5y agoWhen? When did we actually try that?
- tengbretson 5y agoWhy stop at eliminating wealth disparity when you can eliminate wealth?
- syshum 5y agoSame thing, the only way to eliminating wealth disparity is to eliminate wealth. The Authoritarian Left that goes on and on about eliminating wealth disparity has no interest in lifting everyone up to be wealthy, not they want to seize the wealth and drag anyone down they deem is "too wealthy" Which is ironically always someone more wealthy than the person advocating for wealth redistribution, for example Bernie Sanders used to talk about "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire, now like magic only billionaires are a problem for him
- mola 5y agoYou know being a millionaire today has a massively different meaning than 20 years ago.
- losvedir 5y agoWhat? Now you're making me feel old. I remember 20 years ago... it didn't seem that different from today. What's "massively different" about being a millionaire then? You mean, inflation-adjusted, how it's $1.5 million today?
- convolvatron 5y agoyou still get get to retire in comfort, but you don't get invited to the really swank parties seriously - maybe narcissism isn't the best character trait to structure your society around?
- fennecfoxen 5y agoThis has been demonstrated feasible! We can all be similarly poor together.
- carapace 5y agoMaybe. But how? I think that, if you could somehow collect all the wealth and redistribute it equally, within a few years we would see disparity reappear. Some folks are better at accumulating wealth than others. It seems to me that you would have to keep reallocating wealth. And many would then ask, what's the motive for generating wealth if it's just going to be taken away from you?
- Shacklz 5y ago> And many would then ask, what's the motive for generating wealth if it's just going to be taken away from you? The same motivation that drives some folks to study e.g. philosophy, even though it's perfectly well known that this will never make you rich: Because they like it. You don't just e.g. found a company for the sake of money - you also do it because it allows you to do things on your own terms, it gives you prestige, it gives you the satisfaction of being 'successful'. In todays day and age, this is usually equivalent with 'generating wealth', but I'm a firm believer that this does not necessarily have to be the case.
- WalterBright 5y agoEconomies based on this idea tend to do very poorly. For one thing, people won't have money to invest in new ventures.
- w4 5y agoI’m not so sure. Running a business exposes you to tremendous personal risk, especially in a litigious country like the US. It’s also incredibly hard, most often fails, and typically confers less prestige than other much more reliable and substantially less risky high paying career paths (finance, law, medicine, consulting, etc).
- Loughla 5y agoI find it absolutely fascinating that your arguments are shot down on this board, because it's business, but that is literally what you're told on a constant basis if you want to go into the education field in the US. You don't do it for the paycheck, you do it because you like it. Why education, social work, and other human services fields, but not business? That is odd to me.
- ldbooth 5y agoThe tax system is part and parcel with inequality.