4 ms·

Given the generally accepted ideal of equality in the rich and educated world it strikes me as crazy that we continue to work hard to keep refugees out of our i

Given the generally accepted ideal of equality in the rich and educated world it strikes me as crazy that we continue to work hard to keep refugees out of our islands of wealth instead of structurally working on improving the chances of all people on earth. We seem to just turn a blind eye to this huge inequality or even increase and abuse it when it suits us. For example: Why don't we apply our minimum wage laws to the cheap foreign labor we depend on for our cheap products? Why don't we spend a significant part of our riches on improving education across the world? The same goes for universal food and health care. Why do we apparently feel that people who happen to be born somewhere else are inherently less valuable than us? Imagine what we could achieve if we would maximize the chances given to all people. We would all become richer from it together in the long run. But somehow even just thinking about something like this mostly just makes others laugh or at best uncomfortably chuckle at such a silly idealist.

josephcsible 5y ago
Because we can't afford to do that, and if we tried, all that would happen is our own standard of living would go down the toilet.
- culi 5y ago
  If our high living of standard requires the subjugation of the rest of the world, maybe it's time to rethink the way we organize our global economy? There's more slaves today than ever before (some say even per capita). Pacific islanders are being enslaved for your fish, south american labor leaders are being assassinated for your bananas, and indigenous communities are being violently displaced for the minerals needed for your computers. If what we currently have really isn't possible without the above happening, maybe we need to step back and ask if it's really right for us to have what we have
  - imtringued 5y ago
    It not only requires the subjugation of the rest of the world, it also requires the subjugation of nature and the atmosphere.
- zhoujianfu 5y ago
  Actually, I just read the chapter on open borders in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists and he argues none of that is true. Open borders (more immigrants) actually increases wealth of the country letting them in, even refugees…
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    And If you cut taxes workers will get paid more. At least that's what the books say.
    - wiseowise 5y ago
      Lol.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about cutting taxes for the rich or do you mean that if workers do not pay taxes that they will no longer benefit from government spending (education, infrastructure, etc)?
ivanmontillam 5y ago
Not to burst the bubble, but there's a reason why Elon Musk asked for a breakdown of costs for such a plan a few weeks ago. Throwing money at foundations doesn't automagically solves the problem. Sometimes it happens that if you donate clothes to some African communities, corruption will take over and your donation will not reach the hands of those in most need. The clothes will instead be sold into the illegal markets, profitting feudal lords. There's not a lack of intention to help, rather it's the structure, the status quo of things that de-incentivizes such help.
- Lich 5y ago
  A breakdown was provided by the UN. He never responded.
  - wiseowise 5y ago
    Care to share a link?
  - unsigner 5y ago
    What was provided was a bill how to spend the money within about a year, not “solve world hunger”.
- sh4un 5y ago
  Best example ever is Haiti.
  - cm2012 5y ago
    Yeah, Haiti and Dominican Republic are on the same island and started in the same place 50 years ago. They're now on wildly different projectories.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      I don't think it was in the same place 50 years ago. Dominican governments have been trying to keep immigrants from Haiti out for well over a century by now.
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
> Why don't we spend a significant part of our riches The idea is noble and tempting, but the specifics of implementation (id est, who are "we", what is "a significant part" and how exactly should we spend it) are hard to decide.
- culi 5y ago
  Eh For example, Elizabeth Warren wanted to throw out all our international trade agreements and renegotiate them to force the participants to comply with certain environmental and ethical standards. Some of those standards weren't even being met by the US The idea has been given serious research, thought, and debate. It IS doable. The main issue is the will to seriously pursue it
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wiseowise 5y ago
> For example: Why don't we apply our minimum wage laws to the cheap foreign labor we depend on for our cheap products? Because that would destroy any economy that exists there? What would be incentive to start a business when some rich multinational can pay 5x more than you? > Why don't we spend a significant part of our riches on improving education across the world? Because there are better wats to spend 'riches'? > Why do we apparently feel that people who happen to be born somewhere else are inherently less valuable than us? You answered yourself, because they were born somewhere else. They don't share our core values, language, culture. It doesn't mean that we should consider them beneath us. But they're different and that's a fact. > We would all become richer from it together in the long run. But somehow even just thinking about something like this mostly just makes others laugh or at best uncomfortably chuckle at such a silly idealist. Because those are laughable at best.
wobblybubble 5y ago
> Given the generally accepted ideal of equality in the rich and educated world It isn’t a generally accepted ideal in the West. And where it is accepted it might just be (if you read the fine print) some kind of equality like "equal opportunity to participate in the rat race".
afpx 5y ago
This is a strange comment to me because this is exactly what a lot of people have been doing for the past 40 years. Over a billion people have been brought out of extreme poverty, and hundreds of millions have entered the middle class. Changes don't happen overnight.
imtringued 5y ago
I don't really think your ideas are particularly good but that's not really the point. The real question is why we accept the flaws of our current system. It's not very difficult to solve them. E.g. homeless need homes to not be homeless. Yet it is extremely difficult to actually want to solve them. Californians in particularly prefer having homeless people over giving them homes even despite the fact that the government isn't lacking in resources.

josephcsible 5y ago

Because we can't afford to do that, and if we tried, all that would happen is our own standard of living would go down the toilet.

culi 5y ago
If our high living of standard requires the subjugation of the rest of the world, maybe it's time to rethink the way we organize our global economy? There's more slaves today than ever before (some say even per capita). Pacific islanders are being enslaved for your fish, south american labor leaders are being assassinated for your bananas, and indigenous communities are being violently displaced for the minerals needed for your computers. If what we currently have really isn't possible without the above happening, maybe we need to step back and ask if it's really right for us to have what we have
- imtringued 5y ago
  It not only requires the subjugation of the rest of the world, it also requires the subjugation of nature and the atmosphere.
zhoujianfu 5y ago
Actually, I just read the chapter on open borders in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists and he argues none of that is true. Open borders (more immigrants) actually increases wealth of the country letting them in, even refugees…
- diordiderot 5y ago
  And If you cut taxes workers will get paid more. At least that's what the books say.
  - wiseowise 5y ago
    Lol.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about cutting taxes for the rich or do you mean that if workers do not pay taxes that they will no longer benefit from government spending (education, infrastructure, etc)?

ivanmontillam 5y ago

Not to burst the bubble, but there's a reason why Elon Musk asked for a breakdown of costs for such a plan a few weeks ago. Throwing money at foundations doesn't automagically solves the problem. Sometimes it happens that if you donate clothes to some African communities, corruption will take over and your donation will not reach the hands of those in most need. The clothes will instead be sold into the illegal markets, profitting feudal lords. There's not a lack of intention to help, rather it's the structure, the status quo of things that de-incentivizes such help.

Lich 5y ago
A breakdown was provided by the UN. He never responded.
- wiseowise 5y ago
  Care to share a link?
- unsigner 5y ago
  What was provided was a bill how to spend the money within about a year, not “solve world hunger”.
sh4un 5y ago
Best example ever is Haiti.
- cm2012 5y ago
  Yeah, Haiti and Dominican Republic are on the same island and started in the same place 50 years ago. They're now on wildly different projectories.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    I don't think it was in the same place 50 years ago. Dominican governments have been trying to keep immigrants from Haiti out for well over a century by now.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

> Why don't we spend a significant part of our riches The idea is noble and tempting, but the specifics of implementation (id est, who are "we", what is "a significant part" and how exactly should we spend it) are hard to decide.

culi 5y ago
Eh For example, Elizabeth Warren wanted to throw out all our international trade agreements and renegotiate them to force the participants to comply with certain environmental and ethical standards. Some of those standards weren't even being met by the US The idea has been given serious research, thought, and debate. It IS doable. The main issue is the will to seriously pursue it
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wiseowise 5y ago

> For example: Why don't we apply our minimum wage laws to the cheap foreign labor we depend on for our cheap products? Because that would destroy any economy that exists there? What would be incentive to start a business when some rich multinational can pay 5x more than you? > Why don't we spend a significant part of our riches on improving education across the world? Because there are better wats to spend 'riches'? > Why do we apparently feel that people who happen to be born somewhere else are inherently less valuable than us? You answered yourself, because they were born somewhere else. They don't share our core values, language, culture. It doesn't mean that we should consider them beneath us. But they're different and that's a fact. > We would all become richer from it together in the long run. But somehow even just thinking about something like this mostly just makes others laugh or at best uncomfortably chuckle at such a silly idealist. Because those are laughable at best.

wobblybubble 5y ago

> Given the generally accepted ideal of equality in the rich and educated world It isn’t a generally accepted ideal in the West. And where it is accepted it might just be (if you read the fine print) some kind of equality like "equal opportunity to participate in the rat race".

afpx 5y ago

This is a strange comment to me because this is exactly what a lot of people have been doing for the past 40 years. Over a billion people have been brought out of extreme poverty, and hundreds of millions have entered the middle class. Changes don't happen overnight.

imtringued 5y ago

I don't really think your ideas are particularly good but that's not really the point. The real question is why we accept the flaws of our current system. It's not very difficult to solve them. E.g. homeless need homes to not be homeless. Yet it is extremely difficult to actually want to solve them. Californians in particularly prefer having homeless people over giving them homes even despite the fact that the government isn't lacking in resources.