There can never be income equality amongst the general population

Has anyone thought of this? This idea occurred to me that there can never be a situation where there is income equality between people. As a kid, I thought that a perfect country would be one where everyone is wealthy and no one is poor.

This can never happen for two reasons. First, mainly because in a country where everyone has equal wealth, there would not be an incentive for people to work and productivity decreases. This is evident in communist countries. While capitalism, the foundation of most countries' economic systems, promotes income inequality based on the fact that the businesses are privately owned and operated for profits.

Secondly, the value of money would change. Imagine if all the money in the world are somehow spread evenly to each and every one. Then who would be rich in this case? Or poor? Then there can never be a scenario where everyone is wealthy as wealth is comparative to another person's net worth. If everyone was given a billion then a billion would not be what a billion is worth today. Prices of all goods will sky rocket, houses would probably cost half a billion, your $20 meal would cost $20,000.

Further to add, this leads me to think that there can never be a crime-free or perfect society. Income inequality has to exists for a society to function for reasons above. In income inequality, born are the evils like drugs,prostitution, crime. Poor people see these as a way to earn money in a short period of time. Therefore, you can never eradicate all these crimes, only control it to a certain extent. This is similar to the subject of Yin and Yang in Taoism where two opposing and contradicting forces are actually complimentary to each other as one cannot exist without the other.

a reply to: icyboy771z

Income equality is an illusion, but it IS possible for everyone's basic human needs (not wants) to be fulfilled. Things like shelter, food, clothing, etc. I don't support income equality because it is stupid, but I would like to see that everyone has at the very least all the basic necessities to survive day to day.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can 'give' people the basic necessities and they will trash them.

Problem is ... they always try to guilt trip you into giving more when they become destitute.

a reply to: icyboy771z

You bring up some interesting points, but do you not believe that there are some serious things wrong with the way in which this fact expresses itself in western, capitalist nations?

For example, if poor folk are necessary to the prosperity of the intensely wealthy, why is it that the poor, particularly the working poor, are so badly treated by their governments? Why do people of little means have to struggle for the pittance they may gain from their efforts, if their role in the economy is to underpin the fabric of the economic model? Why is it that they are prevented from feeling pride, by constant assaults on their livelihoods, on their ability to home, clothe, and feed their families?

Surely if the role of the poor is to occupy a position so important, their lot, for all that they have little money, ought to be better than it is? I am a man of little means, and I work harder to maintain those small means, than many people who earn thousands of pounds while doing something as simple as putting on their socks, and rarely put in more effort than that, to the things that earn them money. Earning by owning, for example, seems to provide returns which have nothing to do with how much real labour has been put into those returns.

This surely, is not acceptable in a nation where many have to work more than one job, spend eighty percent of their time working, to gain a mere pittance?

a reply to: icyboy771z

Nice post. The trouble is the 'stimulus-response' crowd do buy into it. Frankly, every other nirvana-styled perfection that is pushed, as well.

Equality, fairness, justice...all pushed, yet manipulated.

In wages, we aren't 'equal' in talent, education or productivity...never will be.

a reply to: Snarl

That's not true for everyone though. Sure, it's true for a segment of the population, but not everyone is like that and it is naïve to think so. Though thinking like that certainly helps political ideology to prevent such programs.

A wise man once said, "All men are created equal."

What he failed to mention is that men (or women) begin to change from that moment of creation. No two of us are exactly alike. No two of us are going to claim what we earn is equal.

Every place I've ever been, it's been easy enough to identify my betters ... and those who will slack off and reap whatever rewards from the system that they can.

You earn your way in society. People who aren't incentivized to perform at their peak will rarely strive to stay on top.

Fortunately, I married a hard charger who doesn't have the word 'quit' in her vocabulary. If she didn't love me, I know I'd be less.

a reply to: icyboy771z

Just because everyone is 'created equally' doesn't mean they develop equally. A healthy society is one where the rich and poor are few and the middle class is huge.

The engine that runs the economy is not the government, the banks or industry, it is the middle class. They are the workers, earners and spenders that drive everything. Unless they are out of work or don't earn enough to live in the middle anymore.

The failure of that is what we see today, 'redefined' from previous eras but still poor ruled over by the rich. Top down rule, one-way wealth flow upwards and eternal struggle just making ends meet.

Serfdom, fiefdom, indentured servitude, i.e., slavery.

a reply to: TrueBrit

All right. I don't make $15/hour as a part-time proofreader/editor. Why does a full-time burger flipper deserve to make $15/hour? I could spend 20 minutes training and learn to flip burgers. I spent lots of time trying to train our customer service girl how to proofread adequately so she could back me up and it was hopeless. What luck would many of those burger flippers have?

So why do their skills deserve more than mine?

I do not see any viable way that income equality could be justified.

People operate at different skill sets and we all produce to different levels. Why should someone taking the trash out get paid as much as a high end engineer or a surgeon. They shouldn't and I don't think that is a bad thing.

Their is nothing wrong with being motivated in life, in trying to succeed at whatever you are doing . ATS has a certain segment that think if you do well in your chosen career and are happy in life you are just part of the problem but that usually comes from people that also post about how poor and disenchanted they are. Having something to aspire to be it a higher salary or whatever isn't a bad thing.

Also who is to say what effort was required for someone to be successful? I have my retirement strategy laid out and it involves slowing my career down in my 50s to hopefully make money off investments. I am not going to feel guilty when that succeeds because I know how hard I burned when I was in my 30/40s to get to that point.

a reply to: intrptr

Another key point in all this is what gov't's role is all this.

In the U.S., basic distrust of 'gov't' is part of the DNA as the people were leaving countries where the cards were stacked against them. Hence, the Constitution and the restriction of the role of gov't..

The idea was protect us and stay out of our faces. We will compete, strive and win or lose as fate decrees. Not some gov't telling us how or what or when.

Now? Basic right to necessities? Just another glib statement to rob from those that did strive and survived.

Fair for one group is a shaft to another...ALWAYS!...

How about more of a level playing ground .. why does the ceo of g.m. make so much compared to the guy welding a oil storage tank at - 30 degree weather .. well all chip in why do only a few really get all the benefits

a reply to: nwtrucker

The idea was protect us and stay out of our faces. We will compete, strive and win or lose as fate decrees. Not some gov't telling us how or what or when.

Especially. Seems we not only let the greedy and power hungry back in, now they are getting us embroiled in conflict back in Europe, the very place pre Americans left to get away from the morass of Kings, poverty and endless war in the damn first place.

Outraged…

a reply to: intrptr

Exactly! Those ties never where fully cut, where they?

Though, we can't really put the onus on them. The failing was ours and ours alone...

What makes you rhink you are better and deserve more.. thays the problem everyone has to feel thwy are better than someone socially . Are you gonna scrubb toilets for a living . a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: icyboy771z

Income equality is an illusion, but it IS possible for everyone's basic human needs (not wants) to be fulfilled. Things like shelter, food, clothing, etc. I don't support income equality because it is stupid, but I would like to see that everyone has at the very least all the basic necessities to survive day to day.

Yes, it is possible for all basic human needs to be fulfilled. The government could build shelters for homeless to stay or provide cheap rental houses. food rations and clothing can be given out and provided to the poor and under privileged. Wealth is an illusion in that sense as we slog our whole lives just to accumulate more wealth, where most of the money goes to the home mortgage and car loans. We actually need very little things to survive comfortably. Mainly food,housing and clothing.

It brings to the point, does it matter if we live in a small flat and take public transport versus living in a mansion and a Ferrari? If you are contented with the former, than you are as wealthy as any billionaire in the world. It is just an illusion of the mind, you think you need a Ferrari to feel good and superior. keep in mind,the past kings and rulers only had horses and no Ferrari yet they never yearn for a sports car or felt less inferior. Of course, what I say sounds silly because a Ferrari wasn't built then but it just goes to show we are willing to pay a million dollars for a car because of how society perceives it. If a 1000 years later when cars are not needed any more, your Ferrari would be worth nil because society now perceives it as redundant. If gold can be found everywhere and sand is limited, sand would then be the new gold.

a reply to: icyboy771z

Pure "income equality" would state that 50% of the people earn 50% of the country's wealth. So yes, that's unlikely, unreasonable and would necessitate a totally different kind of government from what we have.

But the goal is NOT to attain income equality, but to fight the drastic state of income INEQUALITY that we have now, which shows that 1% of the people earn 90% of the country's wealth.

As you've pointed out, we can't attain perfection in any aspect of society (crime-free) but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting against crime to bring that level down to a more manageable state.

not many people are wanting equality. the argument is normally a net so people don't spiral down into a pit of financial hell to homelessness and starvation.

We as a powerful, rich, 1st world civilization should be damn ashamed that we have homeless folks, starvation, etc.

We are nothing more than a backwoods jungle club of kids until we achieve some sort of base standard of living.

Once we have the basics covered, then we can consider ourselves an adult nation...and yeah, I want a big boat, super mansion on my own island, etc etc etc...that's what keeps me motivated to create.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: icyboy771z

You bring up some interesting points, but do you not believe that there are some serious things wrong with the way in which this fact expresses itself in western, capitalist nations?

For example, if poor folk are necessary to the prosperity of the intensely wealthy, why is it that the poor, particularly the working poor, are so badly treated by their governments? Why do people of little means have to struggle for the pittance they may gain from their efforts, if their role in the economy is to underpin the fabric of the economic model? Why is it that they are prevented from feeling pride, by constant assaults on their livelihoods, on their ability to home, clothe, and feed their families?

Surely if the role of the poor is to occupy a position so important, their lot, for all that they have little money, ought to be better than it is? I am a man of little means, and I work harder to maintain those small means, than many people who earn thousands of pounds while doing something as simple as putting on their socks, and rarely put in more effort than that, to the things that earn them money. Earning by owning, for example, seems to provide returns which have nothing to do with how much real labour has been put into those returns.

This surely, is not acceptable in a nation where many have to work more than one job, spend eighty percent of their time working, to gain a mere pittance?

I think this all boils down to greed. When you have position and power you tend to want to maintain that status, you would crave for power and control and you begin to care less about others' well-being, and you would do anything even if it is detrimental to others.

Have you heard of the Stanford prison experiments? Its results clearly shows that people when put into position of a role with power would then abuse it. In the experiment, they wanted to test if inherent personality traits are the chief cause of abuse in prisons. The researchers purposely chose middle-class people with no criminal background, who were told to fulfil their roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison. Through the days, the guards grew increasingly cruel each day and 1/3 of them actually showed genuine sadistic characteristics, many of the prisoners were traumatized and the experiment had to be stopped in 6 days. The results shows a situational attribution of behaviour rather than dispositional attribution (A result of internal characteristics).

This prisoner and guard roles in the experiment can be imposed in daily society between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy sees the poor as their slaves, a money-making machine to slog mindlessly for them, even if it means long hours, low wages and poor working conditions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TrueBrit

All right. I don't make $15/hour as a part-time proofreader/editor. Why does a full-time burger flipper deserve to make $15/hour? I could spend 20 minutes training and learn to flip burgers. I spent lots of time trying to train our customer service girl how to proofread adequately so she could back me up and it was hopeless. What luck would many of those burger flippers have?

So why do their skills deserve more than mine?

It's all relative isn't it?

To me personally, as a proof reader you have absolutely NO use to me, I am unlikely to ever require what you do.. to me you are surpless to need whereas I do eat burgers.. so the burger flipper is very relevant to me.

People have got to the point where they build a false pyramid of worth.. burger flippers are bottom of the pyramid and are worthless skin who don't deserve paying... Actually I'm getting very angry right now.

People are paid or compensated for their time and not necessarily their skill set.

..but people will always bicker and moan that someone else gets more than them, how about if your wage pays for the lifestyle you want, then what does it matter what others are paid?

I have no problem with rich people being rich so long as they do it ethically. For the most part rich people have worked really hard (No no no no no.... not all of them, I'm not saying that).