It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There can never be income equality amongst the general population

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This thread more or less highlights problem. People not really understanding what is meant by income inequality. The OP is right there can't ever really be income "equality" where everything is all equal. But misses that when income inequality is raised as an issue, it is about how majorly out of balance the top is with everyone else in terms of proportion. And how to get them back to where the proportions they should be at.



Clearly the closer those three lines are to one another the better off everyone is.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: icyboy771z

Agreed. Living happily just takes knowing the difference between needs and wants. Unfortunately many have forgotten that much of modern life is all needs and not wants. Though I will concede that certain amenities of modern life have become needs to continue to live in modern life. Things like fast transportation or a phone (not necessarily a smart phone though). Internet is fast becoming one of those needs as well.

HOWEVER, they are still technically wants in the terms of basic survival. You could easily drop off the grid and go without all of those things and be perfectly happy.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: icyboy771z

The only solution is to remove the concept of wealth and accumulation of it.

If energy were "free", or at least cheap enough to be considered essentially free, think about how much less the concept of money would matter? Then it just comes down to the cost of labor and investment of materials. Were human capital not needed for stuff like food production, then you would see a potential for a non-economy. But the cost then is setting machines to maintaining the civilization we want (and built).



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They don't. They do however deserve to be able to feed families, clothe them, home them, and so on, and EVERY person who has a job, should be able to do that at the very minimum, and save some money too, just because they are employed, and so should you. If your job pays less than is necessary for that, then your problem is with your employer, not with the ideal involved here.

This is not an either or scenario. People should be rewarded equal to their efforts, but the minimum reward should be enough to provide the working person with the ability to function a LIFE, not a mere existence.
edit on 15-3-2015 by TrueBrit because: Added clarification.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ketsuko

This is not an either or scenario. People should be rewarded equal to their efforts, but the minimum reward should be enough to provide the working person with the ability to function a LIFE, not a mere existence.


**Warning ... Opinion Follows**

Everyone knows if you wear a 'red shirt' in a Star Trek episode that you're expendable. Truth is ... some of us just are. We know it and lie to ourselves that we are not. The self-delusion persists right up to the moment of truth. The 'masters' may even promote it; never conceding, never acknowledging, never letting-on.

Where you are wrong is oversight in what opportunity denied actually is. When you've raised kids you'll suddenly 'get it' because no one can drink from the fountain of knowledge for your benefit.

Why did the red shirts 'take' their jobs?



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join