I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Monopolies are doing very well in terms of market success. This is what I meant.
There have been many studies showing indisputably that high wealth inequality is bad for society as a whole, regardless of overall GDP. Richard Wilkinson has many talks out there describing the research showing how awful wide wealth inequality is for the world. We aren’t advocating for everyone to be equal, that’s just a straw man at best. It’s the levels of inequality that destroy society.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Ah, the fuck you I got mine animal in the wild. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
I knew it was just a matter of time until final confirmation appeared. I acknowledge and respect your honesty, even if you’ve just lost any other possibility of respect.
Economical equality is in itself impossible, because each person will have different needs in the end. Equity, on the other hand, understands that, but still wants to level out the playing field.
However, from that to thinking that wealth disparity/concentration isn’t part of the problem is one hell of a leap, because it very much is part of the problem, and it is also stagnating growth: less money in the hands of people who will actually spend it means there’s less incentive to risk starting a new business. Reduction of buying power forces smaller businesses to close/sell out, creating more concentration of wealth and power (or monopolistic advances) and spreading unemployment.
I cannot understand how you can say you care about the wellbeing of the working class while not being against, at the very least, excessive wealth concentration
I am not saying I am not against wealth concentration.
You did say earlier:
I would say it should be concentrated because: Most people do not have the desire or capacity to wield economic power.
I do not care about wealth disparity.
Also, you seem to be clinging too hard to “i’m against equality”, which is fine, as I stated in my previous comment, but your sole reasoning for that is “without an incentive to gain lots of money, people won’t take risks” - which is not true at all, either, unless you assume money is the only thing that can motivate people into doing anything. Not every teacher teaches just because of money, not every medic treats people just because of money (maybe not true in USA, but more likely outside of it), not every game developer is in just for the money.
I did say that. Because I believe the decisionmaking power should be concentrated, but if it is necessary to increase the purchasing power of the populace, I am not against that.
I am simply saying equality is not a value. That means whether or not society should be equal is a practical question for me and not a moral one.
“without an incentive to gain lots of money, people won’t take risks” is not my point at all. Also, what do they even risk if they are not capitalist?
Also, what do they even risk if they are not capitalist?
Depends on what they end up doing. Could be time (most research), could be their health (physical or mental), could be their lives. You should try thinking a bit harder.
I do not care about wealth disparity. Salaries should probably rise, and reform may be needed for that to happen, but I do not care if the society is unequal.
Monopolies are doing very well in terms of market success. This is what I meant.
There have been many studies showing indisputably that high wealth inequality is bad for society as a whole, regardless of overall GDP. Richard Wilkinson has many talks out there describing the research showing how awful wide wealth inequality is for the world. We aren’t advocating for everyone to be equal, that’s just a straw man at best. It’s the levels of inequality that destroy society.
Ah, the fuck you I got mine animal in the wild. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
I knew it was just a matter of time until final confirmation appeared. I acknowledge and respect your honesty, even if you’ve just lost any other possibility of respect.
Not at all. I do care about the wellbeing of the working class, but I do not believe that equality is a value in itself. This is the point I made.
Economical equality is in itself impossible, because each person will have different needs in the end. Equity, on the other hand, understands that, but still wants to level out the playing field.
However, from that to thinking that wealth disparity/concentration isn’t part of the problem is one hell of a leap, because it very much is part of the problem, and it is also stagnating growth: less money in the hands of people who will actually spend it means there’s less incentive to risk starting a new business. Reduction of buying power forces smaller businesses to close/sell out, creating more concentration of wealth and power (or monopolistic advances) and spreading unemployment.
I cannot understand how you can say you care about the wellbeing of the working class while not being against, at the very least, excessive wealth concentration
I am not saying I am not against wealth concentration. I saying I am not opposed to it inherently.
You did say earlier:
Also, you seem to be clinging too hard to “i’m against equality”, which is fine, as I stated in my previous comment, but your sole reasoning for that is “without an incentive to gain lots of money, people won’t take risks” - which is not true at all, either, unless you assume money is the only thing that can motivate people into doing anything. Not every teacher teaches just because of money, not every medic treats people just because of money (maybe not true in USA, but more likely outside of it), not every game developer is in just for the money.
I did say that. Because I believe the decisionmaking power should be concentrated, but if it is necessary to increase the purchasing power of the populace, I am not against that.
I am simply saying equality is not a value. That means whether or not society should be equal is a practical question for me and not a moral one.
“without an incentive to gain lots of money, people won’t take risks” is not my point at all. Also, what do they even risk if they are not capitalist?
Depends on what they end up doing. Could be time (most research), could be their health (physical or mental), could be their lives. You should try thinking a bit harder.
I mean they are certain they will lose their time and labour, so there is no risk involved, is it?