TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.

Assuming socialism is right, the rich should give the poor their money. Why does it not also follow that the poor must also then share in the risks/debts/expenses/hard work/smart work/saving money which the wealthy use to create economic wealth?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 3 2013: G'day Joshua

    Where do the wealthy obtain such wealth & could they do it without the average joe blow (person) slaving their guts out so the rich can get richer, many people die because of there jobs so the wealthy can become ever increasingly wealthier. So what's your argument again?

    Forfeiting one's life so the rich can wallow in their wealth is giving a hell of a lot more than any wealthy magnate would give don't you think?

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Apr 3 2013: the average joe already got his part. he works for a salary. that reasoning could go either way. what would poor people consume if there were no capitalists? let's then tax the poor, and give to the rich, so they can produce more. this makes exactly as few sense as the other proposition.
      • Apr 3 2013: I think society and individuals benefit if there is a healthy balance between rich making their money and poor/society getting fair share of wealth given their effort and abilities?
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: what is the fair share? what if the free market is exactly the fair share? what if wage and cheap products are exactly the fair share?
      • Apr 3 2013: "what is the fair share? "

        There is not exact answer but not paying taxes and lobbying government for favors and laws that profits them does not seem like a fair game?

        "what if the free market is exactly the fair share?"

        Free market has not stipulation that it needs to be fair. It is a game of demand and supply.

        "what if wage and cheap products are exactly the fair share?"

        Wage is not determined by the employee. Employees have choice to take on job but only to a certain degree as they are limited by demand and so on.

        I think most people and esp. rich individuals don't realize that the whole society is supporting their wealth creation through infrastructure, education, healthcare and so on.
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: by whom wage is determined? before you answer, consider that other question too: by whom the price of a chocolate bar is determined? ironically, the answer lies within your own comment here.
      • Apr 3 2013: "by whom wage is determined?"

        Wage at a private company is determined by what is the minimum the company needs to pay for given position. That is definitely not fair but rather a way to maximize the company profit.

        Things will get worse in the next 10-20 years and eventually society will need to move to a wealthfare system because automation will cause huge unemployment. Because job market is not fair people will either have to work for very small wage or not have job at all. Society will have to distribute wealthy more artificially.
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: sigh. i intentionally left a hint what do you need to consider. to no avail. i will not give up.

          let us use the same reasoning for prices. you say that the price of apples and chocolate is determined by the minimum amount the consumers are willing to pay. does that sound like how things actually work?
      • Apr 3 2013: I think I already answered your question with "the minimum a company needs to pay" which means a) any associated cost, b) market value c) other factors.

        Similarly for products, there is cost, there is opportunity profit and other factors.

        My question is whether this is fair?

        cheers
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: i said i won't give up. what determines the price of a product?

          the reason behind this question is that labor market is the exact same thing as any other market. on the labor market, work hours are the product, wage is the price, workers are the producers, and companies are the consumers. so if we know what determines the price of a product, we can use the same logic to find what determines wages.

          your current claim is that price is determined by cost. it is not exactly what economics tells us. it also does not explain what we see. many products have way higher prices than their cost. and what about art? there is something missing here.
      • Apr 3 2013: "your current claim is that price is determined by cost. "

        I am sorry but you are not reading my reply: a) any associated cost, b) market value c) other factors
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: okay, i said i'm not giving up, but i'm giving up my tactic of asking. let me explain to you instead, maybe it is faster.

          you already said what determines the price: supply and demand. as the price goes up, more and more suppliers show up, but less and less consumers pay the price. at a point, the two are the same, and we have the market price. neither the supply nor the demand alone sets the price.

          producers would like to set the price as high as they can. consumers want to set the price as low as they can. neither of them is the master of prices. only together can they set it.

          similarly, wage is determined by supply and demand. as the wage goes up, you find more and more people willing to take the job, but less and less employers willing to pay it. at a point, the equilibrium is found.

          employers want the wage as low as possible. workers want the wage as high as possible. but neither of them are the creators of wages. they together set wages.

          is that fair? is that fair that an employer and an employee agrees upon a wage and other work conditions? what else would be fair? who else has a say other than them?
      • Apr 3 2013: Yes basically you are describing in more detail what I mentioned: market value.

        It's an agreement but employees have choices in what is being offered. If I am an accountant and because of automation there is almost no accounting job left then am I able to negotiate fair wage?

        Why should employer pay the minimum wage possible rather than sharing a bit more money they make? I agree owners should make the most but that does not mean they should make as much as possible. Why not give employees a bit more than market value to appreciate their contribution?

        And if this happens, prices of products/services that the company provides can stay the same.

        If I, as a worker, now produce more because I am using better technology why I can't share some of the savings the company makes? Or why can't I work fewer hours and produce the same output for the same money?
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: if you want something to offer that nobody wants at all, what is the fair price for that thing? yep, the fair price is zero. if you have a profession that is not needed, so you can produce zero value, under no moral code you are entitled to get anything for doing that. you have to learn something that is actually valuable. is that fair?

          why would employers pay more than minimum? why would customers pay more than the cost? because there are other buyers that are willing to pay more. there are other employers, and they can bid more if it is still in the profitable range. employers will bid up the price of labor up to the point where the profit disappears. we are back to the original question: what sets the wage? not the demand. the supply and the demand together.

          that theory also explains why wages rise with time. as the economy progresses, and we have better tech, more capital, and better knowhow, the upper limit for wages, set by the profitability criteria, rises. companies start to outbid one another, and wages rise too.

          there is no reason to pay more than the market wage. the market wage is the appropriate way to appreciate their contribution exactly to the degree of their contribution. not less, not more.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2013: G’day Krisztian

        How did we survive without the rich when we used to live in caves as hunter & gatherers or even when we began to farm but as soon as we had something that could be taken off us what appeared? We created the rich class by becoming farmers because we had something that could either be taken off us or the average person (slave, drone) could be used in some way to attain more wealth in some way & what else stemmed from this? War/conflict.

        It is silly to say without capitalism the poor would go hungry, we haven’t always had capitalism, in actual fact it’s quite new to human history so how did we survive all this time without capitalists taking from us? Don’t get me wrong we need the wealthy these days because they have destroyed the environment we once lived off for what, a few pennies!! I’m not conned in believing we need the wealthy more than they need us, who would they send overseas to die for oil or work in salve shops in third world countries or risk their health & lives working in mines or walking the beat as a cop, who needs who more again?

        Don’t get me wrong I don’t want to take everything from the rich because I know some of them have actually worked quite hard to attain their wealth without fleecing people to do so but this never ending hording of wealth when the average person can’t get decent food or medical treatment because it’s all been structured to make as much money for the rich as possible is wrong.

        You might be interested in taking a look at the following link to what the Icelandic’s did to the filthy rich & manipulators in their country. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/03/21/why-did-the-media-keep-the-recent-peaceful-icelandic-revolution-quiet/

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2013: "How did we survive without the rich when we used to live in caves"

          barely

          "We created the rich class by becoming ..."

          ... the rich class. the more successful became more rich. the less successful, less rich.

          "It is silly to say without capitalism the poor would go hungry"

          then reality is silly. north korea, south korea. east germany, west germany. china, singapore. china in 1960, china today. how many more examples we need?

          " the average person can’t get decent food"

          where? certainly not in the west. the average fella in the US has car, air conditioning, second car, 80 inch tv, game console.

          marx died a long ago. you still fell for his lies.
      • Apr 4 2013: "why would employers pay more than minimum?"

        Why would employers avoid paying taxes? And what about government, why they don't raise taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals? If we don't want a fair society then lets be more socialist and have more taxes. Is it fair that businesses/rich people are getting extremely rich due to technology and lower taxes/tax avoidance while salaries are stagnant?

        Have a look at these two articles:
        http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/03/taxpayers_helped_apple_but_app.html

        http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/


        "that theory also explains why wages rise with time. as the economy progresses, and we have better tech, more capital, and better knowhow, the upper limit for wages, set by the profitability criteria, rises"

        I am sorry but data do not support your claim that wages rises. As you said many times, demand and supply determine wages, not morality, effectiveness or fairness. There was recently a talk at TED 2013 showing how wages stagnates. I saw same data elsewhere.

        " the market wage is the appropriate way to appreciate their contribution exactly to the degree of their contribution. not less, not more"

        I disagree. Yes market wage is determined by supply and demand but fairness has nothing to do with it. For example, in situation a) less people and more jobs leads to increased wage and b) more people and less jobs decrease the wage. In both cases the workers do the same job and produce the same value for the company. But in case a) they unfairly get less money.

        In my mind the problem is more about the fact that if I work for a rich guy why I cannot make very good money if I make the company really profitable through my work? Why the wealthy people pay less taxes than ever before? Why companies are avoiding paying taxes through tax havens thus indirectly robing me of social services I don't receive because government has less tax revenues?
        • thumb
          Apr 4 2013: i'm glad that you discovered the unpleasant nature of government. it is hard to tell what is more immoral, taxation itself, or the special tax laws that somehow always benefit their friends.

          data does not support wages rising? where are you living? you skipped hans rosling's entire body of work here? don't look the US in the last decade. it is not a place where productivity rises, which was a core to my argument. guess why the productivity stopped increasing in the US. no, not because of capitalism. it raised it for hundreds of years.

          there is no such thing as "number of jobs". it is a hypothetical list that is infinite. there is always things to do. every job pays exactly the amount it worths, provided that it is easy to start new activities. a functioning market economy without artificial obstacles is the best way to create new activities. the more activities we have, the higher they bid wages.
      • Apr 4 2013: Here is also recent TED speaker concerns about raising inequality through wealthy extracting too much value from society:

        http://andrewmcafee.org/2013/03/mcafee-why-should-we-care-about-rising-inequality/

        Also American budget is in disarray because of the greed in top level of American society.

        A few more interesting thoughts from people like Tim O'Reilly and

        https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/7E7MwpToMX6

        https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/bhKxn9NbJz1 (amazing speech)

        Also very interesting:

        Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.[145] “How can this be fair?” Buffett asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. "How can this be right?" He also added:
        "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
      • Apr 4 2013: " the unpleasant nature of government. "

        What about looking at the root cause: companies and wealthy individuals feel entitled for almost everything regardless of fairness.

        " it is not a place where productivity rises, which was a core to my argument. guess why the productivity stopped increasing in the US. no, not because of capitalism. it raised it for hundreds of years."

        US make the largest innovation and technological progress and you claim that productivity in US stopped?

        Have a look at how workers get their share of productivity gains:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png

        "a functioning market economy without artificial obstacles is the best way to create new activities. the more activities we have, the higher they bid wages."

        If you leave market on its own you will start seeing monopolies and people will have to work 7 day a week as they did early last century, being slaves to greed of factory owners.

        I don't have much to add to this discussion. I don't agree that free market somehow creates fair wages and conditions for workers or consumers.

        cheers.
        • thumb
          Apr 4 2013: why would i care what they feel? i certainly don't care. i fear those that have power. and it is the government.

          yes, the productivity in the US is stopped. economic growth is 1-2%, and probably it is fake. at the same time, debt is getting overwhelming. do not get fooled by government propaganda. production is shifted to the east and to the south.

          there are no monopolies on the free market. it is possible that a market gets dominated by a single provider for a short time, but this is temporary and not a monopoly. standard oil never had market share over 80%, windows never had over 90%, walmart also shares the market with others. and this domination rarely lasts more than a decade or two, and always threatened by startups and newcomers.
      • Apr 4 2013: We need the government and government can be important factor not only for people it serves but also for businesses because without government people would not have education, security etc.

        Production is increasing in US and even manufacturing jobs are coming back to US. The problem is that due to greed and unfairness of companies and wealthy individuals the government has huge debts. It is ridiculous.

        "there are no monopolies on the free market. it is possible that a market gets dominated by a single provider for a short time, but this is temporary and not a monopoly. standard oil never had market share over 80%, windows never had over 90%, "

        I disagree. 90% market is in practical terms monopoly. Windows is great example. Before of their practical monopoly, Microsoft was creating bad products with high cost. Their Internet Explorer 5 was one of the worst product they produced both for web developers and users. They had practical monopoly in browser and OS market that stagnated the whole IT.

        Microsoft started to quickly work on IE after 5 years (!) only because finally some competition was able to break in (Firefox and Chrome).

        Another example is telephone monopolies. Until we got competition the long distance rates were ridiculous. I remember paying like $6 per minute what now costs cents.

        Another example: mobile phone companies are creating artificial non-competitive markets and in US and Canada we had high prices even thou Europe didn't. Only recently we start seeing some true competition.

        So where is the market ability to correct itself? Many times it works but sometimes it doesn't and the government have to step in.
    • Apr 3 2013: "average joe blow (person) slaving their guts out so the rich can get richer"

      So... then don't work for a rich guy... You don't have to ya know. Other options include starving, or becoming the entrepreneur that creates the value and creates the jobs for other people. Or being content that there is a person who has taken more time to educate himself, more capital investment, more risks in starting/running a business, etc. and who then deserves a right to the moneys generated by those he created jobs for, who's lives he's funding.

      1.) Would you rather have a job that someone creates for you and then he gets to keep a cut? (PS, you agree to that when you start working for him, so it's not 'slaving for the rich' like you say, you have a choice)

      2.) Or would you rather BE the job creator?

      Either way you choose your own fate, you're not mandated to 'slave' for some 'wallowingly wealthy magnate'. I've done both kinds of jobs and both are good.
      • Apr 3 2013: I don't think it is that simple.

        People are born with various skills and not everyone can be entrepreneur. Being entrepreneur is actually pretty difficult.

        Poor people need to work and they might not have choice in selecting a job that pays well. What other options do they have?

        It is also sad to see how education is being constantly short of money while higher education cost keeps increasing. It is then harder to get education for low income individuals.

        That is why I think fair distribution of wealth (not equal distribution) is the answer?
        • Apr 3 2013: I agree that education plays a critical role. Governmental subsidised schools arent the education that people need though. From personal experience there is PLENTY of marketable knowledge that can be learned on the internet. Most every job I've had I've created for myself by teaching myself, using the internet.

          So maybe it's not getting better education into people's hands, but empowering them to realize that the knowledge they need to control their fate is available online and through peer connections? It's not easy, it takes time, but I think free opportunities to educate oneself should be the Great Equalizer, and leave mandated taxes/other levies out of it. Maybe online education isn't quite there yet, but I think it will definitely be within a generation or two. Thoughts?
      • Apr 3 2013: I also think current education is inadequate. However I don't think online-only education is the answer either. I suggest to combine several different approaches. Students can get both in-class project-based teamwork while for study and more academic education they can access to online resources rich content?

        cheers
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2013: G’day Joshua

        That’s a silly statement Joshua, become an entrepreneur. So we are all entrepreneurs, who is there to clean your houses & streets & go to war for you & so on & so on? You don’t have to work for the rich to be taken advantage of, anything you purchase & anywhere you go you are working for the wealthy this is the way they have worked the system so no we don’t have a choice!! If we could live as hunter & gatherers living off the land again we wouldn’t need the wealthy to sustain us however the wealthy have destroyed or ruined the land for a few dollars more that we once could live free from the tyranny of the rich, they have us by the short & curlies & they know it.

        We only need the wealthy because they have forced us to rely on them & I’m afraid that is undisputable fact, why do you think we are still getting around in vehicles run by antiquated technology such as the combustion engine which was devised in the late 1800’s? This isn’t because we have no other way of propulsion; we still have the same old technology propelling our vehicles along because the rich want to become even more richer at the cost of our health & the environment. Sorry mate but your argument is a bit silly!!

        Love
        Mathew

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.