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.

  • Apr 5 2013: i wouldn't assume that socialism is right. when people talk about social equality they mean fair pay for hard work.

    say an employer has 10 employees, he pays them $10k a year and he earns $100k a year - that's completely fair, as he's the owner he takes all the risk. so everyone finds ways to boost productivity or efficiency and profits go up 10%, the employees salaries should go up to $11k a year while the boss' goes up to $110k, but what usually happens is the boss keeps most of it for himself and the employees are lucky to get a few percent even though their hard work is worth a 10% increase. that's unequal.

    so why shouldn't employees take a pay cut when times are tough? well that's covered by the employer's higher salary. say the company runs well for 4 years then has an awful year and makes no money at all. after the 4 good years the employees have made $40k each, while the boss has made $400k. in the bad year the boss makes no money but still has to pay his employees their $10k each, so after 5 years they have $50k ea and he has $300k - still 6 times more. that's fair. what's not fair is if the boss fires an employee and makes the others work harder just so he can keep an extra $10k a year for himself. he's already making more than enough to cover his risks and still make many times more money than his employees.
    • thumb
      Apr 5 2013: G’day Ben

      Yes this is a good point Ben as I see this a lot especially in small business where the employee’s wages are more than the employers drawings. In big business I think employee’s wages should be in line with company profits because if it wasn’t for the employees to start with there wouldn’t be a business or company as the employer wouldn’t have anyone to make him these profits on the other hand, in bad times, these employees should also accept to take a pay cut as well because one should always be thankful to the employers giving them a job in the first place.

      This isn’t socialism but it’s not capitalism either sort of a unison of both & it works.

      Love
      Mathew
      • Apr 6 2013: if the employees are making as much money as the employer then sure they should take a pay cut too, but where on earth does that happen? why should only the employees be thankful? shouldn't employers also be thankful? here in japan all employees get bonuses 2 or 3 times a year depending on company performance. only rewarding the directors is unheard of. this boosts the economy by ensuring that more people have more disposable income - more spending, more sales, more profits. this is the reason japan is the world's number 3 economy despite having zero natural resources. it's a capitalistic society but regulated to ensure that everyone gets their dues and employees aren't short-changed, which would hurt everyone in the long run.
        • thumb
          Apr 6 2013: G'day Ben

          Yes the appreciation should go both way. In Australia there are a few companies that promote productivity in certain ways as you described here but it's few & far between.

          If we could all take note of what Japan has been doing capitalism would be a lot more viable & we wouldn't see rebellions like with Iceland as I can see this rebellion as being the tip of the iceberg if we don't do something right now.

          Love
          Mathew

          PS It's good to chat with someone who isn't one sided or subjective all the time towards a certain ism

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.