Apr 4 2013: I agree. The world has never been more open with opportunity. Think about Howard Schultz, Li Ka-shing, Leonardo Del Vecchio, Kirk Kerkorian, Ingvar Kamprad, J.K. Rowling, Sam Walton and Oprah Winfrey (to name a very few). All of these examples took more-or-less impoverished lives and became millionaires. With the same resources available as most others.
Apr 4 2013: The rich aren't doing their fair part? The rich... aren't doing their fair part? I must not be reading that right.
Aren't the rich the doctors who save our lives? The entrepreneurs who create and grow new markets? New technologies? Isn't it the rich who have allowed us to have the amenities today which we take for granted? Isn't it the rich who are the big think-tanks that promote our economy? Isn't it the rich who create our jobs, feed our families, buy us health insurance? Isn't it the rich who donate millions to NPOs to do all sorts of social good at home and abroad? Are these the slackers you were talking about? THEY... are not doing their fair part?
Surely what you meant to say is it's the social-security leeches, the people who refuse to find employment because they'll lose their government benefits, the people who squander their money on themselves, on alcohol, and cigarettes. It's the people who push pencils around at work to 'earn' their measley income and then complain about not having more. It's the people who go into hospitals, expect people to fix their bodies, and then dodge their medical bills once discharged. It's the people who don't educate themselves, the people who don't take advantage of all of life's opportunities. The people who don't help others grow. Who don't give back. Surely you meant it's these who are not doing their fair part. These who are the slackers.
If you disagree please let me know. Name calling the wealthy 'slackers' and claiming they 'don't do their fair part' seems absurd. I'd sincerely be curious though why I should think differently than that.
Apr 4 2013: I won't pretend to have as much experience in this as you, but are these "elect" few really that big a deal? I've certainly heard of them but didn't realize they might be so cancerous to our economy. I was thinking more along the lines of heavily taxing the "rich" who make over $200,000-300,000. That's a small amount compared to, i think, the rich you are talking about. Why not reappropriate amorally gained funds from the past through special taxes and start fresh with a more democratic system? Is that what you would suggest?
Apr 3 2013: The wealth inequality video is interesting. To me it's more telling about how money is more important to some than others, not how inequality is awry. I think you and I are on the same page, so here are a couple interesting questions.
-Ya those spikes are interesting, but that's what other people valued those wealthy individuals at right?
-What bystander deserves the right to say "hey that other guy bought something from the rich guy for X dollars, I deserve a cut"?
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 agree completely. I honestly don't know the answer, but why is socialism all that appealing? I'm motivated when I think that if I work harder I can do better. There's no motivation if I think that working harder will yield the same status in life. So naturally socialism doesn't make sense, and historically it doesn't make sense.
What is the motivation for 'leaders' to keep pursuing it?
"Equality" has a place for sure, but instead of being mandated, could the good socialist ideals be simulated through crowdsourcing? If you had to force people to work on open source projects, certainly there would be little motivation. But by making it opensource, people are intrinsically motivated to help out. (IE think about the 'charity' of giving money back through taxes. Not motivating, so the rich try and avoid it. But many rich people donate to charities when not forced)
Apr 3 2013: So what is the fair share? An employER would say that since without him there would be no job may overvalue his share. An employEE would say that without him there would be no worker, and may overvalue himself. So what if an employer says 'this is the fair share, take it or leave it', an employee says 'ok, I agree that's fair', or maybe negotiates it to a win-win deal, and they reach symbiosis. That seems fair. That IS fair.
Now say a third party comes in and says to the employee, 'you're getting ripped off, let's get some more money from these guys for you'. It gets political votes since the majority of americans are the employEE type who feel entitled to more. So then we get politicians who support this way of thinking to win votes, but the employERs that are really creating economic value are left with less.
I'm financially an average american. I'm not trying to protect my large stacks, so don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that the wealthy therefore lead tough lives, and they need more money to get by. I am saying that couldn't both the wealthy AND poor be better off if the one of them who creates more economic value, gets to keep more money? IE let the wealthy keep a dollar, turn it into two, and then give the employees more. By forcing large taxes on corporations, I believe that governments hinder their ability to give back to the employees/community/etc.
TEDCred score: +1.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: If you could choose any historical figure to give a TED Talk, who would it be and why?
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
Aren't the rich the doctors who save our lives? The entrepreneurs who create and grow new markets? New technologies? Isn't it the rich who have allowed us to have the amenities today which we take for granted? Isn't it the rich who are the big think-tanks that promote our economy? Isn't it the rich who create our jobs, feed our families, buy us health insurance? Isn't it the rich who donate millions to NPOs to do all sorts of social good at home and abroad? Are these the slackers you were talking about? THEY... are not doing their fair part?
Surely what you meant to say is it's the social-security leeches, the people who refuse to find employment because they'll lose their government benefits, the people who squander their money on themselves, on alcohol, and cigarettes. It's the people who push pencils around at work to 'earn' their measley income and then complain about not having more. It's the people who go into hospitals, expect people to fix their bodies, and then dodge their medical bills once discharged. It's the people who don't educate themselves, the people who don't take advantage of all of life's opportunities. The people who don't help others grow. Who don't give back. Surely you meant it's these who are not doing their fair part. These who are the slackers.
If you disagree please let me know. Name calling the wealthy 'slackers' and claiming they 'don't do their fair part' seems absurd. I'd sincerely be curious though why I should think differently than that.
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
-Ya those spikes are interesting, but that's what other people valued those wealthy individuals at right?
-What bystander deserves the right to say "hey that other guy bought something from the rich guy for X dollars, I deserve a cut"?
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
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?
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
What is the motivation for 'leaders' to keep pursuing it?
"Equality" has a place for sure, but instead of being mandated, could the good socialist ideals be simulated through crowdsourcing? If you had to force people to work on open source projects, certainly there would be little motivation. But by making it opensource, people are intrinsically motivated to help out. (IE think about the 'charity' of giving money back through taxes. Not motivating, so the rich try and avoid it. But many rich people donate to charities when not forced)
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
A reply on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
Now say a third party comes in and says to the employee, 'you're getting ripped off, let's get some more money from these guys for you'. It gets political votes since the majority of americans are the employEE type who feel entitled to more. So then we get politicians who support this way of thinking to win votes, but the employERs that are really creating economic value are left with less.
I'm financially an average american. I'm not trying to protect my large stacks, so don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that the wealthy therefore lead tough lives, and they need more money to get by. I am saying that couldn't both the wealthy AND poor be better off if the one of them who creates more economic value, gets to keep more money? IE let the wealthy keep a dollar, turn it into two, and then give the employees more. By forcing large taxes on corporations, I believe that governments hinder their ability to give back to the employees/community/etc.