Forum Post: " The Rich are taking too much."
Posted 11 years ago on July 14, 2012, 9:59 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB
(1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Long ago, the American revolution was brought on because King George 3rd was taking ..too much , and being very unreasonable.. so the people revolted .
Today, the "rich are taking too much", and people around the world are begining to protest.
note- while the rich take "so much", millions of people are being left behind.
We need to equalize the distribution of money.
An hours pay for an hours work(or education) equally across the board.
There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced the're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
.
There is trouble in the Forest,
And the Creatures all have fled,
As the Maples scream oppression,
And the Oaks just shake their heads.
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"These oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
-- Neil Pert
While millions upon billions suffer their unending plight,
Bankers, CEO's and investors alike,
Remain silent as they keep the profits to themselves.
They live in big houses ,
They drive in fancy cars,
But their hearts are cold ,as cold as ice.
The suffering , the pleas for help go unheard,
as millions upon billions endure their plight.
What will it take for mankind to rise up,
from filthy squalor we have created.
What will be the change that is needed,
For fairness to spread across the land,
for all to be recognized as worthy human beings.
Where will the answer come from,
what will the answer be?
A clean glass of water to a sick child,
A drop of medicine to ease the pain.
Is this to much to ask for from the civilization we created.
Are we unable to provide the answer,
The ounce of help,
To stop the crying pain.
Mankind, oh mankind how have we become this way.
--FriendlyObserver
"The Weaponization of Economic Theory", by Prof. Michael Hudson : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31849.htm .
fiat lux ...
Sounds kinda complimentary to Shock Doctrine.
it's hard to enforce unfair economics without being backed by weapons
I heard I saying Soldiers use their guns like credit cards that'd be illegal seizure
To say that we want equilibrium by force is not true we want the wealthy to stop tipping the government in their favor so they can take all the advantages and any opportunity away from us done with bribery aka force and threatening punishment as in the bail out. In the poem they should be paying off the sky to tilt the sun in their favor. I think the little poem largely ignores that the oak trees feed themselves by sucking more nutrients than necessary from the soil leaving none left whatsoever for the smaller trees, and in this scenario the soil would have been created from the small trees to begin with. As the working glass built the economic foundations of this country - they are being left with nothing - now that we made the wealthy wealthier than any human needs to be and probably wealthier than anyone has ever been.
I dont get it
It is a little abstract but if you think really hard you might get it.
On the other hand you may puzzle and puzzle 'till your puzzler is sore.
learn something if you are able - chomsky on the great charter of the forest - "The first scholarly edition of the Magna Carta was published in 1759 by the English jurist William Blackstone, whose work was a source for U.S. constitutional law. It was entitled “The Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest,” following earlier practice. Both charters are highly significant today......The companion Charter of the Forest is perhaps even more pertinent today. It demanded protection of the commons from external power. The commons were the source of sustenance for the general population – their fuel, their food, their construction materials. The Forest was no wilderness. It was carefully nurtured, maintained in common, its riches available to all, and preserved for future generations.
By the 17th century, the Charter of the Forest had fallen victim to the commodity economy and capitalist practice and morality. No longer protected for cooperative care and use, the commons were restricted to what could not be privatized – a category that continues to shrink before our eyes.
Last month the World Bank ruled that the mining multinational Pacific Rim can proceed with its case against El Salvador for trying to preserve lands and communities from highly destructive gold mining. Environmental protection would deprive the company of future profits, a crime under the rules of the investor rights regime mislabeled as “free trade.”
This is only one example of struggles under way over much of the world, some with extreme violence, as in resource-rich eastern Congo, where millions have been killed in recent years to ensure an ample supply of minerals for cellphones and other uses, and of course ample profits.
The dismantling of the Charter of the Forest brought with it a radical revision of how the commons are conceived, captured by Garrett Hardin’s influential thesis in 1968 that “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to us all,” the famous “tragedy of the commons”: What is not privately owned will be destroyed by individual avarice.
The doctrine is not without challenge. Elinor Olstrom won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2009 for her work showing the superiority of user-managed commons.
But the doctrine has force if we accept its unstated premise: that humans are blindly driven by what American workers, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, called “the New Spirit of the Age, Gain Wealth forgetting all but Self” – a doctrine they bitterly condemned as demeaning and destructive, an assault on the very nature of free people.
Huge efforts have been devoted since to inculcating the New Spirit of the Age. Major industries are dedicated to what political economist Thorstein Veblen called “fabricating wants” – directing people to “the superficial things” of life, like “fashionable consumption,” in the words of Columbia University marketing professor Paul Nystrom.
That way people can be atomized, seeking personal gain alone and diverted from dangerous efforts to think for themselves, act in concert and challenge authority.
It’s unnecessary to dwell on the extreme dangers posed by one central element of the destruction of the commons: the reliance on fossil fuels, which courts global disaster. Details may be debated, but there is little serious doubt that the problems are all too real and that the longer we delay in addressing them, the more awful will be the legacy left to generations to come. The recent Rio+20 Conference is the latest effort. Its aspirations were meager, its outcome derisory.
In the lead in confronting the crisis, throughout the world, are indigenous communities. The strongest stand has been taken by the one country they govern, Bolivia, the poorest country in South America and for centuries a victim of Western destruction of its rich resources.
After the ignominious collapse of the Copenhagen global climate change summit in 2009, Bolivia organized a People’s Summit with 35,000 participants from 140 countries. The summit called for very sharp reduction in emissions, and a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. That is a key demand of indigenous communities all over the world.
The demand is ridiculed by sophisticated Westerners, but unless we can acquire some of the sensibility of the indigenous communities, they are likely to have the last laugh – a laugh of grim despair.
Cut their heads off. Feed them to the vultures.
Do you really think that the one percent care about you?
All men are created equal was a major breakthrough in human rights. I hope we can take another big step soon.
[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1630) 2 hours ago
one small step for man .. one giant step for mankind
If we do , it will be decided on principle.
We should try to learn from this particular advancement in equality, it was a statement against an injustice. I think you and demand the good life are on the right track. Equality and inequality stem from the distribution of power, and we all know money equals power.
money has been defeated by principle in the past.. Principle provides a cohesion that money can not.. an idea held together on principle .. has great strength.. the French Revolution, and the American Revolution both fought against tremendous odds.. but in the end , principle was the victor.
Equality of life is our next principle of victor.. a shared equality equal to everyone.. some may say it is unfair to take away from the rich .. but I say it was unfair when the rich took from the poor.
I could not help but think the other night of the similarities between divine right of kings (above the laws of men) and too big to fail banksters. I remember the head of Goldman Sach's, Lloyd Blanfein, literally saying a couple of years ago that he's doing God's work with his banking activities.
That's interesting, .. I began thinking about other countries that still have 'kings' ..Saudi Arabia came to mind..
Which king is worse, the one you can readily identify, or the one who poses under a different title.
More equality is better than less equality..
Is equal pay = unfair ?
What is pay? a reward? a compensation? a profit? other?
pay is a mechanism
Pay mechanism. That would certainly qualify as 'other'.
Pay is a vital functioning part in the overall mechanism of civilization.
A better description and yes, pay does play a vital function - but I would like to add to it.
Pay is a vital part of realizing individual potential in the overall mechanism of civilization.
As pay inequality increases, it forces a decline in the number of individuals receiving enough vital pay (living paycheck to paycheck) to compete with others in society and develop their own individual potential. As the number of people not developing potential accumulates, the effect is for them to drag on society as a whole. Society declines.
Equal pay (or damn near it) would be not only be fair, but vital in producing the maximum number of people contributing to society.
One might also say ..' as personal wealth increases, so declines ones individual contribution.. in thus equal pay would create equal contribution.
The trouble with the trouble in the forest.
The forest analogy would be a better fit if the maples did the actual work that created the sunlight and the oaks stole it from the wealth creators because the former were strong enough to do the ripoff and unscrupulous enough to want to.
For more on dysfunctional economy and culture see: How Does That Work? https://www.createspace.com/3852916
We need to raise the Minimum Wage to $10/hour.
Come Together NOW
So you're saying people shouldn't be able to do things like this? EXCLUSIVE: Port Authority Sgt. Edwin Rivera nearly triples his 100G-plus salary with about 40 overtime hours a week - NYPOST.com
The solution: We the People petition to create jobs without more government spending or inflation at whitehouse.gov
the US revolution was pacifically about the lack of correspondence
and more importantly response
from the english king and parliament
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
it was a combination of the kings greed , and his lack of reason .. keep in mind the first shot was fired by angry merchants.. when the kings soldiers came to collect ....and to speed time up to present.. it is those same angry merchants that have taken over the wealth of the nation/world; They took over the kings cartel. But how do we overthrow the present enemy .. they are spread out and live amongst us .. ..holding together on a common belief.. capitalism. ie. sponging profits off the backs of the world..and hoarding the profits...neeed I continue ..or do you get the picture ..?
if the people had money, they could exchange goods and services for it
in which reality?
one in which they have goods
only one?
It's a nice sentiment, but I belive there's somthing to be said for enterprize.
If I start a company and figure out how to do really well. Mabey even invent somthing, and work 24/7, somone is going to tell me I can only make the same per hour as somone who just put out the joint and beer and will sweep for a few hours.
But I'm not saying the system doesn't need to be COMPLETELY revamped
http://occupywallst.org/forum/serious-free-money/
Very well said - totally simple.
The 1% can be stopped - please help us:
Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
………………………………………………………….………………...GREED
by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.
This is the first REAL step to REAL change .
JOIN US >
Join the NYC OWS…………….. (even if you are not near NYC )
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!
80% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll
Our primary goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter the Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve – by disarming our greatest enemy –
…………………………………………………………GREED.
Well done. I agree 100%.
I will get there. You have my support.
Bensdad, you are doing an incredible lot of work , research and development on this project.
I commend you.
You are correct bensdad. We need to get the union money out of the political process. We need to make sure that union membership is voluntary and that people cannot be forced to contribute to a membership they want nothing to do with.
And, as a stockholder in company X, the president of X must be forbidden from taking money out of my shares to give to politicians.
You have the choice to sell your shares if you do not agree with the political agenda of the company you invested in, but, you probably invested in the company because they ran their business in a way that made you money for your investment. On the other hand, the union employee has the money taken from him at the threat of the loss of his ability to survive.
GREED, was the same Enemy fought in the American Revolution, also in the French Revolution. And both times Greed was conquered with the help of our good friend- " PRINCIPLE". aka: Right and Wrong
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
spread the wealth around. everyone does not want to work.
let's try for an open mind here, TFAOM. What incentive do I have to work when I am not receiving any pie? I am tired of only receiving crumbs for my effort. Sort of a crummy way to run a nation - to think crumbs are enough of an incentive for a person to drag themselves out of bed every morning and go work for a rich snob stuffing his face with pie.
very vivid .. and excellent example metaphorically .. so true so true .. I like it !
The other guy does have a point. The problem is this guy only knows one direction to point at.
when it's the right direction and all else has been considered.. there is but one direction
I tried to point the other guy in the direction of millions of complaints mirroring mine and yours about the rich. Woefully, I could not shoot my way past the bulletproof plating surrounding his ego, his shielding against considering this new direction proved most impenetrable.
yes , I was starting to see through his false act.. a bit of a disguise he was wearing .. he was an imposter plain to see .. not to worry about him.
No worries. moving on.
I like your perspective .. please come again and share with us.
And leave you guys in charge, forget about it !!! :-)
The world smiles upon your sentiment :-)
Not your fault and certainly not a problem. Except of course the trash gets to reply. So although I don't mind I don't want to muddy this post either. I will stop.
[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1548) 0 minutes ago
Sorry DKAtoday, you are under no obligation to respond to disrespectful comments.. please feel free to ignore any and all at your choosing. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Thanks friend
Naw - I look at it as having a nasty cheerleader. Shills also provide a good interactive look at the sickness that we are trying to cure/combat.
[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1548) 0 minutes ago
..it's a heavy price to pay ... :-( ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
TryingForAnOpenMind said 3 months ago at March 24, 2012, 11:18 a.m.
you are a great asset to this excellent website DK. don't stop.
Not a problem. Now at least the post has been kept towards the top of the list on the forum page.
..it's a heavy price to pay ... :-(
[Removed]
what r u talking about? crumbs ? does that mean, you want more $$ for your skills? Well than do something to improve your skills and get a better job, and make more $$ if you want to. You come off as angry and lazy..bad combination.
Even the well educated are settling for crumbs. The average compensation per worker in the U.S. is about $100,000 a year. The median wage for a person with a masters degree is $60,000 a year. Add benefits of $20,000 and he still falls short of making the average.
The reason? Real wages adjusted for inflation have not increased much in the last 40 years. The gains in productivity that higher education has helped produce instead went to a tiny fraction of people at the top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_median_personal_income_by_education_attainment_in_the_US.png
this does not say the avg income is 100k...you r reporting it wrong.. sorry
You can also use per capita income of the U.S. of about $48,000 per person. About half the population of 310 million work, roughly 150 million. So double per capita income to obtain income per worker.
See the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
Not relevant due to numbers reported here do not take into account differences in the cost of living in different countries.
The U.S. per capita numbers are accurate. They are calculated independent of other countries. Refute them with facts to support your claim.
Simple math. The GDP divided by number of workers. Roughly $15 trillion divided by roughly 150 million workers equals $100,000. If you divide GDP by number of hours worked it's actually around $120,000 because many low income workers don't work a 40 hour week.
The number sounds way too high. what do you propose? why are you trolling this vapid website. My excuse, I have chores to do...and am procrastinating
Look at the other method for computing the wage per worker above. The numbers match. What does not match is the income we receive for the labor we provide.
we are making more than folks in other countries. how do you compute your worth? The pay is what the market will permit.
Worth is determined by negotiation between employer and employee. Without negotiation, the employee does not receive fair compensation. With a union negotiating collectively for many, compensation is closer to being fair for the many employees.
The market being the greedy employer. And all of the employers ( not all as there are no absolutes ) are playing the same game = profits over people.
that's nothing new. been that way for ever. OWS is only useful for Obama reelection.
Try harder - you are still failing miserably = TryingForAnOpenMind
What are you doing that is so noble?
And you are pathetic.
[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (55) from Yonkers, NY 2 minutes ago
advocating for humanity. That is hysterical. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Sorry DKAtoday, you are under no obligation to respond to disrespectful comments.. please feel free to ignore any and all at your choosing.
advocating for humanity would perhaps best be accomplished by voting Obama out in November...and not by writing meaningless platitudes on this stupid web site.
..your comments are becoming unwelcome. on this thread
no free speech allowed ? what gives you the right to bully others?
Not a gosh darn thing other then advocating for humanity.
What does that have to do with your failure to achieve an open mind?
No wonder you're failing at that open mind thingy.
[-] -778 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (55) from Yonkers, NY 1 hour ago
advocating for humanity. That is hysterical. Personally I advocate for hell on earth....um I mean corpoRATions. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
advocating for humanity. That is hysterical.
Yep - it basically says that I do not suffer fools kindly.
[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (55) from Yonkers, NY 8 minutes ago
projections made by name calling serve as window into your own character, DKA. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
-] 2 points by DKAtoday (10120) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 hour ago
Not a gosh darn thing other then advocating for myself and my big ego.
What does that have to do with your failure to achieve an open mind? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
See? And that is why you are such a loser - you have no sense - common or otherwise. Shill on ClosedMind.
[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (55) from Yonkers, NY 0 minutes ago
advocating for humanity would perhaps best be accomplished by voting Obama out in November...and not by writing meaningless platitudes on this stupid web site. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
projections made by name calling serve as window into your own character, DKA.
thats why ows was created.
Head still jammed up your (x) I see !!!
nosce te ipsum ...
yes..They won't tolerate this kind of talk here. They don't deal well w/ the truth :)
Still waiting for you do deal with the truth about the average national compensation per worker of about $100-120K a year. Even a person with a masters degree does not make that much money.
A lot of people are getting screwed, even those that are highly skilled and well educated. How about you?
ows people are all for tolerance as long as you agree with them.
Personally, I'm all for tolerance. What I won't abide are liars; people that misrepresent themselves as wanting less government, when what they really want is to control people's lives even more.
Speak up. Declare your beliefs. Are you willing to support a government that does not control people's sexual preferences, marriage rights, conception rights, abortion rights, franchise eligibility, ad infinitum? I am. I declare it now. Our government has no business in the above-mentioned areas or many others. Speak up, don't be bashful.
What is really stupid is that you ( anti-ows ) would come to an ows site and dis everyone and expect to be appreciated. Just what kind of a lack-wit are you?
bingo...opposition against ows hardcore issues is destroyed here. so much for free speech.
The U.S ranks 14th in GDP per person.
Stop with the union propaganda. They are a big part of the problem. Go Scott Walker.
TFAO I think you would enjoy this post..
http://occupywallst.org/forum/enlightening-forbes-article-on-campaign-financing/
Thanks for the interesting article. That kind of truth is not tolerated by most who haunt this site.
Actually, I posted it over night with the actual title of Forbes article and it disappeared today. Hence my new screen name! LOL
This OWS site has chucked a lot of my forums too. OWS is a transparent group who shut down opposition. You must agree.... or be banished. Queen Michelle was near my home today :)
Collective bargaining is fair way to determine wages. If some of the unions have become corrupt, should we get rid of the entire union or should the rank and file vote out the corrupt leaders?
If some of our Congressman have become corrupt, should we get rid of the entire government, or should the people vote out the corrupt leaders?
point taken. you must be in a union
Not in a union, but I do favor their negotiating a better wage for people. Just like any sports star. He uses an agent to negotiate his salary. Without the agent, he would make a fraction.
But like any special interest group, corporation, or organization, unions should have absolutely no say in who is elected in our government.
Correct - it is the peoples choice or should be. Real people not artificial entities.
Civil service unions should be outlawed. govt workers are over compensated. Unions are making big contributions to politics and do influence politicians, rabbit.
You are correct. Power corrupts the left and right equally so. Guess that is my point since I sometimes think this site is owned and operated by the DNC.
I may be more against the DNC than you are.
where do u get those numbers? sounds fabricated ..sorry. what's your beef? is there something you are wanting, which is beyond your means?
Did you look at the link? The numbers come from U.S census data. The beef? Wealth inequality. Even the educated are not receiving a fair share of the pie they help create. Maybe you too?
I can not even think straight. am so mentally and physically exhausted by my Mon-Friday job. I am currently gripped w/ fear and loathing contemplating tomorrow and the coming work week. Feel like trying to make a living...not even getting ahead..is killing me.
An open mind would give serious consideration to complaints and see if they are merited or not.
If you are the type of person who can consider millions of complaints about the rich 'taking too much' and chalk it all off to the frivolous complaining of millions of angry, lazy people, then perhaps I can offer you some beach front property I have for sale, for you seem to have a naive view of the world and I think you would buy anything without serious consideration.
what ever. you can not be for real, getting so worked up all the time. are you for real? if so ..calm the heck down.
Calm down? Society is completely off the tracks - this nation is a train wreck. I don't trust anyone who can sit back and watch a train wreck endanger people's lives and not get worked up about it.
What's the point? I am so tired and discouraged I just want to sit on the couch and watch Scooby Doo. I have the rest of today off..then back to Mon-Friday..job burn out/ torture to pay my bills. Who has the energy for anything outside of trying not to drown?
The original point by JadedCitizen, I believe was to show how the working man .. working to near exhaustion drowning in debt, is working for mere crumbs compared to the man he is working for who is living in an ocean liner surrounded by wealth .. and you TFAOM don't even see that you are the one exhausted and in debt to nearly drowning in it ... thats the point
I am not badly in debt...just your avg monthly mortgage, con ed bill, cable, etc. What can I do? Just keep hustling. If I stop..I go down. What is all the rhetoric going to accomplish? Am afraid bigger problems await the USA... if Obama gets reelected.
well please stop discouraging those whom are trying..
What are they trying? afraid alot of whiny, useless complaining. Just builds smoke screen for Obama reelection
They are trying to improve the world we live within. Trying to build a better tomorrow .. and heres the thing they are not just doing it for themselves .. but for everyone .. including whiny asses like you.
A bunch of lemming losers hanging out in a park with bongos and weed does not build a better tomorrow.
Your threshold for considering the legitimacy of complaints is completely unreasonable and unbelievable - millions can complain and you think all they want to do is watch Scooby Doo - give me a break. Now, since I can't waste any more of my precious Scooby Doo viewing time dickering with unreasonable people - I will have to say ta ta for now, Mr. Holdingontoanarrowmind.
huh ? I don't think they want to watch Scooby Doo..I'm the one that wants to watch it. I also like the Road runner..I may be dating myself. Big old Michelle Is in Westchester today.
many do want to work, .. but do not have the opportunity..
many don't. many want to keep the public assistance coming in. many are committing fraud,,,w/ their benefits.. let's tighten that system up.
.and many 'investors ' want to keep their easy profits coming in.. what should we do about them?or is it okay for an investor to sit back and live off the hardwork of others ( to sponge up the profits of society), but not okay for anyone else, as in your scenario those living on 'public assistance' ? World wide there are 2 billion people working for less than $2 dollars per day. And of those two billion a near 700 million are earning less than a dollar per day .. are you telling me none of those people want to work? A lot (many) poor people don't even receive any type of assistance, While the rich have way more than could possible ever need.. Let's step out and look at the whole picture and not just individual arguements. Let's look at the 'right and wrong' happening in the civilization that 'we' mankind have created.. is it a fair system .. is everyone happy .. does everyone have equal opportunity.. clean drinking water.. enough food on their table.. Should we not be asking these questions as we move forward in developing our civilization.. is this right or wrong? I like to use the example of American slavery.. it lasted approx. 300 years.. was it right or wrong? also looking at the extremely rich and the extremely poor of todays outcome, is the current system 'right or wrong' ? this is an important question we all must answer before we can move forward.. perhaps even vote on.. is everyone happy with 'status quo'?
HI FOB !, Not at all happy with the status quo . And addessing the world situation (rather than just US ) is what we should be doing. Thank You !
I'm thinking the world is kept poor through lack of currency.The only thing lacking during the great depression was currency. Lets make a whole new system. I cant belive the many , many, many extremly poor in the world couldn't be easily helped
would u look at the link below
http://occupywallst.org/forum/serious-free-money/
the way to prevent inflation when we print money out of thin air is to have the money expire when it is spent.
I had proposed an idea where an hour coin is printed out of thin air for every hour of work ( or schooling) is performed .. and simply that hour coin would expire when the recipient spends it..
example you work at a factory building cars .. they print an hour coin for every hour you work .. and when you buy a car the coins you've spent to buy the car expire.. no longer have value .. now use this on a big scale , a world scale .. and have hour coins printed publically for all those willing to work .. and everytime they spend their earnings the coins expire .. thus .. they will need to work agai nfor their next purchase , but the public never runs out of public coins becaUSE THEY ARE PRINTED OUT OF THIN AIR AND PRESENTED TO THOSE WHO WORK ON AN HOURLY BASIS .. AND YES EVERYONE EARNS AN EQUAL HOUR COIN FOR AN HOURS WORK REGARDLESS OF THE PROFESSION .. IT'S A SYSTEM THAT WOULD NEVER RUN OUT OF CURRENCY .. thus EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE , INCLUDING EDUCATION WHICH WILL ALSO BE PAID AN EQUAL HOUR COIN FOR AN HOUR OF SCHOOLING.. oops hit the caps lock sorry..
so what you think of this idea?
So the person receiving this "hourly coin" for selling you the car is basically getting nothing because the "hourly coin" lost its value.
There is no person " receiving this hourly coin" the car factory is owned and operated by the public , and the public printed out of thin air to pay for all the labor .. therefor by returning the hour coin back to thin air an auto mobile was created .. by the hands of mankind and all were rewarded for their efforts.
So, does the government owns all businesses?
who is the government?
You said that the factory is owned and operated by the public. Who is the public?
if it expires, what do the people who sold the car have
The people who built the car have already been paid .. with the hour coin created out of thin air.. when the car is sold that money from the purchase goes back into thin air.. it expires completing it's cycle, and.. a car is produced..lets build another one..!
good question.. in a public society .. where the coins are printed publically to build the car .. no one really owns the car until it is purchased .. ..sorry if that isn't too clear .. the car factory would be publically owned.. it's a socialist style system .. everyone owns the factory .. but the product of the factory is purchased by individual workers with the hour coins they have earned .. if it takes 2500 hours to build the car than the price would be 2500 hour coins .. and there you have it .. with an unlimited ability to print hour coins, factory workers could work as many hours as they want building as many cars possible ( of course in reality there will be priorities) and each car when sold the hour coins are removed from circulation (expired ..and thus inflation is prevented.. it's a tricky combination to wrap your mind around I agree .. but the outcome is an unlimited currency which will enable unlimited employment for everyone , and with the expiration of the hour coin when spent there will be no inflation ..period. the price of everything will be the price of cost to produce .. there will be no added mark up or profit .. it's all publically owned.. and perhaps the trade off .. is that one man can no longer own everything but now everyone has an opportunity .. which would you prefer the current system , or the new unlimited currency system where the labor force is completly unleashed !!?
who desides what to build
Who really decides now .. I believe the answer comes down to a list.. necessity being at the top .. perhaps luxury will be on that list .. even exploration and creativity will be on that list .. these decisions will need to be carefully made .. to allocate our labor and resources appropriately..
my question is a simple clear question. WHO desides what to build. You did not even begin to answer that question
Yes I did , decisions are made on reality (necessity and desirability).. if a product is desired,if it has a use than it will be manufactured.. who decides .. there will be a process from inception ,debate and theory.. to final outcome ..decisions should be made carefully .. would you agree..
If I want, say, a certain type of vitimin thats not being produced, Who would I appeal to. A government agency ?? Would I not be allowed to start a company to produce it myself. Would I need to ask the government to produce it.
Well that is the great thing about a collective society.. if you come up with a proposal for a great idea .. the society will supply the funding to see your proposal get underway.. all within good judgement.. collective judgement .. and you may even request a position to oversee the project .. with pay of course .. equal pay .. is your heart still in it..
You have to work hard to advance your self, economically, spiritually etc. In this veil of tears it's a given that there are inequities. deal with it.
I would venture to say , those people working for two dollars per day or less are working far harder than any millionaire.. the inequities are not brought about by lack of hard work .. it's something else entirely.. inequities are brought about by selfishness imbedded in our economic rules and regulations.. let's pay everyone an equal hourly pay and than see how the distribution of wealth equalizes itself..
Pay the brain surgeon the same as the guy who pumps gas. Yeah that sounds like the right answer. good idea.
is an hour of time pumping gas any shorter than an hour of time in the medical profession..? are the expenses for a gas jockey raising two children any less than a brain surgeon raising two children?If each person works an equal amount of hours , they should be paid an equal amount. Anything else would be discrimination. and don't forget the schooling for the medical profession was all paid for at an equal hourly rate .. so the choice to become a medical surgeon or not is based purely on personal interest and ability. many students would rather study medicine than pump gas all day .. pumping gas gets old and tiresome real quick.
what are you talking about? sorry but I am lost. are you joking?
This is no joke. A world of equality awaits at our door step.. all we have to do is let it in.
[Removed]
what are you talking about ? sounds rather childish and unreal. keep dreaming if it helps u..that's good anyway.
yes .. you are lost .. so sad to see..but so many are ..lost .. could not find reason if it was in the palm of their hands .. lost ..and soon forgotten ..
[Removed]
We are all lost without Jesus Christ. That's the only way.
the left wing have a wet dream everyone gets the same money idea of utopia.
[Removed]
You are right, FOB, but pay doesn't have to be equal across the board as long as everyone is earning enough to live decently.
If it is not equal across the board , someone will cry " foul" and that will be the end of peace.
Beautifulworld, equality is equal across the board. There is no other way...
note- certain jobs will be delegated appropriately. ie the elderly may be delegated jobs such as: customer service.. light duty jobs. Surely you see the importance of assosciating ones abilities with ones duties.
ps. nice to hear from you again , hope all is well.
Why wouls the elderly be get light duty jobs? Is there no social security/retirement in the perfect world?
The entire system is about social security and the future and well being of mankind. Social security for everyone.. ..why the elderly would be reserved for kight duty positions .. need I really answer such a question?
Yeah, as a matter of fact you do. Social Secuirty ended the days where folks went from their job to a grave. My mother lived to 92 and was terribly crippled by arthritis her last 20+ yrs. Would she have worked til she died in your world?
I think you misunderstand my point .. the idea of the elderly working light duty , is opposite of having the elderly working heavy duty .. in this the light duty will be reserved for the elderly willing and able to work .. while the young and strong will have heavier positions reserved for them .. in this way as we grow old we will not be expected to work as hard .. and still have opportunity .. if as in your mothers case .. being unable to work .. due to illness .. ..perhaps in my world with unlimited reserves of currency .. medical advancements will be achieved.. and illnesses could be cured .. but I make no promise in that regard only to say the financial system will be improved and that will improve the outcome of civilization.
thanks for your comment.
just to add: in my world , with an equal distribution of wealth, everyone will feel a sense of social security ..and not have to work the long hard hours as we see today with so many struggling to pay the bills while the unequal distribution of wealth sees many with way more than they will ever need .. as my post states , " the rich are taking too much"
I want to be delegated to be a rock star.
Well, absolute equality can cause the end of peace also!
And, nice to hear from you too.
Beautifulworld, I realize 'equality and fairness', is a lot to ask for ..even from the greatest nation on Earth.
I believe " absolute equality" will cause the end of "WAR", and open the doors to a new era of peace and prosperity for all mankind
:-0 :edit
[Removed]
Don't you think it is more important that everyone have enough? Then, who cares how rich some folks might get, so long as everyone can live decently.
I don't think it is absolute equality that we need for peace. It is a society based on love, not fear, that we need for peace.
Do you think it is more important that everyone have enough, or more important that every one has the equal opportunity to reach their full potential? For example, will a person who lives decently be able to afford the same education as a person wealthy enough to afford the best education money can buy?
I think people can't reach their full potential if they don't have enough. My "enough" constitutes averages. It's a starting point for people to live decently, an average home, an average car, an average education, etc. It eliminates suffering.
Do I think our post-secondary education system is sick and should be completely re-vamped? Yes, and I don't think education should be for sale. Everyone should have equal access to every single school....and not through loans.
This a rough idea in my head at the moment, but the basic idea is to try and gear policies to reflect different stages of life. I was roughly thinking you might have something like the DEVELOPMENTAL phase of life (first 25 years of life or so), followed by EARNING phase of life (enter workforce to retirement age), followed by RETIREMENT phase.
In the simplest terms, during the developmental phase, there would be EQUAL access to everything needed towards developing potential, particularly education. You could have extended years for professions that require more studies - doctor, sciences, etc.
During the earning years, you enter the market system and can earn more based on individual drive and talent - work harder, more gifted, etc. But everyone would earn a basic income sufficient to provide for a decent life.
During retirement years, some could have a more luxurious retirement based on their activities during the earning phase, but everyone would be guaranteed some sort of social security to provide the basics.
To me, that seems a fair arrangement for both sides. People can still pursue more than others, but nobody gets grossly unfair advantages during the crucial developmental years.
You have really been thinking, JC. Those are really excellent ideas. This is what we need to be doing. We need to think of how to structure the economy to work for all people, and yes, during the three major phases of their lives. I like.
Thank you bw. I have a question that I am searching for an answer to. A pillar of how we derive human rights states, "all men are created equal". To me, this statement suggests all men are born equal. Does this mean that shortly after arriving in this world, equality among men no longer exists? That is what it suggests to me.
If I assume equal opportunity and potential exists only at the moment of conception of a life. Then, shortly following after the moment of birth, equality vanishes and expectation forms. Is that not a whole lot to expect of a baby, that this baby should start seizing opportunity and realizing potential right out of the starting gate.
The statement, for me, fails to provide an accurate description of what equality really should mean among all people. To me, equality should not be a concept tied only to a person's birth, to have a shelf life no more the width and span of a moment of conception. Equality should have a bearing, a meter of sorts, to impact the realization of opportunity and potential for each person over the duration of its life cycle.
And that is the answer I seek, why should equality be extended beyond birth? In what ways should people always be considered equal?
I believe equality (like so many human introduced concepts) rests within our imaginations. After all, not to long ago in history, we believed in the divine rights of kings, which we now consider a debunked theory.
Sounds like you think we should debunk the concept of equality?
The concept does not suggest that everyone is equally smart, or strong, or pretty. Only that we all are equal in our rights. speech, conscience, health, happiness.
I'm sure you don't want to be treated un equally? Do you think certain people shouldn't be treated fairly in obtaining housing. or education, or employment.
We should have equal opportunity. but some will be better at a given job.
Don't you think?
You misunderstood my comment. I know some people can jump higher than other people. Potential will never be equal. I am questioning the equality of circumstances for every person to realize their potential.
I press for new answers to old questions. I wish to understand the basis from which we derive rights. And with that understanding, I do aim to debunk ideas that makes kings of the few and paupers of the many.
Of course I think people should be treated fairly, but the reality is people are treated haphazardly in regards to fair treatment -- why? I am going right at the foundation of where we get our ideas of equality and what might need to be rethought if we are ever to apply a more consistent treatment to equality among men.
Well I think people are treated unfairly for several reasons.
I think mostly it is greed and selfishness that drives people to by unfair,
Some have to put others down to lift themselves up.
It seems all cultures throughout history draw lines and demonize groups, those demonized groups are treated unfairly. Religion, nationality, race, color, language, political persuasion.
So we can improve the treatment of our fellow citizens with a successful effort at changing the survival of the fittest mentality we live by. When we believe that helping others means we give up something ourselves, we will avoid helping others and that leads to viewing people unfairly and treating people unfairly.
Just a laymans view
I think self-worth is the driving factor. We are born with undeveloped potential and must strive (compete) to develop that potential. In essence, we are born into a self-worth crisis of unrealized potential.
This inferiority crisis propels us to improve our self-esteem by proving superiority over everything in our environment - which leads to grouping (a safety in numbers effect over our environment - also the source of group bullying) and a penchant for developing potential as groups (group think), rather than as individuals. Of course, this leads to what you allude to about drawing lines between one group against another group.
The survival of the fittest mentality is the product of trying to increase one's own potential through the negative means of decreasing another's potential, aka harming someone else's self esteem for ego gain. There should be a law against that, imho.
I believe the driving factor of the founding fathers was for the strong to protect the weak. They were all part of the "strong" and realized that protecting the weak was for the common good. Even among themselves, the strong could abuse the less strong, creating ever more complicated ways of manipulating advantages for personal reasons.
When all people are equal, there will still be short people and tall people, with some faster than others, and some smarter than others, but a world where the strong prey on the weak for personal gain would not be allowed.
Government where Equality was established and the people governing themselves was a great advancement for civilasation.
Agreed. I think in America we have groups of poor people (maybe other countries too) who have lost the group affect. As such the poverty is compounded and feeds on itself.
Some poor have maintained a group dynamic and pulled out of poverty quicker. Other groups are prevented from grouping together as such.
It is certainly too complicated for me to truly understand or explain but changing the selfish survival of the fittest mentality (i got mine if you don't have yours it must be your fault) I think is a good place to start.
Time is the answer you seek. The dimension of time is exactly the same for all. an hour for you is exactly an hour for me.. equally beyond all reasonable doubt.
Time is a constant (with exceptions of traveling at high speeds - theory of relativity) and has an impact on us - However, time existed long before man walked the earth. I see the relationship you are trying to establish, but what does time have to do with man's potential?
If three people begin a race, which will last exactly one hour, at the end of the hour, would the three runners have covered an equal amount of ground upon the hour ending. Each runner would cover ground equal to their potential, no?
it is our potential that makes us unique..
if three people run a race ..does it matter who wins.. why is competetion a factor..? if three people work together moreis acomplished.. it's the two steps forward one step back approach.. if we drop our struggles with each other and combine our efforts ..we would be much better off.
Competition is a factor because each person strives to realize their fullest potential in life. What is the top speed at which I can run? I would have to measure my running time over distance and then I would need to attempt to conquer that time to find my fastest running time.
There lies the problem - to realize potential, an individual must strive and compete (against some measure) to improve themselves, but we are non-confident creatures when it comes to self-worth, and more often than not, turn competition into a negative state of proving superior potential to stroke our egos, rather than creating a positive state of helping one another on the common journey we all share to develop our individual and unique potential...in which case, we would be much better off. :-)
Survival and outcome ultimately relys on the spirit of man.
A collective society would 'enhance' the natural competition in our hearts .. no longer would we feel bound and shackled while 'investors' decide the fate of our planet.
These are very profound thoughts. I have to think about it some more because of that, but I think you are on to something. Easy to say we are all "born" equal. Yeah, right. But, that's not even really true. Children are born into all different kinds of situations and then, as you point out, we become more and more unequal as time goes by almost immediately upon making our first cry. I like the way your thinking is going and wonder if any economists or sociologists out there have any theories that are similar in any way. Very interesting. Thanks.
Yes, you catch my meaning perfectly. Some people are born into impoverished conditions and others into prosperous conditions - hardly equal at all. This is plain for all to see. We are created equal to that which proceeds us.
At the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the king was considered to be above the common man in terms of equality. The statement in the Declaration addresses this by saying.. we are all equal .. correct me if I am wrong..
You are correct. The king was considered to have divine powers above the law of men. We are all created equal was a statement against that divine power, intended to put all men on equal footing in the eyes of the law.
one small step for man .. one giant step for mankind
the problem with creating a system where the goal is individual achievement, the collective achievement becomes null. But when the system is built on collective achievement, than indivdual achievement becomes a part of the collective achievement. This is where every one has an equal share of the profit .. and with more profits, than the larger the share .. and vice versa.. the incentive with collective achievement than becomes a mutual incentiveand all work together to prosper for all .. finding ways of improving efficiency, environmental concerns, more leisure time, etc. It's basically a private system we have now where efficiency creates wealth , but instead it becomes a collective system where efficiency creates wealth for the collective. .. for all to enjoy..
We can do it.. we can create a well running system where all will enjoy the outcome .. and all have a stake in the outcome .. this alone creates indivdual incentive to perform at their peak, and it would create incentive for the rest of the world to encourage the individual to perform at their peak.. which comes down to media persuasion and other remedies.when every one is performing at their peak , and we all enjoy an equal share of the profits .. than just imagine the life we would all have .. living in an equal environment .. with an equal standard of living .. keeping in mind we all enjoy our leisure time and comforts .. so we would all be working towards building the world we share.
If we have a quiet, shy person and a loud, outgoing person, should we say loud and outgoing is better and try to remake everyone into a loud person.
Arguing individualism vs collectivism is no different than arguing quiet vs loud, they are simply two opposing aspects of the human condition. One is not inherently better than the other, until you apply them to a given situation. How well will a loud student perform in a situation that requires quiet - like studying or taking a test. How well with the quiet student perform in contrast.
If you apply collectivism to every situation in life, you will undoubtedly encounter situations which result in situations of poor performance.
You can test my thinking right now and see that I am correct. With the current level of extreme over-application of individualism to every situation in life, we see it produces quite poor results. Individualism simply does not apply well to every situation in life. There are times when collectivism would be the better approach, and vice versa.
As a civilized society we must focus on a collective system. Indivdual gain and wealth has led us down the wrong path .. and has left millions without.
Perhaps my point on collective vs indivdual was not made clear.
With a collective we are all individuals working and sharing the same goals and profits . As an individual gain in a collective the indivdual feels the gain of the collective. But in a society where profit is not shared collectively but individually than as I mentioned before the collective gain becomes null and to add, the balance of profit becomes unequally distributed.
The key point in this: Many feel individual profit is lost in a collective. But this is false. For individual profit is gained through a collective. And it is this gain felt through collective profit that provides the incentive many feel can only be achieved through individual gain, or aka private enterprise.. but the concept remains the same .. it is simply transferred from private enterprise to public enterprise , and instead of a single individual(as in private enterprise) keeping all the profits , the collective shares the profits .. either way there is an incentive for profit .. just one is shared and the other is hoarded.. and when it is hoarded ..someone(or many) always is at a loss ..
Private enterprise needs to be turned into public enterprise for all the world to flourish.
Do we share the same goals? That is a naive assumption to make. Don't you really mean we should have a system where we bring forth our individual ideas and goals, bicker until we come upon some shared goals? Would you not need an individualism system first to achieve this collectively shared agreement?
Situationally, a system geared toward individualism is necessary to provide a democratic system where they can each weigh in equally on what goals are to collectively attempted to achieve. This puts the emphasis squarely on the individualism to achieve collectivism, see what I mean.
The survival of mankind is an assumed shared goal by all. But not only the survival , but the future .. and all man kind can and will produce ... do we not all contribute to the growth of mankind .. in this do we share the same goals .. we all contribute to the outcome? of course the outcome will depend on the decision/choices we make ..collectively .. through the best possible means .. whether that be through intelligent discussion and final direct democracy .. or representative democracy .. by elected representatives .. we hope to come up with the right and best decisions for mankind .. in this can there be a guarantee? .. it's the current best system we have for decision making.. personally I like to listen to a professional speak on a subject before I make my decision .. decisions have a serious affect on where we will end up and must be take seriosly..
the second part of your post is very well stated
The problem with a goal is that not everyone sees the same path toward achievement even when they agree on the goal. I think one could safely assume, minus a few psychotics, that we all have a shared goal to see mankind survive and prosper, but that does not imply a shared vision of the path proceeding toward that goal.
Truly there is more than one way to skin a cat. I agree with you, we must have more equality and a more egalitarian society.
I disagree with absolutist thinking. It locks you into a path where you can not use common and practical sense to deviate from this absolute path toward the goal.
Besides, I like to wander around a bit.
[Removed]
Capitalism utilizes the inherent greed that is inbred in our nature and provides enormous wealth to many. But like a wild stallion it must be tamed and the reins of fairness firmly held onto. We have lost our grip of those reins and the stallion bucks many off into the hard reality of poverty and despair.
Should we saddle a different horse? One that does not provide the wild ride in personal consumption, but one that is well broken, slow and steady and provides a safe and pleasant journey?
I know what your choice would be, but in order to change horses, we need to bring the horse we now cling for life to, back under our control, and let the people decide which horse they wish to ride.
I see nothing tame about creating unlimited currency, and giving full control to the people..
Yin/Yang - a balance to create a whole.
Respect and understand the good and the bad of all qualities.
Yep - you nailed it.
The point is, individual gain is not lost in a collective because as a collective we all share the gain .. the gain is still there .. the gain becomes a collective effort .. which we each contribute individually .. encouraging the best from everyone.
but in a private enterprise where the gain is not shared collectively, we end up with what we have today .. a world of inequality..
yin and yan are opposites .. but individual gain and collective gain are not opposites when the individual shares the gain of the collective .. in fact it's not even about the individual or the collective but rather the incentive built on gain.. which is provided through a collective the same way it is provided through a private enterprise.. the possibilitiy of gain grows strong in a collective just as in a private indivdual. .. some feel a in a collective no one will work because there is no incentive, no gain .. this is absolutely false .. there is gain in a collective .. and the gain is shared collectively ..
the difference is in the workers point of view .. the employee could work for an employee and receive crumbs while the employer keeeps 99% of the pie, or the worker can work for a public collective and receive an equal share of the pie .. and that share would grow larger if he , the employee works harder.actually looking at it through the employees view there is additional incentive to work in a collective .. because the gain is reflected in the share the employee would receive.
Yes - just like an area favorite example of mine = Anderson Window employee owned they took a failing company going into bankruptcy bought out the owner and turned the business around - employees often times receive an annual bonus check equal to if not greater then their yearly earnings.
Thank you ..
Not a problem.
[Removed]
Yes - yin and yang. Much more catchy than situational and circumstantial parameters approach.
At least until most of the population can understand what you said - then who knows? Situational and circumstantial parameters approach - may become very popular.
Education fuels understanding - understanding fuels awareness/acceptance/agreement/consensus/insight/growth and so much more.
Another way to look it is this - Equality aims to reduce tension in society through cooperation. Liberty aims to produce tension in society through competition.
So we might ask ourselves ----- when is it beneficial to increase social tension and when is it beneficial to reduce social tension? How far can we increase or decrease social tension before they become unhealthy?
Again a matter of needs, consideration, approach, application, end result.
The end result should be healthy for all. So the basic guiding principal.
I like the concept of working out an equal/even/consistent flow from the start of education to the retirement from work - care consideration planning for health and prosperity from the cradle to the grave.
A complete economy. A complete society.
Thanks DKA. I am attempting to be holistic in my thinking. I see developmental phase being a system based on the idea that all men are created equal........., the earning phase being based on the idea of chasing liberty.........., and the retirement phase being a mixture of the two ideas - basic provisions for all plus whatever one procured during earning phase.
Holistic yes I like that as well.
Nurture in the educational growth period - find potentials and cater to them = happier more involved students = happier more productive work-life = a more fulfilled retirement.
Pleasant as possible school environment - work place - retirement conditions.
Time to smell the flowers and enjoy the world around us during each phase.
It is about creating the best circumstances for everyone. Life will never be without challenges and obstacles (circumstances) to overcome, but it need not be survival of the fittest from cradle to grave, not if we have each other's backs, the way we are supposed to.
TRUTH!
We need people to shift their paradigm.
Take care of the needs of everyone 1st - then look to keep the process improving.
Money can still be made it just does not need to be done in misery for anyone.
We can still make money, but only up to a tolerable level. Great inequality creates the perfect circumstances for great exploitation.
And then an eventual failure of society as well as the economy.
good night...hope you see the way.
..even in the game of monopoly , everyone receives $200 dollars everytime they pass GO, not just those with houses and motels .. EVERYONE. The point of this is simple: what would the players have to use as a starting point had they nothing to begin with . The $200 gives everyone a starting point.. just as in civilization today .. everyone should be given a daily starting point.. and from there we can all pursue the direction of our choice, but currently there is no starting point.. only that of which we are born into , or have created on our own .. A daily allowance would be so great for everyone.. why should those at the top be allowed to take everything.. after the daily allowance has been given out .. sure than let the greedy fight for whats left .. but at least peoples needs will be met first ..
YES, a daily allowance.. I like it ! ..so the rich won't be quite as rich , but at least everyone at the bottom will not be left out.
Agreed. I do think it sounds like a decent idea. It is something like a Basic Income Guarantee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
I clipped this out of the site you provided.
"Furthermore, there is no means test; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it. "
Yes there is a means test.
When we calculate the average earnings of all persons ( man , woman , and child), we than take from those making an above average and give to those making a below average.. but the amount would vary as it is calculated as a percentage of what you earned above the average( in which you would pay that amount), or as a percentage of what you did not earn below the average (which you would recieve such amount) example- the average daily earning is $100 if you earn $500 per day than you would pay a percentage of the $400 you earned above the average. If you only Earn $20 per day, than you would recieve a percentage of the $80 you were below average.. if the percentage agreed upon is 50% than to earn $400 over the average you would pay 50% which = $200. for the example of earning $20 per day .. you would receive $40 .. which is 50% of ($80) the difference of what you earned and the average earnings ..
So the point is .. the living allowance does have a "means test", and it is calculated according to ones earnings.
But the noticable difference with this formula for a living wage compared to an assistance program .. is this : the assistance program is removed when a person gains employment.. which is a disincentive for the person to gain employment and a failed system IMHO.( where is the incentive to work when the assistance money is lost at a dollar per dollar rate as they earn by working .. ? ) but with a formula that calculates the average, and a living wage is paid according to ones earnings, than there is an incentive to work because more is gained than lost. sorry this is a bit unclear of an explanation. : if the average earning is $100 .. and you earn $ zero, than you would receive $50 . but as you earn say .. $20 you would now only receive $40 in a living wage , but your total would be $60 .. where as with the current assistance program (as a rudimentary example) if you receive $50 in assistance but work and earn an Additional $20 .. your assistance would be deducted and you would still only ended up with $50 .. so there is no incentive to go out and earn $20 .. if it is just deducted from your assistance.. ..but again with the living allowance formula.. you can earn an additional $20 and in the final calculation you will gain to a total of $60 .. which means you gain 50% of any additional earnings.
The interesting part of this formula: the total of all money paid out from above is equal to to all money recieved below. example: the average amount of $40 + $60 is $50. so the person earning $40 dollars will receive $5 and the person earning $60 will pay $5.. this works out with any combination of numbers and their average.
Also when the living wage is connected to the average wage .. it will always remain in proper proportion.. unlike a static set amount..
The living allowance formula is absolutely beautiful when you look at it's full understanding..
Thanks for sharing the link to a basic income.. it proves we are not the only ones concerned with solving this issue ..
I think it is very good and most important to talk about how to get this economic system to work for all citizens. Radical change is necessary and it is do-able.
There will be resistance..
My concern, Beautifulworld, is that everyone has enough, and to do so we must create a system of 'equality'. Even though the hourly pay may be equal .. some may work longer(more) hours than others , so than yes some will have earned more in this way by their efforts .. as long as we have a system where the opportunity is there for everyone to work as much as they please in the profession of there choiice and of course proven ability. The system of equal pay does not interfere with ones ability to have enough , in fact equal pay will provide the ability for everyone to 'have enough'.
Imagine a world where everyone has an opportunity to provide enough for themselves.. would that be somehow ..harmful to the evolution of mankind, or would that contribute to mankinds development?
When we step back and look at the current position of mankind in a historical context, we see many similiarities threading itself throughout our history .. unfairness and unequal distribution of wealth, rich and poor, the aristocrats and the poverty .. it's a line of perpetuality.. and really hasn't changed.. only the titles are different. There has never been a time in mans history where there has been equality of wealth distribution , and equal opportunity for everyone. does this mean we should continue this course ..of perpetual unfairness? or should we approach this recogniton from a perspective of civility and fairness?
The idea so long as everyone can live decently is a warm hearted thought.. and if you can find a way to provide this .. I will be behind you ..at least it will be a step in the right direction .. with an outcome much more tolerable than the one we have now.
Thank you once again
Okay. I'll think about it. A living wage would be a good place to start.
I prefer to call it , 'a living allowance'. as I once explained. A living allowance is calculated by the average of every man woman and child .. allowing everyone to recieve a small percentage of the average ( which comes from the above average earners) . with this no one 'goes without' it's a small step towards solving the problems we have today, and still allows greed to persist for those with greedy ambitions.. even though their greed is at the detriment of the hard work of everyone else .. but at least they won't have all their ill begotten gains.. some of it will be shared with those at the bottom .. giving those at the bottom at least a means of providing a roof over their head and a few meals to survive. What they do after that depends on thier interests and ambitions.. if they want more wealth they can pursue a career and add to what they already have.. although .. this only helps a small problem and does not address the many of the major issues that an equal pay system would address .. such as an unlimited amount of public currency ..and a paid for educational system ..amongst so many other freedoms and possibilities.. sure , a living allowance is quite doable .. and can be set up and calculated quite quickly.
That's definitely something to consider. Sounds like a basic income guarantee only larger than usual.
Yes, I like it ! ..a basic income guarantee.. calculated by the income generated as a whole .. so it could fluctuate as the economy fluctuates .. but no one will be completely without. As for the actual percentage (size), I have tossed the thought around .. everyone should at least get half rations as a bare minimum (starting point for everyone).. surely everyone could survive on half rations .. and still provide them with enough strength and energy to pursue further income..
edit: would be nice if we could make a 'global living allowance'!
Thanks Beautifulworld, I have enjoyed this conversation :-)
eliminate the rich. and distribute their wealth
Does the person that removes a tumor from your brain and saves your life get the same pay as the person that polishes your fingernails?
The brain surgeon will be paid an equal hourly rate from the moment he or she begins tthe education process. In appreciation for their efforts , they will not be required to "pay their way" through school .. we will pay them for all the time they contribute to learning.. it's as wonderful as that ! of course not everyone is interested in medicine .. and not everyone will be interested in becoming a beautician, nor a fireman, nor a farmer , but , I am willing to gamble everyone has aninterest in something.. and it is this interest that will be pursued in a system of fairness , equality, and opportunity.. fullfilling a wide variety of interests and pursuits .. "LET the chips fall where they may !" alllowing the world to develop and grow based on mankinds personal interests... of course there will be coercion into certain direction of necessity .. but again that too can be sorted out by personal interest.. and passions.. The world will become a place of creativity.. with so much freedom it's hard to imagine what will truly develop ...
[Removed]
Why would anyone go through the difficult and time consuming process of becoming a brain surgeon if they can make the same money painting nails?
Because they are not interested in or challenged by nail painting?
If this plan caused a shortage of brain surgeons would you force people to do the job?
Please - you are being silly. People go into that line of work because it captures their interest. If some don't go into it because they figure it does not pay enough - FINE - I would not want a money chaser operating on me or anyone else. Just think of those that will explore the possibility as they can afford to. Just think of the people today that could not dream of affording the tuition.
Silly maybe, but there are a few professions that might might be hard to recruit under this equal pay scheme.
I expect the queue to study Proctology would be pretty short.
I have another question. If I go and get my nails done and the only woman doing nails in the shop does a really nice job am I allowed to tip her? And if she continues to do a nice job for a lot of people and they tip her also, is she allowed to make more money than the brain surgeon?
I suppose so unless of course the brain surgeon got tips as well - then I suppose it would depend on who had the most grateful/pleased/tipping customers - Hey?
As for the procto? I believe there are those who are interested in back doors.
Crazy world - Hey? - I mean it takes all kinds.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-tried-to-love-and-dfend-you-because-i-careim-gon/
check it out if u support others from minnesota
Sorry does not ring any bells - Dylan? If so I am not familiar with it.
get with it DKA. THAT is a great song...cold iron bounds.
Like I said I like some Dylan Music just not performed by Dylan - so unless someone else has performed that song it is not likely that I would have heard it.
It seems to me that human talent is like any other commodity. Some commodities like water are plentiful and while without it we would die, water can be had for free at a public drinking fountain.
On the other hand, hitting a 98 MPH fastball over the Green Monster at Fenway is a very rare human talent that we could all live without, but costs about 10 million dollars per year.
There is money in entertainment. Bet you could get those guys to play for a lot less green though if the green was not available like it is today.
For some it is called Heart or Love of the game.
The green monster is not just a wall.
I believe that Entertainers get paid what people are willing to pay them. No one is forced to pay them millions of $.
A lot of this discussion goes to setting a minimum living wage. We do this now for farmers that must compete with goods produced in other States and Countries. If they can't get a certain minimum price for their crops we ( the citizens of the US) pay them the difference.
Why don't we do the same for businesses that have to compete with lower wages in other States and Countries. If we legislate a minimum wage should not all US citizens pay the difference between the legislated wage and the competitive wage? Why must one business shoulder all of the burden while other businesses (like farms) get a free pass?
Well now ya see?
That is also why the corruption in government must end.
Stop subsidies that are not needed - like fossil fuel subsidies.
End free trade agreements that screw over domestic business.
Buy American made products ( domestically made ) to send to foreign countries for aid instead of giving them billions of dollars that never seem to get out to help the needy.
All of these things and more need to be addressed.
And the straw that broke the camels back came from wallstreet and got us all started on a campaign to fix our sick and dying society.
I agree with you about getting rid of the Gov corruption and subsidies, but if we have free trade between NJ and NY, why not free trade between NY and Canada?
As the French say, "If goods don't cross your borders, soldiers will".
Your comparison for free trade is lame. We are talking about a world market.
Trade with Canada is not an issue as our economies are much the same - so the market is much the same as far as costs to manufacture goods and so a fairly equal competitive field.
Not so with products manufactured in sweat shops around the world for pennies on the dollar.
Free Trade is OK when economies/markets are equal. But all economies are not equal - hence the need for fair trade regulations.
How is the economy of , say, Laos going to become equal if we don't trade with them?
The economy of Mississippi is not equal to Connecticut, should we impose tariffs?
An interesting case is China. Many have complained for years about our trade with China and how it has hurt American manufacturing jobs. Well China has grown so quickly that they are now losing their low wage competitive edge, jobs are coming back to the US (see below), and we have helped to create a middle class in China 300 million strong that is one of the biggest consumers of US products (think Boeing jets, Caterpillar earth movers, Ford and GM cars, and MS Software).
BTW, how much do you suspect US manufacturing decreased since 1980?
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4376150/U-S--European-manufacturers-join-forces-to-compete-with-China?pageNumber=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/google-and-others-give-manufacturing-in-the-us-a-try.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
Thanks DKAtoday, you covered a lot of bases answering someof 1sealyon's questions..
The questions were mostly reasonable.. and the answers were great.
Equal pay is a difficult subject/concept for most to grasp. It creates equality. Everyone recieving the same hourly pay regardless of the profession, gender or race.. it's absolute EQUALITY. And since all the training is also paid for (at an equal hourly rate), this eliminates the financial burden when choosing a career of interest.. seems fair ? and the added bbonus(amongst many) the equal hourly pay works in conjunction with an unlimited currency; we can print money out of thin air to pay anyone who wants to work or educate themself !
Here is the thing: if everyone wants to be a brain surgeon, who would do the other necessary worrk ? so we have to prioritize by regulation how many job positions will be available.. deciding who will be allowed which position comes down to certain aspects of an individuals ability. There is much more to discuss on this .. but the point to understand , we do live in a real world .. and we have real needs .. food shelter clothing, etc. although when all said and done .. we will also have needs to explore and do research .. and development.. ..everyone will find a place of best interest and suitability.. and there may be times when necessary duties will be required from all in areas of importance..
Not everyone will find their passion in medicine, or sports, or social linguistics, but at least what ever you do find will be at equal pay as everyone else.. And for the difficult jobs we will do what we can to eleviate the difficulties.
U R much 2 kind. {:-])
[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1613) 0 minutes ago
crystal clear :-) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
There is much to do - in the way of maturing - that people need to accomplish before there will ever be a system of complete equality.
It is good to have goals and ideals that are healthy for all.
Without goals/ideals - there is nothing to strive for - and so we would have nothing to guide us. No benchmark to measure our progress.
So I appreciate all dreams/goals/ideals that support growth in a healthy direction "for ALL".
This is what people need - a belief - a hope - for a better world.
This is what has been getting trampled by the PTB in their campaign of control/manipulation of the population. This is why we have a very deathly ILL society/world. This is the cause of apathy and despair.
Sorry to ramble on - hope I made some sort of sense in this comment.
crystal clear :-)
So under this system individual liberty is lost? Some group of super-elites would decide which job each of us would get?
Does this system sacrifice freedom for equality?
is there any part of this you do understand?
Difficulty is in the eye of the beholder. As is interest and curiosity.
What is /are your passions?
Well, in some cases difficult is difficult, no beholding required.
Designing a Superconducting Super Collider is difficult. Sweeping the floor is easy.
People are not equal, why should they get equal pay?
Because someone is born white, should they deserve a higher pay? what if someone is born with a high level of intellect, should they deserve higher pay? .. pay is given equally by the hour of time .. and an hour of time is equal for everyone.. whether it be sweeping the floor or studying thermo nuclear science.. an hour is an hour .. and just to go back to the gas jockey question .. I mentioned could become tiresome really quick .. but I would like to add .. on the other hand it could also be a nice break from a hard stressful environment.. see it all depends on circumstances .. the easy jobs will, and should be reserved for the elderly.. they have earned the break ..
Maybe we could let the elderly takea break and not work at all. Free up a job for the young. They could take care of the home, or family, or nothing.
They could provide advice , or training for the young as a paid job if they want or not. Let them decide. Thats a break they deserve too maybe.
Can that work.?
your thoughts are on the right track.. But it is not necessary to free up a job.. for with an unlimited currency.. jobs will be plentiful..
Ok. I like plentiful jobs, I don't quite see the connection to unlimited currency. I will look back further in the thread.
Peace
fyi, we will reserve the light duty positions for those of the elderly willing and able.
the unlimited currency is part of the "bigger plan" which ties into equal hourly pay and the ability to print money out of thin air ..as we will expire money when it is spent.. I give a light example of this in a discussion with know1.. about the car manufacturing factory ..
I'm lookin through now. I am hesitant to agree because there is great criticism of our current money printing activity.
hesitation is perfectly honest..
keep in mind the current system does not have unlimited money printing capability.. as the new system would. ..for entertainment.. allow yourself to imagine what we could do if we had an ability to print unllimited public money based an an hours work for an hours credti.. and with each credit earned you are free to purchase anything .. and upon purchase the credit simply ..expires.. because all product produced would be produced under the hour-coin system and already paid for .. the expiration of the coin is simply a completion of the coin cycle.. the freedom of this coin gives us the ability to create as many jobs as required !
thanks for reading
It sounds interesting. Kinda brings us a step closer to the society of "no money" I've dreamt of since Star Trek. I like it.
What happens when I purchase a product from a business, Does the business get to use the "credit" to purchase more products to sell or to pay staff/himself/overhead?
Peace
Everyone working at the business will be on the public hourly coin system .. and with this we will calculate the price of the product they produce.. and as each product is sold the money collected at purchase will expire.
So then what does the business owner use to pay his electric bill, replenish his inventory?
People are not equal. Some are short, some are tall, some are weak, some are strong. Some can't carry a tune and some can play the violin so beautifully that it will make you cry.
If someone is born with an IQ of 145 and has the intellect to develop a cure for cancer that person posses a rare talent. Because the talent is rare, like any rare commodity, it will command a higher price in the market.
you are prejudice.
an hour of time is equal for all.
No reason to start name-calling.
What I have written is a fact. People are not equal.
Why not accept facts and celebrate the diversity of human variation?
prejudice has a definition .. look it up
Derogatory terms mostly have definitions but name-calling is still a poor substitute for a good argument.
Under your system who gets to decide which people get which jobs and how does one get the job of making those decisions?
prejudism is a serious issue .. as is discrimination ..
very good question.. one that should be answered appropriately ..well thought out.. mostly preference will be given by request and ability.. but if someone wants to be a brain surgeon .. surely you see the importance of proving ones ability through study
Do you not discriminate everyday of your life?
why is this important?
[-]0 points by 1sealyon (489) 8 hours ago
Discrimination is an important human talent. There is little chance that we would survive as a species without it. Don't you discriminate when selecting fruit at the grocery store, when picking your friends (and enemies)? When you hire someone don't you discriminate among the applicants based on intellect, skills, and personality? We, each of us, discriminate everyday.
↥twinkle↧stinklepermalink
You wrote that discrimination is a serious issue, it is not at all serious it is in fact a very common human trait.
.you don't want to go there
Discrimination is an important human talent. There is little chance that we would survive as a species without it. Don't you discriminate when selecting fruit at the grocery store, when picking your friends (and enemies)? When you hire someone don't you discriminate among the applicants based on intellect, skills, and personality? We, each of us, discriminate everyday.
that is clearly work that is different enough to require different levels of pay. Other examples would illustrate the difference that evolves naturally.
Perhaps if we just increased the lowest paid to a living wage, and cut more paycheck deductions further for them(fica and such) that could serve the needs of low income families as well as improving the the consumer spending of the working class.
Agree 100%. There must be a minimum living wage. Since we all agree then we should all be willing to subsidize that wage to the extent that it is higher than the competitive wage for that work.
For everyone else above the minimum wage let the market dictate the price of the work.
I'm ok with the market forces setting much pay. but I do think the execs who are paid 400% of average workers has to be ended. I do not think the govt has to subsidize a living wage. But if a corp controls theexec salary/bonus perhaps some kinda tax break for lower paid workers can be implemented.
If we elect a Gov and they decide to build a bridge, fly to the moon, or start a war we all have to pay for it. If they decide to set a price for a thing (like rent, corn, or hourly wages) that is above the going rate why do we only subject a small minority of citizens to the cost? How is that equal protection under the law? Why not insist that the cost be spread among all citizens like they do for wars, bridges, and moon shots?
Ok if you insist.
Yes, the same.... and they will be union tumor removers, too.
Why would anyone go through the difficult and time consuming process of becoming a brain surgeon if they can make the same money painting nails?
If this plan results in a shortage brain surgeons would they be conscripted by force?
My reply to you was tongue in cheek, but you will probably get plenty of answers like that before you get your replies banned or you give up.