People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?...what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?

---

I have not proposed "equality of results". I'm raising a personal concern that inequality is increasing as evidenced by this:

Quote:

---

...from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%

---

I do not believe that is justifiable, healthy or sustainable for society as a whole in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances.

---

What a sad world we would live in if the only motivation anyone had for innovating, improving and making advances was making money, which is what you're suggesting.

I, certainly, have never done any job purely for the money. Do you think my lack of interest in this aspect makes me a less productive employee? That, after all, is the natural conclusion of your viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why should it be some sort of goal to have equality of results?

If I gain wealth, I haven't stolen anything, and there is nothing stopping someone else from doing a similar thing, what is wrong with that?

Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?

---

You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I have not proposed "equality of results". I'm raising a personal concern that inequality is increasing as evidenced by this:
I do not believe that is justifiable, healthy or sustainable for society as a whole in the long run.

---

But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better. What do you want to see in your perfect society in percentage growth terms, or income distribution, or whatever else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What a sad world we would live in if the only motivation anyone had for innovating, improving and making advances was making money, which is what you're suggesting.

I, certainly, have never done any job purely for the money. Do you think my lack of interest in this aspect makes me a less productive employee? That, after all, is the natural conclusion of your viewpoint.

---

I wouldn't say that money is (or should be) anyone's only motivation. But to deny that it is a motivation is foolish at best. Sure some people set out to invent a product to "benefit society", but most want to see a profit in it as well.

Again let's look at a bit of an extreme example. Tommorow aliens land on earth, take over all governments, and busineses. They decree that everyone gets paid equally, no matter how productive they are. Do you expect that most people would continue to show up to their current job and continue to be just as productive as they were yesterday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.

---

I completely reject this statement. Economics is not a zero sum game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I wouldn't say that money is (or should be) anyone's only motivation. But to deny that it is a motivation is foolish at best. Sure some people set out to invent a product to "benefit society", but most want to see a profit in it as well.

Again let's look at a bit of an extreme example. Tommorow aliens land on earth, take over all governments, and busineses. They decree that everyone gets paid equally, no matter how productive they are. Do you expect that most people would continue to show up to their current job and continue to be just as productive as they were yesterday?

---

You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?

---

In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular. If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Put another way ... If I have the motivation, the skills, the know-how, and yes the luck to get ahead, why should I be forced to give away what I have worked for to someone else simply because they have less than I do? How does that benefit anyone in the long run? Taken to it's logical extension, what you are proposing takes away anyone's motivation for innovating, improving, and making advances. How does that benefit society in the long run?

---

Think of it as an insurable risk question. People who are richer in society have a greater quantifiable interest in making sure that the society which enabled their wealth in the first place remains cohesive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I completely reject this statement. Economics is not a zero sum game.

---

It may not be completely a zero sum game, but it's almost a zero sum game. There's a limit to growth and the rate of growth. Ultimately it will be a zero sum game or a negative sum game when all the resources of the world have been exploited and exhausted and the population of the world keeps on growing. I completely reject unlimited greed.