| HappySqurriel said: Honestly, income disparity is a poor way to measure fair outcomes in an economy. Supposing the purchasing power per dollar is the same in both scenarios which is a more desireable outcome: While the households in scenario 1 are all better off than their equlivalents in scenario 2, the focus on more equitable distribution would lead people to choose scenario 2.
We should be discussing how we can grow the economy to ensure that the standard of living of everyone within the economy improves as much as is possible; not discussing how to create an economy where the realitive reward of success is minimized. |
I would choose scenario 2. Society would have less to argue about who has this and who has that. As income inequality through out the world increased, poverty rates increased, homeless rates increasesd and crime rates increased.
America has only 3% of the world's population but holds 25% of the world's prison population. America is the only developed nation in the world that does not have universal health and America has privatised timed unemployment benefits. No wonder the crime rates are high in the US. Social mobility is fixed: people rarely work there way up from a ghetto to the penthouse suite as depicted in a Disney fairytale story.
Evangelists and radio shock jocks have too big of an influence upon society. Their fascist anti-life rhetoric has brainwashed people into believing their evil radical rants. Selfishness and greed is all their is left in today's society.
For crying out loud health, education, food, water, housing are not privileges they are basic human rights/needs.
