CDZ What are you worth?

[presonorek]

Would there also be a minimum pay per day? If solving wealth inequality is the issue,then there needs to be a minimum pay ear day greater than zero. We don't want those that are disabled to starve to death.

Well no, read the OP... The new federal law doesn't mandate a minimum pay, just a maximum amount you can earn per day of $100. If you don't want to work you can depend on benevolence from others, that's up to you. We've not really discussed taxation and how we would pay for running government and providing social entitlement programs or disability. Perhaps we'll have a consumption tax?

An 8-hour day at $100 comes to $12.50 per hour. Obviously, certain jobs would be of greater value than $12.50 per hour so you'd work less hours depending on competition for those jobs. The time you worked per day or how many days per week would become the driver as opposed to amount per hour as it is now. Maybe there is an easy job that lots of people can do and some will say... I'll work 10 hours at $10 per hour instead of 8 at $12.50.

We obviously can't pay people to do nothing, no one wants to do that. Would you like to pay me to do nothing? If so, I'll gladly send you my Paypal information through PM. Paying people for doing nothing is not solving wealth inequality, it's simply paying people to do nothing. This plan pays everyone $100 per day maximum. You can make up to $700 per week and your hours per day and days per week are what is negotiable depending on what you'll do and the market for your particular service. As you can see. if everyone is capped at $700 maximum, we have no inequality in wealth, the problem is solved. This is why the fictional future government passed this law.

So we've solved the inequality in wealth problem but now we seem to be running into some problems with people being motivated to actually do productive work that needs doing. We've had only one person in the thread who stated he is willing to work 16 hrs per day to do whatever needs to be done. Now if we just had about 149,999,999 more people that committed, we would have something going on. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to want to work for $6.25 per hour and 112 hours per week.

I think that if you had a smaller economy of 1,000 people that were culturally identical then there would be more sacrificial behavior. In a large diverse population people rarely step up their game. Telling me that I share this country with 345,000,000 people never registered with me and it never will no matter how many times I read it or hear it. The human brain registers that as numbers on a piece of paper not actual people. If you told somebody that they shared their neighborhood with 100 people and they met every single person in their neighborhood then it would registered that there were 100 other people. A communist approach of wealth equality would require a very strong central government with a highly active propaganda machine to promote altruistic behavior. Modern North Korea is the only nation in history that have actually pulled it off. It has failed elsewhere. I'm not sure why the fictional future government didn't study history. This law was not well thought out. They should have divided the nation up into 230,000 different communes that set their own maximum wage.

 

[LoneLaugher]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.

I believe him.

Good to know. The OP claims to be a milllionaire who owns several businesses. You believe that too?

 

[presonorek]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.

I believe him.

Good to know, dupe. The OP claims to be a milllionaire who owns several businesses. You believe that too?

Yes I do believe that but I have an important question. What difference does it make? This is a place to discuss ideas not to compare net worth. I'll just believe it. It's a lot less complicated that way. Since it is irrelevant then it causes me no harm to believe him.

Let's say he is lying.

Do I think he is an idiot for lying? No.
Do I think you are an idiot for making a big deal about him lying? Yes.

That's where I stand on the matter. Those who care are psychopaths.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm worth about 46 million

What is your body worth?

 

[LoneLaugher]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.

I believe him.

Good to know, dupe. The OP claims to be a milllionaire who owns several businesses. You believe that too?

Yes I do believe that but I have an important question. What difference does it make? This is a place to discuss ideas not to compare net worth. I'll just believe it. It's a lot less complicated that way. Since it is irrelevant then it causes me no harm to believe him.

Let's say he is lying.

Do I think he is an idiot for lying? No.
Do I think you are an idiot for making a big deal about him lying? Yes.

That's where I stand on the matter. Those who care are psychopaths.

This thread is not about anyone's personal net worth. Xband volunteered the info in a totally off topic manner. I responded accordingly.

You don't care? Great. Why open your yap?

 

[Boss]

Actually you have unwittingly provided a great solution. You get bonus points for that. That was an excellent suggestion. We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century. That way people could prepare for each reset and learn via reinforcement the way to break out of cycles of poverty. That would educate the maximum amount of people and those people could teach their kids how to prepare.

The point was to be able to help others and leave your children a legacy of how to acquire/grow wealth and how to give back to people less fortunate. No I wouldnt be better off working as little as possible because doing something constructive brings rewards apart from material gain. You gain in knowledge as well for example. I have never seen such a society. I doubt its even possible that you could create such a society as people naturally want to learn and do things.

People do not inherently want to do pointless and useless things. There is no reason to teach children how to "break out of poverty" if the system provides a mechanism of reset that ensures it. What they inevitably learn (knowledge) is to bide their time and wait for the next great reset. There would also naturally be LESS appeal in helping the needy, after all, they are eventually going to benefit the most from the reset and if they are needy it means they simply squandered their resources through their own choices. We both had an ice cream sandwich, you ate all of yours, why should I now give you half of mine?

We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century.

The system would last no longer than 40 years. After the first reset, people would learn that it's pointless to gain wealth. That it is FAR better to not gain wealth, enjoy your time relaxing and waiting for the next redistribution where all of your wealth will again be restored through no effort on your part. It would become "the norm" to skim by doing as little as possible because, what is the point of gaining wealth that will be confiscated and redistributed? If anyone did manage to gain wealth, they would be foolish to hold on to their wealth until the redistribution. They would start spending their wealth on anything they could think of before the reset. The "objective" in such a system would be to have NO wealth when reset time came. Another bizarre point in time would come just before the reset when it would be virtually impossible to spend your wealth because no one would want to gain your wealth.

 

[Boss]

By using time as the dominant medium of exchange, there becomes no means for storing wealth. Well, that's the state of being in which my cats find themselves. They have an abundance of time because they have no need to invest more effort in finding food and water than a short stroll to their buffet in the laundry room and the bulk of their time is spent (1) choosing which safe and cozy spot around the house most appeals to them at any given moment and (2) opportunistically entertaining themselves when a bug or snake or other critter which they don't fear comes along and that they think they can mess with until the thing moves no more. The thing could even be a deer, which they won't bother, but that will serve just fine as a source of distraction much as will a fluttering blade of grass or leaf to a person "tripping" on mushrooms.

I love it... this is a great analogy to prove my point. This is exactly what we would become, a nation of fat and happy cats with no motivation to be productive in any way. This would be great if there were a "magic hand" to constantly keep our food bowl full. Unfortunately, there is no such magic hand.

 

[presonorek]

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.

I believe him.

Good to know, dupe. The OP claims to be a milllionaire who owns several businesses. You believe that too?

Yes I do believe that but I have an important question. What difference does it make? This is a place to discuss ideas not to compare net worth. I'll just believe it. It's a lot less complicated that way. Since it is irrelevant then it causes me no harm to believe him.

Let's say he is lying.

Do I think he is an idiot for lying? No.
Do I think you are an idiot for making a big deal about him lying? Yes.

That's where I stand on the matter. Those who care are psychopaths.

This thread is not about anyone's personal net worth. Xband volunteered the info in a totally off topic manner. I responded accordingly.

You don't care? Great. Why open your yap?

I responded to your lies not his. You said that nobody believed him. I do believe him. That means you are lying. Isn't it ironic that you accuse someone else of telling lies while you are telling lies at the same time. If Xband was lying then Xband was telling lies about himself. You were telling lies about me.

 

[presonorek]

I'm worth about 46 million

What is your body worth?

Alive I am worth X dollars per week. Dead I am worth the payout of my life insurance policy. Both of those are subject to change.

 

[Boss]

They should have divided the nation up into 230,000 different communes that set their own maximum wage.

I disagree. The point of the OP is to open a dialogue on "wealth inequality" which has become a major hot button issue with the progressive left. Free market capitalists have ALWAYS understood that "wealth inequality" is simply a part of our free market system that is inherent in design and cannot be avoided.

I've used this analogy many times... Imagine the economy as a marathon race. We're all competing in the race. Some of us are seasoned marathon runners, veterans and pros who've trained relentlessly and conditioned ourselves to perform well. Some of us are mere novices, we compete but it's nowhere near the level of the pro. And then, some of us are couch potatoes who have no motivation to compete whatsoever. Once the marathon begins, there will never be a point in which the couch potato is gaining ground on the pro. As the race progresses, the pro will always be increasing the distance between himself and the couch potato as a natural result of his superior training and the couch potato's lack of motivation. This isn't a "problem" it is a result of the conditions and it's inevitable.

Some will argue that we should hobble the pros so they can't advance more rapidly than the couch potato... (that's the "plan" laid out in the OP.) But the BETTER solution, and indeed, the only thing that we can ever do to somewhat reduce this ever-growing natural disparity, is to motivate the couch potato... train them up... get them off the couch and in the race moving forward. They will still probably never gain ground on the pro but they won't be getting as far behind as they were before. Some couch potatoes may actually learn to be very good performers and may even one day achieve the ability to not fall further behind the pros. Mind you, there will always be some couch potatoes and some pros, as well as some in between. There will always be growing inequality in wealth in ANY free market capitalist system, that is simply the nature of the beast.

 

[320 Years of History]

By using time as the dominant medium of exchange, there becomes no means for storing wealth. Well, that's the state of being in which my cats find themselves. They have an abundance of time because they have no need to invest more effort in finding food and water than a short stroll to their buffet in the laundry room and the bulk of their time is spent (1) choosing which safe and cozy spot around the house most appeals to them at any given moment and (2) opportunistically entertaining themselves when a bug or snake or other critter which they don't fear comes along and that they think they can mess with until the thing moves no more. The thing could even be a deer, which they won't bother, but that will serve just fine as a source of distraction much as will a fluttering blade of grass or leaf to a person "tripping" on mushrooms.

I love it... this is a great analogy to prove my point. This is exactly what we would become, a nation of fat and happy cats with no motivation to be productive in any way. This would be great if there were a "magic hand" to constantly keep our food bowl full. Unfortunately, there is no such magic hand.

Okay...It's fine if you want to shift the discussion to one about human behavior in general rather than explicitly economic behavior. The thing is that any conversation about human behavior there is always the matter of what motivates behavior. The instant the underlying "equation"/process becomes one of "human effort/thought in exchange for a medium of exchange," the discussion necessarily moves from psychology (behavior of individuals) and sociology (behavior of individuals as members of a group/society) to that of economics (behavior of individuals and groups assuming money is the prime motivator). When money becomes involved as part of the behavior, unlike as with general human behavior, we don't have to wonder why folks behave as they do; we know why: the money is why.

Thinking about your assertion that "we would become, a nation of fat and happy cats with no motivation to be productive in any way," and taking money out of the equation, one must examine whether your proposition is so. As one seeks the answer, one will eventually come across models of general behavior motivation. Among the most basic of them is the answer that people behave in order to satisfy their needs, and the types of needs they have are described in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Looking at Maslow's hierarchy and the world in which we live, we know immediately that lots of folks routinely use their efforts/thoughts to satisfy needs beyond the basic needs that need to be satisfied. For example, Internet trolls do what they do to satisfy some sort of psychological or self-fulfillment need. Wealthy people continue to work for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with satisfying any sort of basic need. Indeed, it may well be that some folks, were the model you noted in your OP in place, whose sole productive activity would be to effect the abolishment of that model.

So, yes, some folks may content themselves with being "fat and happy" and thereby be no more productive than they need be -- presumably to the tune of earning $100/day by working however long it takes to do that -- to satisfy their basic needs, but not everyone will do that. That not everyone will goes directly to why I mentioned volunteerism in my first post for volunteerism is, by definition, the use of one's resources in a productive way that only benefits the volunteer by satisfying some need other than a basic one.

[Winking at you and saying that I knew where the line of thought offered in the OP had to sooner or later lead given the political context that underlies this forum.]

 

[xband]

Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.

I believe him.

Good to know, dupe. The OP claims to be a milllionaire who owns several businesses. You believe that too?

Yes I do believe that but I have an important question. What difference does it make? This is a place to discuss ideas not to compare net worth. I'll just believe it. It's a lot less complicated that way. Since it is irrelevant then it causes me no harm to believe him.

Let's say he is lying.

Do I think he is an idiot for lying? No.
Do I think you are an idiot for making a big deal about him lying? Yes.

That's where I stand on the matter. Those who care are psychopaths.

This thread is not about anyone's personal net worth. Xband volunteered the info in a totally off topic manner. I responded accordingly.

You don't care? Great. Why open your yap?

I responded to your lies not his. You said that nobody believed him. I do believe him. That means you are lying. Isn't it ironic that you accuse someone else of telling lies while you are telling lies at the same time. If Xband was lying then Xband was telling lies about himself. You were telling lies about me.

xband never lies even to a cop. The question was asked and I answered it.

 

[Spare_change]

It's interesting to watch all the scrambling trying to get more - what a bunch of greedy people!

I work about 14 hours a day - and I would still work about 14 hours a day. (Oh, by the way, I'm on my 3rd retirement) But, that's because I work for the joy of producing something, for the good that I do for others, and the value I bring to my wife and children.

Frankly, I'd work 14 hours a day for nothing - if that's what it took.My reward isn't measured in dollars.

Well the OP lays out a plan that mitigates greed or scrambling to get more... all you can make is $100 per day. It's nice that you would work for free... not sure how you'll eat and pay your bills... but it's a nice gesture. I would say the vast majority don't share your enthusiasm to work for free and would prefer to be rewarded with dollars.

.... which, frankly, is exactly the problem. No longer is about pride in workmanship, or the satisfaction of a job well done. Now, it's all about "what's in it for me."

The proposal suggested by the OP is, of course, one that kills initiative, drive, and ingenuity. Why work hard when you aren't going to be rewarded for it? It's been tried so many times, it's ridiculous --- and, oh by the way, it's failed every time.

 

[Wyatt earp]

My worth can't be paid for in dollars, it don't mean a Damn thing to me, what makes people worth it to God to keep alive on planet earth is are they still valuable to him?

Look at it this way how many people still need you? What contributions do you have to society? That's the real worth of you..

How many people can You touch? Learn from them , they learn from you.

 

[Jackson]

There are different types or worth. I am of the firm belief that the vast majority of jobs merely require OJT. Your scenario is not about how much someone is worth because that appears to be fixed at $500 a week. Your scenario is about how much value you put into your time. In your scenario i would probably work 1 minute a day.

Well there are 7 days in a week, so the maximum pay you could get in a week would be $700. But your worth is up to you... that's what we are trying to determine. What will we get for our money from you? If you're only going to give us one minute per day, I hope you'll be doing something pretty spectacular, like maybe curing cancer?

Keep in mind, we'll still need to find a market for what you offer. I could say that I will be a medical marijuana tester at $10/hr for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week... but there has to be a market for my services. So this requires a little more thought.

Boss, if doctors or other necessary personnel worked a mere hour or ten minutes a day, what would happen the health care in the US?

Your premise is the most valuable people in the country would work very little. That eliminates their value. What if Homeland Security worked ten minutes a day? Would you feel we, as a nation are safe?

At the same time. those with few skills needed in our society would be working akin to slaves. I don't see this as a workable solution. Those whose value to society are important should be financially rewarded as such.

 

[Boss]

.... which, frankly, is exactly the problem. No longer is about pride in workmanship, or the satisfaction of a job well done. Now, it's all about "what's in it for me."

The proposal suggested by the OP is, of course, one that kills initiative, drive, and ingenuity. Why work hard when you aren't going to be rewarded for it? It's been tried so many times, it's ridiculous --- and, oh by the way, it's failed every time.

Boss, if doctors or other necessary personnel worked a mere hour or ten minutes a day, what would happen the health care in the US?

Your premise is the most valuable people in the country would work very little. That eliminates their value. What if Homeland Security worked ten minutes a day? Would you feel we, as a nation are safe?

At the same time. those with few skills needed in our society would be working akin to slaves. I don't see this as a workable solution. Those whose value to society are important should be financially rewarded as such.

As I said before, the OP scenario was merely to get people to think logically about their worth and value of their time in terms of the "big picture". We are bombarded daily with this notion that it's "unfair" for some people to gain wealth to such a greater degree than others. "Wealth inequality" is presented as a "problem" that requires us fixing by using the power of government.

The OP is a well-intentioned approach at limiting wealth acquisition and making things "more fair" in the distribution of wealth. But as we see, regardless of intent, the plan presents more problems than we can list. Right away, we see that there is no way we could leave it all up to individuals to freely decide what they will do and for how many hours. Everyone wants to be a teacher or consultant and work 3-4 hour days.... no one wants to shovel manure for 10 hours a day. But a society needs people who are willing to do hard laborious jobs for long hours in undesirable positions.

In a free market capitalist system, we operate on principles of supply and demand, so the difficult and hard to do jobs will generally pay more because fewer people can do them or are willing to do them.... less supply, more demand equal higher pay. But it's inherently impossible to have complete fairness AND have complete freedom. The more fairness you attempt to mandate through power of government, the less freedom the individual ultimately has. And this is why the "wealth inequality problem" can't be looked at as an issue of "fairness."

 

[presonorek]

"Wealth inequality" is presented as a "problem" that requires us fixing

Do you think wealth inequality is a problem that needs fixing?

 

[presonorek]

.... which, frankly, is exactly the problem. No longer is about pride in workmanship, or the satisfaction of a job well done. Now, it's all about "what's in it for me."

The proposal suggested by the OP is, of course, one that kills initiative, drive, and ingenuity. Why work hard when you aren't going to be rewarded for it? It's been tried so many times, it's ridiculous --- and, oh by the way, it's failed every time.

Boss, if doctors or other necessary personnel worked a mere hour or ten minutes a day, what would happen the health care in the US?

Your premise is the most valuable people in the country would work very little. That eliminates their value. What if Homeland Security worked ten minutes a day? Would you feel we, as a nation are safe?

At the same time. those with few skills needed in our society would be working akin to slaves. I don't see this as a workable solution. Those whose value to society are important should be financially rewarded as such.

As I said before, the OP scenario was merely to get people to think logically about their worth and value of their time in terms of the "big picture". We are bombarded daily with this notion that it's "unfair" for some people to gain wealth to such a greater degree than others. "Wealth inequality" is presented as a "problem" that requires us fixing by using the power of government.

The OP is a well-intentioned approach at limiting wealth acquisition and making things "more fair" in the distribution of wealth. But as we see, regardless of intent, the plan presents more problems than we can list. Right away, we see that there is no way we could leave it all up to individuals to freely decide what they will do and for how many hours. Everyone wants to be a teacher or consultant and work 3-4 hour days.... no one wants to shovel manure for 10 hours a day. But a society needs people who are willing to do hard laborious jobs for long hours in undesirable positions.

In a free market capitalist system, we operate on principles of supply and demand, so the difficult and hard to do jobs will generally pay more because fewer people can do them or are willing to do them.... less supply, more demand equal higher pay. But it's inherently impossible to have complete fairness AND have complete freedom. The more fairness you attempt to mandate through power of government, the less freedom the individual ultimately has. And this is why the "wealth inequality problem" can't be looked at as an issue of "fairness."

Wealth inequality probably isn't as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. It's recycled rhetoric that can be used and reused without a shelf life. There will always be inequality. It can be whined about forever.

 

[Jackson]

.... which, frankly, is exactly the problem. No longer is about pride in workmanship, or the satisfaction of a job well done. Now, it's all about "what's in it for me."

The proposal suggested by the OP is, of course, one that kills initiative, drive, and ingenuity. Why work hard when you aren't going to be rewarded for it? It's been tried so many times, it's ridiculous --- and, oh by the way, it's failed every time.

Boss, if doctors or other necessary personnel worked a mere hour or ten minutes a day, what would happen the health care in the US?

Your premise is the most valuable people in the country would work very little. That eliminates their value. What if Homeland Security worked ten minutes a day? Would you feel we, as a nation are safe?

At the same time. those with few skills needed in our society would be working akin to slaves. I don't see this as a workable solution. Those whose value to society are important should be financially rewarded as such.

As I said before, the OP scenario was merely to get people to think logically about their worth and value of their time in terms of the "big picture". We are bombarded daily with this notion that it's "unfair" for some people to gain wealth to such a greater degree than others. "Wealth inequality" is presented as a "problem" that requires us fixing by using the power of government.

The OP is a well-intentioned approach at limiting wealth acquisition and making things "more fair" in the distribution of wealth. But as we see, regardless of intent, the plan presents more problems than we can list. Right away, we see that there is no way we could leave it all up to individuals to freely decide what they will do and for how many hours. Everyone wants to be a teacher or consultant and work 3-4 hour days.... no one wants to shovel manure for 10 hours a day. But a society needs people who are willing to do hard laborious jobs for long hours in undesirable positions.

In a free market capitalist system, we operate on principles of supply and demand, so the difficult and hard to do jobs will generally pay more because fewer people can do them or are willing to do them.... less supply, more demand equal higher pay. But it's inherently impossible to have complete fairness AND have complete freedom. The more fairness you attempt to mandate through power of government, the less freedom the individual ultimately has. And this is why the "wealth inequality problem" can't be looked at as an issue of "fairness."

The Wealth Equality Problem is actually defined as people who do not prepare for a job in terms of skill or education, but want to share the riches of those that do.

If I am going to get paid $100 a day, I certainly will not take the time to finish high school, enter college or get multiple degrees to become a often sought pout individual that makes a big difference in this society. Very few would spend the incredible amount to get a college education when they will make $35,000 a year, a fragment of the cost of college and with the liabilities often an inherent occurrence in the career.

 

[Boss]

"Wealth inequality" is presented as a "problem" that requires us fixing

Do you think wealth inequality is a problem that needs fixing?

No and there is really no way to fix it. Inequality of wealth is a natural result of free market capitalism. Some will be more motivated and gain wealth faster than others in a free market. The only way to prevent that is to have a closed market controlled by a central authority, then all the wealth is concentrated at the top among the ruling class elite who also control the political power.

Wealth inequality probably isn't as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. It's recycled rhetoric that can be used and reused without a shelf life. There will always be inequality. It can be whined about forever.

Well, it's not a big deal and you're right, it is recycled rhetoric... it sounds cliche but it's actual Marxist rhetoric. It is being used to justify more and more centralized government authority over our lives. It is presented on the basis of "fairness to all" and an appeal to emotion. The more "fairness" we have, the less individual freedom.

We should not let ourselves be concerned, alarmed, outraged, appalled, over a system that allows people to attain huge amounts of wealth... that's a GOOD thing... we WANT that type of system! It's not a "problem" to have a system that creates so many millionaires and billionaires and pulls so many out of poverty. Is our system "perfect"? No, but it's the best system man has ever come up with. The "problem", if we have one, is crony capitalism (aka: corporatism) where capitalists exploit the power of government to lever an advantage over competition. That's a worse enemy of free market capitalism than socialism.