SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?
- Provide free and high quality education
- Raise the minimum wage
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Fight corruption
- Provide more social protection for the poor
- Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
- Provide jobs for the unemployed
Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:45AM (4 children)
Every developed world country has problems with health care costs growing faster than their economies are. The US is unique in being the leader of high cost health care here, but far from unique in having the problem in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:12PM (3 children)
Whataboutism, there are problems everywhere so we should ignore our bigger ones!! They're all the same anyway!!!
As usual you are either a total fucking shill or a total fucking moron. I lean towards the former, but then again smart people can still be idiots.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @01:05AM (2 children)
followed later in response to a TMB post:
Note the problems. First, there is this unwarranted assumption that the poster has a fix that is less of an economic drag, lower cost of health care, and redirects insurance industries into more beneficial enterprises. The US and the rest of the developed world wouldn't be in the mess they have been growing into for the past few decades, if that were the case.
Second, there is this ill-defined and similarly unwarranted assertion that "citizens" deserve "access" to health care. The weaseling of the phrasing is such that it is already true. Everyone does have access to health care in the US. They just have to pay for it. So ignoring this glaring flaw, we have to instead consider what is meant: namely, that people are entitled to health care paid by other peoples' money. Before in the market example, your health care was restricted by your ability and desire to pay. Now, we have to find some other way to limit health care such as: death panels and similar decision making or standard-setting bodies, long wait times for services (the US Veterans Administration does this a lot with their more overworked hospitals), or simply having society fall apart when it can't meet all the many obligations it has created for itself (such as austerity-driven collapses in the EU today).
And notice that the poster speaks of "access" not of actual health care or even more importantly, of good health. That doesn't promise anything useful. That's yet another reason to look on this with a great deal of skepticism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:51PM (1 child)
"And notice that the poster speaks of "access" not of actual health care or even more importantly, of good health. That doesn't promise anything useful. That's yet another reason to look on this with a great deal of skepticism."
As opposed to our current system where you pay exorbitant prices for sub standard care? You are an amazing person, maybe one day you'll retire to a circus tent where you can astound everyone with your block shaped head.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:42PM
Yes. Once again, "access" versus actual care. Let us keep in mind that "access" is one of the reasons for exorbitant prices for health care of somewhat lower quality than in much of the developed world. Lots of stuff is mandated to for coverage by insurance - which increases demand - which increases prices. And Medicaid has been cutting back on its services for a couple of decades due to these costs as well.
To give a recent example, much has been made of mandated "free" birth control [wikipedia.org] (that is, birth control with no deductible) as part of health insurance per the past decade's Obamacare bill. While court cases involving religious freedom got the news, the real problem is that there already is widespread, cheap birth control. So it created an incentive to consume more expensive birth control procedures and those costs get passed back as higher insurance rates.