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: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 21 2018, @07:56PM
Here's the way I look at it: According to the World Bank, the Earth produces about $100 trillion worth of stuff every year. That works out to about $16K per person. The US poverty line is at $12K per adult, and the poverty line in many countries is substantially lower than that. So humanity currently has the capacity to ensure that essentially nobody goes without basic economic survival (a home, food, basic clothing), and still have at least $25 trillion left over (or somewhere around 1.3 US economies) of productivity to spend on more luxurious living, scientific endeavors, and so forth. This kind of surplus can also be measured in terms of the stuff all those dollars represent: There are more empty homes than there are homeless, more than enough left-over or thrown-out food to feed everybody who's hungry, way more clothing than we need, etc.
That means that poverty is, right now, completely unnecessary on a worldwide scale. And seeing how poverty can and does lead to all kinds of other problems like crime, war, disease, and other causes of death for decent ordinary people, anyone saying "We shouldn't try to eliminate poverty" is saying, in essence, "I'm totally fine with people I've never met dying so I can have more stuff than I need." Which is a fundamentally immoral decision to make.
So, when a monstrous system like this exists, the appropriate question to ask is "who benefits?" And the answer is, very obviously, the largest owners of big international capitalist businesses, who end up getting a lot of money every year without having to do any work. Many of whom inherited the assets in question, as well, which makes it so the main difference between them and feudal aristocrats is that feudal aristocrats had substantially more responsibilities to fulfill for society at large. There are ways in which modern international capitalism compares unfavorably to chattel slavery - for instance, the modern international capitalist has no motivation to ensure that their workers remain alive, whereas slaveowners do because a slave is a valuable asset.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin