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: 5, Insightful) by splodus on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:01PM (16 children)
It's a no-brainer, really, for me!
I don't think anyone would object to efforts to combat corruption, tax avoidance, influencing politicians through wealth and power (surely)?
The issues like minimum wage and higher taxes for the most wealthy? That's what splits people ideologically.
The idea that those who are the wealthiest should pay more tax, proportionately, than those who are poorest? I wonder who objects to that, and why? I heard a chap on the news back along who said something along the lines 'If I've got to pay more tax than the people I employ - why should I bother? I might just as well not provide any jobs!' And I thought, well, maybe cos you're getting 30 times more money than them each month? Would you really swap places with any one of them?
And sure, minimum wage will hit the cost of providing the service or product of your company; sure, the cost of the product or service will have to increase! But then, you won't be 'uncompetitive', cos every company will also have to pass on that cost...
Employees who are paid enough to live on, and maybe have some left over - they are customers! If customers have more money to spend, they will be able to buy the goods and services that companies are offering!
A handful of super-rich people won't buy much - there's only so much one person can buy.
But millions of people with a few extra quid in their pocket each month? Isn't that what every business hopes for?
As for 'free' education; that's something that can only help in the longer term. I can see why industry might be cautious about allowing their profits to be siphoned off now via taxes, for something that only 'might' help them some time in the future!
But that's why we need Governments to make that call. I don't expect businesses to behave like charities - businesses should be amoral, in my view. Surely, though, we can see that a well-educated population is good for us all?
I find the 'Libertarian' style of politics very seductive. But from what I've seen in my tiny life, the 'Socialist' approach of everyone paying a little bit extra to help society as a whole? It seems to make a lot more sense to me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:15PM (2 children)
...to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken [wikiquote.org]
(Score: 2) by splodus on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:36PM
Not a quote I was aware of, thank you!
I think it applies everywhere, though, doesn't it? We can only do our best!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:59AM
Nice try, but the simple solution in this case is the "libertarian" approach. Social democracy is the opposite of simple, because it needs to take in all the edge cases and at least try to mitigate unknown-unknowns when they inevitably happen; libertatianism is a simple "fuck you, got mine, you can die."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:35AM (2 children)
That journalist erected a strawman. Of course a businessman will not become a worker - as if that is his only choice. The businessman will move his business elsewhere! Or he would never open a business, as he can live well with his capitals in the bank or invested overseas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:48AM
If his business was profitable, then there was a demand for whatever that business supplied. That demand can then be filled by another businessman, who values making money more than throwing idealogical hissy-fits about taxes.
(Score: 2) by splodus on Monday January 22 2018, @06:14PM
This particular guy - he is a 'self-made man' - it was himself, not a journalist, making the comment. I think he has a fleet of plumbers working in London (could be Pimlico Plumbers? can't remember...). He's something of a 'colourful character'; a dandy in a rolls-royce...
So it wasn't a straw-man, on this occasion. He was supporting a cut in taxation for those taking £250k+ (the tax-cut was passed, actually)
He can't 'move his business' cos it's based in London, on the ground, where his customers are. He could probably move his 'company' overseas, for tax reasons - that's part of the issue!
And yeah, he can live off his capital, but you can be sure he would sell his company before doing so; cash-in. In which case the question just moves on to the new owner of the business. It's not really an argument is it?
His argument seemed to be 'I create jobs! Why should I pay more tax? I won't create jobs if I have to pay more tax than my workers!'
And my argument is 'If you take take home £900k per year, when your employees take home £30k per year - is it really the case that you'll put them all out of work if you'd only get £800k per year after an increase in tax on the wealthy?'
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:38AM
Lots of wealthy people choose to live in high-tax jurisdictions. Usually because those places are much better places to live.
People with money are usually prepared to spend it to improve their lives. There are , of course, exceptions, but there is a great scope to increase taxes on the wealthy with no downside, in the USA.
Tax rates on the wealthy are low in the USA. What percentage of tax does Mitt Romney pay on his income? You want to find someone not paying their dues: look at Mitt. He is the one of the people who are really sponging off society, not the millions of poor people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:21AM (8 children)
Socialism makes great sense on paper. Unfortunately, in practice it has been even easier to subvert and corrupt than capitalism.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:20AM (3 children)
Can you give a concrete example with some specifics?
easier to subvert
USA and a dozen other Capitalist countries invaded USSR immediately upon its birth. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [criticalenquiry.org]
USSR had to divert resources that would otherwise have gone into food, housing, and consumer goods and put that into defensive armaments.
While you're giving an example, try supplying one that didn't have that going against it from Day 1.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @04:24PM (2 children)
Try to stop apologising for mass murder [wikipedia.org] by projecting the blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @07:36PM (1 child)
AKA Stalinism.
Stalinism wasn't Socialism.
Stalinism was Authoritarianism.
...and if you look at "Democracy" in Capitalist USA for the last 4 decades, you notice how what exists doesn't represent the vast majority (who agree with each other on a great deal). [google.com]
Hell, if you go back to 1947, you find Taft-Hartley, which was an absolute abomination in the eyes of every wage earner in the country (again, the vast majority).
Go back farther and you see The Workers (once again, the vast majority) being murdered by gov't in USA. [google.com]
All of that is Capitalist Authoritarianism.
The comparison was being made between Capitalism and Socialism.
If you're going to point to things, at least pick things that fit the model.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:30PM
Facts are just so obnoxious. Reality would be so much better if it conformed to our preconceptions amirite?
(Score: 2) by splodus on Monday January 22 2018, @06:32PM (3 children)
You might be correct, but I think you have to offer a compelling example or two to make the point stand?
I don't think Socialism is without problems, and of course there are always extreme examples from any political approach.
For me, it's not so much that any system is perfect, or that any system is totally a 'bad thing'!!
However, when I've looked at the way things pan out over the years - it seems to me that unfettered capitalism leads to a greater inequality than efforts of socialism? I don't know!
Also - the politics of 'socialism' get conflated with 'communism' - in reality, they are not the same!
In the UK, not so long ago, we had a political party called the 'Liberal Democrats' (we still have them, but they're all but finished after the last couple of elections...)
Their politics seemed to me to be 'Capitalism is 'Good'! It just needs to be constrained for the 'Good of Society', rather than the 'Good of Capitalism'...
So they made no friends - the 'Socialists' hated them for supporting capitalism. The Capitalists hated them for supporting socialist ideals. They have been decimated by subsequent elections...
It's too bad - people like one thing or another. They do not like an ideology that calls for 'lets take the best of both systems, and find a compromise that works for everyone!'....
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @07:05PM (2 children)
I am not a great academic scholar of socialism, I know the basic stuff that filtered in osmotically in college and even high school (talk about an obviously biased presentation!), plus I also spent a week touring East Germany by bicycle in 1990.
My first night in East Germany I spent drinking with a man who had had a stroke after a car accident, his wife left him and took the kids - thus he had a spare room to rent, though after a night of drinking his brandy with him, in the morning after making me breakfast he refused to take my money. He spoke no English, and my German was quite weak - just what I had picked up from a few months travelling in West Germany, but we managed to talk about quite a few things: by the time I met him, he appeared to be in his late 50s, he had had two cars in his lifetime, it took years of waiting to get each one - without political connection it was just impossible to get one faster - the East Marks (money) was not the currency that you needed to obtain things like cars, or an apartment. His disability had resulted in him having quite a lot of money in the bank, perhaps 200K DM(e), but the big event of the night I came to town was celebration of declaration that "alle ist egal" 1 east mark = 1 west mark, though about a week later I tried to spend east marks at a store in Berlin and the cashier refused to take them, apparently the exchange worked at banks.
Anyway, as I traveled the countryside there were several things that stood out: B5, the equivalent of a major US highway connecting Hamburg to Berlin, was a single lane of cobblestone with dirt on the side where oncoming traffic passed - clearly there wasn't much traffic in the previous years. The buildings were mostly pre-world war I construction, several of them had cornerstones engraved with years in the early 1900s. Here and there were hand concrete mixers standing by abandoned construction sites, apparently stalled due to lack of materials, and in speaking with some locals also stalled due to lack of enthusiasm for the project. Maybe 1% of the visible buildings were of newer construction, typically solid concrete rectangular things. And the stores, such as they were, almost never had signage at all. You could spot a grocery store by the rack of limonade bottles outside for recycling, inside the shelves were 98% empty, typically just a few bad sausages and if you were lucky some bread. Again, money was not the currency with which things like food were obtained, though, nominally, if there was any for sale, the bread was $0.05 per kg, and the sausage, such as it was, was similarly cheap. There was the occasional pay-phone, but none of them worked - and several were stuffed with east-mark coins, I think I collected about $7 worth from just one phone, that $7 would pay for a night's stay at a youth hostel, or a room I rented for the night in a private home in a town that had no hostel or hotel.
The recurring theme, for me, was that the real economy of East Germany in 1989/90 seemed to be in a black market. There were cars, food, clothing, and houses, etc. but there wasn't much way to buy anything other than scant essentials, and there weren't visible official distribution channels for anything. Things like clothes, electronics, etc. came from far away, in a land where people were not very mobile.
The man on the first night wasn't the only injury case I met, I bumped into at least two others who had been overnight given 500K+ west marks, and were convinced that they were kings of the earth, never need to work, always have everything they need. I tried to explain that bread wasn't going to be 10 phennig per kilo for very long, but they just weren't wrapping their heads around the concept that using west marks means that their economy is going to ramp up to west mark prices very soon...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by splodus on Monday January 22 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
Crikey! That's a real interesting story - you should write your experiences somewhere; first-hand of what it was really like!
I think the collapse of the East/West under Gorbachev; the fall of the Berlin Wall and what happened afterwards - it's something that's mostly been forgotten in our generation?
What was happening under the 'USSR' - that was not 'Socialism'. Sure, they called it 'Socialism', but it was totally corrupt, and in any case we called it 'Communism' at the time. It was a different era in politics. But, in that respect - your point stands!
For us, in the UK, 'Socialism' means something quite different. For example, we have the 'National Health Service'. Paid for in part through a tax called 'National Insurance', which everyone pays. Mostly, though, paid for through central taxation. In the UK, no one ever gets a bill for health-care. We've already paid for it! It bears no relation to the 'Socialism' of the Cold War...
When politicians campaign they are seeking to couch words like 'Socialism' in a manner that will suit their efforts to paint the other guys as bad. So the fact that the Communists called themselves Socialists plays into the hands of those who oppose 'Modern Socialism', if there is such a thing?
There should be another word! Something that describes the politics, without the baggage of previous innuendo - but I don't see how it could be made to gain traction, even if someone came up with a new label?
Anyway - I loved your story! Thank you so much for posting it!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 22 2018, @10:10PM
Fun to remember, fun to tell...
In 1989 I did spend a week on trains in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Norwegians were all drunk at the time (fresh influx of oil money, heavily taxed $9/bottle beer on their corn flakes in the morning), the Swedes generally wouldn't talk to me, but the Danes were all about bitching about their tax structure, how the working people were taxed so heavily to take care of the children and elderly. I think every single Dane I spoke with, except maybe the high school girl on her way to counsel at a summer camp in California, but the other 4 or 5 all brought up that complaint at some point or another, a couple of them didn't talk about anything else.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:02PM (2 children)
Let them eat Shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:50AM (1 child)
Signed, Anonymous sack of shit who isn't worth anywhere near as much as his own opinion of himself.
Every time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:36PM
Nah, just people who know YOU are not worth what you think you are and who decide to point out the mania behind your bullshit. You're welcome, we all know you'd rather die than get real therapy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:09PM (2 children)
Not that I personally care as it does not matter. The liberal international idea is done and gone for a foreseeable future.
Americans did not get a pay rise since 1979. Anybody believes it can be sustainable?
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/landing/the-five-people-shaping-my-worldview#article5 [mauldineconomics.com]
They better ask themselves how long till the land of the brave folks start to use pitchforks (of fusion kind).
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:10AM (1 child)
The top 10% of Americans have been getting continuous and increasing pay raises for the last 30 years, and who do you think is in control of this situation, anyway?
They used to teach about the French Revolution in high school, but I think the top 10% haven't been really getting the lesson.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday January 21 2018, @04:52AM
The first 35 or so years after the WWII were reasonable at least in the so called developed world so yes, they learned some; and then they forgot. A new lesson is due.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ken_g6 on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:26PM (3 children)
Tax companies, but give big tax breaks for employing middle-class workers. (Up to a wage cap.)
Obama was right: we need to spread the wealth around. The only question is whether government should do it directly, or whether businesses should be encouraged to do it. I suggest trying the latter.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:04AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:53AM (1 child)
35% of America doesn't work. The middle class are the responsible people who already have jobs. Taking even MORE of their money away to give it to the lazy, stupid and useless SOLVES NOTHING YOU MORON. How many decades of trying it do you need before you stop being a dipshit and understand that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:47PM
Speaking of morons, did you read the very first bit? Tax companies? Companies are not middle class, but I can see your point if you're talking about small business. If you want to only tax businesses that earn over a certain amount then that is a detail we could discuss. Obviously the megacorps need to be paying WAY MORE! But I'm doubtful your brain can separate out "tax the rich" with "tax the workers".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:37PM (3 children)
Econ is a dead science. The way you know that is that all the ivy lead econ professors were all slathering get out of jail free cards all over AIG and their coconspirators during the 2008 financial collapse. Economists don't say things that are inconvenient to their customers. Ergo, they are not scientists.
There are a lot of big numbers that need to be talked about. Nobody at this event will be talking about them. We all have spread sheets now. Macro econ is not that hard. What is hard, is collecting useful data to process into macro econ theory. And the way you know that everybody at this event is full of shit, is that nobody is out there collecting all the data that is required to combine econ and ecological theory into a unified science.
So if you want to contribute I recommend you go to Zurich, sneak onto the airport, and parking boot all the private jets. Leave the bastards there to drink vodka and fuck swiss hookers, and let the rest of us get on with our lives. We deserve a day without having to be subjected to one more bullshit theory that has utterly no basis in mathematics or reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:50PM
Ignore them at your peril. Whatever these assholes [wikipedia.org] decide, we should do the exact opposite.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:54AM (1 child)
FTFY
To be a dead science, it needs to be a science first. It's not.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:53AM
To be a dead science, [Economics] needs to be a science first
What? Something scribbled on a bar napkin and based on zero data [google.com] isn't Science??
Surely you jest.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:13AM (1 child)
0. Get bribes out of politics.
1. Automation is inevitable and we need to get used to that idea. We can either ignore it or deal with it. On big picture timescales, we are not all that far off from the ability to automate the vast majority of food, housing, and other goods production, which means the idea of providing everyone with a universal basic income or at least a basic level of food and housing will start to make more and more sense as time goes on. The transition period from now to then, so we need to invest heavily in research, to accelerate the process.
2. Since employees will no longer be forced to accept jobs offering shitty pay just to prolong their own survival, their bargaining position for remaining jobs will be significantly increased, which will lead to increased pay and increased spending which will stimulate the economy.
3. Those who desire to wish to start their own businesses (because who really wants to sit and do nothing all day?) can now do so without the risk of ending up homeless on the street after their business failed and they can't pay their rent. (currently, 8 out of 10 new business fail within 18 months) The increased activity will stimulate the economy.
(Of course none of this will happen within my lifetime because #0 is impossible in the near future)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:26AM
If you were to go back 150 years and show farmers then how we do things now and they would say that farming is already >99% automated today.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:24AM
Kind of a basic question, but it would help to start with a definition. Maybe everyone could order their concepts along an axis of 'clearly wealth' - 'maybe wealth' - 'clearly not wealth', then merge them all using some algorithm into a best compromise definition, and start from there in providing 'clearly wealth' to everyone?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:24AM (2 children)
As the population increases the value of a single human life decreases. Impoverished people breeding more of the same exponentially faster than new resources can be exploited to feed and house the new mouths.. and what do you expect? And why would you expect a "wealth gap" not to expand?
Control the population. Do this or prepare for the worst.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:02AM (1 child)
Not sure why you were modded down for this. It's completely correct, so long as you mean it in the "everyone gets comprehensive sex ed and free contraception" way and not "anyone making below $XXX a year gets burned alive and turned into fertilizer" way.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:59AM
Because the best way to prevent population growth is to increase the standard of life.
Once over the survival level, the people learn to appreciate life well enough to start thinking twice about sacrificing their time on this world incessantly creating kids. Look at the population evolution in OECD countries.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:38AM
Wealth is not a bug, its a feature because the desire for it motivates a percentage of humans to do great things which helps all.
The problem comes in what some do with their wealth.
On the good side,
Governments are especially fickle in using cash to help.
Sometimes a wealthy individual can do much better.
On the bad side,
What you can get away with with wealth is the bug.
You should not be able to use it to tilt the rules in your favor to make it harder for others to overtake you.
This includes, especially buying political influence. (Or, in some cases, a whole country.)
The worst may be everybody being equal under the law, but especially if you have cash.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pdfernhout on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:54AM (1 child)
... to seriously contemplate how to reduce their relative wealth and power.
Some enlightened ones might, but probably most in our current culture celebrating competitiveness would not.
Even if they might lead a happier life by doing so:
"Income Inequality Makes Whole Countries Less Happy"
https://hbr.org/2016/01/income-inequality-makes-whole-countries-less-happy [hbr.org]
And their children would too:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6130136_Children_of_the_Affluent_Challenges_to_Well-Being [researchgate.net]
"Growing up in the culture of affluence can connote various psychosocial risks. Studies have shown that upper-class children can manifest elevated disturbance in several areas-such as substance use, anxiety, and depression-and that two sets of factors seem to be implicated, that is, excessive pressures to achieve and isolation from parents (both literal and emotional). Whereas stereotypically, affluent youth and poor youth are respectively thought of as being at "low risk" and "high risk," comparative studies have revealed more similarities than differences in their adjustment patterns and socialization processes. In the years ahead, psychologists must correct the long-standing neglect of a group of youngsters treated, thus far, as not needing their attention. Family wealth does not automatically confer either wisdom in parenting or equanimity of spirit; whereas children rendered atypical by virtue of their parents' wealth are undoubtedly privileged in many respects, there is also, clearly, the potential for some nontrivial threats to their psychological well-being."
See also:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/contest/ [alfiekohn.org]
"Contrary to the myths with which we have been raised, Kohn shows that competition is not an inevitable part of “human nature.” It does not motivate us to do our best (in fact, the reason our workplaces and schools are in trouble is that they value competitiveness instead of excellence.) Rather than building character, competition sabotages self-esteem and ruins relationships. It even warps recreation by turning the playing field into a battlefield. No Contest makes a powerful case that “healthy competition” is a contradiction in terms. Because any win/lose arrangement is undesirable, we will have to restructure our institutions for the benefit of ourselves, our children, and our society"
A related essay I wrote: http://www.pdfernhout.net/basic-income-from-a-millionaires-perspective.html [pdfernhout.net]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 2) by YeaWhatevs on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:58AM
The article was unconvincing, or put another way lame.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Sulla on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:25AM (2 children)
Nobody actually *needs* more than 30k a year. We need to do something about these worthless American, European, and Japanese super wealthy. People in those countries are able to pay for electricity and internet, and they FLAUNT it to the rest of the world, it is unequal and unequatable. We need to take 90% of what every person in the first world makes and distribute it to the rest of the world. The rest of the world has to work significantly harder to get by, there is no reason for some fat bastard in Germany of France to only have to work 30 hours a week.
#ithastoend
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:39AM (1 child)
I could live in reasonable comfort in the US for $10k a year. That's less than $30 per day. That's with no health care or car though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:22PM
with no health care or car
Keep the vehicle but give up paying rent/mortgage.
Live in the (roomy) vehicle. Folks do it. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:43AM
Nuke Davos?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @02:28AM (1 child)
It seems the 1% want...
Don't Provide free and high quality education
Don't Raise the minimum wage
Don't Raise taxes on the rich
Don't Fight corruption
Don't Provide more social protection for the poor
Don't Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
Don't Provide jobs for the unemployed
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @03:04AM
You forgot
Want unlimited streams of ever-cheaper immigrant labor
Want Uniparty government-controlled media "standards"
Want taxpayer-funded subsidies for every capital project
Want completely unregulated banking and equities trading
Want the 99% to just go away
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday January 21 2018, @07:31AM (1 child)
My assumption is the situation in Davos, and results that come out of it, will be like the comment section of this story - a bunch of rich people sit around and entertain themselves by debating about how to solve problem they have never seen, faced by people they have never known, all on the basis of the things they consider are working for themselves but without any proof.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:49PM
Well I've seen a lot of good ideas here, the problem is that they are outweighed by the insanely vocal greedy minority. I expect that is what will happen in Davos, though at that level most of the people there will be the greedy types. The ideas are not the problem, the implementation is. When you try and work within a broken system you are going to have broken solutions, so drastic changes need to happen that change the political game.
The world has enough data on successful societies that minimize suffering, but the greedy bastards of the world have zero interest in implementing systems that leave them with less wealth and power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:58AM (1 child)
I was going to say "End all war" but that is a lofty goal. This action will cut out the middleman being the blockage between emergency aid and the poor
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @07:58PM
You'd be amazed at how easy it is.
A good start is abandoning Imperialism.
When you stop trying to steal other folks' stuff, you're well on your way.
These guys have made the commitment and their society shows it.
Costa Rica Has Healthcare, Education, & Pensions For All Because They Scrapped Their Army In 1948 [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by sonamchauhan on Sunday January 21 2018, @12:53PM (1 child)
Remember when the Apple app store first came out? It was all the rage - every developer wanted in. And why not -- there was a fortune to be had making fart apps, bird games and enterprise apps. Or so it seemed. Millions of iOS developers registered in the hope of striking it big (contributing billions to Apple in fees and revenue). Of course, cold hard reality later set in -- developers collectively made only around $70 billion (around $500 per developer). But first, there was euphoria. And that's a point worth considering -- why were developers so excited?
I think I understand why. The App Store gave ordinary programmers an option they didn't really have before. They became owners. No longer was a programmer merely a work for hire labourer (whether at $5/hour, or $5000). He now became the owner of his application -- a full-on, rent-seeking capitalist pig! He wrote the app, Apple took care of compatibility, branding, distribution and payment. If a billion people bought his $.99 app, why, he'd be a billionaire! (Actually, a '$700-millionaire' after Apple's cut, before taxes.)
So why is this pertinent? Because that's similar to what needs doing. We must somehow translate people from raw-material to owners of means of production that have virtually limitless scale. People intuitively understand a job has limited upside. You are raw-material that your employer uses to turn a dime. His profits can multiply a million-fold, but his costs don't have to. In particular, you don't have to be paid a dime more. There's a reason Bezos and Gates get to be the world's richest people, while the janitors in their warehouses get paid the same (or not at all [bizjournals.com]).
In the past, farming was entrepreneurship. If you owned land, capital was effectively free -- seeds from last season, labor from family, sun, air, rain. With hard work and good fortune, your raw-material replicated many times over. When we took on jobs, we became raw material for someone else's business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:20PM
When we took on jobs, we became raw material for someone else's business.
Well said.
They even call the department in charge of that disposable commodity "Human Resources".
We old farts remember when it was at least called "Personnel".
.
In Italy, since 1985, they've had a mechanism that helps The Workers, who have been idled by boom-and-bust Capitalists, in forming their own worker-owned cooperatives.
The Marcora Law [google.com]
It's been very popular and very successful.
If you haven't heard of it where you are, blame the lousy Lamestream Media and their collusion with The Elites.
...and do work on getting some better sources of information.
N.B. The Progressive gov't *shock* of the capital city of Mississippi *shock* has gotten behind the co-op thing. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @05:27PM
Free education and free/subsidized access to contraception.
1) Free education
If you're living in a democracy it may be better for you to pay for free decent quality education for everyone especially voters unless you're one of those greatly benefiting from their lack of education.
Otherwise you end up paying for their poor/lack of education in other ways ;).
2) Contraception
If a country is rich enough it can probably afford to pay all citizens basic income but that's only sustainable if people don't breed exponentially. Not everyone will breed indiscriminately, but if you provide $$$, healthcare, etc in some ways you are breeding for those who will breed indiscriminately. If contraception is easily available, you may delay it or it may never become a big enough problem.
If a country is poor it can't do basic income and it may not have the infrastructure and facilities to raise that many children to adults that can compete in the global market for higher $$$$. And the parents of those children might only be able to afford to raise one or two that successfully while not with say 8 children. If you produce 2 higher income earners and 6 low/zero income earners then you're not really closing the per capita wealth gap. You're actually part of the problem.
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Sunday January 21 2018, @07:19PM (1 child)
All these ills can be mediated by:
* Provide free and high quality education.
I think the foregoing commentary here makes a most eloquent argument for my proposition.
(Thanks, I'll show my self out.)
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:51PM
You won bigly.