jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (97 posts)

How would you solve the problem of income inequality ?

  1. mio cid profile image65
    mio cidposted 22 months ago

    Income inequality has been growing for decades . Do you consider it a problem ? If so , how would you fix it ?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, it is a problem.  I'm not sure it is "fixable", though.  Although we declare that "All men are created equal" we also know that while it makes fine rhetoric it isn't true.  Reducing income for the most capable merely reduces incentive to work and produce, and I'm not sure we can afford that.  Or it increases incentive to immigrate out of the country and I know we can't afford to lose the best minds in the country because we only offer them a tenth of what other countries do in order that the less productive members of society can earn as much as they do.

      Similarly, reducing income for those with large amounts of capital is counterproductive for the country as a whole and not something that should be attempted unless we're happy to see that capital disappear across the world.

      So what's left?  Accept that some people will earn more, I suspect.

      1. mio cid profile image65
        mio cidposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Good analysis  as always on your part . However , although I believe income inequality is inevitable in a healthy capitalist economy there could be  excessive benefits  in favor of those who accumulate wealth in such a way that you become a banana republic with a few families owning the country and the great majority barely surviving,because let's not forget that the  great engine of America's dominance in the world economy has been it's uniquely large middle class in conjunction with the possibility for all to reach their maximum  potential .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Which points to the problem we both agree exists.

          Now, what's the fix?

    2. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Ha! If I had a solution I would be richest and wisest man on the planet, and it would be very unlikely that I would be trolling the HP forums...

      But I do have a thought and an opinion on this very relevant topic.

      The growth of the wealth earnings gap is a very serious, repeat, very serious problem for the us, (I speak of the U.S. but it is also a global problem).

      I do not think it is a problem of a particular malfeasance of the wealthy, I think it is a problem of our society not being prepared for the changes technology has made in the economy of our labor force.

      The days of manual labor, (ditch diggers and factory workers), and moderately-skilled labor are quickly being supplanted by mechanization and technology. What used to take ten workers now needs only one or two. What used to be a skilled trade can now be done by a novice and a computer program. These are not evil progressions, but they are ones that change the paradigm of what our economic well-being  is based on.

      Factory and production and corporate owners are being pilloried for modernizing and not keeping ten workers when they can use a machine that only requires one worker to achieve the same production.

      Who is looking out for the poor displaced workers... oh woe...

      That is progress, that is life. We have to find a way to adjust.

      That is also the basic problem we must address - how will we deal with a labor force that is ten times larger than needed?

      Then we can jump to the topic everyone loves - the rich, the wealthy, the really wealthy, the "uber" rich. A real go-getter earns his way up the economic ladder until he has his McMansion and 250K salary. Hurray! Nobody is really picking on this guy.

      Meanwhile, an "uber" rich guy moves a stock pick from buy to sell based on a penny's difference in stock price and makes millions on one deal in five minutes. Ohh... bad "uber" rich guy.

      Yet, consider this, there are two ways to make money; earn it by your labor and expertise and skill, or earn it by making your money do the work instead - ohh... bad, bad, that rich guy did not earn those millions in profits.

      The way I see it, we will never be able to go back to the semi-skilled labor economy of factory workers being the backbone of the middle class, (or the white-collar worker in the office). We will also never get away from the "instant million dollar profits"  made by rich folks in the financials.

      The result - the wealth inequity you asked about. We have a labor force that needs jobs - and is ten times, (or pick any magnitude you like), larger than the labor market can put to work, and we have a financial system that anybody with big, (or even semi-big), bucks can jump into and make
      more in five minutes than a production worker can make in a year. That is your wealth equity gap.

      How to fix it? I don't have an answer, ( I do have a clue), but I think it is most important to build a foundation of understanding of what the problem really is, (rather than just the polemics of the Jacques), before we can begin to formulate a solution.

      Just sayin;

      GA

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Good evening, Mr. Anderson, again you have made some excellent points regarding the changing economic situation in America.   Postmodern America is becoming increasingly computerized.  In order to have a semblance of a middle class lifestyle, one has to have a speciality, preferably in the STEM subjects-science, technology, engineering, & mathematics.  Those are the areas that are increasingly in demand in our computerized society.   Anyone who majored in the Liberal Arts, soft sciences, & the humanities will be lucky if they are lower middle class. 

        The issue of income inequality is an ever tenuous issue.  You are succinctly correct when you stated that blue collar jobs are being phased out because of technological automation. Even lower level white collar jobs are being automated.   Jobs now require that one possess at least an intermediate knowledge of computers.  Those who have computer & technological knowledge are the ones who will thrive in the current job market.  They will become middle class, even upper middle & upper class.   Those with little or no computer knowledge will become part of the lower classes, even falling further through the socioeconomic cracks. 

        Also a Bachelor's Degree will be pointless.  A postgraduate degree is becoming increasingly essential to even have an entry-level professional job.   There are many clerks, secretaries, waitstaff, & other lower level service personnel who possess a Bachelor's Degree.  Income disparity will unfortunately increase because of the rising educational requirements to have professional level jobs these days.  A Bachelor's Degree is now equivalent to what a high school diploma was 5 decades ago.  A Master's Degree is now the new college degree. 

        However, one CAN succeed with a Bachelor's Degree particularly in the Liberal Arts, humanities, & soft sciences but he/she will have an uphill battle.  He/she has to be very flexible, highly aggressive, & have the knack of really marketing himself/herself.   There are new rules as to how to succeed in the workplace.  If one knows the rules, he/she will THRIVE.  If one doesn't, he/she will flounder, even sink.  The rule of the survival of the fittest has taken a new meaning in postmodern America.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          +1

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I agree with your take on the problem except for a few points. Yes mechanization has stepped in and taken many of the jobs left to factory workers. Those factory jobs that are not covered by the new technology have remained offshore where wages are far below that of the US worker. My problem with this scenario is that we continue to expand trade agreements (NAFTA) and are in the process of bringing a newer and more devastating TPP agreement where corporations can unilaterally decide what patents, agricultural and services now under government legislative powers are allowable. In other words the corporations have their own lawyers negotiate any grievance's lodged against other companies and the rulings out of court are binding through that agreement. Nobody knows the full ramifications of this as this agreement has been done in almost iron clad secrecy. What does this mean? The Uber rich whether directly or indirectly have overwhelmingly benefitted from these agreements and cashed in on the "cleansed labor" from the costs associated with their business's. There is the Wall Street and Federal Reserve in the most unhealthy of relationships furthering Mr. Uber rich with fake money and cleansed debt at unprecedented levels. These are not the guys who trade a few pennies to cash in on millions as some can. But these guys are in the mix. Sure they live precariously on the edge but depending who they are and how they fail we bail them out. Giving them more tax breaks only fuels their greed and risk, it does not equalize incomes.

        Our most growth happened after WWII and into the fifties. This is because the tax rates that were very high and benefits afforded the GI's gave them money to raise a family, buy a house and go to school. Notice that this money was kept here with us and recycled spawning countless jobs and building the largest middle class in the world.

        Where did we go wrong? We lost our way when we allowed business to buy it's way into influencing our political and social system. No longer was the worker a concern. You can fire him. Wait a union got in the way! We will just buy a bill (politician) to be able to fill that job overseas. It is too late and corporations and politicians have become drunk with the money provided by their actions.The American worker as you have stated must evolve into something else. On another front the illegal immigrant labor force that is being more and more mainstreamed through Anchor Baby legislation and drivers license's is becoming a political force for naturalization furthering the plight of those that work with their hands. A drivers license gets them a voting spot even if it is not allowed in some states. What jobs are left that are being filled by these illegals have had the wages negotiated down because they are willing to work for sub survivable wages. I know of families like this who even have their 12 year old working at a car wash to help make up the difference rather than sending him to school. Is this what we have to compete with as Americans workers? Is this the American dream or nightmare?

        When it comes to equalizing pay I don't think a ditch digger should make $100,000 a year if he wishes to do only this kind of work. But I do think when it comes to Wall Street and all the phony money and greed, and the job robbing corporations who prefer to hire from foreign labor a higher tax rate should be considered. This would be used to fund job training for those who wish to get better jobs and also to fund work on our failing infrastructure. It is very much like the model we followed after WWII. The money in these legal workers hands would spark the economy immeasurably.

      3. Fred Arnold profile image61
        Fred Arnoldposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        The solution to a problem usually does not even involve the problem. I believe a better educated society will curb the income gap, but American ideals still dictate that we must pay for higher education. Also, I do not just refer to higher education, I mean education for K-12 as well.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html

        This article brings up some very good points. It is not just getting people into college, it is creating an education system that affords forward mobility. Low income households generally send kids to low income schools whose teachers are less qualified, and the engagement of students within school organizations that benefit the student are at an all time low in those schools. (Things like counselors and after school programs that reflect well on college apps) It seems that the low income high school population is less educated about the differing routes one can take for college. (The article refers mainly to the top 10% of students as well, so students who do well academically) If we could find a way to better educate our children overall then I think we would see more forward mobility. Good quote from that article as well, "Under the current system, teachers have more school choice than students do. Rather than sending the most qualified and experienced teachers to educate the kids who need them the most, we do the reverse."

    3. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      To start with, I don't believe a multi-billionaire hedge fund manager should pay lower taxes than me.

      Income inequality has grown as taxes for the rich have fallen to historic lows.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I highly doubt that such a manager does pay less in taxes than you do.  Or can you provide information that someone does?

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Certainly. The capital gains tax rate is 15%. John Paulson netted $15 billion in 2007 on his stock investments. He paid 15% on those gains. My tax rate, almost entirely on earned income, was 25%.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            "To start with, I don't believe a multi-billionaire hedge fund manager should pay lower taxes than me."

            Sorry, but unless you're claiming you paid over 2 Billion dollars in taxes, John Paulson paid more than you did.  Playing with numbers, saying his percentage was less than yours, that you cannot afford more, none of this will change the fact that Paulson contributed a million times what you did towards the running of the country.  You do not have any right whatsoever to make the claim that Paulson paid "lower taxes" than you did.

            (Nor do I believe Paulson netted $15 Billion in one year.  Particularly as Forbes reports his total net worth as only $13.7 Billion.)

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              No need to parse words. So I meant a lower tax rate than me.

              Paulson's investment shorted the market and actually contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis. So I find it hard to believe that he contributed more to the country than I did.

              Look up Paulson in 2007. His net worth is lower than what he made in 2007 because he lost a lot of money in later investments.

              Otherwise, do you believe a billionaire should have a 15% tax rate while mine is 25%?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Then you need to explain why anyone should pay a higher percentage (or more money total) than you do.  Simply because they have more doesn't seem a reasonable excuse to force them to give any more than you do.  They don't, after all, get any more for their money than you do.

                (I assume you meant that Paulson earned $X on his 15 Billion of investments, but that is not what you said.  Any more than Paulson paid a lower rate of taxes than you did.)

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I don't have to explain that at all. You simply seem determined to avoid my point at all costs. One more time: Should a billionaire pay a 15% tax rate while I'm paying 25%?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    He should probably pay a .0001% rate - that leaves him paying the same amount for the same thing (whatever the country provides us all).  How is any more either fair or reasonable?

                    And yes, I "get" your point in it's entirety.  That people that have more than you do should pay for the country to run while you provide little to nothing.  You want something for nothing, someone else to pay for your wants as you cannot afford them yourself.  I get that, I'm just wondering if you do or if you rationalize that because they can afford more than you can it makes forcing them to pay your share (and a thousand others as well) somehow "right" or "fair".

            2. Fred Arnold profile image61
              Fred Arnoldposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Per dollar, someone paying 15% on 20k a year is paying more into taxes than a company who pays 1% do to tax breaks. They may pay more because they make more, but a dollar to someone who earns 20k a year is more expensive than someone who earns billions. Perceptually, it is wrong. I agree with your sentiment on tax reform. Do a flat tax of 5%-10%-15% with no tax breaks. It will effectively give the lower class a dollar or two raise without raising minimum wage, and it would bring in more revenue from the wealthy corporations who end up paying nothing in taxes do to the breaks they get. Also, corporations would probably be ok with a lower flat tax because they would spend an even amount on lobbying for tax breaks as the new 15% tax. Just my two cents. People make too much money off of a broken system to warrant that amount of change, but it would be helpful.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Your math is a little (a lot) off - 15% of 20,000 is NOT more than 1% of 1,000,000.  It is $3,000 vs $10,000.  It's like saying that pi is actually 3.000 because perceptually it is a cleaner number and easier to understand than the actual irrational number 3.14159...

                I'm a little lost on your flat tax.  Are you proposing varying tax rates instead of a flat rate for everyone?  Bad enough that some will pay far more than others, but how do you justify ethically not only requiring more but a higher percentage to boot?  Just because they have more and should therefore pay more for the same "product"?

                1. Fred Arnold profile image61
                  Fred Arnoldposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  No. Your example of perception does not hold true for a number. You mean visually and mathematically. We are talking about how someone views the price of a dollar. Someone who makes 20,000 a year will view a dollar at a higher value than someone making a billion. Would you say otherwise? Or are you under the impression that Joe Millionaire will not buy cold cuts this week because they are not on sale?

                  Flat tax in the sense that your total income is taxed x amount. Currently we tax in brackets rather than a solid 15-25-35%. 0-9,000 gets taxed 10% then anything above the 9,000-38,000 gets taxed 15% etc. So the term flat tax still applies to my example. I am altruistic. If I made the money to pay more in taxes to help others then I would be more than willing to do so. So when I apply that to the ability of the rich to give back more then, yes, that is my opinion. Humans have the ability to supercede greed and ego. And like I said, 15% is a lot lower than the 40+ % that those wealthiest have to pay. It is not uncommon for the wealthiest to be fine with paying taxes, most do it happily. So a lower tax overall for everyone seems like a good deal to me.

                  The world needs to begin focusing on society. If you make it big, you have a divested interest in that society to prosper or you, yourself, will not prosper. If society as a whole benefits from it then the wealthy will still make their wealth just with little concern about social inequality.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    But the value of a dollar is defined by what it will buy, not by how many you have.  It may or may not mean more to some people, but the value remains the same.

                    You may be altruistic, I may be altruistic, and Joe down the road may be.  Does that give you the right to demand, under force of law, that John (who is NOT altruistic) pay for the wants and needs of someone else?  Not to my mind - if John wants to keep what he has earned rather than help the needy that is his choice and not mine.

                    And pretending that everyone will have a lower tax is nonsense; if you lower taxes for some, while still requiring the same total overall, the tax bill for others will go up.  And it's not just a "perception" - they really will pay more.  Saying that the wealthy will keep their wealth just doesn't match with the reality of what you are proposing.

                    So we're back to the same question - how do you justify ethically demanding that some pay more for the same services?  Because they have more is insufficient, IMO.  A flat tax of 10% is bad (some pay more than others) but necessary to maintain the country; to require that some pay triple what others pay, on a percentage basis no less, is worse.  It's like requiring someone to pay $100,000 for a cheap, used Chevy because they can afford it while the next person only pays $10 because they can't.  Not reasonable, not ethical.

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Give more money to people with less money. Give less money to people with more money.

      Next question.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Simply giving works so well doesn't it?  Teaches self sufficiency perfectly.

        But where is this money that I'm supposed to be getting as one of those with "more money" (meaning I provide for myself)?

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          "Give" in this instance is just a shorthand for a transfer in the possession of money. The details of that transfer (including whether there are any conditions) are open to suggestion. Perhaps it is better stated as: transfer more money to people with less money. Transfer less money to people with more money. Either way, on the most  fundamental level, this is the answer to the question asked.

          Out of curiosity, why should the question of teaching self-sufficiency be a factor in the transfer of money?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            How about "Give without thought or requirement for any form of return"?  That's what you really mean isn't it, whether actually zero return or a return of far less than was received?

            I repeat that this is not a workable solution at all; it has been tried all over the world thousands of times and has failed every time - the biggest result is always increasing dependency rather than self sufficiency.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              No, I mean transfer. I've made no suggestion either way as to whether there should be conditions on that transfer. That's why I said it's open to suggestion. Clearly you think it is desirable to transfer money in a way that teaches self sufficiency. Why?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Because if you simply give money away people have a very strong tendency to depend on it rather on their own efforts.  The old saw about teaching a man to fish is very, very true.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Why is depending on money given without condition, bad?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    See my prior post.  Because it makes people dependent on others rather than themselves.  Most people would agree that this is a bad thing - that people should support themselves rather than getting someone else to do it for them.  It is one thing for children to depend on others; it is quite another for otherwise capable adults to do so.

                    And certainly it is bad for the country they live in as that country loses anything they might produce in the effort to support themselves.  In addition, those doing the supporting lose incentive to increase their own productive efforts as it just goes to take care of someone else instead of into their own pocket.

    5. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Let's compare someone who makes $1 billion a year (such as the founders Google, who are pulling out that much in zero-based stock options) and the ticket taker at the local movie theater who makes $10,000 a year.

      Is one of the Google founders really worth 100,000 times more than the ticket taker? Or is that a flaw in capitalism because of a misallocation of capital?

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        People are paid in this society according to their educational & skill level.  They are furthermore paid in relation to the educational & skill relevancy to that particular society.  A ticket taker is a very low skilled job; this job will in all likelihood will become automated in a few decades, if not a few years.  This explains why a ticket taker is paid $10K a year.  The founders of Google have entrepreneurial skills & have a well-known brand; in addition to that, they have a high skill &/or educational level in addition to such components being highly relevant in this society.  This explains why they are making billions a year.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          If the Google founder was born with an IQ of 160, and the ticket taker was born with an IQ of 80, does that change your thinking? My point being that they didn't entirely earn their place in life. Luck played a part.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Does having a low IQ make what that person is producing worth more?  Does it gain in value with a lower IQ of the worker?

            There is also the question of that $10,000 the ticket taker makes; $7.25 times 2080 (52 weeks X 40 hours) = $1580.  Part time work hardly equates to full time.  And no one is earning a billion $ per year, either.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              I think you misunderstand what I posted. My original question was whether it is a misallocation of capital. My followup question is whether luck is a factor in what people earn. (Obviously it is for the children of Sam Walton, who haven't earn a dime of their billions.)

              The Google founders are taking out $1 billion a year in zero-based stock options and then selling them on the market. Page and Brin acquire and unload 70 to 96 million shares per month. It's public record. As a result, they pay 15% rather than 39% tax rates.

              Regarding part time or full time, the resulting factor is insignificant. A full time ticket taker -- like some people I know -- more than likely doesn't get health benefits,  paid time off, 401k matching, pensions, paid car, health club, vacations disguised as business trips, a multi-million health insurance policy and of course a seven-figure salary on top of stock options.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Of course luck plays a part, it just doesn't play a part in determining the value of a specific job or task.  And pay is based on that value, not some pie-in-the-sky ideal that all should earn equally regardless of the value of their production.

                But what makes it a misallocation?  Who gets to make that call, if not the owners of the capital (in this case the majority stock holders)?

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Google founder shouldn't earn more. It's the scale of the difference that adds to income inequality.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            If there is no illegality, there can be no misallocation.  And without that, there is no wrong.  No ethically wrong actions as they are being taken in accordance with accepted practices.

            While the entire system may be wrong somehow, the alternative would seem to be requiring artificially increased or decreased wages based on a committee vote of what they think is right; that in itself is quite unethical.  Value, or worth, is not set by committee but by the free market.

      2. mio cid profile image65
        mio cidposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Let me give you my personal opinion . I don't think think the google guy is worth 100 000 times more than the ticket taker,however in a capitalist economic  system there are valid reasons why he is able to make 100 000 times more ,and I don't have a problem with that .What I have a problem with is that someone would scream bloody murder if the google guy's taxes would be increased by let's say one half of one percent and all of the sudden that would make his life unbearable and would  leave for Kuala Lumpur, but if the 10 000 dollar a year guy had to be payed  a couple of dollars more per hour  the greatest economy the world has ever known would crumble and fall into oblivion .

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I agree strongly with your second point.

    6. 60
      retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I do not consider it a problem that requires any outside agency to fix as it is a product of an intrusive  Government that seeks to control the economy resulting in such distortions. If you want to fix this misidentified and ill defined thing, strip the government of powers it has no right to possess in the first place.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    ...middle class with the ability for all to reach their potential has been the engine.
    Q.  What has produced / created / influenced that ENGINE?
    A. Freedom (within appropriate boundaries)
    Q. Who / what is taking away that freedom to the extent that the middle class is loosing its steam?
    A.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    The fix is to not have children before one/two can afford them.
    The fix is to educate the ones we already have
    The fix is to teach, train and mentor the youth to have the skills society needs to grow, function, rock and roll.
    The fix is to get rid of a credit-card dependent society.
    The fix is to pay cash for everything and stay out of DEBT.
    The fix is to live in the real world.
    Let the wealthy be wealthy
    Get wealthy.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Excellent premise indeed, Kathryn.

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Excellent premise indeed, Kathryn.

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 22 months ago

    It is not as though we don't know how this situation in America came about.  Look at the laws passed in the last 30 years.  Look at the laws that have been broken and who has been doing it.  Look at deregulation and who has benefited from it and who has suffered.  America wasn't always like this.  We could return our country to a land of opportunity for all.  But we've allowed the unscrupulous to become so rich and powerful, it is unlikely they will ever stand for any changes.  We were duped into thinking "a rising tide lifts all boats" when in actually we were being drowned in deception.  The real tragedy is that so many of us are still being duped.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Agree

      Most of us get, times ahead will get worse. It better to be really tight with your money and good survival skills.

  5. CatherinaCeng profile image60
    CatherinaCengposted 22 months ago

    I think it depends on our own ability.

  6. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 22 months ago

    Simply: eliminate economics. Problem solved.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    For instance, can you elucidate?
    < "The world needs to begin focusing on society.">

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    The wealthy need to realize it is in their best interest to consider others.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    It is not semantics but understanding the truth of human nature and it is very important to understand it.

    1. Fred Arnold profile image61
      Fred Arnoldposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Yes. And believing that it is stagnant and infallible is incorrect in my opinion. You disagree, based on your opinion on what human nature is, and that is fine. I can cite extensive changes in how human's regarded human nature through out history, how it has evolved and adapted, but you would not care. You are sound in your opinion, and I am in mine, so we can leave it at that.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        You and I may discover there is no debate. We may actually agree.
        For instance, what have I said that you disagree with?
        Sorry if I jumped to insulting conclusions.

        PS < "And believing that it (human nature) is stagnant and infallibleā€¦">
        I never agreed or disagreed with this.

        I believe human nature is such that it must thrive and succeed/survive.
        Naturally, whatever promotes survival is the course we must take.
        Socialism breaks the human spirit and joy of life.
        That is my concern.
        If you are not promoting socialism through soft despotism through govt., then fine.
        Have a good day. smile

        1. Fred Arnold profile image61
          Fred Arnoldposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I agree! I will get back to you with a detailed response. I have to leave for the night!

 
working