Morally and economically, it'd be better if every single person in the world was middle-class, as opposed to having some super-wealthy people and some starving, poor people, amirite?
Your idea is a lot like communism: a great idea on paper but in reality wouldn't work well.
Also it's like a lot like communism because it's the main principle of communism.
The fact of the matter is that some people deserve to be rich and, awful as it may sound, some people deserve to be poor. That's not to say that I have no pity for those less fortunate than me, but sometimes they deserve it. People get rich because they worked their butts off to get rich, and they provided a product or service that other people enjoy or need. Those rich people then employ all the middle class people.
I see your point there, and yes that is sometimes the case, but not always. There are many children born into wealth who have not worked for it at all. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. I'm just saying they themselves did nothing to earn it, other than be born to the right parents. Likewise, there are those born in extreme poverty around the world (much worse than in America), and they did nothing to deserve that either. I definitely see your point, but this subject is never simple.
People who are born rich cannot help they were born in that situation just like people who are poor cannot help that they were born poor. Neither should be punished and both should be given the same opportunities. Just saying.
I definitely agree with you. Sometimes, people have to work harder then others to get out of a hole, and that's really unfortunate. But we can't just guarantee everyone middle class status.
I would, however, love to see a school voucher system, where the government attaches a certain amount of money to each student, and then that student and his or her parents decide what school he'll attend. That way, kids born in poor areas are not bound to crappy education, and in turn, destined to poverty for the rest of their lives. I have yet to see any significant downsides to this solution.
That works in Belgium. However, I feel that we should also regulate schools. That way, they're not skimping out on education to appease the sports parents or the students or the anti-evolution/anthropogenic global warming parents. You know, make them teach a certain amount of stuff.
Lack of regulations would make DeVry and University of Phoenix high schools. They shouldn't necessarily regulate how they teach, but what they teach because different people learn in different ways (for example, I learn math better from a book. Go figure.) but everybody should learn some of the same basic stuff.
DeVry and Phoenix are notoriously bad for-profit colleges with no accreditation. In the United States, there are no laws against these colleges operating, but their degrees are worthless. Getting an associate's degree from a community college without going for a bachelor's degree would be better than getting a doctorate degree from those.
People are in Communist countries aren't poor because of an equal distribution of wealth. While many Communist leaders promise to distribute wealth equally, they actually redistribute much of it to themselves and leave little for the rest; "equal" distribution is a hypothetical that never happens in practice.
The people who do harder work or who need more education for their job need to be paid more. If a doctor got paid the same as a lunch lady there would be no motivation to be a good doctor. That's why teachers make so little money compared to an engineer. In theory, just about anyone could teach, but very few people are able to do the complex math it takes to be an engineer. Or, to put it simply, the harder/more rare your skill is the more you will get paid for that skill. It keeps people motivated to do their best.
No. It's communism. And even communism doesn't work like that. Like Animal Farm says, "all are equal but some are more equal than others". We are a capitalist country, that's how it works. It can't all be fair.
You can look to north Korea to see how it's worked so far. 98% of their population is starving, the other two percent are political leaders. Yeah, it makes sense, but that doesn't mean it would work
Then our society would be at a standstill. There would be no advancements because people will only be making enough money to get by. There will be no poor to do the jobs that nobody wants to do and there will be no rich to make contributions to things that will improve our standard of living. Bad idea.
That sounds a lot like Egalitarianism. If we were all middle-class no one would be able to move up. We live in a capitalistic free market society. We all have the right to vote, rally and protest to mobilize.
True communism has never existed in th word therefore we do not know if such a system would work. I say we mildly socialize the economy while keeping intact our voting system to guarantee representation, since free market systems seem to be in a downward slope.
Its tottaly fair that i work my ass off my entire life to be smarter.more hard working and more skilled than the next guy and make the same pay -_- think it through smart people deserve there money they work thee ass off for it
This is a minor point in the argument, but if everyone was middle class then there wouldn't be anymore private investors, which is how a lot of companies start.
This bears a striking resemblance to communism...
That's because it is communism.
I know hahahaha I was kidding. XD
but then there would be some people working their butts off and then others doing nothing and they would be getting around the same pay
In theory that would work perfectly, but in action it would probably not work out
Lol, "would probably not work", because we haven't had such an experiment in history already?
Your idea is a lot like communism: a great idea on paper but in reality wouldn't work well.
Also it's like a lot like communism because it's the main principle of communism.
The fact of the matter is that some people deserve to be rich and, awful as it may sound, some people deserve to be poor. That's not to say that I have no pity for those less fortunate than me, but sometimes they deserve it. People get rich because they worked their butts off to get rich, and they provided a product or service that other people enjoy or need. Those rich people then employ all the middle class people.
I see your point there, and yes that is sometimes the case, but not always. There are many children born into wealth who have not worked for it at all. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. I'm just saying they themselves did nothing to earn it, other than be born to the right parents. Likewise, there are those born in extreme poverty around the world (much worse than in America), and they did nothing to deserve that either. I definitely see your point, but this subject is never simple.
People who are born rich cannot help they were born in that situation just like people who are poor cannot help that they were born poor. Neither should be punished and both should be given the same opportunities. Just saying.
In reality, we all have equal opportunities. But eqaul opportunity doesn't guarentee equal outcome.
I definitely agree with you. Sometimes, people have to work harder then others to get out of a hole, and that's really unfortunate. But we can't just guarantee everyone middle class status.
I would, however, love to see a school voucher system, where the government attaches a certain amount of money to each student, and then that student and his or her parents decide what school he'll attend. That way, kids born in poor areas are not bound to crappy education, and in turn, destined to poverty for the rest of their lives. I have yet to see any significant downsides to this solution.
That works in Belgium. However, I feel that we should also regulate schools. That way, they're not skimping out on education to appease the sports parents or the students or the anti-evolution/anthropogenic global warming parents. You know, make them teach a certain amount of stuff.
I agree with you to an extent. But the regulation would need to be kept minimal. There's a fine line between regulation and what we have now.
Lack of regulations would make DeVry and University of Phoenix high schools. They shouldn't necessarily regulate how they teach, but what they teach because different people learn in different ways (for example, I learn math better from a book. Go figure.) but everybody should learn some of the same basic stuff.
Not sure what you mean about DeVry or Phoenix, but I agree.
DeVry and Phoenix are notoriously bad for-profit colleges with no accreditation. In the United States, there are no laws against these colleges operating, but their degrees are worthless. Getting an associate's degree from a community college without going for a bachelor's degree would be better than getting a doctorate degree from those.
Lack of regulation would allow companies like these to make high schools.
I love your picture
Haha. Thank you
People are in Communist countries aren't poor because of an equal distribution of wealth. While many Communist leaders promise to distribute wealth equally, they actually redistribute much of it to themselves and leave little for the rest; "equal" distribution is a hypothetical that never happens in practice.
That sounds like something George Orwell would say...
The people who do harder work or who need more education for their job need to be paid more. If a doctor got paid the same as a lunch lady there would be no motivation to be a good doctor. That's why teachers make so little money compared to an engineer. In theory, just about anyone could teach, but very few people are able to do the complex math it takes to be an engineer. Or, to put it simply, the harder/more rare your skill is the more you will get paid for that skill. It keeps people motivated to do their best.
No. It's communism. And even communism doesn't work like that. Like Animal Farm says, "all are equal but some are more equal than others". We are a capitalist country, that's how it works. It can't all be fair.
I LOVE ANIMAL FARM!! [: ahaha great use of that quote
You can look to north Korea to see how it's worked so far. 98% of their population is starving, the other two percent are political leaders. Yeah, it makes sense, but that doesn't mean it would work
It only is better if the people do the same amount of work and get to choose what they want to do. That doesn't seem possible, though.
Then our society would be at a standstill. There would be no advancements because people will only be making enough money to get by. There will be no poor to do the jobs that nobody wants to do and there will be no rich to make contributions to things that will improve our standard of living. Bad idea.
If all the money was distributed evenly, then everyone would be below middle class, fyi.
I thought you were talking about SINGLE people, and you wanted everyone to be middle class so then you can go out with whomever you want.
That sounds a lot like Egalitarianism. If we were all middle-class no one would be able to move up. We live in a capitalistic free market society. We all have the right to vote, rally and protest to mobilize.
True communism has never existed in th word therefore we do not know if such a system would work. I say we mildly socialize the economy while keeping intact our voting system to guarantee representation, since free market systems seem to be in a downward slope.
Its tottaly fair that i work my ass off my entire life to be smarter.more hard working and more skilled than the next guy and make the same pay -_- think it through smart people deserve there money they work thee ass off for it
This is a minor point in the argument, but if everyone was middle class then there wouldn't be anymore private investors, which is how a lot of companies start.
Stalin #2?