fiksal wrote: ↑Wed, 27. Feb 19, 16:48
...Does that answer your question? )
Yes. Though, I am not sure that eating the poor would be a viable solution without sufficient sanitary precautions...
..What's your take on the gap?
I also want to remind you that several posts ago I've switched to progressive tax over the cap idea. The former is indeed problematic.
Sorry, missed that. No prob.
My take on "The Gap?"
Well, much like you, my first concern is that those who have very low incomes compared to what is needed to "survive and thrive" are able to see their basic needs met. That is my first and primary concern.
Next up, without yet discussing how to solve problems in the first point, is that we aren't necessarily experiencing a "Gap" in terms of "Wages." We're experiencing a "Gap" in terms of "The Value of Work."
What is the solution, then, if not all work has the same economic impact nor does all work have the same social value? Do we subsidize the value of work and, when we do, what does that government subsidization actually do to the behavior of the people?
Remember when I said that taxes are used to influence behavior? Well, subsidization has the same general effect. This isn't an argument that rests on "lazy people will be lazy if the government pays them to be lazy." It's an argument being made that the value of certain forms of labor are going to continue to decline and that subsidization, if it is the only strategy willing to be used, will only ever increase as the cultural definition of a "Minimum Standard of Living" increases.
What is today's definition of a "Minimum Standard of Living" compared to the same general standard in 50 BC within the Roman Empire? What about in, let's say, the 19'th Century in the US when "the dream" was wagon-training to the West to start a farm, own a bit of land, raise a family in a "New World of Opportunity and Adventure?"
Today, things like Internet Access are part of a "Minimum Standard of Living." Having a cellphone, a "smartphone" is considered part of that. Having adequate transportation is part of that. All of these things are part of subsidies that go into supporting a "Minimum Standard of Living." I am, for the record, in full support of certain forms of Public Welfare programs. There will always be a portion of the population that is at the economic "bottom" and we must do all that we can to support those citizens lest we risk social instability. Plus, it's the Right Thing To Do.
The Gap isn't about income. It's about the value of labor coupled with our definition of the minimum standard of living.
So... Should someone shoveling fries into a hopper earn XXXX monies based upon the actual value of their labor or the needs of our society to subsidize the value of that labor? And, what happens when that's all we do? What happens when we are, in fact, building our own less-valuable labor force on purpose? That's the real danger. As long as we only apply subsidization strategies to perpetuate the continuity of low-value labor, we're going to have trouble. We'll eventually get to the point where it's possible a large portion of our total work hours are, in fact, of such low economic value that we can't collect the monies necessary to subsidize it... Well, doubtful, but the economic stress in such a situation would be dire.
We must, in my opinion, acknowledge some things. For one, a person's value to society is not based upon their economic contribution. That's important. That is part of our (US) founding principles. Next, we have to acknowledge that not all labor is of equal value and that not all minimum wage labor is worth the minimum wage being paid. It is very likely that, as of right now, paying someone a minimum wage to shovel fries into a hopper is overpaying someone based on the value of that labor. And, if we do nothing else to counteract the growing disparity between the value of labor, we'll be perpetuating it and it will grow. Lastly - Someone can make valuable contributions to our economic well-being and produce very valuable labor by simply being afforded the opportunity to do so, but there will always be "Rich People" who apparently do little to gain their wealth and poor people who apparently do nothing to achieve better economic status. WE are not to "blame" for either of these situations. It's part of the model and it's always going to exist.
To solve the problem, we have to encourage the switch from a manual labor model and factory-line worker mentality to one that is more in keeping with the changing economic and workplace landscape. Towels aren't made in the US very much, anymore, when they used to be a mainstay of many region's industries. Why? Because other nations are just starting their "Towel Manufacturing" phase in industrial development. It's their turn to make towels just as it is now our turn to crank out spaceships and supercomputers and cold fusion plants...
We need service jobs. We'll always need them and we will always have a place for a really good ditch-digger. But, these positions need to become a much smaller portion of our overall work-hours spent. That is the only way that the value of that labor is going to increase. The only sensible way to decrease that segment of the labor force, while still preserving what we truly need of it, is to shift the work population to more valuable work.
One day, and it's likely to be much sooner than not, the Robot Menace is going to enter the workforce. McDonald's will probably have only a handful of employees present at any one time at a local fast-food restaurant. The movie theatres will die off and people will just sit and watch their five-foot wide "smartphones" instead. There's already only a handful of actual, live, "Telephone Operators" when just over ten years ago there were entire buildings full of them that supported their families with that job. Now, they're in the Philippines and India...
The value of work is changing and, whether someone likes it or not, the valuable jobs are changing as well. We have to force changes in our own labor force in order to stay healthy and so that their work will actually be valuable and can sustain their basic needs to live and thrive. It's not about the "Wage Gap" at all, it's the Value of Labor Gap.