So for some reason Friday I found myself really frustrated with the discussion regarding salary. I think now it was because nobody was making any sort of distinction between what is ideal and what is practical, but most people's opinions were based around one or the other.
Perhaps this is just my interpretation, but it sounded to me like what the presenter was suggesting was at least some degree of socialism: equal pay for equal amount of work (as opposed to equal pay for equal type of work). I think this would indeed be ideal, if everyone who worked hard were rich. However, this is not at all practical. Everyone simply can't be rich, with inflation, etc (I don't think I have to go into the economics of it, it's pretty clear). And as for the suggestion of removing money from the absurdly wealthy to give to the hard-working poor, I don't think that is practical either: the principle of removing anyone's earned money would achieve only uproar from the people about the need to defy a communist government.
Then we move to the practical which is not necessarily ideal (and certainly is not, in my opinion). Those who pay for education and training in effect invest in themselves; they are paying money to receive what they hope will pay off in the future (through a good job and high salary). This unfortunately tends to result in a system where those with money are able to afford a rich future, whereas those without are unable. I think this is where the problem must be addressed, in INVESTING in people early, rather than trying to give them equal results later, which is impractical. Perhaps the answer is more affordable education for all, which may be a step closer to socialism, but at least it's not a dangerous leap into near-communism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First, and forgive me if I have said this before, but you have the coolest screen name for this blog!
Great discussion about the issues of socialism, communism, and the like. You do not bandy these words about in ad hominem attacks, but seriously question the nature of the discussion. Great job!
You write, "I think this is where the problem must be addressed, in INVESTING in people early, rather than trying to give them equal results later, which is impractical. Perhaps the answer is more affordable education for all...."
Is early investment in at-risk children automatically exclusive of helping adults who are in the cycle of poverty? I agree wholeheartedly that the best place to start is when people are young, but given that most children are influenced or in the care of some kind of adults, many of whom are in poverty themselves, would it make sense to address the problem from both angles?
Post a Comment