equal outcomes?

[eri]

The reason I hate teaching this section is because a natural outcome of a market economy must be inequality of incomes.


Inequality of incomes are not a failure of markets.

They are a necessary and desirable outcome.

I always say to my students if I was to guarantee you all get the same final result how would that affect your effort in this course?

...

The better-off usually ensure their offspring have better access to education and other opportunities to succeed.

Inheritances also help.

This is not a morality tale about the evil rich.

This is how societies have worked since the dawn of civilisation.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11388751

[speights boy]

Next year it is predicted the richest 1% of the world's population will own as much as the remaining 99%.

[eri]

while it's a flashy looking thing to say

i don't understand the methodology of such a claim

is the elderly owner of a tiny, prime position apartment in; london, paris, rome, new york, tokyo

really wealthier than a young 3rd world peasant farmer with a family, farm and herd?

why?

because the western city dweller could drop $5k on a watch or an hermes handbag?

how is it even possible to compare 'apples with apples' across the entire population?

[PTILoveYou]

Capitalism has never been about being equal

Communism, socialism, they are all the same, the royal family get all the coins, while the peasants suffer.

[speights boy]

[eri]

was a story a few days ago

about a solo mum with 3 kids

trying to get ready for the new school year

said she got $400 a week from benefits

but spent $300 of that on bills

and i wondered

if that $400 a week put her in the top 50% of income earners world wide?

if it did

should her benefits be cut so nz could pay more to the pacific poor?

....

lies

damn lies

+ statistics

[speights boy]

Big pay rises for district health board heads

District health board chief executives got bumper pay rises in the past year, with doctors and nurses left behind, figures show.

A State Services Commission report released before Christmas shows all but one chief received a bigger pay packet, with increases between $10,000 and $180,000.

In a second report, figures show that in the same period public health service staff got an average boost of 0.7 per cent, well below inflation.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/65118212/big-pay-rises-for-district-health-board-heads

[Maccachic]

There are two alternatives: Tying maximum wage to minimum

or Worker co-ops http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/pdf/What%20is%20WC.pdf

[Wayne]

There are two alternatives: Tying maximum wage to minimum

enforcing it could be hard.

[Maccachic]

Think its one of those ethical employer type policy's rather than forced.

[Wayne]

Ah - it has been mooted before to tie the CEO salary to the lowest employee, say 20x lowest.
Never seems to stick for some reason

[speights boy]

Panicked super rich buying boltholes with private airstrips to escape if poor rise up

Super rich hedge fund managers are buying 'secret boltholes' where they can hideout in the event of civil uprising against growing inequality, it has been claimed.

Nervous financiers from across the globe have begun purchasing landing strips, homes and land in areas such as New Zealand so they can flee should people rise up.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/panicked-super-rich-buying-boltholes-5044084

[Wayne]

NZ - the end of the earth so no one will find them there.

[Damap]

it has been mooted before to tie the CEO salary to the lowest employee, say 20x lowest.
Never seems to stick for some reason

Because it's silly. If you want socialism and communism style economies then you have to embrace all that entails. Is it "wrong" for a CEO for example to earn 10, 20 100 million a year? No. Is it a sh*t load of money, yes. Is it a little bit ridiculous that anybody earns that much? Well if they earn it. If their shareholders are happy no it's not.

[drelly]

Because it's silly. If you want socialism and communism style economies then you have to embrace all that entails. Is it "wrong" for a CEO for example to earn 10, 20 100 million a year? No. Is it a sh*t load of money, yes. Is it a little bit ridiculous that anybody earns that much? Well if they earn it. If their shareholders are happy no it's not.

Is keeping shareholders happy the most important thing? There inevitably comes a time when the shareholders (aristocracy) will be overwhelmed by the peasants!
Check out this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanaue...rks_are_coming