Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

To the people that support redistribution of income... Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the following?
    I support the redistribution of income and marks
    0.91%
    I support the redistribution of income, but not marks
    47.27%
    I support the redistribution of marks, but not income
    0
    0%
    I support neither form of redistribution
    52.73%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Runninground)
    Let me think... someone in your company messes up and the media get hold of it. You're suddenly in the spot light and you're forced to fix the problem or get sacked. How many CEO's have been in the paper recently for being sacked because someone else did something wrong?

    A cleaner does something wrong and gets a little slap on the wrist from their manager.
    That's true !
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    A LOT of people don't do very well and it really isn't their fault.

    Even if everybody tried - not everyone can be a millionaire. That's exactly why the eternal 'you just have to try harder' is such a bloody lie.



    And yeah, I'm very probably going to be one of the rich guys, so don't you go around saying that's just an opinion poor people have. Money doesn't have to stop you from being ethical, you know.
    Yeah that's true

    But there is a difference between being ethical and self-loathing!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Maybe it should be, but it isn't.

    I work in a retail environment in a team of 6. The highest paid member of that team earns an annual salary of £23000. The shop is a very productive one and makes a net profit of over £600,000 per annum. That's after wages.

    It's part of a chain with identical staffing levels and wage structures. Many shops in the chain make net profits of < £50k per annum.

    The reason we are so productive is because we work incredibly hard to trample the local competition. I'd be bloody laughing if production level was reflected in wages.

    So yes... in your idealised world where this is the case, then perhaps there is no reason for wealth redistribution. In our current capitalist structure where the wages of over 99% of a company's employees are arbitrary and in no way linked to profits ... it seems pretty much essential.
    Given how skilled the six of you are at doing what you do it would seem in your interest to open your own shop together. Or at least changing employer to one who recognises such skills. Why don't you?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domeface)
    Given how skilled the six of you are at doing what you do it would seem in your interest to open your own shop together. Or at least changing employer to one who recognises such skills. Why don't you?
    I can't speak for others, but most likely lack of access to capital.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    To InnerTemple; why did you decide that way?
    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

    As has been said before, the analogy is stupid...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    -
    You're drawing a very tenuous link. There's the assumption here that the three workers, like the students you mention, had the same opportunities as each other, which is not necessarily true. So you can't apply the same rule to both of these situations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Yeah that's true

    But there is a difference between being ethical and self-loathing!
    Why does it have to be 'self-loathing' to recognize that perhaps you're not 'worth' THAT much more than a cleaner than your pay would suggest?

    Remember: I'm not really advocating the end of profit (though I certainly wouldn't say no to the idea) nor am I blindly in favour of exactly equal pay. I'm just trying to show how the situation now is not really 'fair' and thus, how redistribution can be seen as moving the system into a fairer state.



    Oh yeah, and don't get me started on the consequences CEOs have to face. Yeah, they may be sacked. It certainly doesn't seem like they have that much trouble finding a new job though. Try finding a new job as a 55-year-old cleaning lady. And yes, those people can get sacked, too.


    By the way, there's a completely different, extremely 'economical' argument for redistribution: poor people tend to spend every last pound they earn and/or receive. They don't give it to the banks to speculate, inflate financial bubbles and cause crashes, nope - they spend it on consumer goods, which directly benefits the REAL economy. So an argument could be made that redistribution is actually useful to kick-start the economy - which in turn will also benefit more wealthy people as the money essentially 'trickles up'!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Well no. It's not 'entirely voluntary'. There's a system and a society in place which only gives me certain choices. Within that system, my choices are - partly - voluntary. Which still doesn't provide adequate reason why someone should be allowed to profit off my needs. I don't have to accept a system just because it was there before me.
    I don't follow; your argument seems to be "I'm not omnipotent, therefore I have limited choices, therefore I should be able to force people to do what I want". There are a million and one ways to spend £2 even in our constrained system, but even if we accepted that your decision to spend your money is involuntary (be it because of society or because of the laws of physics) that still doesn't explain why profit shouldn't be allowed. You want to take money from someone who provided you with a sandwich and give it to someone who did not. Why should that other person be made to profit off of your needs? Why should someone be forced to provide you with a sandwich with no control over how much compensation they get?

    As long as I don't actually buy anything, there isn't - not for me, anyway.
    So if you ignore the entire functionality of money then its worthless. Great; what's your point? The same can be said of food, or oil, or anything.

    I really wish it would be more generally acknowledged that all those economic models are just that - simplified models, not completely wrong, but most certainly also not a very accurate representation of how a complex human being really acts.
    They are just models but there isn't really a good substitute. You can't just wave your hand and say that the model is inaccurate therefore we can adopt any economic policy without consequence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    that still doesn't explain why profit shouldn't be allowed
    I'm not even saying it shouldn't be allowed, I'm questioning the ethical basis of profit.

    Because it seems to me that people are making a moral argument that redistribution is bad. Well no, I don't see it that way, and I'd like to know why making profit off someone is morally ok.

    EDIT: Until now, the answer seems to be 'because it happens'.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    The same can be said of food, or oil, or anything.
    Well no, not quite; food, oil and other things can be put to a direct use, whilst money is just a general substitute. It doesn't have any fixed value at all.

    Granted, the value of all things can go up or down depending on the situation, but they all have their direct application - irrespective of how much food you have, so much food can see you through a month. Money can be nearly or even completely worthless and doesn't have any application on it's own - which is why I don't 'value' money, I 'value' the things I can buy with it.

    But allright, it probably is more of a philosophical distinction.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    You can't just wave your hand and say that the model is inaccurate therefore we can adopt any economic policy without consequence.
    That is not in the least the argument I'm making. I was merely dispairing of people using oversimplified concepts of economy to justify everything, not even noticing how extremely contrived all their examples are.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Domeface)
    Given how skilled the six of you are at doing what you do it would seem in your interest to open your own shop together. Or at least changing employer to one who recognises such skills. Why don't you?

    In an economic climate where small businesses established for decades are being trampled into the dirt by large companies who can afford to run at a local loss to do so... setting up a new business in direct competition with established multinationals seems like the best idea I've ever heard. Honestly... people in this thread oversimplify these issues to the point that I can only assume that they've only ever sat in an economics classroom and have absolutely zero real world knowledge of the current state of the jobs market or the economic climate outside of major cities.

    The scenario you're describing is the stuff of fantasy, even if the startup funds WERE feasibly available.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    That is the natural consequence of ingestion of food, for which I have paid - together with all the production costs.

    So again, where exactly does the justification for extra profit come from?
    ???

    You:
    (out) £2
    (in) nutrients-from-sandwich

    whats difficult to understand?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    ???

    You:
    (out) £2
    (in) nutrients-from-sandwich

    whats difficult to understand?
    Exactly! Where does the supermarkets profit come from, I ask?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Exactly! Where does the supermarkets profit come from, I ask?
    From the £2?

    ???
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't support any form of state imposed redistribution
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    From the £2?

    ???
    Yeah of course it's coming from the £2, I'm not stupid. The question is: where's the moral argument for the supermarket to charge me more than it actually took to make that sandwich and just call that extra money 'profit'?

    So.... if the supermarket can do that and everything's ok, what exactly is the argument against, say, taking some of that profit to redistribute it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Yeah of course it's coming from the £2, I'm not stupid.
    It was a bit of a daft question you were asking....


    (Original post by Elcano)
    The question is: where's the moral argument for the supermarket to charge me more than it actually took to make that sandwich and just call that extra money 'profit'?
    Because if they weren't allowed what exactly is the incentive for the supermarket to bother?


    (Original post by Elcano)
    So.... if the supermarket can do that and everything's ok, what exactly is the argument against, say, taking some of that profit to redistribute it?
    You chose to buy the £2 sandwich- would you give someone the choice whether to distribute their 'profit'?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    £15,000 for a cleaning job? Sounds a bargain, my ex's mother earned that much working as a booking and holiday contact for sorting out problems with delays and rebooking at Virgin Holidays.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Because if they weren't allowed what exactly is the incentive for the supermarket to bother?
    Getting paid? It's not as if I suggested the owner of the supermarket and the people working there shouldn't get money for their work... give them a really high salary, for all I care.

    If getting paid is supposed to be incentive enough for me to go to work, why shouldn't it be an incentive to open a business?

    So we're back to my original question: where's the moral argument in support of taking more than the sandwich is actually worth off me?

    (Original post by billydisco)
    You chose to buy the £2 sandwich- would you give someone the choice whether to distribute their 'profit'?
    Oh really, I chose to buy the sandwich somewhere where they want to make profit? Next time you see a non-profit supermarket, please tell me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

    As has been said before, the analogy is stupid...
    Amazing six pages have come out of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    Amazing six pages have come out of it.
    Well no, no one is actually discussing the thing about the marks, because... well, because the analogy is stupid. (And a rather clumsy attempt at manipulating people's thinking...)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.