(Original post by BasicMistake)
I'm just wondering what you would consider an acceptable level of inequality, if any. Very few would like to see those who happen to be less academically gifted struggle to pay rent or buy health insurance. But equally, very few would have a problem with 'intelligent' people earning more over their lifetime. That implies there's a middle ground.
In your view, what's an acceptable earnings premium for the 'intelligent'? 0%? 10%? 30%?
I am not really sure. Even though I want change I am still quite conervative. We need to work it out as we go along. Unintended consequences and all that. The history of the 20th century is full of failing grand schemas to improve the human condition. I am more of a radical reformist for this reason.
Ok. Well many people less gifted already do struggle to pay rent or get healthcare. So we should be fixing that first. And the great thing about this problem is we know how to do it becasue we have working examples already in existance. In my view rent should not be a thing just as health insurance is not in this country. Although I accpet that may be hard to do. At the bare minimum there needs to be adequate council housing.
It depends on what the intelligent people are doing. I'm sure more poeple would be willing to richly reward an intelligent person who cures cancer, invents the internet, or discovers a groundbreakign scecret of the universe. But these are not the poeple who get insanely rich usually. They often do get paid quite well, but nothing on the levels of the super rich. And often money was not the main motivation for what they did. Watson and Crick discover DNA. Then some patent whore capitalist comes alond and decides he wants to own the code that builds humans so he can make billions running a biotech empire. I don't think most poeple like those poeple very much. They only really defend them when thier economic position in society is tied to the success of the super rich (or they are convinced that is so). I mean that is the argument made by the ultra rich, they do not defend insane wealth inequality by saying we deserve it, they rather smartly say wealth trickles down.
The intelligent mega rich who poeple may like tend to be the "inventors" of consumer goods we all enjoy. Take the iphone. All Steve Jobs did (not without effort) came up with a concept and then tooks all the work of lesser known lesser paid poeple and cobbled it all together. It's the same with the games industry. All these multi million games are built on what is essentially a public infrastructure of algorithms developed by many many man hours of research.
Another things that distorts wealth unfairy is intelectual property which makes less and less sense in the IT age we find ourselves in. If you want free markets then people should be able to copy and play with ideas. They should be able to recieve patronage to try out their ideas from bottom up crowdsourcing. Information should be free. This will only become more of a problem as stuff like 3D printing takes off.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 2 weeks ago