What is your opinion on Income Inequality?

[Zaras]

Most Americans don't want socialism. Even less want Anarchism.

Some Americans have idiotic opinions and vote against their best interests. One American assumes a majority in America thinks exactly like him. News at 11.

[Grave_n_idle]

To be honest, I'd be tempted to say that 'most Americans' (like most of everyone else) do what they are told to do, and think what they are told to think. So you have people raging against government intrusion in their medicare, because that's the party line - without stopping to think about what they are fighting for.

Well that certainly is a convenient opinion if your goal is to bypass the will of the people and implement what you want anyway.
Just dismiss all opposition as not knowing what the hell their talking about.

Are you defending the 'keep yore government hands of my medicare' signs?

You might want to think about what you're actually arguing.

[SPQR Legions]

You still contribute to society if you work at your 5 hours a day job. You mean to say those people are insignificant and do nothing for the society?

No. My point is, that someone working a simple job and someone working a more difficult job both contribute to society. Equally.

So a doctor who saves people and a store clerk who sells lottery tickets both contribute equally to society?

I'm sorry but thats a crude way of looking at it.

[Grave_n_idle]

No. My point is, that someone working a simple job and someone working a more difficult job both contribute to society. Equally.

So whats the point of getting a more difficult job if you will be payed the same?

Are you under the impression that the most difficult jobs somehow correspond to the best paid ones?

[Zaras]

Wait, so all this talk about "regulation" and the government's role in redistributing the wealth is really just a front so that you can impose some sort of retarded teenage anarchist fantasy?

Communism is an end goal, but I'm happy to settle for Scandinavian social democracy.

Practice your social engineering with Nilfgaard. Leave the rest of us alone so we can live our lives in peace.

Dismissing "social engineering" is a good sign of fanatical conservatism.

Society already engages in social engineering, in case you didn't notice.

[Kleomentia]

Ok, lets put it like this.
If you can work 5 hours at a job that requires little amount of work and work hard to get a job where you will work 8 hours a day and get the same pay, whats the point?

Indeed, what is your point?

Are you under the impression that's the real dichotomy? Because - in reality, of course - it tends to be the people that put in the hours of hard work, that make little money - and the people who find some cushy niche tend to be the ones rolling in the clover.

Are you under the impression that everyone in America has the job that was the biggest earner? That cops are cops because it pays most, that nurses are nurses because it's easy money, etc?

No, they get those jobs because they either want them or were only able to get them(or it was a best current option etc). But what my point is, why should all jobs be payed equal and everyone have equal pays? Why would you work hard to get a difficult job if you can get the same pay with a easier job?

[Kleomentia]

So whats the point of getting a more difficult job if you will be payed the same?

Are you under the impression that the most difficult jobs somehow correspond to the best paid ones?

No, not at all. But why would Mr Bob work hard to become a CEO of Random Inc if he could be a pizza delivery guy and get the same pay?

[Kleomentia]

No. My point is, that someone working a simple job and someone working a more difficult job both contribute to society. Equally.

So a doctor who saves people and a store clerk who sells lottery tickets both contribute equally to society?

I'm sorry but thats a crude way of looking at it.

Indeed.

[SPQR Legions]

Well that certainly is a convenient opinion if your goal is to bypass the will of the people and implement what you want anyway.
Just dismiss all opposition as not knowing what the hell their talking about.

Are you defending the 'keep yore government hands of my medicare' signs?

You might want to think about what you're actually arguing.

I'm not defending the argument, I'm defending the right of the arguer to have their opinion seriously considered.
People aren't cattle, they can form their own opinions and those beliefs should be respected.

[Zaras]

Seriously, what is it with you and your grudge against libertarians?

Their ideology is reprehensibly lacking in morals and stupid.

I thought you might at least prefer them over social conservatives.

Considering that libertarians in the USA get in bed with the Republicans to win power, they're no better.

You obviously aren't interested in hearing what other means, are you?

You misunderstand. I hear and read what other people say. I never attempted to stop people from talking, or myself from hearing it. I hear, and then if it's stupid I don't need to waste any more time on it.

People are free to hold whatever opinions they want, but they aren't free from having other people point out their opinions are idiotic or wrong.

Just throw out some radical insults and declare all you disagree with shitheads and nazis

I didn't call libertarians Nazis.

You're completely objective lol

I don't pretend I am, and I'm not as blatantly detached from reality as the modern GOP, or Ayn Rand fans who somehow think the free market is a magic goddamn fairy that fixes everything and that people need to be narcissistic sociopaths with no feelings whatsoever.

Long term planning on the scale your suggesting would require a large level of authoritarianism.

You are clueless.

Communism doesn't need authoritarianism to be implemented. In fact, the socialist transitional period is about dismantling the state as a tool used to serve class interests.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed, what is your point?

Are you under the impression that's the real dichotomy? Because - in reality, of course - it tends to be the people that put in the hours of hard work, that make little money - and the people who find some cushy niche tend to be the ones rolling in the clover.

Are you under the impression that everyone in America has the job that was the biggest earner? That cops are cops because it pays most, that nurses are nurses because it's easy money, etc?

No, they get those jobs because they either want them or were only able to get them(or it was a best current option etc). But what my point is, why should all jobs be payed equal and everyone have equal pays? Why would you work hard to get a difficult job if you can get the same pay with a easier job?

Because challenges are fun? Because you like that kind of work? Because it's fulfilling? Because it feels like you actually did something, at the end of the day? Because you want to feel like you're doing something important? Because you want to do something to help others or improve the world or... any number of other reasons.

Let me tell you - nurses didn't get into nursing for the money, most of them - they got into it because they wanted to help people - so they chose a 'carer' career. Cops don't tend to become cops for the wage packet - they tend to get into it because they feel like they are doing good, or they have some kind of need to see justice done. Child advocates aren't picking that career because it's lucrative (it's not)... hell, even the guy at the record shop (ask your parents) doesn't go hunting that job because it will make him rich.

People often choose careers that are less lucrative because it's what they want to do, or they feel they have an aptitude, or... hell, sometimes, because it's near to their house.

Financial concerns are important - and I think most Americans really want to get their bills paid - but I think it's unrealistic to assume that people are entirely motivated by the profit margin. Most aren't.

[Zaras]

I'm not defending the argument, I'm defending the right of the arguer to have their opinion seriously considered.

It's ridiculous to think of this as a "right".

People have the right to freedom of opinion and speech.

They don't have the right to be protected from criticism.

If person B tells person A their opinions are fucking stupid, any attempt by person A to force person B to take them seriously is an infringement of person B's right to freedom of opinion and speech.

Opinions are not equal. Those that are blatantly terrible or unintelligent cannot be made to be taken seriously by force. Stupid opinions are by definition impossible to seriously consider.

[Armadrone]

perhaps people should get paid the same amount of money or just destroy money as it is.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you defending the 'keep yore government hands of my medicare' signs?

You might want to think about what you're actually arguing.

I'm not defending the argument, I'm defending the right of the arguer to have their opinion seriously considered.
People aren't cattle, they can form their own opinions and those beliefs should be respected.

Horseshit.

Someone who waves a placard calling for the government not to steal money from medicare to fund socialised healthcare has no right to have their opinion considered. Much less respected.

Hell, what they have shouldn't even be considered an opinion.

[Zaras]

Someone who waves a placard calling for the government not to steal money from medicare to fund socialised healthcare has no right to have their opinion considered. Much less respected.

Hell, what they have shouldn't even be considered an opinion.

It's more like a brainfart than anything.

[Grave_n_idle]

But what my point is, why should all jobs be payed equal and everyone have equal pays? Why would you work hard to get a difficult job if you can get the same pay with a easier job?

Are you under the impression that it's currently true that easy jobs are inherently linked to low pay, and hard jobs to high pay?

[SPQR Legions]

I'm not defending the argument, I'm defending the right of the arguer to have their opinion seriously considered.
People aren't cattle, they can form their own opinions and those beliefs should be respected.

Horseshit.

Someone who waves a placard calling for the government not to steal money from medicare to fund socialised healthcare has no right to have their opinion considered. Much less respected.

Hell, what they have shouldn't even be considered an opinion.

Perhaps not by you. But they can still vote, so objectively their opinion DOES matter.
Thus you cannot simply ignore it for the sake of implementing some big government social engineering scheme.

[Kleomentia]

No, they get those jobs because they either want them or were only able to get them(or it was a best current option etc). But what my point is, why should all jobs be payed equal and everyone have equal pays? Why would you work hard to get a difficult job if you can get the same pay with a easier job?

Because challenges are fun? Because you like that kind of work? Because it's fulfilling? Because it feels like you actually did something, at the end of the day? Because you want to feel like you're doing something important? Because you want to do something to help others or improve the world or... any number of other reasons.

Let me tell you - nurses didn't get into nursing for the money, most of them - they got into it because they wanted to help people - so they chose a 'carer' career. Cops don't tend to become cops for the wage packet - they tend to get into it because they feel like they are doing good, or they have some kind of need to see justice done. Child advocates aren't picking that career because it's lucrative (it's not)... hell, even the guy at the record shop (ask your parents) doesn't go hunting that job because it will make him rich.

People often choose careers that are less lucrative because it's what they want to do, or they feel they have an aptitude, or... hell, sometimes, because it's near to their house.

Financial concerns are important - and I think most Americans really want to get their bills paid - but I think it's unrealistic to assume that people are entirely motivated by the profit margin. Most aren't.

I never said that. I said that it plays a big role for a lot of the people. And while 60% of the population would chose jobs that fulfill them and they like etc. A big number(not necessarily 40%) will just do almost nothing. People need motivation, and to those who have hard time finding it money is great motivation. And even with the people who want themselves fulfilled by their jobs money plays a rather large role and is a big motivator. And equal income for all just doesnt feel natural. Theres always a Alpha and a Omega. Thats what is present and has always been in our society. Im not saying that the inequality ratio should be 10000000:1. But it should be present, in my opinion.

[Bojikami]

No. My point is, that someone working a simple job and someone working a more difficult job both contribute to society. Equally.

So a doctor who saves people and a store clerk who sells lottery tickets both contribute equally to society?

I'm sorry but thats a crude way of looking at it.

Well. That's how life is.

[Kleomentia]

But what my point is, why should all jobs be payed equal and everyone have equal pays? Why would you work hard to get a difficult job if you can get the same pay with a easier job?

Are you under the impression that it's currently true that easy jobs are inherently linked to low pay, and hard jobs to high pay?

Why do you keep asking this question? I said no, im just saying that, usually, a job with higher pay needs more work to get to(at the least).

[SPQR Legions]

Long term planning on the scale your suggesting would require a large level of authoritarianism.

You are clueless.

Communism doesn't need authoritarianism to be implemented. In fact, the socialist transitional period is about dismantling the state as a tool used to serve class interests.

Question. If you aren't going to be authoritarian then how are you going to force the wealthy to give up all their wealth and impose/ maintain a "communist" system where everyone is going to have equal power and wealth.

Thats not a system that just maintains itself magically.

[Kleomentia]

So a doctor who saves people and a store clerk who sells lottery tickets both contribute equally to society?

I'm sorry but thats a crude way of looking at it.

Well. That's how life is.

No, its not. Life is complex. And you put it in the crudest way possible.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you under the impression that the most difficult jobs somehow correspond to the best paid ones?

No, not at all. But why would Mr Bob work hard to become a CEO of Random Inc if he could be a pizza delivery guy and get the same pay?

I don't know. I ran a lasertag venue for less per-hour money than my friend made as a pharmacist. If the two jobs had paid the same, I'd still have picked managing the lasertag venue.

On the other hand, when I did bar work, it paid considerably better than the training job I did at a data-process company, and had better hours - but I'd rather have the training job.

So long as people can meet their bills, the actual amount they get paid tends to be secondary.

[Kleomentia]

You are clueless.

Communism doesn't need authoritarianism to be implemented. In fact, the socialist transitional period is about dismantling the state as a tool used to serve class interests.

Question. If you aren't going to be authoritarian then how are you going to force the wealthy to give up all their wealth and impose/ maintain a "communist" system where everyone is going to have equal power and wealth.

Thats not a system that just maintains itself magically.

Indeed, authority is always needed. People seem to get the weird impression that organization is maintained by itself.

[Zaras]

Perhaps not by you. But they can still vote, so objectively their opinion DOES matter.

No, it doesn't. Their opinion is of no value and completely worthless.

Question. If you aren't going to be authoritarian then how are you going to force the wealthy to give up all their wealth and impose/ maintain a "communist" system where everyone is going to have equal power and wealth.

Gradual transition through socialism which would involve policies aimed at reducing wealth inequalities, y'know, like the ones that the entire Western world pursued successfully from 1945 to 1980?

You make the rather American mistake of assuming that government by itself is authoritarian. I've grown up in a former authoritarian country. I know what authoritarianism is. Authoritarianism is gulags, forced work camps, secret police, pervasive censorship, and spying on the populace 24/7. Authoritarianism is not using taxation policies, regulation and spending on important things like education, healthcare, welfare and infrastructure to make life better for everybody and provide citizens with a safety net.