Economic Equality

[cybercoma]

I've been thinking a lot lately about this and I can't come up with a good answer. In Canada, we have political equality (1 person, 1 vote, free to vote for whoever you choose, &c.), we have legal equality (everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard before a judge), but we do not have economic equality. Without economic equality, do the other two really matter? As far as politics is concerned, "the one that pays the piper picks the tune." Obviously, legal equality is undermined by economic inequality when corporations can show up to court with multi-million dollar law-firms by their side, while they employee that may have been let go unfairly has his cousin Joe that barely passed the bar exam representing him. Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, but the reality is, the one with the money gets the better lawyers.

So, the question is this: should we be pursuing economic equality among citizens? Would this make society a better place? I can think of plenty of pros and cons, let's discuss.

[M.Dancer]

So, the question is this: should we be pursuing economic equality among citizens? Would this make society a better place? I can think of plenty of pros and cons, let's discuss.

We have economic equality already. Each to their own ability....some choose not to be engineers (i did) some chose not to be doctors (ditto). Some are just lucky. Others choose not to concern themselves much with how they make a living. But in the end, we all (with some exceptions) have equal choice concerning our economic status.

I know a sri lankan immigrant who when he came here worked 3 jobs, 2 full 1 part time. He did that till he opened up his first restaurant. Since then he has sold at least 6 restayrants that he started and sold them for profit and still owns 3. As well as a noce house....3 kids. He came to Canada an accountant with poor english///his english is better than most now....it was economic equality that got him where he is today...because every dollar is equal.

[August1991]

So, the question is this: should we be pursuing economic equality among citizens? Would this make society a better place? I can think of plenty of pros and cons, let's discuss.

Some of us are ugly, and some of us are beautiful.

Should the government scar the faces of beautiful people so that society is more "equal"? Should we force beautiful women to cover their hair and faces in public? Should we force thin women to wear broad dresses?

This might achieve the equality that you seek, and make many ugly people happy.

[Oleg Bach]

Some of us are ugly, and some of us are beautiful.

Should the government scar the faces of beautiful people so that society is more "equal"? Should we force beautiful women to cover their hair and faces in public? Should we force thin women to wear broad dresses?

This might achieve the equality that you seek, and make many ugly people happy.

Egalitarianism is theoretical social speculatory non-sense. No two trees in the natural world are exactly the same height. No two human beings are equal in depth of character,spirit or intellect. Naturally beautiful woman are scorned and the public is conditioned as time goes on to except the inferiour artifical vision of female beauty. Men that are handsome and masculine are incrimentaly facing persecution and damned by society as being brutal angry males...it's all about envy. If you look at the physical attractiveness of say - female american congress members - and compare them to the natural beauty of ancient races that inhabit Afghanistan and Iraq - you will notice that the americans are not beautiful while the ancient "primatives" are - so bombing natural beauty into oblivion is done with a quiet tacit glee.

All have their gifts - each individual carrys a neccesary talent in the on going maintainance of goodness in the world...This is the primary reason that I am not in favour of promoting and duping females into abortion. There are people who's landing on earth is aborted - these people carry the gifts we so sorely need....Is this done with sublime evil intent - possibly and probably.

[cybercoma]

You may cite anecdotes about foreigners that made it with nothing, but how many exceptions are there to your anecdote. Furthermore, not only does a person's intelligence not determine how much wealth they will have, but it is also an exception that determination or motivation produce wealth. Wealth is more likely related to the networks at social capital they have from what they were born into.

You need money to make money and inherent wealth certainly gives wealthy families an advantage. Do you really believe the child of a laid-off autoworker in Windsor has the same shake as the child of the Thomsons, Irvings or Westons? Not only do they inherently have more wealth, that wealth allows them access to more intellectual circles from the beginning. Furthermore, from childhood, they are more able to travel the world and have access to a more cultured upbringing. While the autoworker's child is attending the camp at the community college, what do you suppose the heir to millions is doing? As if those comparative advantages aren't enough, the inherently wealthy do not have to worry about paying for their education, nor do they typically need to work a part-time job while they put themself through school. Typically, this frees them up to pursue more extra-curricular activities and makes them more eligible for scholarships and grants at the post-secondary level.

There is still a class system in our society. A dollar may be a dollar as you say, and I cannot deny that the poor are getting richer. But, the income gap is spreading. The rich are getting a much bigger piece of the growth than the poor. Perhaps you can make an argument that a huge income gap is not a problem, but it's also not economic equality.

[cybercoma]

Some of us are ugly, and some of us are beautiful.

Should the government scar the faces of beautiful people so that society is more "equal"? Should we force beautiful women to cover their hair and faces in public? Should we force thin women to wear broad dresses?

This might achieve the equality that you seek, and make many ugly people happy.

You're comparing aesthetic qualities to economic well-being?

I say that a person without economic equality does not have political equality (they cannot bribe politicians through contributions), that a person without wealth does not have legal equality (they cannot afford the lawyers that the rich afford) and therefore, our society based on equality is nothing more than a myth.

So, you talk about beauty and aesthetic equality. Well, it is economic inequality that produces disparities in beauties. After all, it is those that come from classes of wealth that have more leisure time to attend gyms and more money to buy makeup and have cosmetic surgeries. It is the wealthy class that can afford the designer clothing and other status symbols that make them beautiful. Have you never seen a Hollywood movie that takes a girl from "rags to riches"?

No August, we shouldn't scar the face of the beautiful. We shouldn't force them to cover up. But, perhaps we should consider economic equality that would give everyone equal access to beauty.

[charter.rights]

You may cite anecdotes about foreigners that made it with nothing, but how many exceptions are there to your anecdote. Furthermore, not only does a person's intelligence not determine how much wealth they will have, but it is also an exception that determination or motivation produce wealth. Wealth is more likely related to the networks at social capital they have from what they were born into.

You need money to make money and inherent wealth certainly gives wealthy families an advantage. Do you really believe the child of a laid-off autoworker in Windsor has the same shake as the child of the Thomsons, Irvings or Westons? Not only do they inherently have more wealth, that wealth allows them access to more intellectual circles from the beginning. Furthermore, from childhood, they are more able to travel the world and have access to a more cultured upbringing. While the autoworker's child is attending the camp at the community college, what do you suppose the heir to millions is doing? As if those comparative advantages aren't enough, the inherently wealthy do not have to worry about paying for their education, nor do they typically need to work a part-time job while they put themself through school. Typically, this frees them up to pursue more extra-curricular activities and makes them more eligible for scholarships and grants at the post-secondary level.

There is still a class system in our society. A dollar may be a dollar as you say, and I cannot deny that the poor are getting richer. But, the income gap is spreading. The rich are getting a much bigger piece of the growth than the poor. Perhaps you can make an argument that a huge income gap is not a problem, but it's also not economic equality.

Traditionally political equity and judicial equity have been undermined by economic inequity. The rich hire the best lawyers and use their influence to buy their ways into political institutions. Whereas those on the lower end do not have the same opportunity for advancement, often being rejected by the upper class because of their economic and social status. One would hardly engage a homeless person to be a politician or lawyer to represent them even though they may have once been successful politicians or lawyers in some capacity. Their economic status presents a barrier to social status and thus denies them equal and equitable representation on political or legal matters.

[Oleg Bach]

The rich do not hire the best lawyers. They hire their friends not so talented sons and daughters --- and simply pass the money about and play court. They are not the smartest lawyers or the most talented...they are the most connected. It does get to a point where even if you hire the most connected and over pay the practitioner, you may still fail in your search for justice - the old and now young boys club may simply not like you. It also has to do with how far up the food chain you are.....once I dropped the name of a powerful lawyer in the presense of a judge - he shuttered as if "that's the boss" - next day he asked my what my "friend" had suggested as if the judge was waiting instructions - the bluff was very effective....BUT the common lawyers in the room did not have a clue who this person was - the new up and coming lawyers are simply not from the upper class...so they are not in the loop.

[cybercoma]

I should make it clear that I don't necessarily believe in making everyone perfectly equal. I just thought it would be interesting to toss around some ideas about economic equality. Absolute equality is probably not possible, nor should we look to achieve it. Those that do more and risk more deserve more; however, I often wonder how much "more" is enough.

Example: The average employee at Home Depot makes just over minimum wage. Bob Nardelli (former CEO, now at Chrysler) in his first year had a salary of over $6,000,000 US. What exactly does one person do with $6 Million? Anyone would be able to live on a fraction of that money for the rest of their life, let alone as a salary. Furthermore, his first year was the worst year for sales and profits that Home Depot had ever had, as a direct result of his poor decision making (ie: cutting inventory immediately before the busy season). With his bonuses, Bob Nardelli made over $21,000,000.

Does this make any sense? While people are toiling to generate the wealth, they are being paid just enough to survive. There's no denying that the CEO of a corporation should make more than the person on the frontlines. The CEO should, to be sure, make more than everyone lower on the chain. But, when is it enough? That additional $15,000,000 that Bob Nardelli took home, could have created checks for $45 for each of its 331000 employees.

Regardless, when is enough enough? When a person has more than could ever be used by generations of his or her family, why do they get to take more while others are suffering?

[Oleg Bach]

50 thousand layoffs expected in the auto industry - yet they take the money from the tax paying worker who is now with out a job and send a billion dollar bailout to a few executives to "re-structure" with no mention of using the money assist the men and woman who built the auto empire - now that is shifty and not very equal.

[cybercoma]

50 thousand layoffs expected in the auto industry - yet they take the money from the tax paying worker who is now with out a job and send a billion dollar bailout to a few executives to "re-structure" with no mention of using the money assist the men and woman who built the auto empire - now that is shifty and not very equal.

That's another element to consider. Especially in the United States where there has been nearly a trillion dollars (at what point do numbers just become words? I can't picture a trillion... I have absolutely no idea what a trillion anything is) given to companies that are failing, yet executives took home something like $18 billion in bonuses.

What?

The taxpayers had to give you money to bail out your companies.... and you pocketed it?

Uhhh...

[charter.rights]

50 thousand layoffs expected in the auto industry - yet they take the money from the tax paying worker who is now with out a job and send a billion dollar bailout to a few executives to "re-structure" with no mention of using the money assist the men and woman who built the auto empire - now that is shifty and not very equal.

As I understand it the US has limited top execs to $500k a year with no bonuses for those companies receiving assistance. The CEOs of major banks here cut their wages from $7m to $4m plus bonuses. They are taking our money and padding their own pockets while the banks they control foreclose on mortgages and call in loans from struggling taxpayers.

[August1991]

You need money to make money and inherent wealth certainly gives wealthy families an advantage. Do you really believe the child of a laid-off autoworker in Windsor has the same shake as the child of the Thomsons, Irvings or Westons?

Would you prefer a world in which parents can't raise their children, and pass on to them the human capital of their life experience?

Cybercoma, inheritance is life itself. This is why we live. You exist to transfer your parents' genes.

Edited February 19, 2009 by August1991

[eyeball]

In Canada, we have political equality (1 person, 1 vote, free to vote for whoever you choose, &c.), we have legal equality (everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard before a judge), but we do not have economic equality. Without economic equality, do the other two really matter? As far as politics is concerned, "the one that pays the piper picks the tune." Obviously, legal equality is undermined by economic inequality when corporations can show up to court with multi-million dollar law-firms by their side, while they employee that may have been let go unfairly has his cousin Joe that barely passed the bar exam representing him. Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, but the reality is, the one with the money gets the better lawyers.

So, the question is this: should we be pursuing economic equality among citizens? Would this make society a better place? I can think of plenty of pros and cons, let's discuss.

I don't see the point of pursuing economic equality as long as our political equality is undermined by lobbyists and the culture of secrecy in which politicians live. We should be pursuing transparency and expanding democracy. Close the gap between the governed and the government and the gap between the wealthy and the poor wouldn't be anywhere near as wide as it is.

[charter.rights]

I don't see the point of pursuing economic equality as long as our political equality is undermined by lobbyists and the culture of secrecy in which politicians live. We should be pursuing transparency and expanding democracy. Close the gap between the governed and the government and the gap between the wealthy and the poor wouldn't be anywhere near as wide as it is.

Political equity is not undermined by lobbyists. It is a way where groups of people can come together gain political and legal influence (and sometimes economic influence) to change government policy. They are as vital to a free and working democracy as voting....and perhaps even more so since an individual in our system has no chance against corporate influence of government, of politician and of bureaucrats.

[Muddy]

We have economic equality already. Each to their own ability....some choose not to be engineers (i did) some chose not to be doctors (ditto). Some are just lucky. Others choose not to concern themselves much with how they make a living. But in the end, we all (with some exceptions) have equal choice concerning our economic status.

I know a sri lankan immigrant who when he came here worked 3 jobs, 2 full 1 part time. He did that till he opened up his first restaurant. Since then he has sold at least 6 restayrants that he started and sold them for profit and still owns 3. As well as a noce house....3 kids. He came to Canada an accountant with poor english///his english is better than most now....it was economic equality that got him where he is today...because every dollar is equal.

Great story Dancer and it made my day. This is a reminder of why I hate whiners. I enjoy prosperity and a great life and those who don`y have what I have, moan about how lucky I am. No luck at all was involved. Hard work,guts and a desire to succeed. If you want to work in a militant union shop and go home to eat and watch the game without a backward thought about how your contribution to the health of your company ,don`t whine when your laid off.

[Renegade]

I've been thinking a lot lately about this and I can't come up with a good answer. In Canada, we have political equality (1 person, 1 vote, free to vote for whoever you choose, &c.), we have legal equality (everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard before a judge), but we do not have economic equality. Without economic equality, do the other two really matter? As far as politics is concerned, "the one that pays the piper picks the tune." Obviously, legal equality is undermined by economic inequality when corporations can show up to court with multi-million dollar law-firms by their side, while they employee that may have been let go unfairly has his cousin Joe that barely passed the bar exam representing him. Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, but the reality is, the one with the money gets the better lawyers.

So, the question is this: should we be pursuing economic equality among citizens? Would this make society a better place? I can think of plenty of pros and cons, let's discuss.

The equality you describe is really a description of our expectation of how we expect the state to treat its citizens. In the case of the vote, we expect that the state gives each of its members a right to choose who will set the rules of the state. (If you examine it closely you will see it is far from equal. Some people like non-citizens, those under 18, etc, are no allowed to choose. Some are given more weight in their choice based upon where they live). My expectation for "economic equality" is not that each of us are of equal wealth, but rather that the state treatement of us is economically equal. Of course this is far from true today. Extreme poor get funds and services from the state, the rich do not.

IMV, the state should not be involved in explicit wealth redestribution, and economic equality is the right to equal economic treatment. There is no reason we need to all end up at the same level of economic wealth.

[M.Dancer]

Example: The average employee at Home Depot makes just over minimum wage. Bob Nardelli (former CEO, now at Chrysler) in his first year had a salary of over $6,000,000 US. What exactly does one person do with $6 Million?

An awful lot more than the home depot worker. What can be gained comparing a job thet needs little to no qualification aside from chewing gumb and walking at the sane time to one that requires high level corporate experiance (MBA Plus) and an accumen for finance, corporate law and leadership skills? If the Home Depot employee had those skills they could get a senior job that pays far more than the average household income.

[M.Dancer]

Do you really believe the child of a laid-off autoworker in Windsor has the same shake as the child of the Thomsons, Irvings or Westons?

Yep. I do. It's all a question of motivation. Whether someone has a head start is irrelevent, it's what they do with what they have that counts.

[cybercoma]

Would you prefer a world in which parents can't raise their children, and pass on to them the human capital of their life experience?

Cybercoma, inheritance is life itself. This is why we live. You exist to transfer your parents' genes.

That is the question, should people go without because others have inheritance to live on.

[M.Dancer]

That is the question, should people go without because others have inheritance to live on.

Absolutely. Just as those with an inheritence shouldn't forego the bounty of their parents dillegence simply because other parents haven't been as prudent.

[Renegade]

That is the question, should people go without because others have inheritance to live on.

No that is not the question because your question presupposes that those who go without, do so because others have an inheritance. Those who go without, do so because they cannot attain for themselves. It is irrelvant if others have attained either by their own skils or by inheritance.

[eyeball]

Political equity is not undermined by lobbyists. It is a way where groups of people can come together gain political and legal influence (and sometimes economic influence) to change government policy. They are as vital to a free and working democracy as voting....

Conceptually, I don't disagree with this...

...and perhaps even more so since an individual in our system has no chance against corporate influence of government, of politician and of bureaucrats.

...mostly because I also don't disagree with the part I bolded.

The problem I have is when lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats meet in secret, that's when chances start getting slimmer for whole groups of people. Its interesting you should say that lobbyists are as vital to our democracy as voting. Recall the threads on this forum that have discussed how vital security, verifiability and validation is to the issue of voting because of the concern that the political process could be skewed in favour of one group over another.

Why people are not even more concerned about the potential for political inequality in the culture of secrecy that lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats operate in is a complete mystery to me. I have little reason to not believe that our political equality is anything but an illusion myself.

Edited February 19, 2009 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

No that is not the question because your question presupposes that those who go without, do so because others have an inheritance. Those who go without, do so because they cannot attain for themselves. It is irrelvant if others have attained either by their own skils or by inheritance.

Are our resources not finite?

[M.Dancer]

Contrary to the musings of the perpetually paranoid, Lobbyists do not act in secrecy.

Rules

Transparency

1. Identity and purpose

Lobbyists shall, when making a representation to a public office holder, disclose the identity of the person or organization on whose behalf the representation is made, as well as the reasons for the approach.

2. Accurate information

Lobbyists shall provide information that is accurate and factual to public office holders. Moreover, lobbyists shall not knowingly mislead anyone and shall use proper care to avoid doing so inadvertently.

3. Disclosure of obligations

Lobbyists shall indicate to their client, employer or organization their obligations under the Lobbying Act, and their obligation to adhere to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

Confidentiality

4. Confidential information

Lobbyists shall not divulge confidential information unless they have obtained the informed consent of their client, employer or organization, or disclosure is required by law.

5. Insider information

Lobbyists shall not use any confidential or other insider information obtained in the course of their lobbying activities to the disadvantage of their client, employer or organization.

Conflict of interest

6. Competing interests

Lobbyists shall not represent conflicting or competing interests without the informed consent of those whose interests are involved.

7. Disclosure

Consultant lobbyists shall advise public office holders that they have informed their clients of any actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest, and obtained the informed consent of each client concerned before proceeding or continuing with the undertaking.

8. Improper influence

Lobbyists shall not place public office holders in a conflict of interest by proposing or undertaking any action that would constitute an improper influence on a public office holder.

http://www.ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/lobbyist...ng/nx00019.html