The rich really ARE getting richer, that much is plain to see (and when you remember we have limited resources, that is actually a scary thing in itself),
The cost of resources will still fluctuate, regardless as to whether one person buys 100,000 of x materials, or if 100,000 people buy one of x materials each. As we use more rare resources, the prices go up. Whenever those resources become scarce, the prices will be ridiculously high, which will prevent the resources from being used up.
There's a reason mammoth ivory chess pieces cost $13,000 dollars! Also, if anyone wants to buy me this chess set as a gift, I'll be your best friend for a week. I'm willing to make further negotiations.
but the poor generally have always been poor, there is only a certain level of poorness you can drop to and people from all countries are in this situation, regardless of reletive amounts i.e. less people in USA are poor compared to the amount of poor in Africa. But being poor has never been so plainly obvious and wrong in this world of communication and media coverage.
When employers hire people to work, they do so in a way so that the business can profit. If they hire too many people, they'll start to lose money. We can't just give people jobs if they aren't going to profit, because it's inefficient and counter productive. Lets suppose a restaurant needs 2 dishwashers for maximum efficiency. If the restaurant hires a 3rd dishwasher, they'll lose money on the 3rd worker while efficiency barely improves or actually goes down!
It's not as easy as simply creating more jobs. The jobs that are created must be efficient and benefit both the employer and customers. If the solution was merely as simple as creating more jobs, then we could hire every last poor person to take a shovel and dig a hole, fill it up, then dig the hole again, repeating the process.
Given that many of the poor are jobless because they don't have the education qualifications to get higher forms of employment, then it can be often said to be the fault of people themselves.
A lot of people aren't educated enough to find jobs because the number of people with college degrees is massively inflated.
Thats a very unfair way of looking at it. Iv also never understood rgis human fascination that everyone must work. Its not possible anyway. You say they dont have the education but there are plenty with the education that still cannot get a job. The jobs are going faster than they are created. We dont actually have enough jobs! So how are these educated people meant to find work? While I agree fully that it puts you in a better circumstance and so education is a key part of someone doing well in life, its no guarantee and so its quite unfair to say its the fault of the uneducated when the educated cant find jobs either.
I don't know if Nicho was suggesting it is their fault for being undereducated, but you do bring up some interesting points. A lot of people with college degrees can't even find jobs related to their field, so they have to settle for jobs that any high school graduate can learn. This leaves less jobs for high school graduates since employers tend to hire college graduates over high school graduates, even if high school graduates are capable of learning what they need to know on the job.
The problem isn't that there isn't enough education, it's that there's TOO MUCH education. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against education per se, I'm just against the current system.
Understand, education is NOT the only way to acquire knowledge. Education is expensive and time consuming, and the fact that so many people believe
everyone should have access to free education creates this system where education is required just to have a CHANCE at making a good living. Education sounds great, but the fact it's becoming easier to obtain an education means it's harder to get a job without an education.
Our current college system is a scam, but I won't get into it right now.
The rich are getting higher incomes (becoming richer). The poor however in most cases maintain the same income while simultaneously having to deal with rising costs of living. So in this sense the rich do get richer while the poor do get poorer.
The situation we're in right now with corporatism is definitely a problem, so keep in mind that I'm not defending the current situation we're in, I'm merely bringing up some points that should be considered when looking at this issue.
When the income of the rich goes up, and the income of the poor goes down, are the poor really becoming poorer? Not necisarily. If money has more purchasing power, then the poor may actually be becoming richer despite the lower income!
Of course, you stated that living conditions are becoming more expensive, but as I said, I'm not defending the current system, I'm merely bringing up a point that should be taken into consideration.
Aye thats very true. One of my brothers main qualms is that the wages are not actually going up with the cost of living meaning life is more expensive for the basic needs.
This is, in many ways, true. Many people look at this situation and they assume that higher wage rates will solve the problem. However, higher wage rates will merely inflate prices, so raising wage rates won't fix the problem (which is why min. wage laws don't really do anything since inflation always catches back up).
if everybody paid the taxes, there would be no need to make them higher or tax the rich more and stuff like that.
Well, taxation doesn't work because the government is incompetent.
We all need to pay taxes to support our Governments but sometimes it is too much for some families to cope, believe me the rich try hard but I believe the only way through these difficult times is to work together. I don't just mean the rich handing out millions to the poor but starting up businesses to create more jobs and other schemes to help those in desperate need out of poverty.
As I said earlier, jobs must be efficient. Government jobs are rarely, if ever, efficient. If created jobs aren't profitable, then you may as well hire people to dig and fill holes all day.
The government should NEVER, EVER, create jobs for the purpose of creating jobs. I can't think of ANY exceptions. If the government creates jobs, it should be for the purpose of providing goods and services that have a high demand, but a non-existent market. Even then, the government should hire as few workers as possible while creating as high an efficiency as possible. This means the government should be careful not to hire too few people, but it also means they should be careful not to hire too many people.
Again, government should (arguably) hire people to provide goods and services that are in high-demand, but are not provided due to a nearly non-existent market for those goods and services. Never should the government create jobs for the sake of increasing employment.
In the current system. Of course we can survive without the tax system but we do need other ways of distributing resources in a wise and logical way.
*cough*freemarket*cough*I don't really want to get too into it right now, but I believe the only system that could exist without taxation is a free market system.
I also have a friend who is in the same position she was. He is strugling to find ANY job, nevermind one that uses his Masters Degree. I think that education has more knock on effect than just getting a good job and can open someones mind to many possibilities and also many avenues of survival. Sadly some of the most indocrinated people are also the most educated. By indocrinated I mean people who fight to keep the status quo even tho it clearly does not benefit everyone nor does it benefit the human race in the future either.
If I understand what you said correctly, then I agree. Education is inefficient and the reason why these hellholds aren't going out of business is because every high school graduate feels they must go to college, and it really doesn't help when the government loans so much money to students who show know signs of responsibility. This generally results in many students going to schools only to drop out. The schools continue to profit. But, again, I won't get too much into the horrible college system we have in place.
give a example plz. i wouldn't know what to do whitout all the stuff the government pays for. like roads and transport systems you know. sure a company can do that but who is going to for it? no1 but the rich can pay for it and they wont do it because rich people did not get rich whit spending their money for free stuff.
Who says the rich would have to provide goods and services for free, or that people won't willingly pay for these goods and services? You can make arguments as to why the government should provide certain goods and services, but be careful backing it up on the grounds that you can't imagine it happening without the government.
There's an joke about Soviet Russia. Two women are standing in long line, waiting to get bread. One woman says to the other, "I'm so tired of standing in line for hours, just so that I can eat!" The other woman replies, "Be grateful comrade, I hear that over in America, the government doesn't even provide bread for their people!"
I mean working in mundane needless jobs. I thought machines were meant to save us from work? They could really. Again this is idealism but also absolutly true. People dont actually need to sit in an office and sort out life insurance, do they? This does not make the world work. What it does do is keep the current system ticking over. A system that has failed a huge part of the worlds population.
Though it may not be impossible, I think it's highly improbably, that machines would completely rule out all human labor.
I would hate it if machines were to take over our jobs. We would lose meaning to life, there would be no need to undertake education since machines will take care of us.
I disagree. I believe a system where machines provided everything humans needed would not rob humans of their will to educate themselves, or find meaning in their life. Many people would find hobbies, and those who enjoyed working with their hands would surely be able to find stuff they can do. Of course, I don't believe this kind of society will ever exist. I believe there will always be a need for people when it comes to machines.
Even doctors are reputed to be possible victims, when machines diagnose much more efficiently than them.
This could result in less job openings for doctors, but I personally don't think so. Even if the result did turn out to be true, it wouldn't be a bad thing. With machines diagnosing patients, doctors will be able to focus more on other matters. It would create efficiency, and either more jobs will open up for doctors due to the efficiency, or there will be more jobs in other fields such as engineering, computer science. and other medical related sciences.
