Necessity of economic inequality

[Randy]

I believe economic inequality is necessary for progression of society (or atleast parts of it). Be it individual income or purchasing parity of a country, the more you have it, the more you can afford services from those who have less of it. This seems apparent on a global scale where countries with higher purchasing parity are able to afford cheap labor on a large scale from developing countries. The quality of life of all countries can be likened to a zero sum game, where it is necessary to have a lower quality of life in one place to faciliate a higher quality of life in another; the same can be said about individual circumstances. Am I right in this assumption?

Thoughts?

 

[DrLeftover]

I would challenge anybody to name a society that existed on a generational timescale (for more than about 20 years) that did NOT have a significant number of poor / peasants and a very few 'aristocratic' persons in it.

 

[DrLeftover]

Or it could just be the government at all levels running people out of business

You will notice that this is NOT from those disgusting haters at Fox News.


U.S. businesses are being destroyed faster than they’re being created
5 May

The American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last three decades. That's the conclusion of a new study out from the Brookings Institution, which looks at the rates of new business creation and destruction since 1978.

Not only that, but during the most recent three years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/05/u-s-businesses-are-being-destroyed-faster-than-theyre-being-created/?hpid=z5

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I believe economic inequality is necessary for progression of society (or atleast parts of it). Be it individual income or purchasing parity of a country, the more you have it, the more you can afford services from those who have less of it. This seems apparent on a global scale where countries with higher purchasing parity are able to afford cheap labor on a large scale from developing countries. The quality of life of all countries can be likened to a zero sum game, where it is necessary to have a lower quality of life in one place to faciliate a higher quality of life in another; the same can be said about individual circumstances. Am I right in this assumption?

Thoughts?

Perfect.

 

[seasidemike]

I believe economic inequality is necessary for progression of society (or atleast parts of it). Be it individual income or purchasing parity of a country, the more you have it, the more you can afford services from those who have less of it. This seems apparent on a global scale where countries with higher purchasing parity are able to afford cheap labor on a large scale from developing countries. The quality of life of all countries can be likened to a zero sum game, where it is necessary to have a lower quality of life in one place to faciliate a higher quality of life in another; the same can be said about individual circumstances. Am I right in this assumption?

Thoughts?

Spoken like a true person on the higher quality of life side of the fence.

Yes, that is how the rich get richer.

 

[DrLeftover]

If I may be so bold as to quote something that was said 2000 years ago or so, and is evidently still true today.

"The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me."

Mark 14 : 7 (NIV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014&version=NIV

 

[buysell-browse.com]

I would challenge anybody to name a society that existed on a generational timescale (for more than about 20 years) that did NOT have a significant number of poor / peasants and a very few 'aristocratic' persons in it.

Switzerland.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I believe economic inequality is necessary for progression of society (or atleast parts of it). Be it individual income or purchasing parity of a country, the more you have it, the more you can afford services from those who have less of it. This seems apparent on a global scale where countries with higher purchasing parity are able to afford cheap labor on a large scale from developing countries. The quality of life of all countries can be likened to a zero sum game, where it is necessary to have a lower quality of life in one place to faciliate a higher quality of life in another; the same can be said about individual circumstances. Am I right in this assumption?

Thoughts?

Spoken like a true person on the higher quality of life side of the fence.

Yes, that is how the rich get richer.

And thats how the poor get away from being poor also. I did just that starting at the bottom with no education whatsoever and on my own. Now the people below me have the same opportunity because they make money from my better fortune in life. Its just up to them to make something of it. Or not.

 

[DrLeftover]

But I don't want to work, and society is out to get me, and the Government will take care of me by redistributing the wealth others work for.

 

[Evil Eye]

Switzerland.

That would depend on how one interprets the question.
We could view the Swiss as the small "aristocratic" population and workers in low income countries as the poor/peasant majority.