·
insomniasexx · 1686 days ago · link ·
So far CNN's Change the List project has provided some really, really great articles. I never expected to read two articles from CNN in the same week, let alone be impressed by both of them.
flagamuffin · 1686 days ago · link ·
She doesn't blame anyone for that -- doesn't bemoan the wealth here. She absolutely loves her job. But, to use a popular metaphor, the middle rungs of the economic ladder have vanished in Lake Providence. There's almost no middle class. Middle class stopped having children and became rich or started having them and became poor? True or not it's sad that it's so much easier in this country to go from middle class to rich than it is to go from poor to middle class. EDIT: wasoxygen said something a few months ago that has stuck with me -- if I recall correctly he questioned whether income inequality was inherently bad. Can't seem to find it now. I mention it because I can't help but be skeptical of any statistic that has the United States in the same lot as Nigeria and Iran. So I've been thinking about the point from that angle for a while now. No conclusions yet.Personal choice, including her decision to have so many children, plays a role in it, of course, but the choices in front of her are limited by a host of factors, including an income that won't support her family.
–
JackTheBandit · 1686 days ago · link ·
the idea of humans having unequal amounts access to resources, can't inherently be bad. It's an idea. The implementation and intent with which the idea is brought into society can be bad. In my world view, I dont think it makes sense for an individual to really be gathering a salary greater than $100k [which I think is already more than generous.] I'd like to create a way to just pay every person an income of $100k and all surplus profits from businesses within the society goes back into maintaining the society. I don't think its crazy simply because the people who are currently influencing the rules are blatantly doing things to benefit each other which only proves that we create whatever system we want, people just need to believe and accept it. Most opposition to the idea I've encountered seems to come from leveraging yourself against other humans. It's like how the peacock's feathers are for trying to attract a mate by a sort of boasting. Humans do the same thing in "Western Culture," that manifests in a destructive way. We horde resources for ourselves as individuals, to waste a lot of it. The pursuit of monetary gains has appears to have corrupted our means of working with each other [politics.] We're visibly damaging the environment necessary for our survival. Etc... I think if there were a psychological movement to overcome this need to place self ultimately over others, we wouldn't be drowning in this sea of negativity. [at least where I am.] We're to a point where its like that behavior is actually impeding progress as a species.
–
flagamuffin · 1686 days ago · link ·
*its existence -- sorry, was paraphrasing and probably not clear. Discourages innovation to an extent. In the same way basic income disincentivizes "basic" work, a salary cap across all fields would probably skew the labor force irretrievably. At least there is that potential, and no one wants to find out exactly what would happen.the idea of humans having unequal amounts access to resources, can't inherently be bad. It's an idea.
In my world view, I dont think it makes sense for an individual to really be gathering a salary greater than $100k [which I think is already more than generous.] I'd like to create a way to just pay every person an income of $100k and all surplus profits from businesses within the society goes back into maintaining the society. I don't think its crazy simply because the people who are currently influencing the rules are blatantly doing things to benefit each other which only proves that we create whatever system we want, people just need to believe and accept it.