Forum Post: Critique this argument, please.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 27, 2012, 1:44 p.m. EST by xyz123
(0)
from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 1 day ago by agkaiser
1 comments 5 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 8 months ago by gsw
2 comments 12 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
The article is kind of dopey, but I'll say this. Income inequality is not the issue on it's own, it is the fact that so many people do not have enough. The wealthy can have all the wealth they want as long as everyone has enough.
No, it's a basic given that people need to have the basics in order to have a confortable life. However, poverty has a second dimension, a relative one. Other people becoming obscenely rich is not good for the cohesion of a society. This has been shown several times over in different fields, be it sociology, economics or psychology.
I would agree with you.
I agree. As long as the bread in their pockets ( the Rich ) was not taken from someone Else's mouth. They can have all the bread they want. Just let us all give credit/value where credit/value is due.
Is it too much to ask?
No it is not too much to ask that everyone be given proper respect acknowledgement, credit and value. Hell by doing so the rich would still get richer but at the same time they would not be increasing poverty.
Exactly. It would be a win win.
Yes. By promoting real credit and value to those who do the actual work. The tax base and revenue would increase all around. Taxes could lower as there would be a broader support base, sales would increase as more people would be allowed to spend on other things than mere survival. So profits would increase for those who own the business that the workers make successful. True "healthy" economy at work.
But what is "enough"?
Something like a living wage where a person can support a family and actually be able to pay for housing, food, transportation, education, healthcare, and any other basics that would provide a decent life. It is a complex calculation that would be based on geography and cost of living.
While cohesion may have different connotations ranging from union through continuity, I think, today, what we in a connected world need to address is social progression compounded with economic sustainability.
Although the author transcends the narrow issues of income inequality in his discussion on the topic, he only reiterates a subset of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 25 and 26).
The scholar may be very well-versed on this subject, but unfortunately the article is shallow in addressing today’s social divide.
To discuss the economics of social cohesion without regard to the societal infrastructure, be it cultural, judicial, political and moral, is the basis for a myopic, weak and non-sustainable economic and social structure.
In the context of a socially cohesive Europe and its anthem “Ode to Joy”, what comes readily to mind is the following from the speech of Václav Havel, Czech playwright, essayist, poet, dissident and politician.
“I believe that the European Union should place greater and more evident stress on the things are truly of foremost importance, namely its spiritual foundations and values …My wish is that Schiller’s Ode to Joy should cease to be for us and our descendants simply a poem celebrating friendship among people and be transformed instead into a powerful symbol of our common striving for a more humane world. “
Europe has been cited to keep this critique within the realm of the regional publication, however the same applies for all of us after all we are living in a connected world.
In conclusion, the article in discussing social cohesion might have been progressive and pragmatic if it touched upon structural aspects based upon the foundations of a moral value system which address the aspirations of the human spirit.
It is great that rhetoric can be used to constantly define the rich and the poor. Yet, no one truly looks at the full concept of what is taking place in this country. It is economics, pure and simple. There are many educated individuals who do not have access to the basic necessities of this world. Why? Because people fail to understand that there IS a class war...and realistically OW has defined it....99% are ruled, governed, regulated, and controlled by that particular class because this is how it has been initiated and set up in this CORPORATE country. It is not a matter of the haves and the have nots...it is a matter of the elitists maintaining economic control. Define the elitists and you will understand why there is an imbalance in morality and ethics throughout this nation and the world!!!
This is the second time that I have heard in the last two weeks that has focused on the following:
In this society, to what extent does income inequality still matter? If everyone’s basic needs are satisfied, does it matter that some individuals have even more? Obviously, this is not the type of society we live in, but it raises an important question. Have we been too narrowly focused on income inequality when we should really be focused on a more fundamental issue: ensuring everyone has access to a minimum level of basic goods and services such as education and healthcare and an equal opportunity to earn a respectable living?
They attempt to redefine the argument even though the argument has already been defined. I call it a bullshit game of semantics. Unless, his audience is really that inept and he must put it into simple terms for them. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.