Definitions Of World Equality That Are Achievable In The Next 100 Years?

My possible definition is the global equality of company sizes by the use of world-wide capping of the number of employees. The Equality of Corporations Act? If the number of employees were more similar then there would be no more bullying of smaller companies by the giants. Just about achievable in theory..

Do you have other ideas about what world equality can actually mean in reality?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since I predict that people will become less equal not more as people vested with power reframe the excuses used to exploit the masses, I think the question of what "world" equality will look like is redundant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Equality before the law

I'll take proper equality before the law (e.g., equal protection). I don't think we can achieve proper equal justice or material equality for everyone in the world in the next hundred years.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward it, but forcing the issue before we have the capacity to provide true equality will result, at best, in a lesser, unsatisfactory standard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I heartily agree with this way of thinking. It's the ONLY way, surely?

 

There's always hope: Humans With Green Skin Could Live Off Sunlight. That would solve the food crisis, anyway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think equality before the law (which I strongly believe in) and material equality are mutually exclusive. We all have different abilities, temperments, work ethics. All other things being equal, our unequal abilities/personalities will result in an unequal distribution of material goods. The only way to achieve material equality would be to take from those who end up with more; but that means you are violating the property rights of the high earners. So there goes equality before the law.

 

You know, We got taught in propaganda Economics that Inequality actually promotes economic growth.
Naturally, like all things, the extremes aren't good. I wonder what it's like in Denmark, where the Gini Coefficient is the closest to equal.

 

Very interesting. Incentive promotes economic growth, doesn't it? The incentive of the impoverished is to aspire to the wealth of the people they see on TV, no doubt. Maybe there's a way of incentivising a world that is more equal, to continue the growth of global wealth?? (Equality doesn't necessarily equal communism)

 

Maybe a more practical alternative is Green Fish. These could fill our oceans and mass at the surface to catch the sun's rays. Good for humans, whales, dolphins etc..Is this a feasible avenue of research in solving the predicted world food shortage of the near future?

 

While I tend to agree with this, it seems to me that you're explaining why some people become janitors and make $20k/year while others become engineers and make $200k/year.

What really tends to piss off the people who care about material equality is the stock speculator, guy who inherited money, etc. who ends up with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for doing what on the face of it doesn't seem like much work. While I can certainly imagine that the engineer is 10x as hardworking and intelligent as the janitor, and therefor probably contributing to society etc. in a much more significant way, it seems unlikely to me that the multi-millionaire stock speculator is hundreds of times more intelligent and hard-working.

 

Exactly. I know I wouldn't have worked my ass off to become a doctor if there wasn't some material reward for my efforts.

Sure. How about a better example, say and actors or atheletes. It really pisses me off when baseball players or actors go on strike. Or some multi-millionaire quarterback holds out for an extra million. Meanwhile, the average family can barely afford to even go to a game because they over charge you for everything from parking to hot dogs to the $100 team jersey.

Still, I'd rather put up with that than give the government the power to set salaries, etc.

 

Nicely put. The same attitude pervades in the UK towards the finance sector. It's difficult to argue against a business entrepreneur who has made millions from design and retail of goods for example, but the hedge-fund bankers are a different kettle of fish altogether.

 

tax anything over 10million at 99%

 

Although that doesn't seem like such a bad idea per se, the problem is that the super-rich would probably just move to some other country that had a more favorable tax system. For practical purposes it would be very hard to collect it.

 

Tax the movement of funds offshore.

 

Again, I just don't think enforcement would really be possible. How do you tax money "moving oversees" if a company has facilities in six countries that all share the same bank account, and that all buy things from other companies in 15 other countries? Having high taxes for super-high incomes isn't necessarily a bad idea, but for practical purposes I don't think it could be implemented.

 

Given that we all give different measurements (of weight, intelligence, dietary intake, gender etc) a precise plan for equality requires a a concise definition of exactly what grounds we are equal.

IOW I think we have to unpack exactly the adage "all (wo)men are created equal" which under-rides so much of this discussion

 

Unless we can overcome our beliefs to reach for common goals together on a global scale, we won't have unity. It is next to impossible to find equality without unity.

 

and its impossible to find unity without knowing what it is that unifies us

 

Ha!