Enough to satisfy one’s own standard of living, as they see it, according to their abilities.
What’s wealth. Even the richest can still not be wealthy.
Money.
Money is wealth? Then why are some people with money but still not happy?
Because wealth and happiness aren’t the same thing.
Can’t you be wealthy with happiness? Plentiful in a resource that isn’t material?
Hungry children. Homeless veterans. This is America? There is so much fear here that some will get what they don’t deserve that those who do deserve are left out.
I don’t know.
My husband and I barely made rent, our power and water were shut off, we lived on beans, pasta, cheapest meats and vegies and water, milk belonged to our son. For almost two years we lived this way. It took years to get our life now. Were we poor? No. We could have gone to the government for help but, we chose not to. I look back and realize the hard times were valuable, that it made us. It made two into one. That is wealth.
[size=109]Is it[/size] [size=200]true[/size] [size=109]that[/size] [size=140]one out of five children of the US go to bed hungry[/size][size=200]?[/size]
Now here is the kicker. NWealth distribution cannot be assessed inside out. Cannot at all read the tarot of the mystery pointing to local US statistics, because, it is a matter of policy, (economic, political and social determinants) which rule the whole train.
In order to avoid a wreck, which would empoverish a multitude far far in excess, of the present suffering, this train has run away, it cannot be stopped. the idea is, that regulation, new markets arising through world capitalism, will extend the run far enough into the future, that by the time critical limits will benreached in the markets, new ideas, products, and educational and productivity quotients will rise, to offset the foreseeable crisis.
Huge differences of capital distribution would conceivably be similarly equalized by social perimeters of the charitable foundations to science, education, and world wide permeable immigration policies.
The sad part of unequal distribution is not quantifiable as re: changes in approbable subjective values. The only possible solution to that problem is through education to alternative forms of sub cultures.
This is why, I frown on those, who think that the new left has completely become a shadow concept. Even the die hard humanist Matxists are still viable and they do have , at least on paper, a structural relevance, which in part, can offer some linkage to morally tenable alternatives.
I appreciate your effort and understanding.
With love,
Sanjay
Wealth inequality will never be corrected, and it is not possible to correct it. The main reason is the fact that there are rulers and those who are ruled, another reason is the fact that there are different cultures, different mentalaities, different interests, and so on (don’t forget the multiple possibilities of the rulers to display or sidestep all that). So egalitarianism leads to even more inequality, especially in the long run. But there is one possibility I have not mentioned yet: If the number of a society is small enough, then there is a chance to correct inequality, at least in a bearable sense. So the larger the inhabitant number of a social unit the higher the inequality degree within it. But this is true only if those tiny units are left alone and not “eaten” by the big units, especially the biggest unit (e.g.: the current “world society”); and the big „societies“ and especially the biggest „society“ are always hungry.
Again:
[size=109]Is it[/size] [size=200]true[/size] [size=109]that[/size] [size=140]one out of five children of the US go to bed hungry[/size][size=200]?[/size]
Hungry vs. starving. The words: 1 out 5 go to bed hungry , is about drama.
Note that no one is saying starving as they do about other countries. Children in other countries are truly starving to death. In the USA. kids will be hungry but, not starving. There are far too many programs for feeding kids. If a child is starving it is parental abuse that is the cause not society neglectfulness. I live out in the sticks where most are poor but, government and charities help the families in need… You do have to ask for help or if you don’t and it is found out, you will be arrested for neglect or abuse.
Wealth polarisation is harmful to growth.
The vast majority of demand in the economy comes from the lower paid, as they perforce represent the majority of people. When you introduce excessive austerity, and inequality you soon some to a state where the poorest in society are only earning enough for the most basic living expenses.
In the west water, fuel, electricity and basic housing costs are so high that a growing number of people have no disposable income for luxuries like a pension, a car, or more than the most basic accoutrements of civilisation.
The tragedy comes with people making things they themselves can no longer afford. This squeezes the economy and when such demand falls, those goods are no longer made.
It has been the success of the left for 100 years to take steps to share the fruits of society with progressive taxation, to provide is infrastructure such as education, roads, defence. This role has been increasingly attacked by the right.
But if wealth polarisation is allowed to continue the result is the eventual destruction of the economy and a return to the slave economies of the past which saw a minority with massive obscene wealth whilst the majority suffered and starved.
It’s all about choice. Right now most western economies are choosing the wrong strategy.
People don’t want charity. They want a fair days pay for a fair day’s work. They want an adequate share of the profits they labour for.
Instead what they get is taxation that is paid to the corporations in subsidies so that the corporate owners can wallow in their stys.
They face downwards pressure on their wages and upwards pressure on prices. All fuelled by a government in the hands of corporate power.
That is not the issue. The issue is about the degree of inequality, and the disparities of wealth that mean one child whose parents do no work, eats a $40 burgers, gets to go to collage, lives in a walled community; whilst another in the same country goes hungry, despite both parents working.
The hell people don’t want charity. Every damn one of us would love to be able to have everything we need without having to work for it. If we could do it, keep our pride and dignity, we would do it. Why do you think there are lotteries and casinos? There are far too many that don’t give a damn about pride and dignity and make a life career of overusing charities and social programs. Too few actually use these things as a hand up, many use it as a hand out with out trying to work.
There are tons of investors who shirk their morals in order to profit as well.
Scum comes in all types.