I keep reading these stories about a tiny percentage of the world’s population hoarding a large percentage of the world’s wealth. What I want to know is, at what exact point is any one of us getting more than his or her fair share? In other words, if I could wave a magic wand and equalize every single adult’s earnings on the planet, what would that annual income be? (Yes, I know that a dollar doesn’t buy as many goods in New York and Calcutta, but I don’t care. The way I see it, if you work in an Asian sweatshop then hop on a plane and spend your measly paycheck at Sak’s, they’re not going to cut you a deal because of what your money’s worth in your hometown.)
Welcome to the SDMB! Cecil himself has addressed this question:
If the world’s wealth were divided equally, how much would each of us have?
Arjuna34
If all jobs had the same salary, everyone would choose an easy, fun, or otherwise appealing job, and the others would go unfilled. Yes, there are varying opinions, and what I choose will differ from what you choose, but there are some jobs that no one wants, and that how the salary ends up on the high side.
(1) None of it would be “earned”…it would be stolen from those who generated the wealth.
(2) “Fair share”? Wealth does not grow on trees (except for the lumber industry 
). It is created. Isn’t it fair that the creators of the wealth get to keep it? Isn’t it fair that the earners of the wealth get to keep what they earn? If everyone in the world wants to live in a 100% socialist society where all wealth is equally divided, then fine. But I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
(3) re: Asian-Saks connection - - That is why foreign currencies are converted before spending them in a different country.
(Welcome to the SDMB!)
Not that you’re logic is totally screwed up, but I make a hell of a lot more as an engineer than anybody at McDonald’s, and it’s quite a bit more fun.
In seriousnessidad (cool word, huh?), I can’t think of any real “bad” jobs that pay considerably more than typical for a sufficiently-educated person. Any examples, just to make this more fun?
I seem to remember that in the late '80s it was estimated that everyone in Britain could have £20,000 under a similar system. But of course it couldn’t possibly work, could it? I mean, Mrs Thatcher would never have done anything that wasn’t for our own good, would she?
Sorry, I know. Gotta let these things go.
From the CIA World Factbook 2000 (a good read, btw)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html
World GDP: US$40.7 trillion
World Population: 6.1 billion
GDP/Pop. = $6700/person
–sublight.
Balthisar wrote
You’re comparing an Engineer to a Fry-Tosser as if those are the only choices.
Why would you want to be an Engineer, when you could be a professional surfer, a rock star or a male prostitute? Hell, why not be a crack-head, a burgler, a rapist or a welfare recipient for that matter? After all, in this crazy scheme, noone cares what you do; every job has the same value as every other occupation. Oh wait, maybe that’s why it doesn’t make sense.
You’re kind of making part of my own point, Bill. It doesn’t make any sense. But my main point was in criticizing Keeve’s point that bad jobs cause salaries to go up. I don’t see that.
Income is not related to unpleasantness of work as much as it is related to productivity.
The more we produce, the more we get paid.
(All else being equal) If something is unpleasant to produce, the amount produced will decrease, increasing the market price, and therefore increasing income for those producing it.
However, producing a number one record, is, I would expect, more pleasurable than producing a hamburger, but we value it higher and pay more for producing it.
Another misconception is that money is equal to wealth.
In fact, it does not keep you particularly warm, has little nutritional value, and makes a poor weapon in case of marauding predators. To be worth anything, we must be able to spend it.
Since the wealthy have more money than they can spend, their excess is reserved for making more money. They spend it making stuff, or paying others to make stuff.
If we had no wealthy people, we would have less stuff. And our money would have less value.
So, why do we have to give a tax cut to the wealthy as well as everyone else? There’s no point in giving us more money, unless somebody produces more stuff for us to buy with it. Otherwise, the prices of existing stuff will just increase to match the extra money in the economy. Our 10% (made up number) higher paycheck will go to pay the 10% higher rent, 10% higher electric bill, and 10% higher food bill. What’s the point in that.
However if we have 10% more money, and the economy produces 10% more stuff, then we all get to live a little better.
Get it?