i saw the picture of where you mother in law lives. While in Vietnam we visited an area that was similar in the sense that the people lived behind their sidewalk stores.
Our tour guide was friends with one of the families so they let us use their outhouse on the way out. It was an experience. You walk right off the street in a little living room that goes right into the little kitchen and than you are outside by the shower and outhouse.
While overseas i learned that we are spoiled here. I even sometimes feel guilty about the life i lead. Here i am at star bucks drinking a 3 dollars drink when people all over the world are thirsty for clean water. Once you open your eyes to this scary world it is hard not to be affected and not want to help. So with that said, my theory is that we can stop inequality through personal experience and EDUCATION!!!! Education is our only saving grace.
1 comment:
Yes, people with great wealth are, in some sense, spoiled. That is, they are overly demanding and insist upon enjoying advantages that they may not really deserve. That may be a fair generalization. Here we would need to examine what we mean by "overly demanding" and we would need to decide what people really do deserve. Your point is that everyone deserves enough to live, simply as a birthright. In wealthy societies such as ours we have other needs that grow in relation to the standards that are common around us. American standards of what is required, in terms of housing size, cars, food types and quantities, and so forth, may be vastly more than the world can provide to 7 or 8 billion people. Our "needs" in terms of entertainment: our televisions, stereos, electronic games, computers, and various electronic gadgets are likewise probably not the sort of thing that everyone in the world can have.
And we always have a choice, although we may not see it, to give up some of our household income that we use to purchase these things, and instead of buying these things, we could instead contribute to helping the very poor people in very poor countries, or we could help the hungry and homeless in our own communities.
To some extent we already have agreed collectively to tax ourselves, and depending upon where we live and how wealthy we are, anything from 16% to 55% of our income will go to the common good through sales taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and various tax burdens passed on to us in the form of higher prices for our housing rents and so forth. This money is supposed to "promote the general welfare" and we're supposed to have some control over where it goes. Quite a bit of it goes to reducing poverty in our own communities or our nation. A very little portion of it goes abroad as foreign aid, but this amount is a small fraction of a cent out of every tax dollar we give up.
So, if you want to do something about it, remember that you are, when you pay taxes. You also have some influence when you vote for candidates who will do more to reduce poverty.
But quite aside from that, there is still the opportunity for charitable giving and giving of time. There are few ethical systems that literally expect you to give up all your income and wealth to serve the poor, especially the poor who live at great distances from you. Most ethical systems give you a responsibility to cultivate yourself, rear children or contribute to your family, and participate in society where you live. To do this in America requires certain expenditures. For example, if you have children, you must save to pay for their education. If you have parents, you ought to save to help care for them in their old age. If you want to participate in community life, you need to secure some form of transportation, housing, and respectable clothing.
The point is, all these things could be a means to an end (living as a person who is involved in one's community), rather than a goal in and of themselves. People each have their own idea of how much is enough. Some people will feel they have enough when they have $2,000 per month. Others when they have $3,000. Others won't be satisfied until they can earn and spend $5,000 per month. When you earn more than you currently need (say, you find your needs are about $2,000 per month, but you earn $3,000 per month), it makes good sense to save some of the surplus to keep in case you run into trouble and need it, but it also makes sense to give some of that extra money away.
How much money to most Americans give away? How much is considered reasonable? I know someone who has about $1,800 each month in money he can spend as he likes (this is how much he has left over after he has paid all his utilities, bills, housing costs, and so forth). This person gives away about $1,500, and keeps about $300 to spend on himself, for food and so forth.
Americans have a tradition of giving away a significant fraction of their time and their income. It's an interesting question whether Chinese will have the same tradition. What is the tradition of feeling that one owes something to poor people in China? Do people have a sense that it is good to pay taxes to pay for a welfare system that will protect people from harmful poisons, poverty, natural disasters, diseases, and so forth?
People in China must certainly open their eyes and see what is around them. Do they also feel that they must help? It seems like it would be human nature to do so. But, perhaps culture also plays a role, and culture pushes Americans to want to do something, to get involved, to help, and to improve a situation. Other cultures are more accepting of whatever happens to be going on.
You mention that education might be a key to addressing inequality? Have you found any articles that look at the quality of education and say that educational quality is related to income equality? I think you could have a good hypothesis that in societies where good educations are given to just about everyone, the pay and wealth differences should decrease. Most people have approximately equal abilities and talents, and if everyone has a good chance to develop where they can be most successful, then the society ought to work out as a prosperous place where people find a way to earn a good living. And with everyone so well educated, they are likely to not put up with certain individuals hoarding money and power. In societies with more unequal educational opportunities, many will remain ignorant of the injustices of inequality, or they will be unable to find ways of constructively thinking about how income and wealth might be re-distributed. Also, ignorant people are less able to find their interests, and can be manipulated into voting for people whose government policies will harm them. In societies where some are very well educated and many are very poorly educated I suspect inequality would increase, and it would be difficult to reverse the trend.
What do you think? Have you found anything in your readings that supports such ideas?
Post a Comment