With the push of a button
- Thread starter ~Wonder
- Start date
yakherder
老外
Don't see why not 
I'd invest ALL of my money first though in an attempt to make myself rich quick, and if it didn't work then I'd be broke and poor. So long I'm not in the middle class who didn't get anything out of the button push.
I'd invest ALL of my money first though in an attempt to make myself rich quick, and if it didn't work then I'd be broke and poor. So long I'm not in the middle class who didn't get anything out of the button push.
If the button opens up opportunities for people to better themselves I'd be for it, if it's just a magic button that instantly creates wealth, no. More to human existence than instant gratification without earning it.
But the question isn't about income increasing, but about quality of life increasing! I want everyone's quality of life to increase as much as possible.
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,170
- Age
- 45
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,170
- Age
- 45
Maybe. At first, certainly. But if Poor Guy's life is suddenly ten times better than it was yesterday, he is upbeat and ready for more good things to happen. He sees his equally poor brother-in-law, they get to talking about the upturn in events. Working together, they come up with an idea to make and sell vegan hardwood wedding rings at ridiculously high prices to rich people who are suddenly happy because of their improved lives.
OK, maybe that's a pipe dream. I think I would still rather risk the rich being jerks so the poor could have somewhat easier lives.
Spang
Foot Fetisher
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Reaction score
- 6,170
- Age
- 45
Also, the folks who were already making $113,000 a year, would now join the "new and improved" poor. There would be more poor people, and the rich would continue getting richer. The rich are already getting richer, they don't need a hundredfold improvement.
yakherder
老外
We all seem to be equating "improve life" with "multiply income." If income disparity is the problem, then by default improving the lives of the rich might mean less income and improving the lives of the poor might mean more income. So as long as we stick with the original result of lives being improved, then yes gimme that button.
Even if it were just about money, the newly not-poor -anymore would have enough to eat, and shoes and stuff. Good things.
Yes, this is what I mean.
I think we have to suspend logic on the question and just make the assumption such a thing won't happen. More of a theoretical question. Which is more important... everyone better off or more equality at the cost of overall well being.
I feel like the real question, though, is Is it important for the very poor to obtain the basics, even if it means the rich are proportionally happier as a result?
Saying you wouldn't do it because the rich, who already have more than they need, will get so much more is a prime example of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.
