It's naturally permanent, because naturally there always will be those low income. — ssu

No it isn't natural that there are low income (and we agree that low income are those who couldn't afford a lot of things that moderate and above average earners enjoy).
You should read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. This Graeber was advocating basic income for all, so that even low income people don't have to work the stupid jobs.

You should read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. — L'éléphant

Good book.

Yeah. :up:

I believe I already mentioned this somewhere but here's the deal.

When your pay is subsistence-only, the money you get today can be used only to put enough food in your tummy to get to work the next day. That's a raw deal any way you look at it. The cycle continues daily, weekly, monthly, year on end, until you can no longer sustain it - you fall ill or you die.

Work (today) $\rightarrow$ Pay (for today's work) $\rightarrow$ Food (for tomorrow's work) $\rightarrow$ Work (tomorrow).

Where is the humanity in this?

It doesn't have to be this way, though. There's enough wealth on earth to sustain all people without poverty and starvation.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. — L'éléphant

That's how change begins! Godspeed!

It's called optimization of meeting the needs of everybody. Yes, a few individuals might have to forgo buying the $100,000,000 yachts. But it's okay. You can't bring your yacht to your grave.

No it isn't natural that there are low income — L'éléphant

If income varies even a bit, there will be low and high income.

we agree that low income are those who couldn't afford a lot of things that moderate and above average earners enjoy — L'éléphant

Yet this defintion simply needs the idea of absolute povetry.

If income varies even a bit, there will be low and high income. — ssu

Okay, I meant poverty income -- those just above or below poverty level set forth by the government, depending on inflation and per capita income of a country. If there's basic income for everybody, no one has to do stupid jobs.

Okay, I meant poverty income -- those just above or below poverty level set forth by the governmen — L'éléphant

Yep. And for this you basically have to have measure of absolute poverty.

Why I took this up is because if one let's say just looks at income inequality, then you can get draw wrong conclusions about the issue. Because the fact is that income inequality decreases when there is a war or a severe economic depression. That hardly is good for the poorest, who a hit the most.

If there's basic income for everybody, no one has to do stupid jobs. — L'éléphant

Or perpetual unemployment benefits. Now a welfare state does create it's own problems, but these are really not so big to the problems of there being no welfare state or there cracks in the welfare network, through which people can fall into absolute poverty.

If you desire greater capital, then it is achievable to the degree that you give effort. Partake in more capitalistic endeavors.

Why I took this up is because if one let's say just looks at income inequality, then you can get draw wrong conclusions about the issue. Because the fact is that income inequality decreases when there is a war or a severe economic depression. That hardly is good for the poorest, who a hit the most. — ssu

I don't think income inequality is the issue here. I'm talking about meeting more than basic needs and not slave away for crappy jobs. There will always be income inequality, but that's not the same as bringing the bottom on higher economic scale so that housing and healthcare are not based on income.

Or perpetual unemployment benefits. — ssu

No, not necessarily unemployment benefits. But universal basic income.

If you desire greater capital, then it is achievable to the degree that you give effort. Partake in more capitalistic endeavors. — chiknsld

I'm not sure what you mean here. But yes, we can have capitalism without the few getting the lion's share. When wages are a matter of allotted budget, and not what the employees are worth, then we have a problem. The board of directors or business owners could always justify that "this is all we could give to wage budget", without thinking of the worth of labor or contribution employees provide.