But
another authority has a different perspective. According
to the BBC News Magazine,ii
the average annual income of the 7 billion people alive at the time
of publication was $10,000.iii
There
are a lot of “fudge factors” built into that calculation, and
there are many involved in its interpretation, but if everyone
received $10,000 annually (that's $50,000 for a family of five) it
would be necessary to rethink our definition of “poor.”
The
problem, of course, is distribution. At present the money is, for
the most part, hoarded by a minority. Thus there are the “rich”
– the minority (or, at least, some of them) – and the “poor”
– everyone else.
But,
for the moment, let's forget the reality of maldistribution and
imagine a world in which everyone received an equal share of the
earnings each year. It certainly sounds good. The world would be a
utopia, and we would all be equal.iv
We might fulfill the words of our own Declaration of Independence,
“...all menv
are created equal...” As I said, it sounds good. It's the ideal
for which we should all be striving.vi
After all, wouldn't that solve most of the world's problems? If we
were all equal we wouldn't covet the possessions of others, and crime
would no longer exist.
For
the poor the answer is certainly “yes.” But Americans are not
poor, and some of us might not be willing to cooperate in such a
plan. Based on US census data (2010), our average household income
is $69,821, and our highest average family size is in Utah, where it
is 3.56 persons. The lowest family size is in Maine and it is 2.83.
Thus the average per capita income in the US is somewhere between
$19,613 and $24,672. The numbers suggest that the average American
would be badly hurt by such a redistribution.
Such
an attitude, however, is selfish. A more generous approach is an
equal division of income, even if it is harmful to us. And it would
also be reasonable to divide all the land mass equallyvii
among the earth's people and to give them equal shares of corporate
earnings as well as personal earnings. And equal shares of the
corporations, as well. Indeed, all property, real and intellectual,
should be everyone's. Add to that world citizenship and a single
currency system,viii
and we've achieved our perfect world.ix
All needs would be met and we'd all contribute to that paradise.
“From each according to his ability,
to
each according to his needs.”x
Of
course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there
are a few kinks with which we might have to deal. Before we began
with even the first step, we'd have to establish a bureaucracy to
deal with the complex decisions and the steps necessary to implement
the new system. We'd need a government. (In all likelihood, they
would feel entitled to some extra compensation because of the
difficulty and responsibility inherent in their tasks.) Having
accomplished that, these new civil servants would have to formulate a
method to redistribute the funds and to divide up the land and other
property – as well as to get it to each citizen. Decisions would
have to be made concerning the choice of land for each person,xi
since there are different levels of fertility and different climates.
Perhaps a lottery would be the fairest way.xii
It would mean that friends and family might be divided, but that's
an acceptable price to pay for paradise.
It's
possible that the new economic system might have consequences which
were not intended. How would the banks and stock market react to the
breakup and sharing of corporate wealth, and to the equalization of
funds around the world? Who would run the businesses that now exist?
And what's in it for them – or, indeed, for those who work in
those businesses? After all, if there is going to be an equalization
each year, there's little to be gained by excessive effort or
initiative. For that matter, there is little to be gained by any
effort or initiative at all.xiii
Who
– if anyone – would buy what the factories produce? What would
be the consumption pattens of the newly-rich and of those who may
have lost most of their assets? Would there be any investment of new
wealth? Would wealth (“resources” is probably a better word) be
heritable or otherwise transmissible? Would parents be able to
administer the “earnings” of minor children,xiv
or adult children of elderly and incompetent parents? It is assumed
that the government would provide medical, legal, and other services
for everyone.xv
And, of course, that government would decide on what music and art
should be supported and available to everyone. That's more efficient
than having differences based on folk themes or stylesxvi
that differ around the world, and it will contribute to the uniformity
that we all seek.
The
trade-offs are doable. And the result is perfection. What
right-thinking personxvii
would argue with that? And who would not be willing to accept the
limitations of the new paradise?
I'll
bet the world will look a lot better to the next generation.
Next
episode: “Planned Parenthood” – Discouraging pregnancy.
ii March
29, 2012.
iii The
BBC got its numbers from the United
Nations' International Labour
[sic – that's the way the Brits spell it] Organization
(ILO).
iv In
this case, those who favor such a utopia would probably be seeking
an equality of outcome (or, more accurately, income) rather than one
of opportunity. They're not the same. And neither could possibly
believe that we can all be physically or intellectually equal. But
what good is equal opportunity if everyone doesn't have it (and they don't) and if some make more of it than others
and wind up with greater incomes? So
let's make it equality of income. It may not be
better, but it sounds better.
v In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)
v In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)
vi Individualism
will, naturally, be discouraged since it only leads to inequality.
vii Will
they be equal in size, productivity, or value? What happens to the
buildings already on the land?
viii As
well as a common religion, or atheism, for all.
ix Management
of paradise, and our own adjustment to it, will be aided by a
population that all think, believe, and act the same.
x That
was Karl Marx's vision of equality as outlined in his “Critique
of the Gotha Program”
(1875). “Needs” are difficult to assess. Those accustomed to
more (the rich) may “need” more.
xi Would
land have a cash value? Could it be inherited (indeed, the whole
question of inheritance of money and other property would require
evaluation) or would it be assigned to the newborns as people died?
These are decisions that would be made by our government – our
honorable co-citizens who surely have our best interests at heart –
not their own.
xii People
would have to be transported to their new property, so there would
have to be workers in the transportation industry.
xiii Knowing
that all our needs will be provided for will free us all up to do
what we want. For some – the do-gooders among us – sitting
still is not an option and they'll want to be productive
irrespective of the need. For others, however, and I am one of
them, would prefer to loll around or otherwise waste time rather
than be productive.
xiv Actually,
sexual contact should be unlimited and open to all. Any children
would be cared for by the state and not be a bother to their
parents. That would limit both administration and inheritance
problems.
xv Rationing
may be necessary but that's the subject of a different discussion.
It brings us back, however, to the question of who governs us and
who makes the decisions. Assuming a single world government with
over seven billion citizens, individualized evaluations would be
difficult.
xvi Since
people will be moved around following the land lottery, however,
that should no longer be an issue. The prior countries will no
longer exist, and their music and arts will disappear.
xvii Or
non-thinking person.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.