Should everyone get equal pay
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
|
Sex, religion, race, and culture should typically have nothing to do with how much you get paid in and of themselves. But if your beliefs are that you should get paid equally as much as the next guy for producing half the value, I wouldn't pay you at all. I would fire you. Most pay disparity is explainable by economic factors which are outside the superficial classes people often like to care about. Side: No
1
point
2
points
2
points
"This is not just an issue of fairness, it's a family issue," said President Obama at a White House event marking Equal Pay Day, the point in 2014 to which the average woman needed to work in order to match the 2013 wages of the average male worker. You going against your party narrative Jewel ????????? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
Undertale, You need to get paid for the amount of work you put into your job and how does you job affect the society. You seem to have two different and often opposed standards mixed together. Standard 1-Effort: People who want to pay for effort may end up paying a crippled octogenarian more than a strong and healthy 20-year-old the same amount for digging a hole of the exact same size. Standard 2-Value: People who want to pay for value only care about the result and how it benefits them, or how much they need it. Often this standard is affected by scarcity of the particular skill, or the current demand for the skill. This is how athletes and entertainers come to make as much as they do. The people who pay them (concert promoters, sports leagues, etc. pay according to how much value they receive by selling tickets to watch these people's performances. In general, people are paid over the long run based on standard 2. Side: Yes
0
points
1
point
'Merican boy, But there isn’t enough money to go around. Unless you want everyone to be poor. I think you misunderstand how money works and how wealth is created. The problem is not that you think communism is a path to widespread poverty; you are correct about that. The problem is that you talk about wealth as if it is finite, as if wealth distribution is a zero-sum game. Money in the sense in which you mean it (not to be confused with currency) is not intrinsically finite. Wealth is created by people doing things (creating products and providing services.) Money is merely a way to carry the value of those products and services around. The money is how you move the wealth you created (by doing whatever you do for a living) to where you can trade it for the wealth someone else created (like Twinkies, a professional massage, or gasoline, etc.) When someone purchases a product or service, that product/service is purchased with the value of some previous product/service the buyer previously sold. That is a critical point: BOTH parties have to do something somebody else values in order to the create wealth that is exchanged in any transaction. What is important in wealth creation is that people have to be motivated to DO or MAKE things that other people want so they can trade them for the things they want. The more products and services people produce and SELL, the more money/wealth there is. This is how free market capitalism has managed to lift most of the world from starving and owning virtually nothing to having iPhones and cars and food, and medical care, etc. The wealth is actually the products and services people now make and trade and have access to worldwide. The reason merely giving stuff away would not work is that the people who receive the free stuff do not have to create any wealth in order to get the stuff. Mass giveaways like socialism or communism make it possible for people to lose the survival-based and greed-based motivation to make more wealth. If the stuff is perishable (e.g., food, services that do not result in a tangible product) then the total amount of actual wealth goes down. Side: Yes
1
point
0
points
|
