Patrick (limestone) wrote in future_liberals,

Today's Thoughts

Moyers on the Daily Show mentions how in the 1960's the spread between the wealthy and the poor was 35 fold, and today its 72 fold.
But is that a fair assessment?
If humanity as a whole has increased its lot, then what does it matter if a few at the top horde a little? Isn't total well-being a sufficient measure of progress? If Moyers is trying to point out that stratification spells doom, then what is the evidence of that?
I say no big deal. And I'd like to use sports as  a metaphor.
I would surmise that the spread of wealth between professional soccer teams, globally, is greater now than ever. Where in the '60's I'm guessing the difference between the poorest team and the richest was, say 100 fold, today it may be 2,000 fold. I'm speaking of payroll per team per club. (Some clubs support multiple teams at different stages.) But the issue is not differences between payroll but the quality of play, or to be more comparable, quality of life of the players, especially the poorest.
I mean, who cares about the lifestyle of the Beckhams when the overall condition for the players has improved dramatically. Let the Beckhams have theirs. It won't last forever anyway.

Which brings up another interesting issue, how long does today's wealth last compared to past eras?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.