Pericles,

"Sloganism. Not particularly illuminating, but it does save your having to think through the realities of what you are asking."

Being a wise type, you'd, I'd have thought, have understood that for society to operate best, the wealth should be spread around amongst those that make the valuable and substantial contributions in life. These people exist at all levels in society from those that earn $30k pa to millions.

"Are you suggesting that she is not allowed to make a career for herself, simply because she married the son of a media mogul?"

Of course she's allowed to make a career for herself. It's a good thing. Your comment still doesn't answer why she should make the dosh she does though. $200k is pretty damn good for merely adhering to her contract for a few seasons of IN-BETWEEN WORK ONLY. Fairness? Ha. The argument is over right there.

"So if you really feel strongly about this, the simplest remedy is to boycott the product."

Sure. That's like Peter Costello and Wayne Swan saying that if you don't like bank fees, change banks. It simply doesn't work for the ordinary person. A. How far out on a limb do you have to go to make a difference? Getting other people to help is like Mother Hen asking the other animals in the farmyard to bake bread and B. As soon as the banks work out what people are up to, they'll just dream up another clever way to con people into the net. A pathetically shallow, throwaway suggestion given the amount of apathy in society generally.

"Of course, you might at the same time put the jobs of the remaining workers here in jeopardy - but hey, it's all in the name of fairness and equality, isn't it?

And if they have to close some factories in China too, so what? They'll probably be glad to be out of the sweatshop."

Que? They're a couple of throwaway lines if ever there were any.

RobP
Clearly I agree with the thrust of your argument. Can I suggest you consider the word equity in stead of equality.
equity can mean fairness as well as an interest in either definition works.
equality means every one is the same and as I understand it neither you or I are advocating that.
Pericles' spirited defense sadly seems based on sloganism as you say and distractions (another topic all together).
I think it's wishful thinking on your part to suggest the rich part with their money (given they have benefited so well from the inequity of capitalism as it is practiced)but what the hell it's a noble idea anyway. It hasn't occured to the likes of Bill Gates and other that if their corps was less power hungry and voracious people MIGHT be better off but that is my wishful thinking.

>>>It hasn't occured to the likes of Bill Gates and other that if their corps was less power hungry and voracious people MIGHT be better off but that is my wishful thinking.<<<

Just think if the mega-monopolies paid a reasonable living wage to third world workers, they wouldn't have to trundle about dispensing "charity" AND there would be no need to take businesses "offshore" because the world economy would be an equitable playing field.

Aaaah stuff of fantasy.

PS

Examinator I swear I am not stalking you.

Fractelle.
Bugger! For a moment I thought I must be important or a star!

:-) :-(

examinator,

I agree with the gist of what you're saying about equity vs equality. Equality is important in the basic human things we do like treating others with respect, fairness and gratitude etc. The idea of equity, on the other hand, is important when finding the best (ie most holistic) balance in a fundamentally unbalanced relationship. So, you're right about that.

However, the problem, as you point out, is that it's a pipe-dream given the way the world actually works. It's too easy for people to wave away the idea of equity in their minds as just another feelgood sentiment. That's why I raised the concrete idea about celebrities giving back money to those at the other extreme end of capitalism, as it's an idea that can actually be quickly implemented. It's not like it's unheard of - Bill Gates does it with his philanthropic work.

-- -- --

I agree society would be better off if the mega-monoploies provided a living wage to people in developing countries. But, I'd start first with those countries that had the most potential and see how things work out fom there. The key to these types of humungus changes is to start small and see what catches. If it develops promisingly continue with it, if it's bad and unsalvageable terminate it, and if it's bad but salvageable mould it into a new form. That's broadly the way to go.

Ok, I give in, you win.

>>The idea of equity, on the other hand, is important when finding the best (ie most holistic) balance in a fundamentally unbalanced relationship. So, you're right about that. However, the problem, as you point out, is that it's a pipe-dream given the way the world actually works.<<

On this, we agree entirely.

Maybe that was all I needed to do in the first place - point out that the whole idea was just a pipe dream. Could have saved a lot of time.

>>It's not like it's unheard of - Bill Gates does it with his philanthropic work.<<

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does some worthy work. But I suspect that you underestimate the massive amount of effort involved in giving money away in the most effective, and least controversial, way. As you probably know, the B&MGF currently employs 600 people.

>>I agree society would be better off if the mega-monoploies provided a living wage to people in developing countries<<

Sadly, it is never as straightforward as you might think....

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2371

But at least we agree on the pipe-dream bit.

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/PIPEDREAM