• Yes, social equality is good for the economy because an economy with equality also have equity.

    I am not saying perfect equality is good, as that would represent communism. But, a fair degree of equality, lets say 25 on the gini index, is desired. First I want to adress how people become wealthy in the capitalist system. They become wealthy by becoming more efficient, productive, and creative. As they become more wealthy, the gap between the rich and the poor shrink. Thus, equality.

    To achieve those three factors you need education and training, which privates cannot afford. Thus, the government steps in and provides those educations and training, which increases the salary for the poor. If the poor become more wealthy, than the gap between the rich and the poor shrink. Example of this government is Sweden, Norway, etc. In this system both the poor and the rich are given education and thus have a equal chance at achieving economic success. Thus, equity. Therefore, my argument is that with equality comes more educated and productive workforce, and equity. One way to increase economic growth is to increase productivity and since equality is like partner with education, economic growth can be achieved.

  • Yes, social equality is good for the economy.

    Some economic inequality is only natural, because some people work harder than others, and some people are just that much more talented. But the level of economic equality we have today is obscene and doesn't have anything to do with hard work or skill. The rich have become entirely too rich, at the expense of the poor, and it's led to a number of social problems.

  • No, it isn't.

    Social equality leads to mediocrity. We NEED class differences, the problem is that we have allowed them to grow so large and excessive that there is no hope of bridging them. As such, the drive to excel and to move forward is gone and we are left with the labored need to just make due and get the bills paid on time.

  • No, social equality is not beneficial to any economy.

    No, social equality is not good for the economy because under the current paradigm, it portrays that all people need to have a certain level of education and social status. The problem is that we have been taught an elitist attitude where the services doctors, lawyers, and politicians serve are more important than the mechanic, janitor, or sanitation worker. All of these jobs are necessary to have a productive society that supports a healthy economy. The notion of "social equality" proclaims that some of these jobs and the people who perform them are less valuable than others. What would be good for the economy is if the notion of "social equality" were thrown out all together and replaced with an index of contribution to society where all are performing an essential function. Elimination of this misguided measure of a human's worth could propel the economy in a positive direction where everyone is satisfied with everyone's contribution to it.

  • Difference: The Driving Factor

    Differences are what drives the economy. People want what others have, that they themselves don't. That's what drives the economy...
    Social equality disallows this important factor to play it's role in the economy. It would be nice if everyone had wealth, but the way the world works, class differences are important.

  • Social equality is not good for any economy

    Equality breeds complacency. Promoting such a regressive policy would only cultivate a culture where people are drained of ambition and ambition is the very foundation capitalism is built on., ie the drive to pursue a better economical and social future.

    And by the way, i wouldn't mind debating on this isuue

    Posted by: Emmo

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.