Inequality remains a major political issue in the world today. People want to live in a fair and equitable society. Most people agree that inequality is too extreme and needs to be reduced. There is nothing natural or inevitable about extreme inequality. It is the predictable result of an economic system that distributes income based on who owns the means of production and who has the most market power, rather than according to any common-sense principle of labour contribution, human needs or justice.
In Britain, the income ratio between the richest 0.01 percent and minimum-wage workers has reached around 150 to one. Within the FTSE 100 firms, pay ratios between CEOs and lower-paid workers hover at about 100 to one. Similar inequalities prevail in many other countries, while in the United States the figures are much worse, with pay ratios sometimes reaching into the thousands.
Recent research by Joel Millward-Hopkins published in Nature Communications shows that if we want to ensure decent lives for everyone on the planet and also decarbonise quickly enough to feasibly achieve the Paris Agreement goals, we will need to distribute resources more fairly.
What is an appropriate level of inequality? Millward-Hopkins’ research shows that if we ensure everyone has access to resources necessary for decent living, then a distribution where the richest consume at most around six times that level would be compatible with achieving climate stability.
We should ask ourselves: how much more of our planet should one person be allowed to consume than another? In an era of ecological breakdown, it is clearly irrational to continue devoting resources and energy to supporting an overconsuming class.
How much should inequality be reduced? | Inequality | Al Jazeera
Sadly the author of this article remains limited in his vision. He proposes limiting pay differentials rather than abolishing wages entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment