I got flamed for suggesting this recently, but I'd like to see it:
Equal wages/prices for all regardless of geography, brought on by a single world currency and the internet? That would solve world hunger (which is a money issue, not supply issue).
edit: Awesome. It's getting downvoted here too? What the hell is wrong with the concept?
edit 2: Oh I was completely blind to the obvious here...I mean equal wages in terms of task (not geography). A McDonalds worker should make the same here or in another country (assuming McD's was charging the same for burgers too). Software developers who contract online are approaching this equality. I am not suggesting communism or some sort of set rate for work, individual productivity is really important.
Equal wages just kills this, that's why. I will simply say that I'm smarter and harder working than the vast majority. I deserve to be rewarded. More importantly, it's an incentive to be harder working.
Yes, but maybe there's a guy just as equally smart and hard working in a developing nation and he's getting peanuts even though his government doesn't provide him with health care or education or social security. Voted up.
Rather than necessarily setting all wages the same, providing a minimum stipend* may retain many of the same positive effects without eliminating economic rewards for more work, innovation, etc. The first 10k or so can do a lot to help people get people out of the zone where they have to make bad long-term choices just to make ends meet week to week.
Of course, the wealth still needs to come from somewhere, but for sake of argument.
* Say $10-20,000, though setting this to something realistic will actually depend on a lot of variables, both personal and regional. Defining "equal wages" is tricky. (Also, the possibility of sudden, huge medical costs, for example, can sabotage the entire system, but that's true now.)
Currencies are currently horribly manipulated, and individual currency crashes (like Iceland) can completely devastate a population. Maybe centralization could be better? It seems to be working well for the EU.
I didn't down or upvote simply because I think it's an honest suggestion. But it's impractical because the diversity is too vast to warrant an equal playing field such as you're suggesting. There are those that try really hard and succeed magnificently, while there are those that sit back and are too lazy to get anything done and would rather collect welfare. There are polar opposites too, those that try really hard but fail, and those that are lazy and somehow succeed.... you're telling me that no matter where these groups fall, they should all receive equal wages? Reiterating that I didn't downvote you, I can certainly see why someone would. So the explanation I just noted is simply my view and what I've seen and ultimately your concept is not practical nor fair.
I find it strange that the majority of people thought the OP was referring to equal wages regardless of effort. It was pretty clear to me that he was referring to the difference in salary between countries for the same type of work. It disheartens me sometimes hearing that entry-level programmers in the US make $20 an hour, while I, with more than two years of experience, make about $30 a day. People don't realize how vast the disparity of living standards are across the globe.
Upvoted because its true. I worked as an independent programmer(still do) and i often got judged by the country that i live in instead of how well(or badly) i do the job.
Eliminating hunger is a noble goal. Equal prices is a terrible goal and not a way to eliminate hunger.
You can't have equal prices everywhere. If you want to try to force prices to be equal, you would ruin the price system. Without a working price system you would end up with something like the USSR.
Why is equality the ideal? It's not people in the "first world" that are starving, so why not look at what works in the first world? The problem is that in the countries where people are starving, they don't have the economic freedom that enables the wealth that means you don't have to starve.
So I hope that there will be more economic freedom in poorer countries. Then they will be able to achieve a higher standard of living.
Which doesn't mean it has no correlation to the idea's merit.
Actually, I'd be curious about what makes the best flamebait -- is it totally dishonest stuff, mostly controversial stuff, or ideas that people suspect are true but want to think (or what to be heard saying) are false and deplorable?
In spite of being textual, I think most flaming really happens at an emotional level. The best flamebait pushes people's buttons (perhaps unintentionally).
Equal wages/prices for all regardless of geography, brought on by a single world currency and the internet? That would solve world hunger (which is a money issue, not supply issue).
edit: Awesome. It's getting downvoted here too? What the hell is wrong with the concept?
edit 2: Oh I was completely blind to the obvious here...I mean equal wages in terms of task (not geography). A McDonalds worker should make the same here or in another country (assuming McD's was charging the same for burgers too). Software developers who contract online are approaching this equality. I am not suggesting communism or some sort of set rate for work, individual productivity is really important.