- Published on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 18:37
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
The phrase “income inequality” appears to be suggesting that there should be an equal distribution of income regardless of the job that is being performed, this term is being used to make people believe that they are being cheated out of wages that should be theirs, and that difference is going to people that don’t deserve that income.
The term is being utilized by some politicians as an emotive term to make the uninformed portions of the population to believe that the politician or political party can rectify the presumed injustice of wage distribution, but they fail to say what justification they are using to redistribute the wages, this oversight is not an accident, it is intentional, because they realize that if an explanation were given, that it would fail any rational examination of the position being applied.
Any politician or political party that would employ an emotive technique like this should automatically be discounted as a reliable representative of the electorate.
In truth there will always be an income inequality, because there are too many variables that influence wages or incomes, and it is highly unlikely that the government will ever come up with a system that will correct some of the injustices within the area of incomes and wages, one good reason for this inability to make the system equitable, is the fact that the various variables are in continual flux, meaning their weight, or importance is continually changing.
This does not mean that there is nothing that can be done to create a system that will minimize or eliminate many some of the injustices that are currently imbedded in our current system, but that would require the government to get out of picking winners and losers in the nation’s economy, this relates to businesses as well as societal organizations.
The major problem with improving the current system is the symbiotic relationship that many of the offenders of a fair system have with each other; one good example of this is the relationship that many politicians have with corporations and politically oriented organizations (labor unions). It’s doubtful that changes can be made to the system as long as this symbiotic relationship is allowed to continue, which suggest that representatives that are not inclined to go along with the party’s power structure, or the enhancement of that power need to be elected to represent the people.
The system is currently setup to enhance its control over the populace, and it has become very adept at manipulating the electorate over the generations of its existence, it has learned that it can increase its odds of success if it starts its indoctrination of the electorate at a very early age, this is one of the reasons for its focused attention on the educational system, but it does not stop there.
Income inequality is to the only emotive phrase used to influence the electorate, some other phrases that deserve attention are as follows: Fair share, Income redistribution, Living wage, and Equal pay for equal work, are just a few of the terms that politicians fail to enumerate on. How does one determine what is a fair share of the capital that is being circulated in the nation’s economy?
If this question was answered by a politician, it is doubtful that the electorate would be so quick to accept the definition presented. The same holds true for the concept of a living wage, to place a set figure on an individual or family structure, taking into consideration location and life style expectations, any attempt by politicians to set parameters for this emotive phrase would make them sound like complete idiots, and yet the average electorate accepts this phrase as being meaningful. Equal pay for equal work is just as bad at the previous examples, there are no parameters presented to indicate if the equality is in time, quality, quantity, or intellectual level required to perform a given function, these are just a few of the variables that can be applied to this phrase.
In short the electorate needs to become more attuned to the fact that they are being manipulated by emotive phrases that have no real meaning. Given the educational system it is understandable that a large portion of the population would succumb to this emotive verbiage.