the rich should live simply, so that the poor can simply live?

[~cornelia~]

note: i didnt know weather i was supposed to make this thread in debates or doubts, but i need answers that are more towards the economics side please!   

my economics teacher asked me this question and for the first time in econ class i was stumped!! i had no idea what to say, what has the way people live their life affect one another??
she gave me some time to get some for and against ideas..so please students help me!!?

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

i hopeless in debates so im not gonna be useful
but if anything clicks in this head of mine then i'll surely post!

[astarmathsandphysics]

Rich people waste so much.Walk around the average reception and see how much food gets wasted.
Suggest the waiters there put all the leftovers in bags so the rich people can take it home and eat it later.

[$tyli$h Executive]

"The rich should live simply" implies that rich people should not use luxuries which they normally use.

"so that poor people can simply live" means that if the rich lives simply, the poor people will be able to thrive

But in my opinion this is not a logical solution to poverty. If rich people don't use luxuries, the market for luxury goods like foreign holiday, decorations etc. would be non-existent. And since it is the poor people who, in turn, works in the luxury goods' industry, poor people would be unable to find that much employment.

[~cornelia~]

Rich people waste so much.Walk around the average reception and see how much food gets wasted.
Suggest the waiters there put all the leftovers in bags so the rich people can take it home and eat it later.

that's a good point and actually i gave some points like that myself but i was told that its an ethical answer..i need economic answer!

"The rich should live simply" implies that rich people should not use luxuries which they normally use.

"so that poor people can simply live" means that if the rich lives simply, the poor people will be able to thrive

But in my opinion this is not a logical solution to poverty. If rich people don't use luxuries, the market for luxury goods like foreign holiday, decorations etc. would be non-existent. And since it is the poor people who, in turn, works in the luxury goods' industry, poor people would be unable to find that much employment.

That's true.
not only will the employment get affected but because the rich will not spend, there is less money out for circulation and if there is a sharp fall in transactions (velocity of circulation) then it may be necessary for the government to print money to avoid deflation...this may also(in a way) cause money supply inflation.

[Tohru Kyo Sohma]

Excellent answer SE!
it was amazing!
how come i never taught of it!
how come ur rep power is zero?why can't i +rep u?

[~cornelia~]

^ have that same question!!

[astarmathsandphysics]

There is no solution to poverty. Even some rich people would rather live in poverty. Money makes their life meaningless.

[~cornelia~]

thats not true.
rich people rather have less money, not live in poverty.
yes, excess money is dangerous. but poverty is even more dangerous eg: Africa
actually money helps life function in a more organised way.the only problem is distribution.

[astarmathsandphysics]

Not distribution. Education. If you distributed all the money equally, ignorant people will spend it and soon be poor again, while educated people will invest it and start businesses and soon be as rich as ever.

[~cornelia~]

thats are very correct point. +rep

but aside from that currently distribution is a problem for alot of economies!
there's either too many rich or too much poor!
plus people don't often start businesses because they are afraid of the risks.

[astarmathsandphysics]

People afraid of risks surround themselves with safety features and live secure, boring and poor lives.
Being poor is a pain. Poor people should have less regard for money - throw it away so it won't wear a hole in their pockets or gamble on their ideas to give themselves hope in life.

[........]

I don't understand what this thread is about. Does your teacher imply redistribution of income ? This recession has taught one thing for sure;living beyond your means is a recipe for disaster. There should be a movement to curb high incomes and bonuses meted out to CEOs and directors.
Bank of America was the worst performing bank in United States yet the majority of US aid money was given to directors in the form of bonuses and income.
Remember the rule bois . Governments don't control the world,the goldman sachs does

[astarmathsandphysics]

Give bankers their bonus in thevform of all the potatoes they can eat.

[~cornelia~]

I don't understand what this thread is about. Does your teacher imply redistribution of income ? This recession has taught one thing for sure;living beyond your means is a recipe for disaster. There should be a movement to curb high incomes and bonuses meted out to CEOs and directors.
Bank of America was the worst performing bank in United States yet the majority of US aid money was given to directors in the form of bonuses and income.
Remember the rule bois . Governments don't control the world,the goldman sachs does

as what the title suggest! should the rich live simply(spend less)...so that the poor can simply live(earn and spend more)?? ...how are they to be related in economic terms?
she said it could be related to taxes, unemployment, standard of living etc

bank of america was the worst performing bank because of its unwise decision to give the money off to directors and CEOs...we can see the result of its actions now that america is falling into recession!