I just happened to stumble on an old article where Cuba is arguing FOR income inequality.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm
Vice-Minister for Labour Carlos Mateu said the current system - in place since the communist revolution in 1959 - was no longer "convenient".
He said wage differentiation should improve production and services.
This is so obvious. No wonder liberals don't get it. Yeah, yeah, I know they will argue that they are only talking about the excessive inequality. OK, so where is the turning point? Of course the answer to that is whatever feels good to them because emotions are the best way to make complex decisions, especially in areas where you are not an expert on the subject and all you have is emotion.
The minister pointed out that the current wage system sapped employees' incentives to excel since everyone earned the same regardless of performance.
This is EXACTLY what our current welfare system does for the poor. No matter how much harder you work, your disposable income hardly changes and may fall, giving no incentive to spend more time working harder. That's why we see the economic stagnation at the bottom just like Cuba has seen for generations by removing the only incentive to work which is more money (aka income inequality).
It's harmful to give a worker less than he deserves, it's also harmful to give him what he doesn't deserve," the newspaper article said.
Who knew the Cuban leaders were a bunch of radical right-wingers? That couldn't describe my position more accurately. And how do we decide what is deserved? The free market. If Cuba had used it since 1959, their rich poor people would be complaining about the 1% and not stuck with this.
The average wage in Cuba for everyone - from doctors to farm labourers - is about $20 (£10) a month.
Look at the massive income inequality between doctors in Cuba and the poorest Americans. Do we need to redistribute from those rich Americans making $10k/yr to those average Cubans making $0.2k/yr?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.