None of these things are tantamount to such an overhaul of the system as proposed by the OP.
The issues you are bringing up are valid ones. But IMO the flaws come in the many assumptions that you make. Of course it's unjust that so few people control so much wealth. I agree whole-heartedly with that, but that's not what this thread is really about. So, I'll leave that one, I believe that a more regulated (but not planned) economy can help remedy this situation, including ideas on a salary cap and whatnot. But I think that discussion is for another thread.
With regard to your point on hiring domestic workers. I think you're marrying the public and private elements in such a way as to create a kind of smokescreen as to what's really going on. I come from the UK, so we already have a decent system of social welfare in place. If I hire a domestic worker, I don't need to offer health plans or education plans because the national framework in place already offers this to everyone. I realize this might sound like a cop-out, since it doesn't apply everywhere, so I won't leave it at that.
I don't consider myself to be a conservative person, but sometimes I do think that elements of Thatcherism and conservatism dwell within my soul, perhaps because my entire family is conservative so there is some unshakable influence they cast over me when I was growing up. Anyway, the point I'm making is that I truly believe in people realizing their own potential when they have the opportunity to. And saying that every member of a certain part of society definitely has no such opportunity is a fallacy in my mind. On the other hand there certainly are people that don't, and so it comes down to the state to provide the framework to provide for those who are unable to provide a decent-enough standard of living for themselves. This being the case, private enterprises, from a legal standpoint, can't be so demonized for not providing such comprehensive benefit to all its workforce.
That sounds weird. Even I think so now that I've written it. It's the social democrat side of me coming out and saying NO! Let me try and make it more relevant to what you were saying. The assumption you make is that the employer is hiring the domestic worker full-time. This is actually more often not the case. The person hiring the domestic worker is not the one who should be demonized for a system where people are unable to make better their situation in life. What you seem to be saying is that I should be either outraged or guilty (? maybe) that I hire someone but don't provide healthcare, retirement plan and whatnot, because in doing so I am perpetuating a system that keeps downtrodden citizens as "second class".
This is the sentiment that I cannot accept. The way I see it, it's not down to me, but down to the state to provide that framework of social welfare. Therefore, I don't see the inherent wrong in hiring people to do a job you want done if you're compensating them financially and with whatever else. I know in Beijing, people with full-time domestic workers usually also provide accomodation, particularly if that worker is from outside Beijing. On that level, if the worker is paid and treated with decency and respect, then on that level the employer is doing everything they are obligated to do.
Your argument on the other hand is taking the employer to the level that IMO should be occupied by a much grander presence, IE the state. In addition, I don't think it's right or fair that you use words like "take advantage", because you're implying that all people who hire others are harbouring sinister motives, a kind of sincere disdain or a desire to keep people downtrodden. This is something I simply do not accept. I come from a middle class family that has been an employer since the 1970s. We provided workers with a decent wage, food and where it was required, accommodation. In your mind, we were exploiting these people for our own benefit. But in my mind, we were performing an exchange --- money and benefit for goods and/or services --- oldest exchange in the world.
Finally, I think we can drop the bizarre personal attacks on each other. I doubt we know anywhere near enough about each other to start making below-the-belt jibes as we have been. I apologize for any of that and any offence I might have caused. I AM a somewhat defensive individual --- in my mind it comes from growing up as the youngest in my family. If you're the youngest too you might understand how utterly frustrating it can be, always being talked to as the "baby", when in fact you're the only child with a stable job and income, the most mature and the most independent. Sigh...I'll save that rant for another thread. Anywho, let's carry on this discussion without the poking and jibing. I apologize again for my part in that.
