It is important with an argument such as this not to get blinded by …show more content…
The argument’s downfall lies in the nuances and the greater implications of the proposition. Most prosperous people live in capitalist economies. These economies function through want and humanity's constant desire for more. If one desires a larger house, they must work harder or pursue a higher paying job. This causes a constant upward mobility, people work harder and harder and rise up the ranks in order for a better life. If a baker works harder or bakes better bread they are rewarded with more money which can then be spent on luxury goods, justifying their hard work. The large effort expended and investment required to become a specialized professional is justified by the high paycheck. People will always seek better lives, which are obtained through hard work, thus people are always working harder. However, Singer;s proposal eliminates the engine and upward motion of the economy. In this proposal once people earn the bare minimum to sustain themselves, all of their excess income will be shipped away. After people reach this hypothetical bar they will have no incentive to earn more or work harder. If