4 ms·

For a moment let's say that you're correct: the 1% indeed worked harder and smarter than the 99% to get there. Even given that, I think the important point tha

by badsock 11y ago

For a moment let's say that you're correct: the 1% indeed worked harder and smarter than the 99% to get there. Even given that, I think the important point that you're missing from the speech is that they are being rewarded much, much more than they used to for that. I don't believe that they are working much, much harder, or that they are much, much smarter, it's just that the reward Pareto curve has gotten that much steeper. And what I think the author is arguing is that that's not necessarily a deserved, or good, thing.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I very rarely hear people complaining that the rewards for hard work and good education are too high. Usually the claim is that the people at the top inherited their position rather than earning it, and that others didn't have a fair shot at getting it. Obviously the latter claim is a far better narrative.
- badsock 11y ago
  If the rewards for the people at the very top are disproportionate to the work and risk-taking that they've put in, that's a distortion which has negative effects on the whole system. We're talking about the "New Aristocracy". In extremis that's where you're either in the elite, or barely subsisting. It doesn't matter how meritorious the admissions to the upper class are - it's an awful way to live for nearly everyone, and where it's been implemented it's been marked by abuse and stagnation. From a motivational standpoint, of course the incentives of a great reward matter. But there has to be a reason for everyone from 2nd place downward to participate.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    In extremis that's where you're either in the elite, or barely subsisting. You are conflating inequality with poverty. To recognize that they aren't the same thing, come visit the highly equal society of India or Bangladesh. Also, the more you make a curve convex (and increasing), the more incentives it creates for everyone. Proof: convexity = u''(x). Increasing u''(x) increases u'(x)=int u''(x) dx. Since u'(x) is incentive, the proof is complete.
    - badsock 11y ago
      That's not the case at all: India has a GINI of 0.43, which is above the world average of 0.39. Sweden is at 0.23. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... And while alleviating absolute poverty is great, the point I'm making is that a large middle class is a tremendous driver of many positive societal outcomes - politically, economically, and socially. You can't just take a steepening reward structure out of that context.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        You cherrypicked the one number (CIA GINI) for India that was above average, and not even above the US. India UNR/P = 8.6, WB Gini = 33.6, CIA R/P = 8.6, CIA Gini = 42.8 USA UNR/P = 15.9, WB Gini = 41.1, CIA R/P = 15, CIA Gini = 45 I have no idea what you mean by "middle class" - there are many possible definitions. Now that your claims about incentives and your conflation of poverty and inequality are debunked, you still believe that inequality is somehow bad? What facts (if any) would cause you to reject this belief?
        badsock 11y ago
        Wait, wait. You're the one that claimed that India was a "highly equal society" - the burden of proof is on you. Your numbers are comparing India with the US, which is an unequal society, so you haven't provided it yet. And you really believe that you've "debunked" my claims by referencing what happens to a pure mathematical abstraction? I'm not even sure how to address that. You can't honestly believe that models have influence over reality, and not the other way around? And I'm not claiming that inequality is bad. It's necessary, for example, to accommodate risk. All I've said is that it matters how much inequality there is, and having too much distorts things. The only claim I've made as to what constitutes too much is the level found in aristocratic societies. Are you arguing the opposite, that the degree of inequality has no great effect on a society? Or that the repercussions aren't negative as a country approaches the level that is marked by the formation of an aristocracy?
severus_bro 11y ago
Places like Harvard and Yale used to educate the elites themselves, but no more. Today the elites are the billionaires and hundred-millionaires who own the country's capital. Harvard and Yale educate the people who work directly for the elites - lawyers, CEOs, financiers, etc. Like the Praetorian Guard of Ancient Rome, they derive significant power and wealth from the fact that they take orders directly from the elites. But since they are not the actual elite, they must endure intense vetting and culling at every level, and work hard often in harsh conditions (also like the Praetorians of old). So the comparison in the original PDF is not exactly apples to apples.

by badsock 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I very rarely hear people complaining that the rewards for hard work and good education are too high. Usually the claim is that the people at the top inherited their position rather than earning it, and that others didn't have a fair shot at getting it. Obviously the latter claim is a far better narrative.

badsock 11y ago
If the rewards for the people at the very top are disproportionate to the work and risk-taking that they've put in, that's a distortion which has negative effects on the whole system. We're talking about the "New Aristocracy". In extremis that's where you're either in the elite, or barely subsisting. It doesn't matter how meritorious the admissions to the upper class are - it's an awful way to live for nearly everyone, and where it's been implemented it's been marked by abuse and stagnation. From a motivational standpoint, of course the incentives of a great reward matter. But there has to be a reason for everyone from 2nd place downward to participate.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  In extremis that's where you're either in the elite, or barely subsisting. You are conflating inequality with poverty. To recognize that they aren't the same thing, come visit the highly equal society of India or Bangladesh. Also, the more you make a curve convex (and increasing), the more incentives it creates for everyone. Proof: convexity = u''(x). Increasing u''(x) increases u'(x)=int u''(x) dx. Since u'(x) is incentive, the proof is complete.
  - badsock 11y ago
    That's not the case at all: India has a GINI of 0.43, which is above the world average of 0.39. Sweden is at 0.23. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... And while alleviating absolute poverty is great, the point I'm making is that a large middle class is a tremendous driver of many positive societal outcomes - politically, economically, and socially. You can't just take a steepening reward structure out of that context.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      You cherrypicked the one number (CIA GINI) for India that was above average, and not even above the US. India UNR/P = 8.6, WB Gini = 33.6, CIA R/P = 8.6, CIA Gini = 42.8 USA UNR/P = 15.9, WB Gini = 41.1, CIA R/P = 15, CIA Gini = 45 I have no idea what you mean by "middle class" - there are many possible definitions. Now that your claims about incentives and your conflation of poverty and inequality are debunked, you still believe that inequality is somehow bad? What facts (if any) would cause you to reject this belief?
      - badsock 11y ago
        Wait, wait. You're the one that claimed that India was a "highly equal society" - the burden of proof is on you. Your numbers are comparing India with the US, which is an unequal society, so you haven't provided it yet. And you really believe that you've "debunked" my claims by referencing what happens to a pure mathematical abstraction? I'm not even sure how to address that. You can't honestly believe that models have influence over reality, and not the other way around? And I'm not claiming that inequality is bad. It's necessary, for example, to accommodate risk. All I've said is that it matters how much inequality there is, and having too much distorts things. The only claim I've made as to what constitutes too much is the level found in aristocratic societies. Are you arguing the opposite, that the degree of inequality has no great effect on a society? Or that the repercussions aren't negative as a country approaches the level that is marked by the formation of an aristocracy?

severus_bro 11y ago

Places like Harvard and Yale used to educate the elites themselves, but no more. Today the elites are the billionaires and hundred-millionaires who own the country's capital. Harvard and Yale educate the people who work directly for the elites - lawyers, CEOs, financiers, etc. Like the Praetorian Guard of Ancient Rome, they derive significant power and wealth from the fact that they take orders directly from the elites. But since they are not the actual elite, they must endure intense vetting and culling at every level, and work hard often in harsh conditions (also like the Praetorians of old). So the comparison in the original PDF is not exactly apples to apples.