4 ms·

Age, height, even weight (for the most part) are qualities of humans that cannot be controlled. Wealth is qualitatively different than these attributes. Edit:

Age, height, even weight (for the most part) are qualities of humans that cannot be controlled. Wealth is qualitatively different than these attributes. Edit: no one would ever talk about the distribution of "ability at basketball" for example.

rayiner 11y ago
And yet you still talk about the "distribution" of those quantities. Which undermines your premise that the use of the word "distribution" implies centralized apportionment of some quantity. "Wealth distribution" is a descriptive, not a prescriptive concept, just like "height distribution." Here is a system applied to some population; let's measure how some quantity ends up distributed among that population based on the behavior of the system.
Randgalt 11y ago
In the context of fairness vs equality I've never read/heard a similar comparison to ability.
baconner 11y ago
Ah no actually its totally valid to talk about the distribution of ability at basketball over a population. Distribution is just a mathematical concept - it doesn't care what type of variable you are looking at.
HelloMcFly 11y ago
I think your point is more pedantry than substance. Yes, wealth is qualitatively different, but referring to it as distributed across a population is still intuitively clear and does not read as an abnormal use of the word. > So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard work and diligence or that it is distributed by some kind of greater power? I don't believe either thing absolutely. I believe wealth can be earned by hard work and diligence, but that those things are neither necessary nor sufficient. I believe wealth is often distributed by a greater power in effect if not in literal practice through things like regressive taxation and systematic difference in access quality education that have a disparate (and in my opinion, inequitable) impact on those of lesser means.

rayiner 11y ago

And yet you still talk about the "distribution" of those quantities. Which undermines your premise that the use of the word "distribution" implies centralized apportionment of some quantity. "Wealth distribution" is a descriptive, not a prescriptive concept, just like "height distribution." Here is a system applied to some population; let's measure how some quantity ends up distributed among that population based on the behavior of the system.

Randgalt 11y ago

In the context of fairness vs equality I've never read/heard a similar comparison to ability.

baconner 11y ago

Ah no actually its totally valid to talk about the distribution of ability at basketball over a population. Distribution is just a mathematical concept - it doesn't care what type of variable you are looking at.

HelloMcFly 11y ago

I think your point is more pedantry than substance. Yes, wealth is qualitatively different, but referring to it as distributed across a population is still intuitively clear and does not read as an abnormal use of the word. > So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard work and diligence or that it is distributed by some kind of greater power? I don't believe either thing absolutely. I believe wealth can be earned by hard work and diligence, but that those things are neither necessary nor sufficient. I believe wealth is often distributed by a greater power in effect if not in literal practice through things like regressive taxation and systematic difference in access quality education that have a disparate (and in my opinion, inequitable) impact on those of lesser means.