5 ms·
> So for every person who moves up, someone must move down. Standards of living and wealth are not a zero-sum game, there are plenty of situations where change
by lagadu 11y ago
> So for every person who moves up, someone must move down.
Standards of living and wealth are not a zero-sum game, there are plenty of situations where changes benefit everyone.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoThe article is about relative mobility (getting from the bottom quintile to the top), not absolute mobility (having cool toys that didn't exist in 1980). Relative mobility is a zero sum game.
- kabouseng 11y agoStandards of living isn't zero sum, I agree. Wealth, or rather relative wealth or a class society is zero sum. Again, everyone can't be rich (relative to other people), unless you want to go the direction of communism / socialism / classless society. So as a thought experiment... PS. Why did you downvote, seriously you downvoted a thought experiment meant to stimulate thought.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoCommunism / socialism / classless society doesn't escape the zero-sum game you mentioned. Relative wealth is zero-sum by very definition. If everyone has exactly the same wealth, no one is richer than others.
- kabouseng 11y agoI agree.
- asift 11y ago>Wealth, or relative wealth or a class society is zero sum. Relative wealth is zero sum. Wealth is not zero sum. You shouldn't muddle the terms like this.
- kabouseng 11y agoThis is nitpicking, but please go and read my post again and tell where I used the word wealth? -edit - I mean my original top post. You introduced the word wealth and then call me out for muddle'ing its meaning :D
- asift 11y agoI was referring to the comment I quoted: >Wealth, or relative wealth...