3 ms·

I hope I didn't go too overboard by dissecting PG's essay like this, but I felt it was necessary to correct many of the items that I read. It may seem spurious

I hope I didn't go too overboard by dissecting PG's essay like this, but I felt it was necessary to correct many of the items that I read. It may seem spurious now, but economic inequality is relevant for the tech industry, too. The massively increased productivity that information technology provides is very infrequently distributed proportionally to the people who actually forged it-- exactly the same condition as most workers in the US, currently. The principal difference in terms of economics is that the absolute wages of software engineers are currently higher than the median wages, meaning that they don't feel the pressure of not having quite enough-- given enough time, this will change unless we make a decision to alter our course. The accumulation of economic gains from massively increased productivity will trend toward stagnation at the uppermost levels-- the founders and owners. Our society is currently engineered for this to be the case, and we have much work to do if we want a more equitable society. If we accept economic inequality, we accept that we are not citizens but instead are largely debt-laden effortful passengers in a world owned by our betters.

sandstrom 11y ago
I thought it was a good article (I agree with some of it, but not everything). It would have been helpful if the many quotes were visually distinct, it would make for an easier read. I also think both you and PG aren't in as much disagreement as your response indicates. My interpretation of PG's article was that he primarily wanted to highlight the wealth-creation aspect, and contrast it to rent-seeking. I think you'd both agree on many concrete fixes (reduce rent-seeking in the financial system, a political system mainly driven by money, health-system reform, etc). Though this is my guess obviously.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joshAg 11y ago
I don't think you went overboard. Thanks for writing and posting this link.
heretoo 11y ago
I enjoyed it, though I haven't read PG's essay yet.
tezza 11y ago
It was a nice riposte. Altough the concentration on income inequality overall is perplexing to me. Income can be measured and is emotive ( I earn X but my cousin earns 10X ), yet I think concentrating on this metric is obscuring some bigger issues. You do touch on them in your counterpoint. Karl Marx in Das Kapital explains the situation post Industrial Revolution and prior to the World Wars. The landlords conspired with the factory owners to keep rents high and wages low so that workers had little ability to move or leave. This lack of freedom in a self determination sense is creeping back into Western economies. Mortgages and rents are so high that workers spend most of their wage paying that. So never mind that middle class income equality is 17% lower than middle class income equality 1980. House prices and rents have climbed more than enough even if 'equality' had persisted. ( Also prices for the very rich have increased too. ) But instead of a landlord class and factory manager class conspiring the prices have risen via market forces and lax monetary policy and the relabeling of debt as 'credit' Another factor is opportunity equality. Meritocricy has greatly reduced since 1980, and is acutely poor now. Entry into elite jobs like CEOs, the Media Class, (cough) VCs and Private Equity firms are chosen from just a few streams. Harvard, Wharton, Ivy League in the States and moneyed private school in Europe. From outside those circles it is a struggle to join. Paul touched on WW2, but I would go further and say both WW1 and WW2 were the genesis of a burst of meritocracy unleashed by mass death in Europe at the same time as vast strides in technology. Getting a good job was easy in 1960 because everyone had died in 1915 - 1945 and there were many new classes of job. These days, people are working and living longer and it is harder to get to the top... your boss didn't die in battle, you'll have to wait.
- collyw 11y ago
  Property prices are probably one of the most manipulated I can think of. Certainly in the UK, it is far from a free market.

sandstrom 11y ago

I thought it was a good article (I agree with some of it, but not everything). It would have been helpful if the many quotes were visually distinct, it would make for an easier read. I also think both you and PG aren't in as much disagreement as your response indicates. My interpretation of PG's article was that he primarily wanted to highlight the wealth-creation aspect, and contrast it to rent-seeking. I think you'd both agree on many concrete fixes (reduce rent-seeking in the financial system, a political system mainly driven by money, health-system reform, etc). Though this is my guess obviously.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joshAg 11y ago

I don't think you went overboard. Thanks for writing and posting this link.

heretoo 11y ago

I enjoyed it, though I haven't read PG's essay yet.

tezza 11y ago

It was a nice riposte. Altough the concentration on income inequality overall is perplexing to me. Income can be measured and is emotive ( I earn X but my cousin earns 10X ), yet I think concentrating on this metric is obscuring some bigger issues. You do touch on them in your counterpoint. Karl Marx in Das Kapital explains the situation post Industrial Revolution and prior to the World Wars. The landlords conspired with the factory owners to keep rents high and wages low so that workers had little ability to move or leave. This lack of freedom in a self determination sense is creeping back into Western economies. Mortgages and rents are so high that workers spend most of their wage paying that. So never mind that middle class income equality is 17% lower than middle class income equality 1980. House prices and rents have climbed more than enough even if 'equality' had persisted. ( Also prices for the very rich have increased too. ) But instead of a landlord class and factory manager class conspiring the prices have risen via market forces and lax monetary policy and the relabeling of debt as 'credit' Another factor is opportunity equality. Meritocricy has greatly reduced since 1980, and is acutely poor now. Entry into elite jobs like CEOs, the Media Class, (cough) VCs and Private Equity firms are chosen from just a few streams. Harvard, Wharton, Ivy League in the States and moneyed private school in Europe. From outside those circles it is a struggle to join. Paul touched on WW2, but I would go further and say both WW1 and WW2 were the genesis of a burst of meritocracy unleashed by mass death in Europe at the same time as vast strides in technology. Getting a good job was easy in 1960 because everyone had died in 1915 - 1945 and there were many new classes of job. These days, people are working and living longer and it is harder to get to the top... your boss didn't die in battle, you'll have to wait.

collyw 11y ago
Property prices are probably one of the most manipulated I can think of. Certainly in the UK, it is far from a free market.