5 ms·

It is insane (and also very educational) that so many people are completely missing pg's point - author of this response included. I blame pg a little for usin

It is insane (and also very educational) that so many people are completely missing pg's point - author of this response included. I blame pg a little for using the phrase "income inequality" at all since it seems to be a trigger for many people and shuts down their critical reading and reasoning abilities. Let me try to phrase it in a clearer way. If you focus on reducing "income inequality" then you will reduce income inequality, but that will have many negative unintended consequences (killing startups at the extreme, etc). Instead, people should focus on the REAL problems which is lack of economic opportunity, crushing poverty, and political corruption. The real solutions all come from helping the people at the lesser end of the inequality equation without having to touch many of the people at the greater end. Universal healthcare, universal education (day-care/pre-school/public schools/job retraining), universal basic income. Just those three policies alone would have an unimaginable positive impact on whatever country institutes them. And my guess the money for these things already exists if you eliminate ridiculous wasteful spending, subsidies, etc. If, at the end of day you eliminate wasteful spending and there is still a shortage of funds for these programs, then sure increase taxes on the wealthiest. My guess is that many would be fine with it (since it's going to a "good" cause).

josephpmay 11y ago
Exactly, and I'm not sure why you're downvoted. PG and the author of this Medium article are basically arguing for the SAME thing. They want policies that allow the poor to have more economic growth opportunity. The main point of contention is the terminology "income inequality."
- wanderingjew 11y ago
  Are you suggesting that by using the term 'income inequality', PG is not communicating effectively?
ZenoArrow 11y ago
The problems of economic inequality do not just boil down to lack of opportunities for the poor, it also encompasses disproportionate levels of power for the rich. Improving opportunities for the poor is important, but so is providing a fairer playing field in both the economy and politics.
js8 11y ago
I know you mean well, but here's a counterargument. The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the standard way to address a problem like that is to fix both ends at once, little by little. And it's insincere to think that universal access doesn't affect the wealthiest at all. In many cases (not all, it's probably not the case of Y combinator kind of people), the wealthiest got where they are by abusing the poor.
- csallen 11y ago
  The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the standard way to address a problem like that is to fix both ends at once, little by little. If the rich are the primary actors against social and economic progress ("universal whatever") and are powerful enough to prevent it, what makes you think we have any chance at stripping them of their wealth? It's akin to attacking the enemy's main castle in order to weaken their small fort. Why not just attack the small fort? If you win against the main castle, then your theory that the small fort was too strong must have been false. In many cases (not all, it's probably not the case of Y combinator kind of people), the wealthiest got where they are by abusing the poor. If that's true, why don't we just target those abusers?
  - js8 11y ago
    I think you have a good point. But I still think polarization of the society is an obstacle that has to be overcome in sync with this. Things like people supporting Donald Trump. I wish I had a good recipe/idea how to reverse that (at least some of these authoritarian trends), but I don't. So it's more like a distraction is needed at the main castle in order to take the small fort.

josephpmay 11y ago

Exactly, and I'm not sure why you're downvoted. PG and the author of this Medium article are basically arguing for the SAME thing. They want policies that allow the poor to have more economic growth opportunity. The main point of contention is the terminology "income inequality."

wanderingjew 11y ago
Are you suggesting that by using the term 'income inequality', PG is not communicating effectively?

ZenoArrow 11y ago

The problems of economic inequality do not just boil down to lack of opportunities for the poor, it also encompasses disproportionate levels of power for the rich. Improving opportunities for the poor is important, but so is providing a fairer playing field in both the economy and politics.

js8 11y ago

I know you mean well, but here's a counterargument. The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the standard way to address a problem like that is to fix both ends at once, little by little. And it's insincere to think that universal access doesn't affect the wealthiest at all. In many cases (not all, it's probably not the case of Y combinator kind of people), the wealthiest got where they are by abusing the poor.

csallen 11y ago
The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the standard way to address a problem like that is to fix both ends at once, little by little. If the rich are the primary actors against social and economic progress ("universal whatever") and are powerful enough to prevent it, what makes you think we have any chance at stripping them of their wealth? It's akin to attacking the enemy's main castle in order to weaken their small fort. Why not just attack the small fort? If you win against the main castle, then your theory that the small fort was too strong must have been false. In many cases (not all, it's probably not the case of Y combinator kind of people), the wealthiest got where they are by abusing the poor. If that's true, why don't we just target those abusers?
- js8 11y ago
  I think you have a good point. But I still think polarization of the society is an obstacle that has to be overcome in sync with this. Things like people supporting Donald Trump. I wish I had a good recipe/idea how to reverse that (at least some of these authoritarian trends), but I don't. So it's more like a distraction is needed at the main castle in order to take the small fort.