3 ms·
In the strictest sense, inequality per se isn't bad or actionable: if the residents of Kepler-186f start out poor compared to those of Sol-3, it shouldn't influ
by scarmig 11y ago
In the strictest sense, inequality per se isn't bad or actionable: if the residents of Kepler-186f start out poor compared to those of Sol-3, it shouldn't influence our actions at all. And if they suddenly become far richer a century later as they stumble upon technological riches untold, it still shouldn't change how we live: all we can say is that in a theoretical utilitarian sense, the universe is a lot better off than otherwise.
The issue is that the human rich and the poor don't exist on separate planets (yet?). One plausible theory, though one I don't argue for or against here, is that as economic power ends up concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, so does political power and the will to change the crappy situation of the poorest, despite the hand-wringing of the more civic-minded rich. This would lead to a world that many people would rank lower than a world with less poverty and more equality.
The details are everything here: if evidence supports the idea that increased inequality raises the economic floor, then we shouldn't worry too much about it. But the people arguing otherwise aren't jealous of their next door neighbor's new car in itself but are worried that, in the actually existing world, increased economic inequality inherently leads to negative social effects.
- squozzer 11y agoThe concentration of wealth has some observable effects that we probably don't want - for example, real estate prices. Not that expensive real estate is bad in itself, but people who work in areas where they can't afford to live - for instance, a hypothetical cop in NY / LA / SF - have three obvious choices: 1> commute, sometimes for hours one-way. One could argue that policing outside of one's neighborhood is bad policing, but for the most part, long commutes are just a drag. And probably will last only as long as it takes for a job closer to home to open up. So now it's a turnover problem. 2> rent control or other "low-income" concession. Waiting lists are long, developers resist creating more supply, and always have to consider the risk of arbitrage. 3> extra jobs / graft - competition for outside security work is pretty tight, and I'm sure we can all agree another cop on the take is something the world doesn't need. We could try a variant of option 2 and provide housing subsidies for certain professions, something I think the FBI does for agents in certain areas, but then we run the risk of creating castes. I doubt anyone would entertain subsidizing a barista's rent just so they wouldn't have to commute 3 hours to a Starbucks in Beverly Hills. But it might happen for a cop (probably not.) The degenerate case is all the cops leave and the rich have the opportunity to fend for themselves.
- sjg007 11y agoI can't wait for the SFBARF case to reach the Supreme Court. That will change things.