3 ms·

It's worth pointing out that Rattner ISN'T calling for brakes on globalization or free trade. He's calling for a stronger social safety net, in order to better

by whack 11y ago

It's worth pointing out that Rattner ISN'T calling for brakes on globalization or free trade. He's calling for a stronger social safety net, in order to better help those who aren't benefiting from the economic wealth that globalization generates. This is a position that we can all get behind. Regardless of the precise causes of income inequality, whether it's due to globalization, labor automation, or industry cycles, there will always be people who find themselves left out in the cold due to unfortunate circumstances. As long as our society keeps getting richer, we should do more to help those who aren't benefiting from the same changes that have benefited the rest of us.

proksoup 11y ago
Why? Our resources aren't infinite. Why is there any should about who gets to live and who gets to die? We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we?
- rifung 11y ago
  Our resources aren't infinite, but certain people have more than they need while others don't have enough to survive. I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. But, that doesn't mean we just don't do anything though, we can still do as much as possible given what we have. Not only that but if we helped those who are down get new skills to be productive, wouldn't that only be better for our economy and thus for everyone?
  - wang_li 11y ago
    >I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. In theory, yes. There are enough resources that people would live free of want and hunger. But, we can't because there is some portion of the populace that consistently exhibits zero self control. If given the self-control/candy test, they'd eat the candy and then fifteen minutes later tell you what a horrible person you are for not giving them the other piece. You could go out and top off everyone so that they have $50,000 liquid cash, find housing, explain how rent works, etc. and within three months there will be people being evicted and homeless with no money to their name. So you repeat. And three months later you have to repeat again. And again. And again. And after loading and reloading people with money, now you're poor and have nothing to give. It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us. This is exhibited by the fact that if they did they would make a realistic effort to not be a burden on others. And for many of these people there is no amount of money and resources they can be given that will cause them to say "enough, stop, i don't need any more."
    - proksoup 11y ago
      > It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us Even if you succeed, and you provide enough for an abundant lifestyle ... perhaps they then have many children. Perhaps they raise those children with the same values. It's just not a bright vision of the future in my head if just because you were born a human you get the special privilege to live and multiply. How could it possibly be sustainable?
    - rifung 11y ago
      I completely agree with you. It seems to me that we should be giving people the tools they need to better their lives, and if they muck it up, our conscience can remain clear. Of course, there is something to be said about mental issues people have too. I feel like even those who "lack self control" can be helped, but they need to be helped in a similar way to how we try to help drug addicts.
- apsurd 11y ago
  One selfish, and therefore easily understandable reason for helping those less fortunate is because, left unchecked, there might be some tipping point for these less-fortunate to rebel in the societal sense, out of necessity for _their survival_. That's a problem for all of us.
  - rqebmm 11y ago
    This is the counterbalance I find free-market enthusiasts forget about. Rich people need the state, too, once the angry mob starts looking around for torches and pitchforks.
  - atomic77 11y ago
    An even easier argument to make for the selfish and empathy-challenged is the link between inequality and violent crime [1]. The more money and resources you have to spend on walls and security guards the less you have for investment and consumption on useful things. [1] http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INE...
- analyst74 11y ago
  Giving everyone a mansion and steak/salmon for food is not possible. But giving everyone basic shelter/food/clothing is well within our abilities today.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we? I think it's better to phrase it as a problem statement: how can we help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints? Humans are good at figuring out solutions to problems. Don't give up!
fweespeech 11y ago
Yep. Largely because actually putting the brakes on free trade doesn't work in practice so the only option we can take seriously is to take the dividends from that and invest it in the social safety net + education.
FilterSweep 11y ago
>those who aren't benefiting from the economic wealth that globalization generates I think that's the problem that the NYT completely misses. If modern globalization causes centralization on an economy of scale basis, then there is less "wealth" generally created overall. Centralized economies are less competitive economies. Less wealth goes into the hands of few than leaves the hands of many, if that makes any sense. If HP were to merge with Apple (joke hypothetical), there would be some very happy board members and execs, but far more, less happy workers fired for redundancy. Unfortunately, this is the situation we are seeing more and more today, particularly in the 21st century. And yes, the population does have an impact on this The major point of contention here is: "does globalization cause centralization?"
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by whack 11y ago

proksoup 11y ago

Why? Our resources aren't infinite. Why is there any should about who gets to live and who gets to die? We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we?

rifung 11y ago
Our resources aren't infinite, but certain people have more than they need while others don't have enough to survive. I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. But, that doesn't mean we just don't do anything though, we can still do as much as possible given what we have. Not only that but if we helped those who are down get new skills to be productive, wouldn't that only be better for our economy and thus for everyone?
- wang_li 11y ago
  >I don't know if we could, even theoretically, let everyone in the US live a decent life. In theory, yes. There are enough resources that people would live free of want and hunger. But, we can't because there is some portion of the populace that consistently exhibits zero self control. If given the self-control/candy test, they'd eat the candy and then fifteen minutes later tell you what a horrible person you are for not giving them the other piece. You could go out and top off everyone so that they have $50,000 liquid cash, find housing, explain how rent works, etc. and within three months there will be people being evicted and homeless with no money to their name. So you repeat. And three months later you have to repeat again. And again. And again. And after loading and reloading people with money, now you're poor and have nothing to give. It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us. This is exhibited by the fact that if they did they would make a realistic effort to not be a burden on others. And for many of these people there is no amount of money and resources they can be given that will cause them to say "enough, stop, i don't need any more."
  - proksoup 11y ago
    > It's basic reality that there are people we are told we need to have compassion and empathy for, yet they have none for us Even if you succeed, and you provide enough for an abundant lifestyle ... perhaps they then have many children. Perhaps they raise those children with the same values. It's just not a bright vision of the future in my head if just because you were born a human you get the special privilege to live and multiply. How could it possibly be sustainable?
  - rifung 11y ago
    I completely agree with you. It seems to me that we should be giving people the tools they need to better their lives, and if they muck it up, our conscience can remain clear. Of course, there is something to be said about mental issues people have too. I feel like even those who "lack self control" can be helped, but they need to be helped in a similar way to how we try to help drug addicts.
apsurd 11y ago
One selfish, and therefore easily understandable reason for helping those less fortunate is because, left unchecked, there might be some tipping point for these less-fortunate to rebel in the societal sense, out of necessity for _their survival_. That's a problem for all of us.
- rqebmm 11y ago
  This is the counterbalance I find free-market enthusiasts forget about. Rich people need the state, too, once the angry mob starts looking around for torches and pitchforks.
- atomic77 11y ago
  An even easier argument to make for the selfish and empathy-challenged is the link between inequality and violent crime [1]. The more money and resources you have to spend on walls and security guards the less you have for investment and consumption on useful things. [1] http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INE...
analyst74 11y ago
Giving everyone a mansion and steak/salmon for food is not possible. But giving everyone basic shelter/food/clothing is well within our abilities today.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> We can't help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints, can we? I think it's better to phrase it as a problem statement: how can we help everyone live without eventually hitting resource constraints? Humans are good at figuring out solutions to problems. Don't give up!

fweespeech 11y ago

Yep. Largely because actually putting the brakes on free trade doesn't work in practice so the only option we can take seriously is to take the dividends from that and invest it in the social safety net + education.

FilterSweep 11y ago

>those who aren't benefiting from the economic wealth that globalization generates I think that's the problem that the NYT completely misses. If modern globalization causes centralization on an economy of scale basis, then there is less "wealth" generally created overall. Centralized economies are less competitive economies. Less wealth goes into the hands of few than leaves the hands of many, if that makes any sense. If HP were to merge with Apple (joke hypothetical), there would be some very happy board members and execs, but far more, less happy workers fired for redundancy. Unfortunately, this is the situation we are seeing more and more today, particularly in the 21st century. And yes, the population does have an impact on this The major point of contention here is: "does globalization cause centralization?"

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]