4 ms·

But you don't necessarily increase poverty by decreasing utility and increasing inequality. Arguably, 8-hour workweek and restriction of child labor reduced uti

by tomp 11y ago

But you don't necessarily increase poverty by decreasing utility and increasing inequality. Arguably, 8-hour workweek and restriction of child labor reduced utility of people (at least on the short-term), but markedly improved their quality of life and probably decreased inequality as well. IMO it's likely that we would be much more productive and "better off" in a society where we're all "equal" (to some degree - e.g. a very good model of society is described in the story Manna by Marshall Brain - every day, everybody get's the same amount of energy (which cannot be stored) and they can use it however they want - including donating it to worthy causes). Without proportionate representation, it's unlikely that you can achieve "everyone better off", because your measure will be biased - such a system practically ensures that the rich/powerful are better off at the expense of the poor, because their desires are weighted more heavily!

yummyfajitas 11y ago
But you don't necessarily increase poverty by decreasing utility and increasing inequality. I'm asking about values, not specific world conditions. Sometimes the world lets us get everything we want - e.g., globalization and capitalism so far have reduced poverty and inequality together. But sometimes the world doesn't give us the easy case. That's when we actually need to understand our values, and answer questions like "how many people will I push into poverty to reduce GINI by 1%?" If your answer is zero, you agree with me completely and don't care about inequality. Are you agreeing with me that inequality is irrelevant now?
- tomp 11y ago
  I agree that equality is not important as a goal, but it's important as a means - I think (i.e. based on my observation of reality) that inequality results in bad outcomes (i.e. takes us further from the goal of "less poverty" or "better lives"), hence my drive to oppose and fight it. Of course, it would be even better if I/we could simply reduce poverty and improves lives directly (without the detour of fighting inequality), but currently I don't know how (and neither does anyone else). One of the best, if unrealistic, solutions I see are robots; but between now and when we invent really useful robots, I think it's important to strive to prevent outcomes as displayed in the movie Elysium (or the alternative future in the story Manna).

by tomp 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

But you don't necessarily increase poverty by decreasing utility and increasing inequality. I'm asking about values, not specific world conditions. Sometimes the world lets us get everything we want - e.g., globalization and capitalism so far have reduced poverty and inequality together. But sometimes the world doesn't give us the easy case. That's when we actually need to understand our values, and answer questions like "how many people will I push into poverty to reduce GINI by 1%?" If your answer is zero, you agree with me completely and don't care about inequality. Are you agreeing with me that inequality is irrelevant now?

tomp 11y ago
I agree that equality is not important as a goal, but it's important as a means - I think (i.e. based on my observation of reality) that inequality results in bad outcomes (i.e. takes us further from the goal of "less poverty" or "better lives"), hence my drive to oppose and fight it. Of course, it would be even better if I/we could simply reduce poverty and improves lives directly (without the detour of fighting inequality), but currently I don't know how (and neither does anyone else). One of the best, if unrealistic, solutions I see are robots; but between now and when we invent really useful robots, I think it's important to strive to prevent outcomes as displayed in the movie Elysium (or the alternative future in the story Manna).