3 ms·

Isn't that a bit like saying that professional athletes or entertainers have their lifestyles subsidized by those who are forced to take basic jobs because they

by baddox 11y ago

Isn't that a bit like saying that professional athletes or entertainers have their lifestyles subsidized by those who are forced to take basic jobs because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals? Or would you say that athletes and entertainers are okay because their success is based more on their own merit?

quadrangle 11y ago
Athletes and entertainers are mostly struggling people. There's tons of talented people who don't get rich at all. The smaller number who get rich are winners in a largely winner-take-all media system controlled by big corporations. Even most NFL players aren't rich, only the stars, the others just make a decent living but then have to quit at a young age and live with concussions. The best collegiate wrestlers are athletes of the highest order and have no living from it. And so on and so on. Regardless, these spectacles are barely productive or valuable really. They are mostly escapist distractions. The circus part of "bread and circuses". The idea that you can look at this completely unjust system and say "oh, the Gladiators deserve their fortunes though" is absurdly out of touch. > because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals Your comment implies that we could have a functioning society if everyone were rock stars and athletes. That's absurd. The role of rock-star and athlete is a zero-sum game. We don't need a billion rock stars. If everyone were virtuoso musicians, then a few of them would still win the lottery as being the ones that make it over others, and nothing would be that different. We'd still be having the same discussions about economics etc.
- baddox 11y ago
  I said "professional" athletes and entertainers. I'm not just talking about the ultra wealthy stars. I just mean people who make a living doing that full time. > Your comment implies that we could have a functioning society if everyone were rock stars and athletes. That's absurd I'm arguing the opposite, by highlighting this absurdity.
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Sorry if I misread your comment. You seemed to be implying that people who make a living as artists and athletes "deserve" their living and that other people are not-so-talented. Maybe you were playing the character of someone with that sort of dumb bias.
stegosaurus 11y ago
I think you're attributing some sort of negative towards the wealthy that I don't hold. I have no issue with the rich. I have a problem with the lack of negotiating power that the poor have. The subsidy comment is intended to illustrate that it's not as simple as 'take money from the rich and give to the poor'. At the moment we have the reverse - the rich are able to give less because the market is not free - the poor are coerced into providing their services for a lower amount because they own nothing.
- fsloth 11y ago
  "I have no issue with the rich. I have a problem with the lack of negotiating power that the poor have." This! It's not about jealousy but augmenting the winner take all dynamics of uncontrolled economic system into something that feels humanely more fair without disincentivizing or creating pathological scenarios.
- baddox 11y ago
  I absolutely agree that the distribution of wealth from poor to rich is both real and crappy. And it's not just the "coercion" of having to trade labor for basic needs. The government (often at the behest of the very wealthy) has blatant poorer-to-richer income distribution policies. Virtually all subsidies of special interests are examples of this. Tariffs and other trade restrictions are examples of this. Social Security is an example of this (perhaps not by design). Inflation can be an example of this.

by baddox 11y ago

quadrangle 11y ago

Athletes and entertainers are mostly struggling people. There's tons of talented people who don't get rich at all. The smaller number who get rich are winners in a largely winner-take-all media system controlled by big corporations. Even most NFL players aren't rich, only the stars, the others just make a decent living but then have to quit at a young age and live with concussions. The best collegiate wrestlers are athletes of the highest order and have no living from it. And so on and so on. Regardless, these spectacles are barely productive or valuable really. They are mostly escapist distractions. The circus part of "bread and circuses". The idea that you can look at this completely unjust system and say "oh, the Gladiators deserve their fortunes though" is absurdly out of touch. > because they lack the athleticism or artistic skill of the professionals Your comment implies that we could have a functioning society if everyone were rock stars and athletes. That's absurd. The role of rock-star and athlete is a zero-sum game. We don't need a billion rock stars. If everyone were virtuoso musicians, then a few of them would still win the lottery as being the ones that make it over others, and nothing would be that different. We'd still be having the same discussions about economics etc.

baddox 11y ago
I said "professional" athletes and entertainers. I'm not just talking about the ultra wealthy stars. I just mean people who make a living doing that full time. > Your comment implies that we could have a functioning society if everyone were rock stars and athletes. That's absurd I'm arguing the opposite, by highlighting this absurdity.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Sorry if I misread your comment. You seemed to be implying that people who make a living as artists and athletes "deserve" their living and that other people are not-so-talented. Maybe you were playing the character of someone with that sort of dumb bias.

stegosaurus 11y ago

I think you're attributing some sort of negative towards the wealthy that I don't hold. I have no issue with the rich. I have a problem with the lack of negotiating power that the poor have. The subsidy comment is intended to illustrate that it's not as simple as 'take money from the rich and give to the poor'. At the moment we have the reverse - the rich are able to give less because the market is not free - the poor are coerced into providing their services for a lower amount because they own nothing.

fsloth 11y ago
"I have no issue with the rich. I have a problem with the lack of negotiating power that the poor have." This! It's not about jealousy but augmenting the winner take all dynamics of uncontrolled economic system into something that feels humanely more fair without disincentivizing or creating pathological scenarios.
baddox 11y ago
I absolutely agree that the distribution of wealth from poor to rich is both real and crappy. And it's not just the "coercion" of having to trade labor for basic needs. The government (often at the behest of the very wealthy) has blatant poorer-to-richer income distribution policies. Virtually all subsidies of special interests are examples of this. Tariffs and other trade restrictions are examples of this. Social Security is an example of this (perhaps not by design). Inflation can be an example of this.