4 ms·

Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all worki

by rubyfan 10y ago

Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win.

Kurtz79 10y ago
"It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more." Do you seriously think this is an achievable goal ? There will be always people that can't or won't work hard for a living. It might be due to their upbringing, education, DNA, personal choices, health conditions, personality. It doesn't mean that these people should be left to their own devices, for the "selfish" reasons mentioned by the OP, if not for more "noble" ones. Resource redistribution does not aim to "solve" income inequality, but to lessen its side effects. It might be not the only way, it is definitely not perfect and you might say it is not fair, but at least it is a realistic way to tackle a difficult problem.
rskar 10y ago
"It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more." Well, of course, we all prosper when we all are prospering. :) While life isn't exactly a zero-sum game, for certain moments it works that way. In any case, for now (nearly) all of us are Earth-bounded, so the limits of what our planet and our Sun can provide to us (over time) is what truly matters. There's only so much of Earth to go around, and only so much radiation to be received from the Sun. (And I am of course overlooking the occasional changes from meteors and comets and other whatnot from the heavens.) This thing about income (and wealth) inequality is about more than mere discontents. There are plenty who fear that our global economic system (leaning heavily on capitalism with sprinkles of socialism) will soon arrive at a point of being unsustainable - a point that arrives prior to actual resource depletion. The heart of it is in the ways that people can be so entitled to things, such as water, food, clothing, shelter, education, offspring, healthcare, etc. The worries are about the consequences of greater portions of the population being at or below subsistence levels. This is especially alarming when the statistics show it growing more significant within "First-World" nations. The three big factors seem to be (to me, anyway): (1) Strong property rights which enables more rentiers and natural monopolies; (2) Rentiers/Monopolizers out-competing most or all others for political and economic influences and favors; (3) human labor becoming less needed over time due to the growing rise of adaptable and reliable automation. The automation of item 3 would make a "Galt's Gulch" more tenable, but it would probably be realized as an artificial island nation. Well, one can dream of one, anyway (see http://theweek.com/articles/482427/libertarian-island-billionaires-utopia http://theweek.com/articles/482427/libertarian-island-billio...). One can easily google on "wealth inequality" and get some sober/reasonable/academic reads on this. A good primer is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-t.... Also, look up NBER Working Paper No. 20625.
antisthenes 10y ago
> I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win. If you studied economics, you'd very quickly realize that many areas that people compete for and responsible for inequality are zero-sum (at least in the short-run and medium-run). It is more tricky for wealth, since once person owning something more esoteric, like a portfolio does not necessarily preclude anyone else from doing so. The most notable example, of course, is real estate, especially in the areas where zoning laws prohibit from building upwards. You might also know it as a NIMBY suburban sprawl, which is one of the biggest factors in creating inequality and misery in the US. Another example that I haven't explored fully is political influence. The attention and decision-making of policymakers is definitely zero-sum by virtue of there being a fixed amount of them.
- rubyfan 10y ago
  I don't believe that the laborer and the software developer are competing for the same resources in most cases. They are not playing a zero sum game. Their resource accumulations are based on market conditions, the market allocates toward value of utility in a mostly efficient manner. Why would we move from a set of natural laws that govern allocation to a central authority based one? Ie, why should government take from the software developer some of his resource so that the laborer has more than what the market would allocate?
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? Yes. > I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. That's true, so a redistribution can result in a net gain (or loss) of aggregate experienced utility. But you can't change the outcomes resulting from the current system of allocating resources without changing the allocation.
metaphorm 10y ago
It doesn't particularly matter if the game is zero-sum or not because of the way money interacts with influence/power. Essentially it is a bidding war, so those with the most money will always command the most influence by way of being able to bid the most. It doesn't matter that others are still gaining in their monetary compensation. They are still suffering through a widening deficit in power and agency.
current_call 10y ago
Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? You're asking the wrong question. Why is income inequality a problem?

by rubyfan 10y ago

Kurtz79 10y ago

"It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more." Do you seriously think this is an achievable goal ? There will be always people that can't or won't work hard for a living. It might be due to their upbringing, education, DNA, personal choices, health conditions, personality. It doesn't mean that these people should be left to their own devices, for the "selfish" reasons mentioned by the OP, if not for more "noble" ones. Resource redistribution does not aim to "solve" income inequality, but to lessen its side effects. It might be not the only way, it is definitely not perfect and you might say it is not fair, but at least it is a realistic way to tackle a difficult problem.

rskar 10y ago

"It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more." Well, of course, we all prosper when we all are prospering. :) While life isn't exactly a zero-sum game, for certain moments it works that way. In any case, for now (nearly) all of us are Earth-bounded, so the limits of what our planet and our Sun can provide to us (over time) is what truly matters. There's only so much of Earth to go around, and only so much radiation to be received from the Sun. (And I am of course overlooking the occasional changes from meteors and comets and other whatnot from the heavens.) This thing about income (and wealth) inequality is about more than mere discontents. There are plenty who fear that our global economic system (leaning heavily on capitalism with sprinkles of socialism) will soon arrive at a point of being unsustainable - a point that arrives prior to actual resource depletion. The heart of it is in the ways that people can be so entitled to things, such as water, food, clothing, shelter, education, offspring, healthcare, etc. The worries are about the consequences of greater portions of the population being at or below subsistence levels. This is especially alarming when the statistics show it growing more significant within "First-World" nations. The three big factors seem to be (to me, anyway): (1) Strong property rights which enables more rentiers and natural monopolies; (2) Rentiers/Monopolizers out-competing most or all others for political and economic influences and favors; (3) human labor becoming less needed over time due to the growing rise of adaptable and reliable automation. The automation of item 3 would make a "Galt's Gulch" more tenable, but it would probably be realized as an artificial island nation. Well, one can dream of one, anyway (see http://theweek.com/articles/482427/libertarian-island-billionaires-utopia http://theweek.com/articles/482427/libertarian-island-billio...). One can easily google on "wealth inequality" and get some sober/reasonable/academic reads on this. A good primer is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-t.... Also, look up NBER Working Paper No. 20625.

antisthenes 10y ago

> I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win. If you studied economics, you'd very quickly realize that many areas that people compete for and responsible for inequality are zero-sum (at least in the short-run and medium-run). It is more tricky for wealth, since once person owning something more esoteric, like a portfolio does not necessarily preclude anyone else from doing so. The most notable example, of course, is real estate, especially in the areas where zoning laws prohibit from building upwards. You might also know it as a NIMBY suburban sprawl, which is one of the biggest factors in creating inequality and misery in the US. Another example that I haven't explored fully is political influence. The attention and decision-making of policymakers is definitely zero-sum by virtue of there being a fixed amount of them.

rubyfan 10y ago
I don't believe that the laborer and the software developer are competing for the same resources in most cases. They are not playing a zero sum game. Their resource accumulations are based on market conditions, the market allocates toward value of utility in a mostly efficient manner. Why would we move from a set of natural laws that govern allocation to a central authority based one? Ie, why should government take from the software developer some of his resource so that the laborer has more than what the market would allocate?

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? Yes. > I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. That's true, so a redistribution can result in a net gain (or loss) of aggregate experienced utility. But you can't change the outcomes resulting from the current system of allocating resources without changing the allocation.

metaphorm 10y ago

It doesn't particularly matter if the game is zero-sum or not because of the way money interacts with influence/power. Essentially it is a bidding war, so those with the most money will always command the most influence by way of being able to bid the most. It doesn't matter that others are still gaining in their monetary compensation. They are still suffering through a widening deficit in power and agency.

current_call 10y ago

Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? You're asking the wrong question. Why is income inequality a problem?