5 ms·

To get at the ethics of it, even if what you say is true, one must understand the Matthew Effect and self-fulfilling prophesy. These are just as much a force of

To get at the ethics of it, even if what you say is true, one must understand the Matthew Effect and self-fulfilling prophesy. These are just as much a force of nature as natural selection and the invisible hand. Einstein called compounding growth one of the most powerful forces in the universe. The Matthew Effect is compounding inequality over generations.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Inequality isn't compounding though (at least this century). It's shrinking rapidly. http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 But I'm curious though - by what mechanism will such decisions actually cause the Matthew effect? For examples in that article, it's somewhat clear - e.g., the famous mathematician becomes more famous because people notice his papers. But now, in employment, suppose I will make better decisions by favoring an equally qualified Tamil over a Bihari. How will that cause Tamil-Bihari inequality to increase at an exponential rate? Also, even if some groups do get a higher growth rate than others, why is that relevant? Concretely, what ethical or moral reason do we have for choosing these arbitrary groups to care about?
- eevilspock 10y ago
  Neither of those links/graphs show that inequality had decreased. His argument is based on the false assumption that one-hump is more equal than two. Here are some graphs that argue the other way: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequality-story-in-six-charts http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequali.... Note that the decrease in inequality after WW2 is due to the New Deal and other massive social welfare programs that redistributed wealth. The moment we stopped doing that inequality started growing again. The only way to counter the Matthew Effect is to change the feedback loop. The post-WW2 programs and post-civil rights movement Affirmative Action programs (coincidentally affirmed by SCOTUS today) are examples of doing just that. I'll not make an argument for the merits of desegregating society here, but the Parable of the Polygons (http://ncase.me/polygons http://ncase.me/polygons) is another example of how deliberate counteractions are the only way to change the "natural" course of things. Human culture (including evolving social mores, laws and science) is a prime example of changing the natural course of things. Laissez-faire doesn't always work. How do such decisions cause the Matthew Effect? In so many ways! But here's one to get you started: Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. That translates to white Americans growing up in a safer environment, being better educated, having more connections to other advantaged people, not being constantly violated (I highly recommend you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me) the way blacks are -- I could go on and on. So of course whites will more often be "better hires" from a pure business perspective. So more whites get hired for better jobs. So guess whose children get to live in better neighborhoods, get to go to better schools, and all the other advantages I listed earlier? That is the Matthew Effect.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Your polygon parable shows that phase segregation is a natural result of like-dissolves-like (something chemists have long known), and will likely occur naturally as a result of individual choices rather than malicious effects. While this is interesting - it provides strong evidence that various racial disparities may NOT be the result of racism - it doesn't support the Matthew Effect at all. Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. No one disputes this. The question is why this will result in differing exponential growth rates. You haven't provided a mechanism for this. Indians and Chinese are also clearly more disadvantaged than black Americans - just think how much effort they need to go through simply to get the natural advantage of being legally permitted to work in the US. Yet their growth rate (in terms of life expectancy, income, etc) is higher. This demonstrates that your "clearly less advantaged" theory does not imply differing exponential growth rates. Also, your source about within-country inequality (i.e. Piketty) is silly. Even if we only assign 3/5 weight to Indians and Chinese people [1], inequality has still decreased. Any discussion of inequality which mentions Balzac more frequently than India/China/Africa (such as Piketty's book) is hopelessly myopic. [1] Is there a reason that the Indian people around me (I'm in India) deserve less weight than Frenchies? I'd love an answer more detailed than "Trump 2016!!! WOO YEAH!"
- ridgeguy 10y ago
  On your first point: Inequality among nations is in decline, as you note. Inequality among individuals within nations, however, is on the rise. [1] I think this is as important as inequality among nations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    No, inequality among individuals across the world is in decline. That's what my graph shows. Why is inequality within arbitrary borders as important? There are a near infinite set of possible borders - what makes your choice of borders morally meaningful?
    - ridgeguy 10y ago
      Inequality within arbitrary borders is important because economic environments, and therefore effects on individuals, are still defined by those arbitrary borders. AFAIK, it matters very little to my daily life or even to my two decade outlook what happens to wealth inequality within, say, Rwanda. But it matters very much that increasing wealth inequality (and consequent pricing phenomena) in the Bay area is driving away critical infrastructure operators. People upon whom my community depends: teachers, firefighters, police, sewage treatment operators, water company employees, ambulance drivers, road maintenance workers - the people who provide the necessities that sustain my community - are being driven away by increasing wealth inequality. They're priced out of living within (now) about 2.5 hours from where they work. In my value system, this is not good. Not for them, for me, or for my neighbors (some of whom must leave due to property tax increases). Global statistics aren't useful in understanding local effects. Each community, whatever the particular definition of community may be, is at the mercy of what happens to it and those communities upon which it depends. I get that globally, humanity is making real progress in quality of life. And I'm very glad for that. But like the future, I see that it's not evenly distributed. We should work on that.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        The issue you are discussing is the Malthusian scarcity of housing caused by exclusionary zoning. Specifically, SF has N houses but K > N people who want to live there. Arithmetic implies K-N people need to live further out. Reducing income inequality cannot fix this. Only building more houses can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle Also, even if your argument were valid, it only implies that metro area inequality matters. So why are you looking at national inequality?
- ced 10y ago
  I can't make head or tails of this chart. How many people had a salary between 500$ and 1000$ in the blue curve? The area under the curve is completely distorted by the logarithmic x-axis. Also, doesn't the second graph on https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality suggest that inequality has been steadily rising?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The second graph suggests inequality has been decreasing during my lifetime. (I was born after 1980.)

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Inequality isn't compounding though (at least this century). It's shrinking rapidly. http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/745602914123603968 But I'm curious though - by what mechanism will such decisions actually cause the Matthew effect? For examples in that article, it's somewhat clear - e.g., the famous mathematician becomes more famous because people notice his papers. But now, in employment, suppose I will make better decisions by favoring an equally qualified Tamil over a Bihari. How will that cause Tamil-Bihari inequality to increase at an exponential rate? Also, even if some groups do get a higher growth rate than others, why is that relevant? Concretely, what ethical or moral reason do we have for choosing these arbitrary groups to care about?

eevilspock 10y ago
Neither of those links/graphs show that inequality had decreased. His argument is based on the false assumption that one-hump is more equal than two. Here are some graphs that argue the other way: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequality-story-in-six-charts http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequali.... Note that the decrease in inequality after WW2 is due to the New Deal and other massive social welfare programs that redistributed wealth. The moment we stopped doing that inequality started growing again. The only way to counter the Matthew Effect is to change the feedback loop. The post-WW2 programs and post-civil rights movement Affirmative Action programs (coincidentally affirmed by SCOTUS today) are examples of doing just that. I'll not make an argument for the merits of desegregating society here, but the Parable of the Polygons (http://ncase.me/polygons http://ncase.me/polygons) is another example of how deliberate counteractions are the only way to change the "natural" course of things. Human culture (including evolving social mores, laws and science) is a prime example of changing the natural course of things. Laissez-faire doesn't always work. How do such decisions cause the Matthew Effect? In so many ways! But here's one to get you started: Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. That translates to white Americans growing up in a safer environment, being better educated, having more connections to other advantaged people, not being constantly violated (I highly recommend you read Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me) the way blacks are -- I could go on and on. So of course whites will more often be "better hires" from a pure business perspective. So more whites get hired for better jobs. So guess whose children get to live in better neighborhoods, get to go to better schools, and all the other advantages I listed earlier? That is the Matthew Effect.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Your polygon parable shows that phase segregation is a natural result of like-dissolves-like (something chemists have long known), and will likely occur naturally as a result of individual choices rather than malicious effects. While this is interesting - it provides strong evidence that various racial disparities may NOT be the result of racism - it doesn't support the Matthew Effect at all. Black Americans are clearly less advantaged than white Americans. No one disputes this. The question is why this will result in differing exponential growth rates. You haven't provided a mechanism for this. Indians and Chinese are also clearly more disadvantaged than black Americans - just think how much effort they need to go through simply to get the natural advantage of being legally permitted to work in the US. Yet their growth rate (in terms of life expectancy, income, etc) is higher. This demonstrates that your "clearly less advantaged" theory does not imply differing exponential growth rates. Also, your source about within-country inequality (i.e. Piketty) is silly. Even if we only assign 3/5 weight to Indians and Chinese people [1], inequality has still decreased. Any discussion of inequality which mentions Balzac more frequently than India/China/Africa (such as Piketty's book) is hopelessly myopic. [1] Is there a reason that the Indian people around me (I'm in India) deserve less weight than Frenchies? I'd love an answer more detailed than "Trump 2016!!! WOO YEAH!"
ridgeguy 10y ago
On your first point: Inequality among nations is in decline, as you note. Inequality among individuals within nations, however, is on the rise. [1] I think this is as important as inequality among nations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  No, inequality among individuals across the world is in decline. That's what my graph shows. Why is inequality within arbitrary borders as important? There are a near infinite set of possible borders - what makes your choice of borders morally meaningful?
  - ridgeguy 10y ago
    Inequality within arbitrary borders is important because economic environments, and therefore effects on individuals, are still defined by those arbitrary borders. AFAIK, it matters very little to my daily life or even to my two decade outlook what happens to wealth inequality within, say, Rwanda. But it matters very much that increasing wealth inequality (and consequent pricing phenomena) in the Bay area is driving away critical infrastructure operators. People upon whom my community depends: teachers, firefighters, police, sewage treatment operators, water company employees, ambulance drivers, road maintenance workers - the people who provide the necessities that sustain my community - are being driven away by increasing wealth inequality. They're priced out of living within (now) about 2.5 hours from where they work. In my value system, this is not good. Not for them, for me, or for my neighbors (some of whom must leave due to property tax increases). Global statistics aren't useful in understanding local effects. Each community, whatever the particular definition of community may be, is at the mercy of what happens to it and those communities upon which it depends. I get that globally, humanity is making real progress in quality of life. And I'm very glad for that. But like the future, I see that it's not evenly distributed. We should work on that.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The issue you are discussing is the Malthusian scarcity of housing caused by exclusionary zoning. Specifically, SF has N houses but K > N people who want to live there. Arithmetic implies K-N people need to live further out. Reducing income inequality cannot fix this. Only building more houses can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle Also, even if your argument were valid, it only implies that metro area inequality matters. So why are you looking at national inequality?
ced 10y ago
I can't make head or tails of this chart. How many people had a salary between 500$ and 1000$ in the blue curve? The area under the curve is completely distorted by the logarithmic x-axis. Also, doesn't the second graph on https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality suggest that inequality has been steadily rising?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The second graph suggests inequality has been decreasing during my lifetime. (I was born after 1980.)