3 ms·

Inequality of outcome (wealth/income/etc) is less of an issue than inequality of opportunity. if we make the statement "anyone can make a business and become r

Inequality of outcome (wealth/income/etc) is less of an issue than inequality of opportunity. if we make the statement "anyone can make a business and become rich" true (assume as axiomatically true; the quoted statement becomes literally true), then it will literally increase inequality: perhaps anyone can do it, but not everyone will. so inequality is a bad metric. If you start trying to tackle a bad metric, you will not do well. Nearly everyone you know has less than 1/10,000th the wealth that Sergei Brin does. I am stating it is a problem if you or anyone else has any problem with this state of affairs. And if you allow less dramatic examples than Sergei Brin, you will find thousands of people starting businesses and thereby increasing inequality. equality of outcome is not a noble or worthwhile goal.

maxerickson 10y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here, I didn't say anything about equality of outcome, I just pointed out that existing policies probably impact inequality and may not be the most desirable set of tradeoffs to make. For instance, very high tax rates on very high income won't come anywhere close to ensuring equality of outcome. For example, a hypothetical 75% tax on $10 million of income still leaves $2.5 million of after tax income. Please note very carefully that I'm not arguing that would be a sensible policy, I'm pointing out that even such a dramatic departure from current policy would leave lots of room for inequal outcomes.
- logicallee 10y ago
  But the issue is that $2.5 million of after tax income isn't bad. Even though it's unequal. Even though not everyone will make it. I don't know how else to put this. Suppose people said "fat inequality is a huge problem - some men have lean, fit bodies with 10%-12% body fat whereas other men have 40% body fat." In point of fact, while it is not desirable for everyone to have 40% or more body fat, there is no problem with the inequality itself: some people will always devote more of their lives to fitness, eating on strict diets and a lot of exercise; which is what it takes to achieve 10-12% bodyfat. THE INEQUALITY IS NOT AN ISSUE. Obesity is an issue NOT because of the inequality, but because of the direct effects of obesity. Poverty is an issue NOT because of inequality (NOT because of the fact that Brin has $39,000,000,000) but directly because of the direct effects of poverty. In short, inequality of wealth or income is a red herring. It is like trying to make America healthier by fighting "inequality of fitness" and fighting against some people having 12% bodyfat while others have 40%. (In this case you have to read in the opposite direction -- a 40% bodyfat is objectively worse -- but you understand what I'm saying. It's not the inequality that's bad. Not everyone will get to 8% bodyfat even if this is possible or somehow desirous.) I hope you see, and don't misinterpret the distinction that I'm pointing out. If you have questions follow up and I will clarify what I mean.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Which lines from the article did you find to be the most pejorative?

maxerickson 10y ago

I'm not sure what your point is here, I didn't say anything about equality of outcome, I just pointed out that existing policies probably impact inequality and may not be the most desirable set of tradeoffs to make. For instance, very high tax rates on very high income won't come anywhere close to ensuring equality of outcome. For example, a hypothetical 75% tax on $10 million of income still leaves $2.5 million of after tax income. Please note very carefully that I'm not arguing that would be a sensible policy, I'm pointing out that even such a dramatic departure from current policy would leave lots of room for inequal outcomes.

logicallee 10y ago
But the issue is that $2.5 million of after tax income isn't bad. Even though it's unequal. Even though not everyone will make it. I don't know how else to put this. Suppose people said "fat inequality is a huge problem - some men have lean, fit bodies with 10%-12% body fat whereas other men have 40% body fat." In point of fact, while it is not desirable for everyone to have 40% or more body fat, there is no problem with the inequality itself: some people will always devote more of their lives to fitness, eating on strict diets and a lot of exercise; which is what it takes to achieve 10-12% bodyfat. THE INEQUALITY IS NOT AN ISSUE. Obesity is an issue NOT because of the inequality, but because of the direct effects of obesity. Poverty is an issue NOT because of inequality (NOT because of the fact that Brin has $39,000,000,000) but directly because of the direct effects of poverty. In short, inequality of wealth or income is a red herring. It is like trying to make America healthier by fighting "inequality of fitness" and fighting against some people having 12% bodyfat while others have 40%. (In this case you have to read in the opposite direction -- a 40% bodyfat is objectively worse -- but you understand what I'm saying. It's not the inequality that's bad. Not everyone will get to 8% bodyfat even if this is possible or somehow desirous.) I hope you see, and don't misinterpret the distinction that I'm pointing out. If you have questions follow up and I will clarify what I mean.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Which lines from the article did you find to be the most pejorative?