6 ms·

>biggest social threat of our times: wealth disparity Serious question, not trolling: why does wealth disparity matter? Let's say you start the year barely ha

>biggest social threat of our times: wealth disparity Serious question, not trolling: why does wealth disparity matter? Let's say you start the year barely having enough to eat and are living in a cardboard box and you end the year with plenty of food and a small house, why would it matter if your neighbor gets to eat steak once a week and has a slightly nicer house? Surely the absolute fact that your are better off than you were previously is more important than the relative distribution of goods? A quick way to reduce wealth disparity is to burn down every home that costs more than the median house price. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. So why is relative wealth more important than absolute wealth again?

dguest 10y ago
Maybe a slightly bigger house is tolerable, but if my neighbor is making 10 times more than me and is able to buy his way out of legal trouble while I have to abide by the rule of law, I'm one of three things: lazy, inferior, or getting screwed. To maintain my faith in capitalist democracy in the face of large wealth inequality you have to convince me that one of these three options is acceptable. Most poor people I know wouldn't consider themselves lazy, so that one is out. With some serious social engineering and propaganda you may be able to convince the poor that they are inherently inferior, but the trend in most of the world seems to be against this sticking. So in most cases wealth disparity means that the poor people feel like they are getting screwed, i.e. they feel entitled to a better life, and they feel that their institutions have failed them. Look at any country with a high Gini Coefficient and you can see what this leads to. The rich end up corralled into compounds surrounded by razor wire and electric fences, kidnapping runs rampant, political corruption is the rule. With no reason to believe that the government is working for the underclass, you can't really expect the underclass to abide by the government's laws.
Frondo 10y ago
At some basic level, it depends on what you want to optimize for in society. If you want to optimize for "someone can own everything" then wealth disparity is not and will never be bad. If you want to optimize for a wide host of other things, such as the health of the people in a society, crime rates in a society, class mobility or personal freedom, or other stuff, then you're already motivated to keep wealth disparity in check, because enough of it negatively affects all the rest. There are some good thoughts here: https://www.quora.com/Is-wealth-inequality-bad https://www.quora.com/Is-wealth-inequality-bad But really, a google search for "why is wealth inequality bad" will give you a lot of stuff. Please, if you're genuinely curious, read some of that and decide what you think society should be optimized for.
ionised 10y ago
That's not the kind of wealth disparity he's talking about.
eevilspock 10y ago
Because it isn't simply about material wealth. Money is power. People with money have a far greater say in shaping our world, and have more freedom. Conversely those with little have little say and little freedom. Even the part of our society that is supposed to be egalitarian regardless of wealth or station, our government, is ruled by those with money. "One person, one vote" means nothing in a society where money buys elections and elected officials. It's about having a fair and free society. Would you rather have a gourmet dinner every night in prison, or a PB&J in a free and egalitarian community?

dguest 10y ago

Maybe a slightly bigger house is tolerable, but if my neighbor is making 10 times more than me and is able to buy his way out of legal trouble while I have to abide by the rule of law, I'm one of three things: lazy, inferior, or getting screwed. To maintain my faith in capitalist democracy in the face of large wealth inequality you have to convince me that one of these three options is acceptable. Most poor people I know wouldn't consider themselves lazy, so that one is out. With some serious social engineering and propaganda you may be able to convince the poor that they are inherently inferior, but the trend in most of the world seems to be against this sticking. So in most cases wealth disparity means that the poor people feel like they are getting screwed, i.e. they feel entitled to a better life, and they feel that their institutions have failed them. Look at any country with a high Gini Coefficient and you can see what this leads to. The rich end up corralled into compounds surrounded by razor wire and electric fences, kidnapping runs rampant, political corruption is the rule. With no reason to believe that the government is working for the underclass, you can't really expect the underclass to abide by the government's laws.

Frondo 10y ago

At some basic level, it depends on what you want to optimize for in society. If you want to optimize for "someone can own everything" then wealth disparity is not and will never be bad. If you want to optimize for a wide host of other things, such as the health of the people in a society, crime rates in a society, class mobility or personal freedom, or other stuff, then you're already motivated to keep wealth disparity in check, because enough of it negatively affects all the rest. There are some good thoughts here: https://www.quora.com/Is-wealth-inequality-bad https://www.quora.com/Is-wealth-inequality-bad But really, a google search for "why is wealth inequality bad" will give you a lot of stuff. Please, if you're genuinely curious, read some of that and decide what you think society should be optimized for.

ionised 10y ago

That's not the kind of wealth disparity he's talking about.

eevilspock 10y ago

Because it isn't simply about material wealth. Money is power. People with money have a far greater say in shaping our world, and have more freedom. Conversely those with little have little say and little freedom. Even the part of our society that is supposed to be egalitarian regardless of wealth or station, our government, is ruled by those with money. "One person, one vote" means nothing in a society where money buys elections and elected officials. It's about having a fair and free society. Would you rather have a gourmet dinner every night in prison, or a PB&J in a free and egalitarian community?