5 ms·

I just don't get this complaining about wealth concentration - for every person capable of complaining on an online forum that some people have 100 to 1000x the

by sudhirj 10y ago

I just don't get this complaining about wealth concentration - for every person capable of complaining on an online forum that some people have 100 to 1000x the wealth they do, there are also likely to be more people that exist who have 1000x less than you. How exactly am I any more entitled to the wealth of those richer than me, than are those poorer than me entitled to my (relative) wealth? It seems to me that the problem with the totem pole is that each level is logarithmic, but always talked about in absolute terms. If my boss makes 10x and her boss makes 10x of what she makes, aspiring to 100x my wealth looks like a completely impossible goal in my lifetime - but it's really just two promotions. An argument could be made that some people try to sabotage those attempting to climb the totem pole, but once someone has reached the top and did not illegally interact with anyone they passed on the climb, why all the hate?

edge17 10y ago
You seem to be missing basic irrational aspects of human nature.
efaref 10y ago
The problem isn't that Bezos has 1,000x my net worth. He has 1,000,000x my (approximate) net worth. One millionth of my net worth is seven cents, so Bezos:me is me:$0.07. The graph isn't logarithmic. It's shaped like this: | | | ____________|
- terryf 10y ago
  What difference is there between 1000x and 1,000,000x ? Should there be a cap somewhere? I just completely fail to see how this is anything other than being jealous of someone elses's success. Please do explain.
  - efaref 10y ago
    It's not about being jealous of a particular person's success, it's more about observing the problems with a world where a tiny fraction of the population capture and control over half of the wealth. If that were problem free, then fine. But it's not. Think of it as a symptom of an illness, and we should work to get the fever down.
    - terryf 10y ago
      ok, so what exactly has Jeff done wrong or what he should do differently?
    - marknutter 10y ago
      But you're treating the symptom then. Shouldn't the illness be the target?
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        one step at a time. this is triage. first you get the fever down so the patient doesn't die. then you identify the pathogen and get your hygiene and medicine in a place where they can prevent future infections.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    really? you can only think of it as being about jealousy? that seems like a rhetorical trick you're attempting to use to shut down the debate by an appeal to (your perception of) the irrational emotional states of others. spend a few minutes thinking about the politics of wealth and the premise of representative democracy and popular sovereignty.
- averagewall 10y ago
  Norway has a $900 billion sovereign wealth fund. Is that a problem too? If you never heard about Bezos's wealth, would you suffer any troubles because of it? I think it's fine.
  - efaref 10y ago
    I don't understand your point. Norway is 5 million people, so that's only 180k per capita.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    Norway's sovereign wealth fund is managed on behalf of all the people of Norway and there are political systems in place that grants those people some influence over how that money is used, and who benefits from it. Bezos' wealth (and all the massive political power it represents) is almost totally unaccountable. This is the real problem of wealth inequality. It's not that some people have more material goods than others. It's that levels of wealth like that undermine the political systems that we have constructed to seek fair, just, and peaceful resolution of disputes. It is a road to tyranny.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
m12k 10y ago
Capitalism, when it works right is a meritocracy that rewards business acumen - the more merit, the more money you get. The problem is that the reward - money - is itself a substitute for merit. Having success is much, much easier, if you already have money (hence the saying 'the first million dollars is always the hardest'). This is also what Capital in the Twenty-First Century highlighted: Owning wealth is rewarded more than working. But it is (or at least can be) a largely passive 'activity' that anyone can do (just how much talent does it take to hand some money to a hedge fund manager and live off the interest?). Even just at a smaller scale, people can mismanage a business and still succeed if they have a big enough marketing budget to drown out their (objectively better) competitors. So the argument is that we are doing a suboptimal distribution of resources, because the people that have the most money are in a positive feedback loop that awards them more money, and that is a local optimization that prevents us from finding the global optimum where that money was in the hands of someone with more business acumen.
- golergka 10y ago
  The problem with such line of reasoning is an underlying assumption that we have to create a social order that "optimizes" the distribution of wealth in order to achieve some "just" result. I find this assumption incorrect, and desired result unachievable. Every person has a different picture of what a "just" distribution of wealth is, and what "optimal" society is. Some think that humanity should concentrate on art & philosophy, and those professions should be rewarded the best. Others are more concerned with our self-preservation, and think that science, and foremost climate science should be rewarded the most. Third just want to enjoy the good life right now, and don't really give a crap about any of those global goals or future generations. Of course, you may consider some of those people to be more correct and others, and it's not the point. Democracy didn't arise in order to get to the truth - democracy have arisen as a tool for people who think each other as complete idiots and fools to solve their differences without killing each other. If you decide that one of those goals should be the goal of the whole humanity, the problem isn't that you will be incorrect - the problem is that a lot of people will disagree with you, and will defend their point of view. Quite possibly, with violence. And whatever your goal for the humanity was, you won't be able to built a society optimized about that metric anyway. The capitalist system that we have instead is much wiser. It's not built with a "purpose" in mind. It's built for each person to pursue his own purpose, giving him an ability do compete with others. Any kind of influence, any kind of resource other people want that you have - you can use them in a capitalist system to pursue your goals, and you can keep the exploits. If you don't have what other people want, you don't have the influence. The fact that other people think that "an english major shouldn't have to work at McDonalds" don't mean shit unless they're willing to put their money where their mouth is and donate to your literature-related Kickstarter instead of having a Happy Meal. Of course it's not "fair". Such a concept doesn't exist across many different minds. But it's a system that individual people decide to build using their own resources over series of small decisions and needs throughout their lives. Seems like a much more stable system than something built out of abstract concept of "justice" and "higher purpose" forced by some people on others.

by sudhirj 10y ago

edge17 10y ago

You seem to be missing basic irrational aspects of human nature.

efaref 10y ago

The problem isn't that Bezos has 1,000x my net worth. He has 1,000,000x my (approximate) net worth. One millionth of my net worth is seven cents, so Bezos:me is me:$0.07. The graph isn't logarithmic. It's shaped like this: | | | ____________|

terryf 10y ago
What difference is there between 1000x and 1,000,000x ? Should there be a cap somewhere? I just completely fail to see how this is anything other than being jealous of someone elses's success. Please do explain.
- efaref 10y ago
  It's not about being jealous of a particular person's success, it's more about observing the problems with a world where a tiny fraction of the population capture and control over half of the wealth. If that were problem free, then fine. But it's not. Think of it as a symptom of an illness, and we should work to get the fever down.
  - terryf 10y ago
    ok, so what exactly has Jeff done wrong or what he should do differently?
  - marknutter 10y ago
    But you're treating the symptom then. Shouldn't the illness be the target?
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      one step at a time. this is triage. first you get the fever down so the patient doesn't die. then you identify the pathogen and get your hygiene and medicine in a place where they can prevent future infections.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  really? you can only think of it as being about jealousy? that seems like a rhetorical trick you're attempting to use to shut down the debate by an appeal to (your perception of) the irrational emotional states of others. spend a few minutes thinking about the politics of wealth and the premise of representative democracy and popular sovereignty.
averagewall 10y ago
Norway has a $900 billion sovereign wealth fund. Is that a problem too? If you never heard about Bezos's wealth, would you suffer any troubles because of it? I think it's fine.
- efaref 10y ago
  I don't understand your point. Norway is 5 million people, so that's only 180k per capita.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  Norway's sovereign wealth fund is managed on behalf of all the people of Norway and there are political systems in place that grants those people some influence over how that money is used, and who benefits from it. Bezos' wealth (and all the massive political power it represents) is almost totally unaccountable. This is the real problem of wealth inequality. It's not that some people have more material goods than others. It's that levels of wealth like that undermine the political systems that we have constructed to seek fair, just, and peaceful resolution of disputes. It is a road to tyranny.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

m12k 10y ago

Capitalism, when it works right is a meritocracy that rewards business acumen - the more merit, the more money you get. The problem is that the reward - money - is itself a substitute for merit. Having success is much, much easier, if you already have money (hence the saying 'the first million dollars is always the hardest'). This is also what Capital in the Twenty-First Century highlighted: Owning wealth is rewarded more than working. But it is (or at least can be) a largely passive 'activity' that anyone can do (just how much talent does it take to hand some money to a hedge fund manager and live off the interest?). Even just at a smaller scale, people can mismanage a business and still succeed if they have a big enough marketing budget to drown out their (objectively better) competitors. So the argument is that we are doing a suboptimal distribution of resources, because the people that have the most money are in a positive feedback loop that awards them more money, and that is a local optimization that prevents us from finding the global optimum where that money was in the hands of someone with more business acumen.

golergka 10y ago
The problem with such line of reasoning is an underlying assumption that we have to create a social order that "optimizes" the distribution of wealth in order to achieve some "just" result. I find this assumption incorrect, and desired result unachievable. Every person has a different picture of what a "just" distribution of wealth is, and what "optimal" society is. Some think that humanity should concentrate on art & philosophy, and those professions should be rewarded the best. Others are more concerned with our self-preservation, and think that science, and foremost climate science should be rewarded the most. Third just want to enjoy the good life right now, and don't really give a crap about any of those global goals or future generations. Of course, you may consider some of those people to be more correct and others, and it's not the point. Democracy didn't arise in order to get to the truth - democracy have arisen as a tool for people who think each other as complete idiots and fools to solve their differences without killing each other. If you decide that one of those goals should be the goal of the whole humanity, the problem isn't that you will be incorrect - the problem is that a lot of people will disagree with you, and will defend their point of view. Quite possibly, with violence. And whatever your goal for the humanity was, you won't be able to built a society optimized about that metric anyway. The capitalist system that we have instead is much wiser. It's not built with a "purpose" in mind. It's built for each person to pursue his own purpose, giving him an ability do compete with others. Any kind of influence, any kind of resource other people want that you have - you can use them in a capitalist system to pursue your goals, and you can keep the exploits. If you don't have what other people want, you don't have the influence. The fact that other people think that "an english major shouldn't have to work at McDonalds" don't mean shit unless they're willing to put their money where their mouth is and donate to your literature-related Kickstarter instead of having a Happy Meal. Of course it's not "fair". Such a concept doesn't exist across many different minds. But it's a system that individual people decide to build using their own resources over series of small decisions and needs throughout their lives. Seems like a much more stable system than something built out of abstract concept of "justice" and "higher purpose" forced by some people on others.