4 ms·

A few points: 1. the fixed pie fallacy[0]. You actually need separate evidence to suggest that the 1% are taking away income growth from the rest of the percen

A few points: 1. the fixed pie fallacy[0]. You actually need separate evidence to suggest that the 1% are taking away income growth from the rest of the percentiles. 2. The 1% generally makes the most in good times, and loses the most in bad times. The chart did not seem to include asset devaluation loses - e.g. the housing crises, stock market loses, investment losses etc. This is a huge omission. The past 34 years may also not be a very representative prediction of the future. 3. There is nothing morally wrong with income diversity, particularly if the poor still live long lives, are not hungry, have access to modern technology, transportation, and modern entertainment. I personally think income diversity is a good thing. As my right bias, I believe generally that "Disparities are natural and just" , and not "Disparities are due to injustices" - Fired Google Engineer. [0] http://www.aei.org/publication/the-fixed-pie-fallacy/print/ http://www.aei.org/publication/the-fixed-pie-fallacy/print/

frotak 9y ago
> if the poor still live long lives, are not hungry, have access to modern technology, transportation, and modern entertainment They have their bread and circuses, what are they complaining about?
- randyrand 9y ago
  You joke, but the sentiment is correct. The poor have it incredibly good today relative to the rich - better than any time in history. In the past ( 2000BCE-1900CE) the disparities in lifestyle were much, much, larger. Stark disparities in access to water, much shorter life expediencies, no transportation beyond walking, limited food. The disparities in lifestyle between the rich and the poor have only continued to decrease over time, despite the dollar amount. That said, I don't deny that disparities still exist. Disparities are natural and just, and I have no problem with that. Along with that, if you still want to help the poor and donate your income, go do it! I think it's a great thing. And importantly, nothing is stopping you. You don't even need to government to help you. There are inumerous private charities more than willing to help you.
  - gorbachev 9y ago
    "The poor have it incredibly good today relative to the rich" I think you have a pretty poor understanding of what it means to be poor in the United States. Just consider the consequences of what it truly means if you don't have the ability to cover for an emergency that would cost $1000 to fix. That's the reality for millions and millions of Americans. You don't have to even start thinking about the lack of access to quality education, healthcare and other essential services to see the absurdity of your claim. To compare their living conditions to how it was in the middle ages is just moronic. The poor in middle ages still had it better than the poor saps who had to fight saber tooth tigers on occasion.
    - randyrand 9y ago
      I'm not comparing living conditions of poor people in the middle ages to poor people today. I'm comparing the ratio between the living conditions of the poor to the rich in the past, and to the poor to the rich today. The ratio has never been smaller, but the NYT would never admit that. This has been true from the beginning of history ~4000BCE til now.
      - frotak 9y ago
        I am curious what you base your evaluation of "living conditions" on. Or rather, whether or not you have experienced what the living conditions of the poor are. I dropped everything and moved across the country when I was 20. I had nothing. I lived in a run down house that was originally a three story single family home but had been subdivided into five apartments. My bathroom had mushrooms growing through the floor boards at the base of the tub and toilet. One of my neighbors was a prostitute turning tricks out of her apartment. Which I suppose was tolerated because she was "dating" the landlord's alcoholic brother who also lived in the building. I spent about three months living on plasma donations plus my girlfriend at the time's meager wages. I hauled laundry three blocks for the privilege of paying $50 to get a week's worth of clothes washed. The central heating was garbage so when the snow storm came that winter we were sleeping in our winter jackets and layering thermal underwear. Trying to go to a grocery store for food was an adventure...riding the bus with one transfer to a different line out to the store, then a ride back carrying all the bags. I ate more rice and beans and potatoes than I want to remember. And that wasn't even that bad to be honest. There are conditions that people live in which are much, much, much worse than that. In terms of dilapidated housing where, no, they don't get to keep out the elements, and no, they're not guaranteed to be free of lead or asbestos or other known contaminates. Food insecurity. Lack of clothing. And don't even start on access to health care. Forget about mental health care. It's a totally different world being poor. Contrasted with the lifestyles of even the moderately well to do today I think the gap is quite enormous.
clavalle 9y ago
1 'Fixed Pie' is only a fallacy if you define the gains to some fixed external standard. When the values are defined relative to the other values in the comparison, the Fixed Pie fallacy falls apart. In this case, gains made by one group are compared to gains made in another -- we all understand that gains are had by both parties but are comparing them relative to each other. Unless you are arguing that increased relative income makes no difference in terms of increased economic power which is, of course, nonsense. 2 We're talking about income, not profit and loss from capital. Different things. 3 You seem to be arguing that the poor are living long lives, are not hungry, and have access to transportation and adequate health care. They are not living as long as their wealthier contemporaries, many are hungry, and many are in circumstances where their desperation is readily taken advantage of by those that are not in desperate circumstances. Inequality is not, in and of itself, bad but inequality in which some groups are desperate and taken advantage of by those better off because their alternative to a negotiated agreement is total loss is bad (if you care about things like moving toward market efficiency, anyway). 4 The fired Google engineer spent 10 pages setting up ridiculous straw people and knocking them down. He attributed a rigidity and absolutism to those he disagrees with that doesn't exist and allowed himself extreme (and sometimes contradictory) flexibility in side stepping imagined counters. And he still managed to make himself out as a bigot. I'm not sure quoting him is a great way to make any kind of point.
- randyrand 9y ago
  1. sure. Im saying that readers should be aware of the fixed pie fallacy. People like to think that there is a fixed amount of growth given to us, and then we divide it up between the percentiles. It does not work like that. People can create growth, it does not come from the gods. 2. Income can be negative, yet the NYTs did not even touch losses. Change in wealth is what people care about, it makes more sense to compare, and it what people naturally assume when we compare income over time. NYT were comparing revenue only and calling it income purposely to hide the full picture. 3. yes, but the gap in lifestyle is small is my point. Smaller than any point in history. Whether you think diversity is natural and just, or injust, is more opinion however. Not worth going into that further. Keep in mind, despite any income changes, a larger fraction of todays wealthy income goes to investments than any time in history. Because of this, while they may be incredibly rich, their QoL is not as vastly improved by income changes as the past. Most investments will be in things that have very little impact on their QoL, foreign homes, stocks, bonds, etc. I think this is because today it is easier to reach a level where you are satisfied with your QoL, and don't see the reason to consume your income in QoL changes than in the past. Profit from these investments will generally be reinvested, not consumed on QoL. 4. That single point was well stated. I'm not quoting the whole thing - just giving attribution.

frotak 9y ago

> if the poor still live long lives, are not hungry, have access to modern technology, transportation, and modern entertainment They have their bread and circuses, what are they complaining about?

randyrand 9y ago
You joke, but the sentiment is correct. The poor have it incredibly good today relative to the rich - better than any time in history. In the past ( 2000BCE-1900CE) the disparities in lifestyle were much, much, larger. Stark disparities in access to water, much shorter life expediencies, no transportation beyond walking, limited food. The disparities in lifestyle between the rich and the poor have only continued to decrease over time, despite the dollar amount. That said, I don't deny that disparities still exist. Disparities are natural and just, and I have no problem with that. Along with that, if you still want to help the poor and donate your income, go do it! I think it's a great thing. And importantly, nothing is stopping you. You don't even need to government to help you. There are inumerous private charities more than willing to help you.
- gorbachev 9y ago
  "The poor have it incredibly good today relative to the rich" I think you have a pretty poor understanding of what it means to be poor in the United States. Just consider the consequences of what it truly means if you don't have the ability to cover for an emergency that would cost $1000 to fix. That's the reality for millions and millions of Americans. You don't have to even start thinking about the lack of access to quality education, healthcare and other essential services to see the absurdity of your claim. To compare their living conditions to how it was in the middle ages is just moronic. The poor in middle ages still had it better than the poor saps who had to fight saber tooth tigers on occasion.
  - randyrand 9y ago
    I'm not comparing living conditions of poor people in the middle ages to poor people today. I'm comparing the ratio between the living conditions of the poor to the rich in the past, and to the poor to the rich today. The ratio has never been smaller, but the NYT would never admit that. This has been true from the beginning of history ~4000BCE til now.
    - frotak 9y ago
      I am curious what you base your evaluation of "living conditions" on. Or rather, whether or not you have experienced what the living conditions of the poor are. I dropped everything and moved across the country when I was 20. I had nothing. I lived in a run down house that was originally a three story single family home but had been subdivided into five apartments. My bathroom had mushrooms growing through the floor boards at the base of the tub and toilet. One of my neighbors was a prostitute turning tricks out of her apartment. Which I suppose was tolerated because she was "dating" the landlord's alcoholic brother who also lived in the building. I spent about three months living on plasma donations plus my girlfriend at the time's meager wages. I hauled laundry three blocks for the privilege of paying $50 to get a week's worth of clothes washed. The central heating was garbage so when the snow storm came that winter we were sleeping in our winter jackets and layering thermal underwear. Trying to go to a grocery store for food was an adventure...riding the bus with one transfer to a different line out to the store, then a ride back carrying all the bags. I ate more rice and beans and potatoes than I want to remember. And that wasn't even that bad to be honest. There are conditions that people live in which are much, much, much worse than that. In terms of dilapidated housing where, no, they don't get to keep out the elements, and no, they're not guaranteed to be free of lead or asbestos or other known contaminates. Food insecurity. Lack of clothing. And don't even start on access to health care. Forget about mental health care. It's a totally different world being poor. Contrasted with the lifestyles of even the moderately well to do today I think the gap is quite enormous.

clavalle 9y ago

1 'Fixed Pie' is only a fallacy if you define the gains to some fixed external standard. When the values are defined relative to the other values in the comparison, the Fixed Pie fallacy falls apart. In this case, gains made by one group are compared to gains made in another -- we all understand that gains are had by both parties but are comparing them relative to each other. Unless you are arguing that increased relative income makes no difference in terms of increased economic power which is, of course, nonsense. 2 We're talking about income, not profit and loss from capital. Different things. 3 You seem to be arguing that the poor are living long lives, are not hungry, and have access to transportation and adequate health care. They are not living as long as their wealthier contemporaries, many are hungry, and many are in circumstances where their desperation is readily taken advantage of by those that are not in desperate circumstances. Inequality is not, in and of itself, bad but inequality in which some groups are desperate and taken advantage of by those better off because their alternative to a negotiated agreement is total loss is bad (if you care about things like moving toward market efficiency, anyway). 4 The fired Google engineer spent 10 pages setting up ridiculous straw people and knocking them down. He attributed a rigidity and absolutism to those he disagrees with that doesn't exist and allowed himself extreme (and sometimes contradictory) flexibility in side stepping imagined counters. And he still managed to make himself out as a bigot. I'm not sure quoting him is a great way to make any kind of point.

randyrand 9y ago
1. sure. Im saying that readers should be aware of the fixed pie fallacy. People like to think that there is a fixed amount of growth given to us, and then we divide it up between the percentiles. It does not work like that. People can create growth, it does not come from the gods. 2. Income can be negative, yet the NYTs did not even touch losses. Change in wealth is what people care about, it makes more sense to compare, and it what people naturally assume when we compare income over time. NYT were comparing revenue only and calling it income purposely to hide the full picture. 3. yes, but the gap in lifestyle is small is my point. Smaller than any point in history. Whether you think diversity is natural and just, or injust, is more opinion however. Not worth going into that further. Keep in mind, despite any income changes, a larger fraction of todays wealthy income goes to investments than any time in history. Because of this, while they may be incredibly rich, their QoL is not as vastly improved by income changes as the past. Most investments will be in things that have very little impact on their QoL, foreign homes, stocks, bonds, etc. I think this is because today it is easier to reach a level where you are satisfied with your QoL, and don't see the reason to consume your income in QoL changes than in the past. Profit from these investments will generally be reinvested, not consumed on QoL. 4. That single point was well stated. I'm not quoting the whole thing - just giving attribution.