3 ms·

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 compar

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.
- clavalle 9y ago
  NYT isn't talking about revenue, it's talking about income. Again; very. different. things. And they do it so they are comparing apples to apples. Sure, it's not a full picture and I agree with you that wealth would be much more complete but it is also orders of magnitude harder to compare. Despite the gap in lifestyle being smaller than at any point in history, history is a dismal stick to measure by. Smaller doesn't mean small. Not being able to afford daily common medicine is not a small problem. Having little choice but to get a loan at 1300% to 3000% per year interest in order to fix your car to get to work or lose your job is not a small problem. Having to work every waking hour to afford food and shelter for your kids or they go hungry is not a small problem. We've made progress and that's great but I personally don't think that we've made it until people have the freedom to choose for themselves and that includes the freedom to correct their past missteps. If a person chooses to have a kid at 15, for example, chances are that dictates a life path (a series of severely limited choices) that is devastating in terms of what they can provide for themselves, their children, and society. It is a waste. As long as resources are needlessly wasted because a class of people's decisions are weighed down with desperation and the specter of immediate physical suffering for themselves or their loved ones then there is too big of a gap. I have nothing against disparity and everything against desperation. We are close. I think it is possible (perhaps for the first time in history) to solve desperation, at least in the US. It is frustrating that the tide of opinion seems to be shifting away from that goal. I think if we reach that level and eliminate desperation we will see some remarkable things happen in the market. When 50 million people are trading for gain rather than to tread water or worse, we will see an explosion of value creation. Will some people end up with more than others? Of course! Largely, I hope, according to their ability and willingness to do something useful with those resources. But until we eliminate desperation we will never know and we will always be trying to balance the desperate classes losses against everyone else's gain.
- danans 9y ago
  > yes, but the gap in lifestyle is small is my point. Smaller than any point in history. What point in history are you benchmarking against? If you are comparing the current moment to pre and early-Industrial periods, then yes the gap is smaller. That's hardly a standard by which to judge the moment though. If, however, you are comparing it to the lifestyle gap of a generation ago, there has been a clear increase in the gap. Key goods that are the bedrock of a high quality of life: healthcare, education, decent housing - have become far less accessible to the working class and poor than they were in the recent past. No quantity or variety of cheap electronics and entertainment can make up for the loss of a huge number of people's ability to purchase those goods.

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.

clavalle 9y ago
NYT isn't talking about revenue, it's talking about income. Again; very. different. things. And they do it so they are comparing apples to apples. Sure, it's not a full picture and I agree with you that wealth would be much more complete but it is also orders of magnitude harder to compare. Despite the gap in lifestyle being smaller than at any point in history, history is a dismal stick to measure by. Smaller doesn't mean small. Not being able to afford daily common medicine is not a small problem. Having little choice but to get a loan at 1300% to 3000% per year interest in order to fix your car to get to work or lose your job is not a small problem. Having to work every waking hour to afford food and shelter for your kids or they go hungry is not a small problem. We've made progress and that's great but I personally don't think that we've made it until people have the freedom to choose for themselves and that includes the freedom to correct their past missteps. If a person chooses to have a kid at 15, for example, chances are that dictates a life path (a series of severely limited choices) that is devastating in terms of what they can provide for themselves, their children, and society. It is a waste. As long as resources are needlessly wasted because a class of people's decisions are weighed down with desperation and the specter of immediate physical suffering for themselves or their loved ones then there is too big of a gap. I have nothing against disparity and everything against desperation. We are close. I think it is possible (perhaps for the first time in history) to solve desperation, at least in the US. It is frustrating that the tide of opinion seems to be shifting away from that goal. I think if we reach that level and eliminate desperation we will see some remarkable things happen in the market. When 50 million people are trading for gain rather than to tread water or worse, we will see an explosion of value creation. Will some people end up with more than others? Of course! Largely, I hope, according to their ability and willingness to do something useful with those resources. But until we eliminate desperation we will never know and we will always be trying to balance the desperate classes losses against everyone else's gain.
danans 9y ago
> yes, but the gap in lifestyle is small is my point. Smaller than any point in history. What point in history are you benchmarking against? If you are comparing the current moment to pre and early-Industrial periods, then yes the gap is smaller. That's hardly a standard by which to judge the moment though. If, however, you are comparing it to the lifestyle gap of a generation ago, there has been a clear increase in the gap. Key goods that are the bedrock of a high quality of life: healthcare, education, decent housing - have become far less accessible to the working class and poor than they were in the recent past. No quantity or variety of cheap electronics and entertainment can make up for the loss of a huge number of people's ability to purchase those goods.