3 ms·

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 d

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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- randyrand 9y ago
  All points in history. Even a generation ago. The life expectancy gap has continued to close since we started measuring it, nationally and globally. The education gap is closing too, more people are college educated today than at any time in the past. In the recent past, only the elite could afford college. This gap has only been closing, with or without government intervention. As for 'decent housing', the housing quality gap between the rich and the poor has never been smaller either. Today poor homes are just as good at rich homes at things homes should do. Both poor and rich homes are similarly good at keeping out weather conditions, at heating, cooling, having bathrooms, kitchens. Even in the recent past this was not true. Yes, rich homes are bigger and made of more luxury materials - those both have a tiny impact on quality of life compared to the measures I've given. The housing quality of life gap has closed tremendously, and has only continued to close. The gap is small as-is. I see little reason to close it further.
  - danans 9y ago
    > The life expectancy gap has continued to close since we started measuring it, nationally and globally. This article is referring to the US, not the whole world. In the US, the life expectancy gap is increasing between the rich and the poor: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2626194 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article... Life-expectancy is also not the end-all of health care, just one indicator. Prior to the CHIP program, many poor children had no access to preventative health care at all. > more people are college educated today than at any time in the past. In the recent past, only the elite could afford college. This gap has only been closing More people have degrees, but the goal-posts have also moved considerably and a college degree (depending on the type) doesn't have nearly the value in terms of job prospects that it used to have. Just citing the degree rate doesn't provide any of that very important context. When it comes to primary and secondary education, the gap between rich and poor is considerable and persistent: http://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/29/local-education-inequities-across-u-s-revealed-new-stanford-data-set/ http://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/29/local-education-inequiti... > Both poor and rich homes are similarly good at keeping out weather conditions, at heating, cooling, having bathrooms, kitchens. Take a drive through a very poor section of a city or rural area, say in the rust belt or in a rural area, and you will find that this is often not the case. Beyond the home itself, these locations often have worse infrastructure: buckled roads and in recent cases contaminated water. > The gap is small as-is. I see little reason to close it further. No doubt, for people who think as you do, all of the above disparities are totally acceptable, a natural state of affairs, and we as a society should just stop any efforts to further mitigate them.

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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
randyrand 9y ago
All points in history. Even a generation ago. The life expectancy gap has continued to close since we started measuring it, nationally and globally. The education gap is closing too, more people are college educated today than at any time in the past. In the recent past, only the elite could afford college. This gap has only been closing, with or without government intervention. As for 'decent housing', the housing quality gap between the rich and the poor has never been smaller either. Today poor homes are just as good at rich homes at things homes should do. Both poor and rich homes are similarly good at keeping out weather conditions, at heating, cooling, having bathrooms, kitchens. Even in the recent past this was not true. Yes, rich homes are bigger and made of more luxury materials - those both have a tiny impact on quality of life compared to the measures I've given. The housing quality of life gap has closed tremendously, and has only continued to close. The gap is small as-is. I see little reason to close it further.
- danans 9y ago
  > The life expectancy gap has continued to close since we started measuring it, nationally and globally. This article is referring to the US, not the whole world. In the US, the life expectancy gap is increasing between the rich and the poor: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2626194 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article... Life-expectancy is also not the end-all of health care, just one indicator. Prior to the CHIP program, many poor children had no access to preventative health care at all. > more people are college educated today than at any time in the past. In the recent past, only the elite could afford college. This gap has only been closing More people have degrees, but the goal-posts have also moved considerably and a college degree (depending on the type) doesn't have nearly the value in terms of job prospects that it used to have. Just citing the degree rate doesn't provide any of that very important context. When it comes to primary and secondary education, the gap between rich and poor is considerable and persistent: http://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/29/local-education-inequities-across-u-s-revealed-new-stanford-data-set/ http://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/29/local-education-inequiti... > Both poor and rich homes are similarly good at keeping out weather conditions, at heating, cooling, having bathrooms, kitchens. Take a drive through a very poor section of a city or rural area, say in the rust belt or in a rural area, and you will find that this is often not the case. Beyond the home itself, these locations often have worse infrastructure: buckled roads and in recent cases contaminated water. > The gap is small as-is. I see little reason to close it further. No doubt, for people who think as you do, all of the above disparities are totally acceptable, a natural state of affairs, and we as a society should just stop any efforts to further mitigate them.