5 ms·

I like how it's a foregone conclusion that inequality is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nicolashahn 9y ago
I could also write an article about how you can make two lengths of rope the same by cutting the longer one and tying it to the shorter one. I don't think it'd be news though.
- hexane360 9y ago
  You also strike me as the person who'd write an article about how printing money makes everyone richer, because it's like "lengthening a rope". Economics is far from intuitive, and using a metaphor to hide all the complexity doesn't change that. This is typical HN arrogance at its finest. https://xkcd.com/1831/ https://xkcd.com/1831/ also: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/
jernfrost 9y ago
Because it is. Ask yourself what is the point of any society? Capitalism is not a goal unto itself, it is a tool to reach another goal. Now different societies might decide on different goals. Let me use an exaggeration to clarify my point. If one man in a country is fantastically rich while everybody else is dirt poor, then that society is a failure. My assumption would be that most societies would decide that happiness and well being for as broad set of people is that is the goal of society. en massing piles of wealth with nobody to spend it on is rather pointless. Of course some inequality is fine, but that is not the point. The point is that ever increasing inequality is a problem.
- nicolashahn 9y ago
  I don't think anyone but the most extreme socialists would say that everyone should be completely equal. The rest of us just can't agree on how inequal it's ok for us to be.
  - munk-a 9y ago
    This statement is misleading, no one is advocating a flat distribution of wealth but why should some families lack access to clean water if we can give it to them. I don't think anyone but the most extreme libertarians would say that some people should starve so we can all feel better about how little we have.
    - nicolashahn 9y ago
      And I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that our society shouldn't have to provide clean drinking water to people who can't afford it. Again, my point is we need to find where the happy medium is.
- closeparen 9y ago
  That society is still a failure if you remove the rich guy. Attack poverty, not success. Redistribution is probably the best way to do that in many cases, but calling the problem “inequality” suggests we can fix it by dragging everyone down to the same level instead of lifting others up.
  - hexane360 9y ago
    This ignores that wealth is relative. Your argument can also be used to argue that the U.S. has solved poverty, because poor people today can afford to eat, which wasn't true x years ago. It's not just about the absolute purchasing power, it's also about the relative social status and power. Not being in poverty doesn't mean much if you still don't hold any social or political power.
    - unit91 9y ago
      > Not being in poverty doesn't mean much if you still don't hold any social or political power. Really? So if you can't have power, why bother not being poor? Having been below the poverty line and risen above it, this seems very bizarre to me, to say the least.
      - hexane360 9y ago
        Maybe my wording was imprecise. Not being in poverty is better than being in poverty. Still, that's not the entire story.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >Ask yourself what is the point of any society? Protection of the lives, liberties and properties of its citizenry. What does wealth inequality have to do with it?
  - ashark 9y ago
    Guess we can do away with all corporate structures, then, and the protections and benefits thereof. Plus a ton of other stuff necessary to a modern economy. Those things definitely don't (strictly) fall in any of those categories. Rather than the point of any society, if that's rubbing you the wrong way, how about: why have an (if you prefer, a modern, industrial/post-industrial) economy?
    - ameister14 9y ago
      While we could do away with all those, it wouldn't serve much of a purpose. But yes, ultimately corporate structures are not the reason society exists. >why have an (if you prefer, a modern, industrial/post-industrial) economy? Well, because it's a more efficient engine for increasing the property and prosperity of the people and the society in general. Again, what does that have to do with inequality inherently being an issue?
      - ashark 9y ago
        The structures necessary to support crazy-high incomes in the modern world are governmental creations of exactly that sort. If we stick to a by-the- and for-the-people kind of ethos, then adjusting how the government manages all this stuff it's creating on their behalf in order to increase the prosperity of the lower classes at some cost to the higher is entirely sensible and just. If inequality additionally means less-equal outcomes in the justice system and lower systemic stability then even more so, on both counts. Alternatives include: abandoning that ethos and embracing Rule of the (economically) Strongest; or strictly sticking to a government that doesn't engage in that stuff at all and living with the fallout (until every sensible state re-organized under a new federal government that did that stuff again, and/or sought annexation). We do an awful lot of the former, in practice.
hexane360 9y ago
The foregone conclusion is that the amount of inequality we have is far beyond the level that balances private incentives with public good. Too much inequality traps money outside of the economy, and doesn't properly reward labor and effort.
athenot 9y ago
The problem is not just inequality in of itself; it's the scale of that inequality that's a problem. When 1/4 to 1/3 of the population is vulnerable to a health accident or can't provide for themselves/their family, AND half of the country's wealth goes to ~ 2% of the population, we have an inequality of many orders of magnitude. What it boils down to is this: do we as a society simply write off those who struggle to meet basic human needs, or do we try to help them live?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

I could also write an article about how you can make two lengths of rope the same by cutting the longer one and tying it to the shorter one. I don't think it'd be news though.

hexane360 9y ago
You also strike me as the person who'd write an article about how printing money makes everyone richer, because it's like "lengthening a rope". Economics is far from intuitive, and using a metaphor to hide all the complexity doesn't change that. This is typical HN arrogance at its finest. https://xkcd.com/1831/ https://xkcd.com/1831/ also: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/

jernfrost 9y ago

Because it is. Ask yourself what is the point of any society? Capitalism is not a goal unto itself, it is a tool to reach another goal. Now different societies might decide on different goals. Let me use an exaggeration to clarify my point. If one man in a country is fantastically rich while everybody else is dirt poor, then that society is a failure. My assumption would be that most societies would decide that happiness and well being for as broad set of people is that is the goal of society. en massing piles of wealth with nobody to spend it on is rather pointless. Of course some inequality is fine, but that is not the point. The point is that ever increasing inequality is a problem.

nicolashahn 9y ago
I don't think anyone but the most extreme socialists would say that everyone should be completely equal. The rest of us just can't agree on how inequal it's ok for us to be.
- munk-a 9y ago
  This statement is misleading, no one is advocating a flat distribution of wealth but why should some families lack access to clean water if we can give it to them. I don't think anyone but the most extreme libertarians would say that some people should starve so we can all feel better about how little we have.
  - nicolashahn 9y ago
    And I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that our society shouldn't have to provide clean drinking water to people who can't afford it. Again, my point is we need to find where the happy medium is.
closeparen 9y ago
That society is still a failure if you remove the rich guy. Attack poverty, not success. Redistribution is probably the best way to do that in many cases, but calling the problem “inequality” suggests we can fix it by dragging everyone down to the same level instead of lifting others up.
- hexane360 9y ago
  This ignores that wealth is relative. Your argument can also be used to argue that the U.S. has solved poverty, because poor people today can afford to eat, which wasn't true x years ago. It's not just about the absolute purchasing power, it's also about the relative social status and power. Not being in poverty doesn't mean much if you still don't hold any social or political power.
  - unit91 9y ago
    > Not being in poverty doesn't mean much if you still don't hold any social or political power. Really? So if you can't have power, why bother not being poor? Having been below the poverty line and risen above it, this seems very bizarre to me, to say the least.
    - hexane360 9y ago
      Maybe my wording was imprecise. Not being in poverty is better than being in poverty. Still, that's not the entire story.
ameister14 9y ago
>Ask yourself what is the point of any society? Protection of the lives, liberties and properties of its citizenry. What does wealth inequality have to do with it?
- ashark 9y ago
  Guess we can do away with all corporate structures, then, and the protections and benefits thereof. Plus a ton of other stuff necessary to a modern economy. Those things definitely don't (strictly) fall in any of those categories. Rather than the point of any society, if that's rubbing you the wrong way, how about: why have an (if you prefer, a modern, industrial/post-industrial) economy?
  - ameister14 9y ago
    While we could do away with all those, it wouldn't serve much of a purpose. But yes, ultimately corporate structures are not the reason society exists. >why have an (if you prefer, a modern, industrial/post-industrial) economy? Well, because it's a more efficient engine for increasing the property and prosperity of the people and the society in general. Again, what does that have to do with inequality inherently being an issue?
    - ashark 9y ago
      The structures necessary to support crazy-high incomes in the modern world are governmental creations of exactly that sort. If we stick to a by-the- and for-the-people kind of ethos, then adjusting how the government manages all this stuff it's creating on their behalf in order to increase the prosperity of the lower classes at some cost to the higher is entirely sensible and just. If inequality additionally means less-equal outcomes in the justice system and lower systemic stability then even more so, on both counts. Alternatives include: abandoning that ethos and embracing Rule of the (economically) Strongest; or strictly sticking to a government that doesn't engage in that stuff at all and living with the fallout (until every sensible state re-organized under a new federal government that did that stuff again, and/or sought annexation). We do an awful lot of the former, in practice.

hexane360 9y ago

The foregone conclusion is that the amount of inequality we have is far beyond the level that balances private incentives with public good. Too much inequality traps money outside of the economy, and doesn't properly reward labor and effort.

athenot 9y ago

The problem is not just inequality in of itself; it's the scale of that inequality that's a problem. When 1/4 to 1/3 of the population is vulnerable to a health accident or can't provide for themselves/their family, AND half of the country's wealth goes to ~ 2% of the population, we have an inequality of many orders of magnitude. What it boils down to is this: do we as a society simply write off those who struggle to meet basic human needs, or do we try to help them live?