4 ms·

The inequality problem only exists if you look at absolute wealth numbers, and not the level of confort and opportunities that wealth affords. The amount and t

The inequality problem only exists if you look at absolute wealth numbers, and not the level of confort and opportunities that wealth affords. The amount and the quality of goods and service that is available to even the lower income bracket has never been better; most families can afford access to a car, a washing machine, food from around the world, unlimited entertainment, unlimited knowledge, air travel, telephone, etc. etc. Put another way, all the money in the world can't buy you a better phone than a 1000$ one, and that phone is only marginally better than a 100$ one, which everybody can afford. And that is how it works for most things nowadays. The reason people are so pissed about inequality, is that despite people having material and service equality like never before, social status remain extremely unequal. But that is human nature, and no amount of money redistribution can change it.

ovulator 9y ago
Money still buys power. And $1 Billion buys much more power than $1 Thousand. Maybe that is what you mean by "social status", but an very unequal distribution of power is not a good thing in a society through many's eyes.
amalag 9y ago
I agree with you and there are opportunities afforded to almost everyone. I think a few small tweaks are necessary, not these large wholescale proposals. One tweak is having a robust estate/death tax. That will create a more level playing field. People will complain about double taxation because their whole lives they are building a fortune for their children, but passing tens of millions of dollars to your grandchildren is not something we need to protect.
zupatol 9y ago
How about lack of debt, education, satisfying jobs and free time?
figurehe4d 9y ago
It's a mistake to make any sort of broad claims about human nature because we are products of our material conditions. Hierarchies may have been a part of our past, present and even near future, but I don't think they are an intrinsic aspect of what it means to be human, because if anything hierarchies increasingly give way to egalitarianism the more advanced we become.
RangerScience 9y ago
Except housing, medical care, and time - with your kids, to improve yourself, etc. Not to discount the importance of the rest of what you've listed, but there are still immensely important things that are not available at lower income, or that are only available at higher income.
c0ur7n3y 9y ago
That may be true for some physical objects, but not for things like a secure retirement, protection from crippling health-care bills, and secure (non-bank-owned, non-landlord-owned) housing. There are vast and real inequalities there.
- fvdessen 9y ago
  All those inequalities you cite are paradoxically the consequence of the vast increase of wealth and services accessible to everyone. The retirement insecurity is a consequence to lifetime expectancy having increased vastly beyond retirement age. The health care bills ? You couldn't even get them before, as all the healthcare one could expect was penicillin, aspirine, bandages and hot soup. Housing ? People would live with their parents until and even after they married. Now people can afford to move out and divorce. Social behaviour and expectations have changed to fill in the opportunities offered by newfound wealth, driven by the search for longer life and higher social status.
danans 9y ago
> The inequality problem only exists if you look at absolute wealth numbers, and not the level of confort and opportunities that wealth affords For physical comfort and mass produced entertainment, yes, they have never been cheaper. But definitely not opportunities. Quality education, the bedrock of opportunity, is more expensive than ever, even for the middle class, and the poor have long been largely priced out. It doesn't matter if all the knowledge in the world is available online because you still need a quality education to absorb that. When the wealthy decide to pull their kids out of school and give them the internet as a substitute I'll reconsider that. Safe communities are also something increasingly inaccessible to the poor. The disparities in opportunity are especially pronounced in urban areas and rural and post industrial areas, but the trend is the same practically everywhere.
- ataturk 9y ago
  But even when college was relatively "cheap" back when I attended in the mid '90s, there was still a great disparity between the privileged wealthy kids and the rest of us. The privileged all got access to jobs and fast track to management. The rest got el zilcho. College is pretty much a waste of money now if you ask me. My nephew is looking at $45K a year just for tuition. He could just start a business with that capital instead. He's not privileged and connected enough to get anything out of higher education except he might meet and marry a higher status female.
VikingCoder 9y ago
Health Care. That's a pretty big exception to what you're talking about. Daycare is another.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
You are clearly not in touch with poverty. Poverty is about stress, not being able to have a cheap cell phone or a Nintendo. It is about being able to pay rent, to not worry that if you get sick you'll be out on the street. Cheap goods don't fully help. Sure luxury items like cell phones are cheaper, but rent and food remain a significant portion of the budget.
dilap 9y ago
No, this is not true. Please come to SF and look around. Talk to the working class (uber drivers, janitors, &c) about their lives. They work very long hours to just barely scrape by. Housing and medical care are very expensive compared to wages. Take a walk outside. Unbelievable numbers of people living in misery on the streets. There are entire tent cities sprouting up like mushrooms. It's bad, in absolute terms.
- ksec 9y ago
  He is right, except the case of housing. Which is the biggest share of living cost.
  - dilap 9y ago
    Yeah, but housing is the 2nd most important thing, right after food! Also the ability to give your kids a good education, which is also very dubious in SF (public schools not great, everyone with $ sends their kids to private school). And even arguably healthy food is expensive; the cheap stuff makes you fat & gives you diabetes (maybe).
    - ksec 9y ago
      That is why I get a little annoyed when people say many things like Car, phones etc are way more accessible. I dont need a Car, nor a Smartphone nor any of the example they gave. I need Food, Water, and Clothes. Three most important things. Then I need Shelter. First three is solved, the latter happens to be the root of all evil.
rosser 9y ago
Are you actually suggesting that because (nearly) everyone (in the first world) can buy a nice TV these days, we don't have structural inequality? I think that is a profoundly naïve narrative.

ovulator 9y ago

Money still buys power. And $1 Billion buys much more power than $1 Thousand. Maybe that is what you mean by "social status", but an very unequal distribution of power is not a good thing in a society through many's eyes.

amalag 9y ago

I agree with you and there are opportunities afforded to almost everyone. I think a few small tweaks are necessary, not these large wholescale proposals. One tweak is having a robust estate/death tax. That will create a more level playing field. People will complain about double taxation because their whole lives they are building a fortune for their children, but passing tens of millions of dollars to your grandchildren is not something we need to protect.

zupatol 9y ago

How about lack of debt, education, satisfying jobs and free time?

figurehe4d 9y ago

It's a mistake to make any sort of broad claims about human nature because we are products of our material conditions. Hierarchies may have been a part of our past, present and even near future, but I don't think they are an intrinsic aspect of what it means to be human, because if anything hierarchies increasingly give way to egalitarianism the more advanced we become.

RangerScience 9y ago

Except housing, medical care, and time - with your kids, to improve yourself, etc. Not to discount the importance of the rest of what you've listed, but there are still immensely important things that are not available at lower income, or that are only available at higher income.

c0ur7n3y 9y ago

That may be true for some physical objects, but not for things like a secure retirement, protection from crippling health-care bills, and secure (non-bank-owned, non-landlord-owned) housing. There are vast and real inequalities there.

fvdessen 9y ago
All those inequalities you cite are paradoxically the consequence of the vast increase of wealth and services accessible to everyone. The retirement insecurity is a consequence to lifetime expectancy having increased vastly beyond retirement age. The health care bills ? You couldn't even get them before, as all the healthcare one could expect was penicillin, aspirine, bandages and hot soup. Housing ? People would live with their parents until and even after they married. Now people can afford to move out and divorce. Social behaviour and expectations have changed to fill in the opportunities offered by newfound wealth, driven by the search for longer life and higher social status.

danans 9y ago

> The inequality problem only exists if you look at absolute wealth numbers, and not the level of confort and opportunities that wealth affords For physical comfort and mass produced entertainment, yes, they have never been cheaper. But definitely not opportunities. Quality education, the bedrock of opportunity, is more expensive than ever, even for the middle class, and the poor have long been largely priced out. It doesn't matter if all the knowledge in the world is available online because you still need a quality education to absorb that. When the wealthy decide to pull their kids out of school and give them the internet as a substitute I'll reconsider that. Safe communities are also something increasingly inaccessible to the poor. The disparities in opportunity are especially pronounced in urban areas and rural and post industrial areas, but the trend is the same practically everywhere.

ataturk 9y ago
But even when college was relatively "cheap" back when I attended in the mid '90s, there was still a great disparity between the privileged wealthy kids and the rest of us. The privileged all got access to jobs and fast track to management. The rest got el zilcho. College is pretty much a waste of money now if you ask me. My nephew is looking at $45K a year just for tuition. He could just start a business with that capital instead. He's not privileged and connected enough to get anything out of higher education except he might meet and marry a higher status female.

VikingCoder 9y ago

Health Care. That's a pretty big exception to what you're talking about. Daycare is another.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

You are clearly not in touch with poverty. Poverty is about stress, not being able to have a cheap cell phone or a Nintendo. It is about being able to pay rent, to not worry that if you get sick you'll be out on the street. Cheap goods don't fully help. Sure luxury items like cell phones are cheaper, but rent and food remain a significant portion of the budget.

dilap 9y ago

No, this is not true. Please come to SF and look around. Talk to the working class (uber drivers, janitors, &c) about their lives. They work very long hours to just barely scrape by. Housing and medical care are very expensive compared to wages. Take a walk outside. Unbelievable numbers of people living in misery on the streets. There are entire tent cities sprouting up like mushrooms. It's bad, in absolute terms.

ksec 9y ago
He is right, except the case of housing. Which is the biggest share of living cost.
- dilap 9y ago
  Yeah, but housing is the 2nd most important thing, right after food! Also the ability to give your kids a good education, which is also very dubious in SF (public schools not great, everyone with $ sends their kids to private school). And even arguably healthy food is expensive; the cheap stuff makes you fat & gives you diabetes (maybe).
  - ksec 9y ago
    That is why I get a little annoyed when people say many things like Car, phones etc are way more accessible. I dont need a Car, nor a Smartphone nor any of the example they gave. I need Food, Water, and Clothes. Three most important things. Then I need Shelter. First three is solved, the latter happens to be the root of all evil.

rosser 9y ago

Are you actually suggesting that because (nearly) everyone (in the first world) can buy a nice TV these days, we don't have structural inequality? I think that is a profoundly naïve narrative.