3 ms·
There are fundamental causes for inequality that can't be fixed once-and-for-all. The Pareto principle and other similar dynamics provide a glimpse into this. W
by dwaltrip 9y ago
There are fundamental causes for inequality that can't be fixed once-and-for-all. The Pareto principle and other similar dynamics provide a glimpse into this. We see this everywhere in nature (distribution of mass in a star system, distribution of energy in an ecosystem, etc).
That being said, there are significant anachronistic, unjust human causes for inequality. Corruption, cultural/racial bias, skewed market incentives, externalities, etc.
That is where we should focus our energy. There is much good that can and should be done there.
And we can work to broadly lift the floor of human experience for all, even if such endeavors don't eliminate all relative inequality.
A perfectly equal system would be static, unchanging, fixed in place. There would be no vibrance or life. Dynamic processes that bring about change do not provide the same result to all pieces of a system, and require non-uniformity to continue occurring. Think of the heat death of the universe -- everything everywhere is the same temperature, and no interesting changes can ever happen again.
But this is certainly no excuse to not make the valuable and necessary improvements that we are capable of doing.
Lastly, it is certainly possible that the "natural" dynamics driving inequality are not at ideal levels right now, and that we should enact policy changes or other measures that counteract such dynamics and increase equality (higher taxes, social programs, etc). I think this is likely the case, and support such efforts.
Edit: Getting some downvotes. I hope no one think I'm implying regressive action, as I have no desire for that. I'd love to hear people's take on things. My main reason for posting is that I often see discussions that don't recognize what seem to me certain fundamental dynamics. If my understanding is off, please share how. Thanks.
- davidjsevans 9y agoGood comment. If more people understood the distribution of wealth was largely the result of natural laws of productivity (described by the Pareto Principle), and not just the result of corruption, exploiting externalities, etc, there would be much less resentment and envy towards the top 1%. Perhaps then we could focus on some solutions that don't make the 1% want to flee to a more free country, taking their productivity and wealth with them.
- dwaltrip 9y agoThe really tricky part is identifying how much is due to fundamental dynamics and how much is due to unjust anachronisms. For that, I don't have a good answer. I believe there is plenty of room for us make improvements, and that we have a responsibility to do so. You may have missed a change I made to my comment, also. We aren't completely beholden to the Pareto principle. We can work against it to a certain degree, if we choose, which would lessen inequality, with tolerable side effects.
- naasking 9y agoI'm not sure it matters what part is due to fundamental dynamics. The goal should be to add a feedback loop from the top to lower levels so as to improve mobility dynamics, which encourages the view that hard work and ingenuity pays off with decent probability.
- dwaltrip 9y agoWell, fundamental dynamics are likely harder to counteract than some of the human factors which may be a bit more arbitrary and anachronistic. Not that this is a show stopper, just something to keep in mind. Regardless, I like your suggested approach.
- naasking 9y agoI think something like universal basic income might be an example. This gives people a little more security to improve their education or be entrepreneurial. Ultimately, this ought to give them improved probability of upward mobility with less risk of downward mobility.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago> That being said, there are significant anachronistic, unjust human causes for inequality.... That is where we should focus our energy. Yep (and sorry for snipping so heavily). I would add "political capital" to "energy" here. Ever since the 2008 financial crisis made everyone angry, there's been head-scratching at why the voters more often (but not always!) turned right than left in response. Part of the reason is that voters, to their credit, are more angry about the unjust things people have done to get entrench their wealth than about the wealth itself. It's always tempting for the left to equate the mere existence of rich people with injustice. But most people don't buy that, and if the right provides some more concrete story of injustice -- even a dodgy Trumpist story -- then that will sway people more.
- Terr_ 9y ago> It's always tempting for the left to equate the mere existence of rich people with injustice. But most people don't buy that Right, the Just World Hypothesis seems to be pretty instinctual. (Though that may be because folks who don't believe it might not survive their attempts to "fix" things...)
- anigbrowl 9y agoGetting some downvotes. Honestly, I'm perplexed at your comment as almost every issue you mention is actually examined carefully in the paper. I mean, I see where you're coming from and had some similar opinions to yours, but this paper addresses those issues in a far more rigorous way.
- dwaltrip 9y agoThat's fair. I definitely should have addressed the paper more directly. Thanks for the feedback.