3 ms·

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in itself. In a society where everything is commodified this wealth gap allows the rich to opt out of normal civil society. A society where a small few can buy their way out of a crap education system, out of a crap healthcare system, etc. isn't just no matter how well we swap people in and out of that group.

skybrian 9y ago
A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory. But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.
closeparen 9y ago
The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Yes but that's good. >Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing. >We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards. You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars. My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    If you have the electoral majority to drag down the wealthy, then you have the electoral majority to lift up the poor. Using public policy to compel support for other public policy is nonsensical unless the former has broader support.

skybrian 9y ago

A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory. But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.

closeparen 9y ago

The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Yes but that's good. >Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing. >We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards. You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars. My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.
- closeparen 9y ago
  If you have the electoral majority to drag down the wealthy, then you have the electoral majority to lift up the poor. Using public policy to compel support for other public policy is nonsensical unless the former has broader support.