4 ms·

What does wealth equality even mean and why should we pursue it? What would happen if everyone was magically given a distribution of “wealth”? Would there be an

What does wealth equality even mean and why should we pursue it? What would happen if everyone was magically given a distribution of “wealth”? Would there be anything to give?

Frondo 9y ago
Look man, you don't need to care. That's the nice thing about politics, you don't need to care about anything. Lots of us do, because the fact that the three richest people in America own as much as the poorest half combined tells us that the laws that govern our playing field may not be presenting a particularly fair or level playing field, despite claims that anyone can work hard and win at life. Wealth inequality is a problem for those of us who do care because we want a society that actually does work for everyone in some semblance of similar proportion, not one in which everything is peachy for a few, miserable for the rest; this one doesn't seem like it is. Again, you don't have to care.
- defterGoose 9y ago
  Thanks for this reply. Calling someone out quickly and civilly for posting a shallow, ontological quip is one of the best things we can do to keep this type of serious conversation fact-based, on-focus, and troll-free. Too often nowadays these things can devolve into semantic wankfests with little semblance to "fact" or "truth".
- tudelo 9y ago
  The problem I have with what you are saying is what you are referring to as the "laws that govern our playing field." What do you mean that they are not fair? How do you make them fair? Also, it's not like these people became rich overnight. Do you think Bezos spent a lot of time complaining about a lack of opportunity? And do you think that most people would want to (or even be able to) live a life like he does?
- refurb 9y ago
  So if I'm understanding you correctly, if the "playing field was level", we wouldn't have inequity? Or as much? I'm not sure I agree with that.
lkbm 9y ago
Ted Wilkinson has a data-based TED Talk that goes over some of the negative affects of wealth inequality[0]. I used to assume other people being rich caused no harm to me, but turns out that on a societal level, there's decent evidence that it does hurt us. It's also worth noting that it would be dishonest to present the options as current system or no distribution vs. total redistribution. The argument is generally for more distribution than we have, but way, way below full redistribution. Full redistribution would be very harmful to society as a whole, but there's evidence for a significant gain to increasing beyond the current level in the US. Wilkinson focuses on the evidence that this is true more than he does the causes (iirc -- it's been a while since I watched his talk), but it's not hard to come up with some possible reasons -- regulatory capture on the high end, dead-weight loss from losing the productivity due to malnorishment, insufficient education, insufficient healthcare on the low end. (Malnorishment and tropical diseases clearly results in productivity loss in poor communities in sub-Saharan Africa, but even in the US, simply providing multivitamins to "working-class" students for three months did very little for most, but for 17% of them boosted the IQ 15 points. What do you think funding that would do to the economy 10-20 years from now?) [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706232 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706232
brbrodude 9y ago
To put it simply: the world gets fucked up if only a small handful of people matter/have any power and the rest have none. This happens on various levels, it's not just "oh that's not fair and also all puppies should be happy". This stuff has real consequences that you and I and everyone will be influenced by. Even if you think yourself safe for being close to enough to the wealth so you can just enjoy the ride, the issue still exists for most and can and will bubble up. From almost every society issue you can think of, you can go down the thread and find it's also related to the economic system, to concentration of power(economic or otherwise). This is basic enlightment stuff, just start trying to get to understand human history and society and you'll get it, it's inescapable. Ever heard of aggregate demand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand Think oligopoly, democracy, absolutism, slavery... All these concepts, they're not just useless words someone came up with to be a bitch, a lot of them were the 'status quo' one day and people wrote about them and frequently refer to them because it was a mess to disentangle them. There's a warning in each and everyone of them, you of course can not care or think it will all just be ok, but they're still warning regardless.
alistairSH 9y ago
It's a bit like pornography - we know it when we see it. But, even if reasonable minds disagree on where the line between "equitable" and "not equitable" lies, that should not preclude a conversation on the topic. Can we at least agree that the distribution of wealth has changed dramatically in the last few decades? That the middle class is shrinking? That income mobility (in the US) is worse now than in the immediate post-war years? If we agree on that, can we next agree that the current trend is likely unsustainable? Either because market forces will correct it, or because of some form of revolution, or something else? The question then becomes "should we intervene?" The answer to that would seem to depend on what you consider the likely outcome lacking intervention. Is it a massive and disruptive market correction? Is it an actual guns and tanks revolution? Something else? I don't think anybody (at least not anybody reasonable) is calling for text-book communism or anything close. Only that we consider what it means to us, as a society, that some families have this unfathomable wealth, while other families should be homeless and starving.

What does wealth equality even mean and why should we pursue it? What would happen if everyone was magically given a distribution of “wealth”? Would there be anything to give?

Frondo 9y ago

Look man, you don't need to care. That's the nice thing about politics, you don't need to care about anything. Lots of us do, because the fact that the three richest people in America own as much as the poorest half combined tells us that the laws that govern our playing field may not be presenting a particularly fair or level playing field, despite claims that anyone can work hard and win at life. Wealth inequality is a problem for those of us who do care because we want a society that actually does work for everyone in some semblance of similar proportion, not one in which everything is peachy for a few, miserable for the rest; this one doesn't seem like it is. Again, you don't have to care.

defterGoose 9y ago
Thanks for this reply. Calling someone out quickly and civilly for posting a shallow, ontological quip is one of the best things we can do to keep this type of serious conversation fact-based, on-focus, and troll-free. Too often nowadays these things can devolve into semantic wankfests with little semblance to "fact" or "truth".
tudelo 9y ago
The problem I have with what you are saying is what you are referring to as the "laws that govern our playing field." What do you mean that they are not fair? How do you make them fair? Also, it's not like these people became rich overnight. Do you think Bezos spent a lot of time complaining about a lack of opportunity? And do you think that most people would want to (or even be able to) live a life like he does?
refurb 9y ago
So if I'm understanding you correctly, if the "playing field was level", we wouldn't have inequity? Or as much? I'm not sure I agree with that.

lkbm 9y ago

Ted Wilkinson has a data-based TED Talk that goes over some of the negative affects of wealth inequality[0]. I used to assume other people being rich caused no harm to me, but turns out that on a societal level, there's decent evidence that it does hurt us. It's also worth noting that it would be dishonest to present the options as current system or no distribution vs. total redistribution. The argument is generally for more distribution than we have, but way, way below full redistribution. Full redistribution would be very harmful to society as a whole, but there's evidence for a significant gain to increasing beyond the current level in the US. Wilkinson focuses on the evidence that this is true more than he does the causes (iirc -- it's been a while since I watched his talk), but it's not hard to come up with some possible reasons -- regulatory capture on the high end, dead-weight loss from losing the productivity due to malnorishment, insufficient education, insufficient healthcare on the low end. (Malnorishment and tropical diseases clearly results in productivity loss in poor communities in sub-Saharan Africa, but even in the US, simply providing multivitamins to "working-class" students for three months did very little for most, but for 17% of them boosted the IQ 15 points. What do you think funding that would do to the economy 10-20 years from now?) [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706232 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706232

brbrodude 9y ago

To put it simply: the world gets fucked up if only a small handful of people matter/have any power and the rest have none. This happens on various levels, it's not just "oh that's not fair and also all puppies should be happy". This stuff has real consequences that you and I and everyone will be influenced by. Even if you think yourself safe for being close to enough to the wealth so you can just enjoy the ride, the issue still exists for most and can and will bubble up. From almost every society issue you can think of, you can go down the thread and find it's also related to the economic system, to concentration of power(economic or otherwise). This is basic enlightment stuff, just start trying to get to understand human history and society and you'll get it, it's inescapable. Ever heard of aggregate demand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand Think oligopoly, democracy, absolutism, slavery... All these concepts, they're not just useless words someone came up with to be a bitch, a lot of them were the 'status quo' one day and people wrote about them and frequently refer to them because it was a mess to disentangle them. There's a warning in each and everyone of them, you of course can not care or think it will all just be ok, but they're still warning regardless.

alistairSH 9y ago

It's a bit like pornography - we know it when we see it. But, even if reasonable minds disagree on where the line between "equitable" and "not equitable" lies, that should not preclude a conversation on the topic. Can we at least agree that the distribution of wealth has changed dramatically in the last few decades? That the middle class is shrinking? That income mobility (in the US) is worse now than in the immediate post-war years? If we agree on that, can we next agree that the current trend is likely unsustainable? Either because market forces will correct it, or because of some form of revolution, or something else? The question then becomes "should we intervene?" The answer to that would seem to depend on what you consider the likely outcome lacking intervention. Is it a massive and disruptive market correction? Is it an actual guns and tanks revolution? Something else? I don't think anybody (at least not anybody reasonable) is calling for text-book communism or anything close. Only that we consider what it means to us, as a society, that some families have this unfathomable wealth, while other families should be homeless and starving.