4 ms·

Personally, I couldn't care less about how much the next guy makes. My father grew up without air conditioning, any sort of decent medical or dental care, no co

Personally, I couldn't care less about how much the next guy makes. My father grew up without air conditioning, any sort of decent medical or dental care, no college education, and (often) poor nutrition. I may not have had cable TV or name brand clothing, but I have had a much better life than my father did. Hell, I have two degrees and work indoors. And lord knows if I have kids they will have a much better life than I did. Every now and then an article calls me a rube for not voting for the redistributionists (who have so many other things so horribly wrong with them). But I'm not buying it. I'm honestly not envious of how much the next guy has and I'm very grateful for what I have. It's not my relative level of wealth that concerns me, but the absolute level.

orangecat 16y ago
Well said. There are valid arguments in favor of reducing inequality, but too often they come across as thinly disguised envy.
vannevar 16y ago
'Wealth redistributionists' aren't motivated by envy, as you imply. Rather they are motivated by the practical aspects of maintaining a healthy society. It's in the best interest of all if wealth ends up in the hands of those best able to employ it to everyone's benefit, ie the most productive members of society. The prevailing assumption is that the unrestricted free market is the best way to do this. It's now clear that this assumption is wrong, and that wealth tends to attract wealth entirely apart from the economic fitness of the person wielding it. There is no such thing as an 'absolute' level of wealth, once basic survival needs are met. Study after study shows that people's perspective on wealth is entirely relative, which is why there were several recent articles here on HN regarding rich people who don't feel rich. What exactly is a healthy and efficient distribution of wealth is open to debate, but a split where 1% of the population hold 35% of the wealth certainly doesn't seem either healthy or efficient.
- SHOwnsYou 16y ago
  There isn't anything inherently wrong with a wide rich-poor gap. There is a floor for poverty but not for wealth. You can be really really poor, but you'll never be poorer than having $x.xx of debt associated to your name (I am just ballparking like $50,000, though I know this can fluctuate some -- please no nit arguments about Bernie Madoff) The rich have no ceiling to how much they can accumulate. In fact, they can accumulate vast sums (maybe more than poorer people make in a lifetime) by simply letting their money sit in a bank account. 1% holding 35% of the wealth doesn't mean anything beyond the most superficial level. What is more important is if the remaining 65% of wealth is distributed in such a manner that allows the other 99% to survive with some amount of quality of life.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

orangecat 16y ago

Well said. There are valid arguments in favor of reducing inequality, but too often they come across as thinly disguised envy.

vannevar 16y ago

'Wealth redistributionists' aren't motivated by envy, as you imply. Rather they are motivated by the practical aspects of maintaining a healthy society. It's in the best interest of all if wealth ends up in the hands of those best able to employ it to everyone's benefit, ie the most productive members of society. The prevailing assumption is that the unrestricted free market is the best way to do this. It's now clear that this assumption is wrong, and that wealth tends to attract wealth entirely apart from the economic fitness of the person wielding it. There is no such thing as an 'absolute' level of wealth, once basic survival needs are met. Study after study shows that people's perspective on wealth is entirely relative, which is why there were several recent articles here on HN regarding rich people who don't feel rich. What exactly is a healthy and efficient distribution of wealth is open to debate, but a split where 1% of the population hold 35% of the wealth certainly doesn't seem either healthy or efficient.

SHOwnsYou 16y ago
There isn't anything inherently wrong with a wide rich-poor gap. There is a floor for poverty but not for wealth. You can be really really poor, but you'll never be poorer than having $x.xx of debt associated to your name (I am just ballparking like $50,000, though I know this can fluctuate some -- please no nit arguments about Bernie Madoff) The rich have no ceiling to how much they can accumulate. In fact, they can accumulate vast sums (maybe more than poorer people make in a lifetime) by simply letting their money sit in a bank account. 1% holding 35% of the wealth doesn't mean anything beyond the most superficial level. What is more important is if the remaining 65% of wealth is distributed in such a manner that allows the other 99% to survive with some amount of quality of life.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]