9 ms·

^^^^^^ I would also like to ask to whom would the majority of that increase in wealth go? I would argue it wouldn't be to the people doing the moving. It wou

^^^^^^ I would also like to ask to whom would the majority of that increase in wealth go? I would argue it wouldn't be to the people doing the moving. It would be to the people driving them to move.

davnicwil 8y ago
Supposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?
- ipsocannibal 8y ago
  I think all you have to do is look at modern American income disparity in the United States over the last 50 or so years and you have your answer. Sure, the poorest did become moderately better off financially in terms of wages. Yet did there quality of life increase? I would argue that the size of the pie is irrelevant past the point of what is required for basic survival. What truely matters is the relative size of the pieces. Especially in a country where we have equated money with speech.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > Yet did there quality of life increase? You seriously think poor people's quality of life hasn't increased in the last 50 years? Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones. I would argue that Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living for poor people than the last 50 years of social engineering but I know how much people like the downmod button...
    - ipsocannibal 8y ago
      I think you confuse the proliferation of techno-toys with quality of life. The same could be said of the proliferation of radio, automobiles, etc.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        If they have the disposable income to purchase "techno-toys" then obviously they have the means to support their basic needs. I'm actually curious what quality of life metric you're judging by that's declined in the last 50 years?
        makomk 8y ago
        The cost of huge flat-screen TVs has plummeted. Meanwhile, the cost of housing and healthcare is going through the roof in most of the western world. It very much does not follow that people who have the disposable income to purchase techno-toys can support their basic needs.
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        The cost of most things has plummeted since 50 years ago which, arguably, improves people's lives. And, btw, I wasn't proposing some new measure of Quality of Life through the size of the living room TV but using it as an illustrative example of technology becoming more accessible to more people at lower costs. Same with the smartphone reference, having the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips seems like a quick and easy way to improve one's lot in life. I do wonder if people would complain if Walmart managed to decrease housing and healthcare costs using their aggressive bargaining tactics like they've done with generic prescription drugs? --edit-- Forgot a requisite huffpo link praising Walmart for prescription drugs prices (whoops, wrong link the first time around) --> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a-london/a-way-to-save-billions-an_b_189729.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a-london/a-way-to-save-b...
        ipsocannibal 8y ago
        cost of housing proportional to wages, cost of healthcare proportional to wages, access to education and the quality of that education, overall life expectancy, likelyhood of incarceration, etc.
    - lev99 8y ago
      > Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living The quality of food Walmart sells is abysmal. The pressure Walmart put on food manufactures to drop prices played a significant role in the malnutrition and obesity in the us. TVs and smart phones are a very small part of Quality of Life. Having fulfilling work, good health, and a clean environment are more important aspects that Walmart worsen.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        > The pressure Walmart put on food manufactures to drop prices played a significant role in the malnutrition and obesity in the us. Making food less expensive is bad? Never really understood that argument but maybe it's just me... There are studies on the percentage of income a family spends on food today vs. some time in the past (with "time" depending on whatever study you look at) and it has steadily declined. Less money spent on food == more money to spend on some other necessary thing to live a quality life. Also, I'd put more blame on the USDA[0] for "obesity in the us" than Wallyworld selling people what they want to buy. People grow up believing in the Food Pyramid and end up becoming overweight through a "well balanced diet" dreamed up through regulatory capture. [0]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bailor/obesity-epidemic_b_4355781.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bailor/obesity-epide... -- note: #1 result on the google for "food pyramid obesity" is the huffpo so it has to be true...
        lev99 8y ago
        > Making food less expensive is bad? Making equivalent food lower cost is good. Reducing food quality to reduce price is bad.
    - ephor 8y ago
      >Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones. Perhaps the hedonistic acquisition of inessential physical goods is not necessarily commensurate with a higher standard of living? While there has been progress in the past 50 years, there has certainly also been much regress. When measuring the advancement of a civilization, it seems something other than the pervasiveness of bigger, cheaper screens for reruns of Baywatch (et al.) should be the yardstick.
  - prostoalex 8y ago
    The income disparity is the game of numbers. When Jeff Bezos’ income increases due to the work of his US employees, people notice. When Saudi Arabian King’s net worth increases due to the work of his US employees (and employees of any affiliated companies controlled by Saudis), people don’t notice it as much, since the King does not file a personal tax return with IRS. If you were to strip everybody in the Forbes 1000 list of their US citizenship (someone like Singapore or Monaco would surely step up to provide them with a valid passport), relieve them of IRS personal income filing duty, but allow their money to stay in the US economy, the economy would look the same and act the same. But the income disparity numbers would look much brighter.
    - gridaphobe 8y ago
      You rightly point out that income disparity metrics can be manipulated, but changing the calculation (eg by ignoring Bezos) does nothing to change the actual disparity, it just makes it harder to detect... So what exactly is your point?
      - prostoalex 8y ago
        That the stat is not only subject to manipulation, it’s pointless. If every American shopped on Rakuten vs Amazon, bought Samsung vs Apple, searched on Yandex instead of Google, banked at Barclays vs Chase, took a Didi vs Uber, if every hedge fund manager was based in Zurich vs Greenwich, US income disparity would not be so jarring, as the wealth would accrue elsewhere, exporting the income disparity with it. Would the US economy be better off?
- godelski 8y ago
  So many people miss this point. Most things in economics are positive sum games. But most people treat things like zero sum games (if someone gains something then I have less/am able to get less). But people produce products, people produce value. This is exactly why we have an economy. And it grows (meaning positive sum). We've left so much money and value on the table because of this.
  - cn1000 8y ago
    The important things like housing/land, partly also health care and education are zero sum games. Getting into Harvard is a zero sum game. Becoming a professor is a zero sum game. Getting a job at New York Philharmonic is a zero sum game. Getting concert tickets is a zero sum game. Getting a seat in the supreme court is a zero sum game. Getting into Google is a zero sum game. The fact that anyone can somehow obtain a "smart" phone does not mean that we are richer. Most people I know do not feel richer than 10 years ago.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > So many people miss this point. I'd be careful making assumptions about the reasons people don't agree with you. Taking the grandparent comment: "Supposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?" I don't disagree with this point because I believe economics is a zero some game, I disagree with it because it's wrong (it takes "everyone being better off" for granted), and I will be on guard to oppose any other initiatives (say, open borders) suggested by a group that thinks like this.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That's a pretty disingenuous argument. If the pie gets bigger, cost of living also goes up, and so does income inequality.
- rectang 8y ago
  Even with a larger pie, the people with an ever diminishing share have less control over their lives, more stress, and more uncertainty. There is too great a power disparity arising as a result of inequality.
- chroem- 8y ago
  There's a very good SMBC comic that addresses the "greater pie" fallacy. [1] To summarize: the total economic pie growing and individual slices shrinking are not mutually exclusive. [1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03
ascorbic 8y ago
The increase in wealth from someone moving from a poor to a rich country is massive, and far more than the marginal benefit to an employer from hiring them rather than a slightly more expensive alternative person.
- zeth___ 8y ago
  Wealth to who? An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen. This means that while theoretically 'wealth' is increasing it is increasing in such a way that those who are in the position to pay wages keep more of them and those in the position to receive them get much less. In short then what's the point of an average in a power law distribution which by definition does not have a defined average? Or to put it even more dumbly would you rather live in a world of 100 units of wealth distributed between the 5 quintiles as [80.0, 16.0, 3.2, 0.64, 0.128] or one of 20 units distributed as [6,5,4,3,2]. For 2/3rds of the people in the world the second would be better.
  - prostoalex 8y ago
    Extending that analogy to corporate entities, you imply that anyone with competing offers from Google and local Arco AM/PM Gas Station is better off choosing the latter one, even if Google’s offer is more competitive? Because, after all, Google is likely to extract more wealth out of that careet stint than Arco, and implicitly screw the employee over?
    - ipsocannibal 8y ago
      Your confusing the locally optimal choice of a single member within a system to apply to a description of a more globally optimal state of the system overall.
    - zeth___ 8y ago
      That is not what I wrote. Please re-read it.
  - int_19h 8y ago

^^^^^^ I would also like to ask to whom would the majority of that increase in wealth go? I would argue it wouldn't be to the people doing the moving. It would be to the people driving them to move.

davnicwil 8y ago

Supposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?

ipsocannibal 8y ago
I think all you have to do is look at modern American income disparity in the United States over the last 50 or so years and you have your answer. Sure, the poorest did become moderately better off financially in terms of wages. Yet did there quality of life increase? I would argue that the size of the pie is irrelevant past the point of what is required for basic survival. What truely matters is the relative size of the pieces. Especially in a country where we have equated money with speech.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > Yet did there quality of life increase? You seriously think poor people's quality of life hasn't increased in the last 50 years? Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones. I would argue that Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living for poor people than the last 50 years of social engineering but I know how much people like the downmod button...
  - ipsocannibal 8y ago
    I think you confuse the proliferation of techno-toys with quality of life. The same could be said of the proliferation of radio, automobiles, etc.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      If they have the disposable income to purchase "techno-toys" then obviously they have the means to support their basic needs. I'm actually curious what quality of life metric you're judging by that's declined in the last 50 years?
      - makomk 8y ago
        The cost of huge flat-screen TVs has plummeted. Meanwhile, the cost of housing and healthcare is going through the roof in most of the western world. It very much does not follow that people who have the disposable income to purchase techno-toys can support their basic needs.
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        The cost of most things has plummeted since 50 years ago which, arguably, improves people's lives. And, btw, I wasn't proposing some new measure of Quality of Life through the size of the living room TV but using it as an illustrative example of technology becoming more accessible to more people at lower costs. Same with the smartphone reference, having the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips seems like a quick and easy way to improve one's lot in life. I do wonder if people would complain if Walmart managed to decrease housing and healthcare costs using their aggressive bargaining tactics like they've done with generic prescription drugs? --edit-- Forgot a requisite huffpo link praising Walmart for prescription drugs prices (whoops, wrong link the first time around) --> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a-london/a-way-to-save-billions-an_b_189729.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a-london/a-way-to-save-b...
      - ipsocannibal 8y ago
        cost of housing proportional to wages, cost of healthcare proportional to wages, access to education and the quality of that education, overall life expectancy, likelyhood of incarceration, etc.
  - lev99 8y ago
    > Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living The quality of food Walmart sells is abysmal. The pressure Walmart put on food manufactures to drop prices played a significant role in the malnutrition and obesity in the us. TVs and smart phones are a very small part of Quality of Life. Having fulfilling work, good health, and a clean environment are more important aspects that Walmart worsen.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > The pressure Walmart put on food manufactures to drop prices played a significant role in the malnutrition and obesity in the us. Making food less expensive is bad? Never really understood that argument but maybe it's just me... There are studies on the percentage of income a family spends on food today vs. some time in the past (with "time" depending on whatever study you look at) and it has steadily declined. Less money spent on food == more money to spend on some other necessary thing to live a quality life. Also, I'd put more blame on the USDA[0] for "obesity in the us" than Wallyworld selling people what they want to buy. People grow up believing in the Food Pyramid and end up becoming overweight through a "well balanced diet" dreamed up through regulatory capture. [0]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bailor/obesity-epidemic_b_4355781.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bailor/obesity-epide... -- note: #1 result on the google for "food pyramid obesity" is the huffpo so it has to be true...
      - lev99 8y ago
        > Making food less expensive is bad? Making equivalent food lower cost is good. Reducing food quality to reduce price is bad.
  - ephor 8y ago
    >Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones. Perhaps the hedonistic acquisition of inessential physical goods is not necessarily commensurate with a higher standard of living? While there has been progress in the past 50 years, there has certainly also been much regress. When measuring the advancement of a civilization, it seems something other than the pervasiveness of bigger, cheaper screens for reruns of Baywatch (et al.) should be the yardstick.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  The income disparity is the game of numbers. When Jeff Bezos’ income increases due to the work of his US employees, people notice. When Saudi Arabian King’s net worth increases due to the work of his US employees (and employees of any affiliated companies controlled by Saudis), people don’t notice it as much, since the King does not file a personal tax return with IRS. If you were to strip everybody in the Forbes 1000 list of their US citizenship (someone like Singapore or Monaco would surely step up to provide them with a valid passport), relieve them of IRS personal income filing duty, but allow their money to stay in the US economy, the economy would look the same and act the same. But the income disparity numbers would look much brighter.
  - gridaphobe 8y ago
    You rightly point out that income disparity metrics can be manipulated, but changing the calculation (eg by ignoring Bezos) does nothing to change the actual disparity, it just makes it harder to detect... So what exactly is your point?
    - prostoalex 8y ago
      That the stat is not only subject to manipulation, it’s pointless. If every American shopped on Rakuten vs Amazon, bought Samsung vs Apple, searched on Yandex instead of Google, banked at Barclays vs Chase, took a Didi vs Uber, if every hedge fund manager was based in Zurich vs Greenwich, US income disparity would not be so jarring, as the wealth would accrue elsewhere, exporting the income disparity with it. Would the US economy be better off?
godelski 8y ago
So many people miss this point. Most things in economics are positive sum games. But most people treat things like zero sum games (if someone gains something then I have less/am able to get less). But people produce products, people produce value. This is exactly why we have an economy. And it grows (meaning positive sum). We've left so much money and value on the table because of this.
- cn1000 8y ago
  The important things like housing/land, partly also health care and education are zero sum games. Getting into Harvard is a zero sum game. Becoming a professor is a zero sum game. Getting a job at New York Philharmonic is a zero sum game. Getting concert tickets is a zero sum game. Getting a seat in the supreme court is a zero sum game. Getting into Google is a zero sum game. The fact that anyone can somehow obtain a "smart" phone does not mean that we are richer. Most people I know do not feel richer than 10 years ago.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > So many people miss this point. I'd be careful making assumptions about the reasons people don't agree with you. Taking the grandparent comment: "Supposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?" I don't disagree with this point because I believe economics is a zero some game, I disagree with it because it's wrong (it takes "everyone being better off" for granted), and I will be on guard to oppose any other initiatives (say, open borders) suggested by a group that thinks like this.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. If the pie gets bigger, cost of living also goes up, and so does income inequality.
rectang 8y ago
Even with a larger pie, the people with an ever diminishing share have less control over their lives, more stress, and more uncertainty. There is too great a power disparity arising as a result of inequality.
chroem- 8y ago
There's a very good SMBC comic that addresses the "greater pie" fallacy. [1] To summarize: the total economic pie growing and individual slices shrinking are not mutually exclusive. [1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03

ascorbic 8y ago

The increase in wealth from someone moving from a poor to a rich country is massive, and far more than the marginal benefit to an employer from hiring them rather than a slightly more expensive alternative person.

zeth___ 8y ago
Wealth to who? An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen. This means that while theoretically 'wealth' is increasing it is increasing in such a way that those who are in the position to pay wages keep more of them and those in the position to receive them get much less. In short then what's the point of an average in a power law distribution which by definition does not have a defined average? Or to put it even more dumbly would you rather live in a world of 100 units of wealth distributed between the 5 quintiles as [80.0, 16.0, 3.2, 0.64, 0.128] or one of 20 units distributed as [6,5,4,3,2]. For 2/3rds of the people in the world the second would be better.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  Extending that analogy to corporate entities, you imply that anyone with competing offers from Google and local Arco AM/PM Gas Station is better off choosing the latter one, even if Google’s offer is more competitive? Because, after all, Google is likely to extract more wealth out of that careet stint than Arco, and implicitly screw the employee over?
  - ipsocannibal 8y ago
    Your confusing the locally optimal choice of a single member within a system to apply to a description of a more globally optimal state of the system overall.
  - zeth___ 8y ago
    That is not what I wrote. Please re-read it.
- int_19h 8y ago