3 ms·

The author's final conclusions take, as a matter of fact, that inequality is what drove revolutions of the past. It seems that the more precise cause of these r

The author's final conclusions take, as a matter of fact, that inequality is what drove revolutions of the past. It seems that the more precise cause of these revolutions throughout time has not been the lack of equality, but the lack of fairness. And these are two very different things. If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair. If we take these 1000 people and instead give identical rewards in accordance with who a grand arbiter thinks would be somehow 'better', it would be radically unfair. Even if the final result in the distribution of rewards is the same, the general view and tolerance of such distribution would be very different. The example most commonly cited as a revolution of inequality is the French Revolution, yet the people did not protest because the ruling class enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. It happened because the masses were required to pay ever larger taxes to subsidize a government that was increasingly in debt with very little to show for it, all because of the actions of those that lived in luxury. And this happened at the same time that famine was sweeping the nation magnifying the absurdity of it all. Put another way, those in power were destroying their nation and demanding the poor pay for their failures. That's not about inequality, it's about unfairness. And I think this generalizes to the entire article. People do not generally seem to care about equality -- they care about fairness. The Waltons and Elon Musk are both billionaires, but they are perceived in vastly different ways. Imagine if we lived exactly as we do today, yet the vast majority of wealthy obtained their wealth and behaved in a fashion similar to the Waltons. The stability of this nation would be quite different.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> yet the people did not protest because the bourgeois enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. Well, no, the food crises immediately preceding the revolution meant that the people weren't even getting their expected grain and water. But the bourgeoisie (a class that was the middle class in the pre-capitalist economy of the time and which hadn't really existed “since time immemorial”) wasn't the target of the Revolution, indeed, while the masses and their discontent were powering it, the bourgeoisie was largely leading the Revolution.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Good point. My choice of terminology there was going to be, at best, distracting. Edited.
user5454 8y ago
I agree, fairness != equality. While I'm a great believer in fairness, the problem with it is that it opens up to arbitration. What I consider fair may not be what you consider fair. Equality OTOH is measurable.
ikeyany 8y ago
> If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair. How can you possibly claim it's fair if those 1000 all started with different opportunities, different abilities, and different privileges?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Imagine you and I decided to have a race in a couple of years with some reasonably incentivizing prize. Who would win? Would it come down to genetics, background, our physiological development in youth? Probably not. It's mostly just going to be decided by who puts more effort into training and preparing for it. It's only when we speak of the best of the best that things like genetics and developmental history start playing significant roles. For us mere mortals in most things, the winner is just the person who puts more into it. And this is the standard for life. In most things just putting in the blood, sweat, and tears is enough to end up well above average - and that's well more than what's needed to succeed. And this gets even nicer in real life since it's not just a race. There are a practically unlimited number of fields enabling people to try whatever they want and aim to put their unique characteristics to optimal usage letting them be the one with the 'homefield advantage.'
fbonetti 8y ago
This is a really interesting take, and I think explains why so many young Americans feel disillusioned. It's not the inequality that bothers them per se, it's the fact that they can't afford to buy homes and that their educations have put them in a lifetime of debt. It's the fact that millennials will end up poorer than their parents and won't achieve the standard milestones of adulthood until later in life.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> yet the people did not protest because the bourgeois enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. Well, no, the food crises immediately preceding the revolution meant that the people weren't even getting their expected grain and water. But the bourgeoisie (a class that was the middle class in the pre-capitalist economy of the time and which hadn't really existed “since time immemorial”) wasn't the target of the Revolution, indeed, while the masses and their discontent were powering it, the bourgeoisie was largely leading the Revolution.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Good point. My choice of terminology there was going to be, at best, distracting. Edited.

user5454 8y ago

I agree, fairness != equality. While I'm a great believer in fairness, the problem with it is that it opens up to arbitration. What I consider fair may not be what you consider fair. Equality OTOH is measurable.

ikeyany 8y ago

> If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair. How can you possibly claim it's fair if those 1000 all started with different opportunities, different abilities, and different privileges?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Imagine you and I decided to have a race in a couple of years with some reasonably incentivizing prize. Who would win? Would it come down to genetics, background, our physiological development in youth? Probably not. It's mostly just going to be decided by who puts more effort into training and preparing for it. It's only when we speak of the best of the best that things like genetics and developmental history start playing significant roles. For us mere mortals in most things, the winner is just the person who puts more into it. And this is the standard for life. In most things just putting in the blood, sweat, and tears is enough to end up well above average - and that's well more than what's needed to succeed. And this gets even nicer in real life since it's not just a race. There are a practically unlimited number of fields enabling people to try whatever they want and aim to put their unique characteristics to optimal usage letting them be the one with the 'homefield advantage.'

fbonetti 8y ago

This is a really interesting take, and I think explains why so many young Americans feel disillusioned. It's not the inequality that bothers them per se, it's the fact that they can't afford to buy homes and that their educations have put them in a lifetime of debt. It's the fact that millennials will end up poorer than their parents and won't achieve the standard milestones of adulthood until later in life.