4 ms·

It's not zero sum. One family makes more than before. The other makes the same as before. Net win. The extra money in the pocket of the first family is not

It's not zero sum. One family makes more than before. The other makes the same as before. Net win. The extra money in the pocket of the first family is not coming out of the pocket of the second. It's coming out of Amazon's pocket. The alternative is that no one gets raises. That's would be loss for a large number of families and no change for others.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
You are not presenting a scenario in which one family gains and the other stays the same, you're presenting one in which one family makes more money (gain) while the other makes the same amount of money but is less able to find affordable housing (loss). It's not strictly zero-sum because the gains and losses may not exactly offset each other, but one agent's gains still come at the expense of another.
- corysama 8y ago
  I don't know what you are advocating. Amazon paid people a lot locally. That's usually considered a nice thing. As a side effect, that inflated prices locally. That's sad. So, to not be shamed by you, they should have been doing ambiguous something all along. What?
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I suppose I'm advocating that we structure our society such that one person gaining wealth does not make it more difficult for another to live their life. I'm pointing out that, in a vacuum, this specific scenario: > One family gets a large raise. Another gets a slightly harder time finding affordable housing. is something to avoid, not strive for.
    - corysama 8y ago
      Sure. But, it feels like there is a lot of shooting the messenger here. There is obviously a fault in the housing market of Seattle. If there wasn’t, supply would have risen to meet demand. But, Amazon didn’t cause the fault. They just made it obvious. So, when shit gets bad, who does the pitchforks come out for? The ones who made the problem obvious.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

You are not presenting a scenario in which one family gains and the other stays the same, you're presenting one in which one family makes more money (gain) while the other makes the same amount of money but is less able to find affordable housing (loss). It's not strictly zero-sum because the gains and losses may not exactly offset each other, but one agent's gains still come at the expense of another.

corysama 8y ago
I don't know what you are advocating. Amazon paid people a lot locally. That's usually considered a nice thing. As a side effect, that inflated prices locally. That's sad. So, to not be shamed by you, they should have been doing ambiguous something all along. What?
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I suppose I'm advocating that we structure our society such that one person gaining wealth does not make it more difficult for another to live their life. I'm pointing out that, in a vacuum, this specific scenario: > One family gets a large raise. Another gets a slightly harder time finding affordable housing. is something to avoid, not strive for.
  - corysama 8y ago
    Sure. But, it feels like there is a lot of shooting the messenger here. There is obviously a fault in the housing market of Seattle. If there wasn’t, supply would have risen to meet demand. But, Amazon didn’t cause the fault. They just made it obvious. So, when shit gets bad, who does the pitchforks come out for? The ones who made the problem obvious.