12 ms·

The easiest way to optimize for social mobility is to randomly reallocate everyone's wealth every X years.

by thanatropism 8y ago

treerock 8y ago
That would kill social mobility.
- gruez 8y ago
  why?
  - treerock 8y ago
    Social mobility requires a lot of work and money and time. How would you get a mortgage on a house, or save for your kids' education if any wealth you accrue risks getting re-allocated? (Guess it depends on your value of X)
    - gruez 8y ago
      >Social mobility requires a lot of work and money and time. I think you're conflating social mobility with income growth. all social mobility means is how easy it is to change your social status in terms of wealth. while it's true that randomly redistributing wealth will disincentivise hard work, it doesn't matter because the shuffling will still change everybody's social status.
      - treerock 8y ago
        Sorry but I don't think I'm conflating anything. Social status doesn't change just because you are given money, or have it taken away.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Social mobility primarily requires opportunity and networking contacts - or at a minimum, the skills required to find them. Otherwise the work, money, and time are going to be wasted. As for the second part of your comment - what if you didn't need to go into debt, and education was free?
    - scarecrowbob 8y ago
      "How would you get a mortgage on a house, or save for your kids' education if any wealth you accrue risks getting re-allocated?" I think that's a legitimately interesting question. Maybe the actors in that situation would attempt to build systems that don't rely on having outcomes based on individuals accruing wealth for themselves, but instead on collective assets that everyone has access to at all times. Pragmatically, yeah, there are all kinds of problems with this concept, but for me your question does more to make radical, frequent, and random wealth reallocation interesting than it does to point out a flaw with the idea.
duxup 8y ago
I wonder what the behavior would be, and all the loopholes, and how that would be if say one year you were a billionaire, the next not.... I'm guessing if you couldn't just buy stuff and take it with you to the next year everyone would just be buying experiences or something?
tigershark 8y ago
What is the point for anyone to work knowing that next year they will lose everything that they earned working?
- im_down_w_otp 8y ago
  Interestingly enough, most people continue to work despite the fact that a simple mishap or bout with illness for themselves or a loved one can (and does) wipe out everything they've earned working. It's been ~10 years since I looked at the numbers, but I remember it being something like 30% of bankruptcy filings are due to medical issues and associated costs. Maybe systemetizing it a priori would have a different impact on people's perception about the mechanism though?
  - VBprogrammer 8y ago
    At the risk of this going slightly off topic. I wondered how that compares to the UK (where there is free at the point of use health care) According to this https://www.yourmoney.com/credit-cards-loans/living-beyond-means-common-reason-bankruptcy/ https://www.yourmoney.com/credit-cards-loans/living-beyond-m... circa 10% of bankruptcy proceedings were due to ill health. I don't think much can be drawn from that though as there are too many legal and cultural differences in the application of bankrupsy.
  - uep 8y ago
    I've seen higher numbers elsewhere, something like 60+%, though I'm not sure where it stands with the 2008 housing crash. What's more concerning is that most people with medical bankruptcies had health insurance at the time they initially got sick. This bit[1] from the 2009 in the NYT says 3/4 had health insurance, but I just remember reading it was more than half in the last few years. [1]https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/ https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-b...
  - antepodius 8y ago
    I'd certainly imagine a lot of people would resent having a person take away their stuff more than luck/nature doing so. If someone stole my phone, I'd be angrier than if it had fallen out of my hand and off a cliff; if someone stabbed me in the heart, I'd be angrier and more likely to entertain fantasies of revenge than if I had a heart attack. Also, ceteris paribus, if you get ill and you've worked harder, you'll have more resources to help yourself, so you'll be less likely to be broke by the end of it. Under this system, how hard you worked doesn't increase your expected amount of money next year. Also, all the rich would immediately flee the country.
tokyodude 8y ago
I'm not sure if this is comparable but I feel like lots of people already live something like this. My visa has only been approved 1 year at a time. Each year about 3-4 months before I have to renew it I start to worry that it might not be renewed and end up postponing all major plans until it gets renewed. Last year wanted to move apartments before I had to renew my lease but didn't do it because I wasn't sure my visa would get renewed. Even if I had tried landlords might have looked at my expiration date and said "no". Similarly I planned to rent a new office/cube in a co-working space but needed to wait until after my visa was renewed.
- gcb0 8y ago
  you are replying to an irony... that was about the rich never going to agree to a "solution" that won't make them rich.
justaguyhere 8y ago
Can you support your claim with some logic? If I worked hard for a decade and saved a million dollars and it gets reallocated this year, what is the motivation for me to work anymore? On the other end, if I spent a decade playing video games/sleeping and suddenly find myself with a bunch of money, what is the motivation for me to work?
- thanatropism 8y ago
  I'm not saying you would be motivated. Or that society would be better off overall. I was making a point about social engineering. Similarly: if you optimize for low inequality, you get Cuba.
mamon 8y ago
That's what loteries are for :)
jchanimal 8y ago
Last I checked winning the lottery doesn’t tend to change one’s social class.

The easiest way to optimize for social mobility is to randomly reallocate everyone's wealth every X years.

treerock 8y ago

That would kill social mobility.

gruez 8y ago
why?
- treerock 8y ago
  Social mobility requires a lot of work and money and time. How would you get a mortgage on a house, or save for your kids' education if any wealth you accrue risks getting re-allocated? (Guess it depends on your value of X)
  - gruez 8y ago
    >Social mobility requires a lot of work and money and time. I think you're conflating social mobility with income growth. all social mobility means is how easy it is to change your social status in terms of wealth. while it's true that randomly redistributing wealth will disincentivise hard work, it doesn't matter because the shuffling will still change everybody's social status.
    - treerock 8y ago
      Sorry but I don't think I'm conflating anything. Social status doesn't change just because you are given money, or have it taken away.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    Social mobility primarily requires opportunity and networking contacts - or at a minimum, the skills required to find them. Otherwise the work, money, and time are going to be wasted. As for the second part of your comment - what if you didn't need to go into debt, and education was free?
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    "How would you get a mortgage on a house, or save for your kids' education if any wealth you accrue risks getting re-allocated?" I think that's a legitimately interesting question. Maybe the actors in that situation would attempt to build systems that don't rely on having outcomes based on individuals accruing wealth for themselves, but instead on collective assets that everyone has access to at all times. Pragmatically, yeah, there are all kinds of problems with this concept, but for me your question does more to make radical, frequent, and random wealth reallocation interesting than it does to point out a flaw with the idea.

duxup 8y ago

I wonder what the behavior would be, and all the loopholes, and how that would be if say one year you were a billionaire, the next not.... I'm guessing if you couldn't just buy stuff and take it with you to the next year everyone would just be buying experiences or something?

tigershark 8y ago

What is the point for anyone to work knowing that next year they will lose everything that they earned working?

im_down_w_otp 8y ago
Interestingly enough, most people continue to work despite the fact that a simple mishap or bout with illness for themselves or a loved one can (and does) wipe out everything they've earned working. It's been ~10 years since I looked at the numbers, but I remember it being something like 30% of bankruptcy filings are due to medical issues and associated costs. Maybe systemetizing it a priori would have a different impact on people's perception about the mechanism though?
- VBprogrammer 8y ago
  At the risk of this going slightly off topic. I wondered how that compares to the UK (where there is free at the point of use health care) According to this https://www.yourmoney.com/credit-cards-loans/living-beyond-means-common-reason-bankruptcy/ https://www.yourmoney.com/credit-cards-loans/living-beyond-m... circa 10% of bankruptcy proceedings were due to ill health. I don't think much can be drawn from that though as there are too many legal and cultural differences in the application of bankrupsy.
- uep 8y ago
  I've seen higher numbers elsewhere, something like 60+%, though I'm not sure where it stands with the 2008 housing crash. What's more concerning is that most people with medical bankruptcies had health insurance at the time they initially got sick. This bit[1] from the 2009 in the NYT says 3/4 had health insurance, but I just remember reading it was more than half in the last few years. [1]https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/ https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-b...
- antepodius 8y ago
  I'd certainly imagine a lot of people would resent having a person take away their stuff more than luck/nature doing so. If someone stole my phone, I'd be angrier than if it had fallen out of my hand and off a cliff; if someone stabbed me in the heart, I'd be angrier and more likely to entertain fantasies of revenge than if I had a heart attack. Also, ceteris paribus, if you get ill and you've worked harder, you'll have more resources to help yourself, so you'll be less likely to be broke by the end of it. Under this system, how hard you worked doesn't increase your expected amount of money next year. Also, all the rich would immediately flee the country.

tokyodude 8y ago

I'm not sure if this is comparable but I feel like lots of people already live something like this. My visa has only been approved 1 year at a time. Each year about 3-4 months before I have to renew it I start to worry that it might not be renewed and end up postponing all major plans until it gets renewed. Last year wanted to move apartments before I had to renew my lease but didn't do it because I wasn't sure my visa would get renewed. Even if I had tried landlords might have looked at my expiration date and said "no". Similarly I planned to rent a new office/cube in a co-working space but needed to wait until after my visa was renewed.

gcb0 8y ago
you are replying to an irony... that was about the rich never going to agree to a "solution" that won't make them rich.

justaguyhere 8y ago

Can you support your claim with some logic? If I worked hard for a decade and saved a million dollars and it gets reallocated this year, what is the motivation for me to work anymore? On the other end, if I spent a decade playing video games/sleeping and suddenly find myself with a bunch of money, what is the motivation for me to work?

thanatropism 8y ago
I'm not saying you would be motivated. Or that society would be better off overall. I was making a point about social engineering. Similarly: if you optimize for low inequality, you get Cuba.

mamon 8y ago

That's what loteries are for :)

jchanimal 8y ago

Last I checked winning the lottery doesn’t tend to change one’s social class.