4 ms·

Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier; this is not a zero-sum game, there is more wealth in

Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier; this is not a zero-sum game, there is more wealth in society now than there has ever been. It is fine to argue that the system is unfair in how that wealth is distributed, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the debate is not about whether or not people are better off, it is about the degree to which they are better off. Remember that a century ago plagues were considered a fact of life in America, and today we are arguing about whether or not people can afford treatments for rare illnesses (I personally believe we could do a better job of giving people access to life-saving care, but the fact that we even have such a debate is a sign of how wealthy our civilization has become).

ionised 8y ago
> Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier What exactly do you think the end result of that trend is if it continues? You're framing this argument as if any increase in individual wealth is to be lauded and celebrated. Most people don't think that way. All people will see, is their meagre wealth increases (if they are even lucky enough to have seen that) and the kind of increases seen by the top tiers in society. They'll feel angry, depressed and feel like its an injustice. Then the social contract breaks down, which it already is. You can keep pretending like there isn't any problem with how wealth is distributed currently, but you won't be able to forever.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  It really depends on the rate at which aggregate wealth grows, and the rate at which an ordinary person's share of that wealth shrinks. There is no reason the trend could not continue indefinitely upward, with the poor living better and better lives while still receiving a smaller share of society's wealth. Again, this is not zero-sum -- everyone is going to gain, but some might gain more than others. Edit: I am not arguing that the current system is problem-free, only that it has benefited the vast majority people, even if most people do not perceive those benefits or if they are jealous when they see the benefits accumulated by the rich. I suspect people would be much angrier if they were transported back in time and had to deal with the world as it used to exist, when people were poorer at every level of society. I am not claiming to have a political answer, but the facts are not easily denied: at every level of society people are wealthier today compared with the past.
  - thelasthuman 8y ago
    What about the political influence this wealth grants the top .0001%? IMO there is much more happening then arguing over slices of a unsustainably growing pie.
    - ionised 8y ago
      > What about the political influence this wealth grants the top .0001%? That's definitely the biggest problem with all of this in my mind.

ionised 8y ago

> Even if most people saw their share of the aggregate wealth shrink, they are still individually wealthier What exactly do you think the end result of that trend is if it continues? You're framing this argument as if any increase in individual wealth is to be lauded and celebrated. Most people don't think that way. All people will see, is their meagre wealth increases (if they are even lucky enough to have seen that) and the kind of increases seen by the top tiers in society. They'll feel angry, depressed and feel like its an injustice. Then the social contract breaks down, which it already is. You can keep pretending like there isn't any problem with how wealth is distributed currently, but you won't be able to forever.

betterunix2 8y ago
It really depends on the rate at which aggregate wealth grows, and the rate at which an ordinary person's share of that wealth shrinks. There is no reason the trend could not continue indefinitely upward, with the poor living better and better lives while still receiving a smaller share of society's wealth. Again, this is not zero-sum -- everyone is going to gain, but some might gain more than others. Edit: I am not arguing that the current system is problem-free, only that it has benefited the vast majority people, even if most people do not perceive those benefits or if they are jealous when they see the benefits accumulated by the rich. I suspect people would be much angrier if they were transported back in time and had to deal with the world as it used to exist, when people were poorer at every level of society. I am not claiming to have a political answer, but the facts are not easily denied: at every level of society people are wealthier today compared with the past.
- thelasthuman 8y ago
  What about the political influence this wealth grants the top .0001%? IMO there is much more happening then arguing over slices of a unsustainably growing pie.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > What about the political influence this wealth grants the top .0001%? That's definitely the biggest problem with all of this in my mind.