4 ms·

> you can wait for torches and pitchforks. I am honestly waiting. People are only going to put up with this for so long.

int_19h 8y ago
If you're mid-to-high middle class (which probably describes most of HN audience), torches and pitchforks will come for you first, because 1) you live next door, and 2) you don't have a personal jet to scramble to New Zealand when SHTF. Look at the Russian communist revolution for an example of how it happens, and who is the first the mob drags out against the wall. So I wouldn't exactly look forward to it. The educated, well-off classes in US need to understand that fixing the inequality problem isn't just about empathy, or some abstract political thinking. It is literally a matter of physical survival, if you look at it long term. Either we build a society which the majority of its members consider fair, or those of us who are significantly better off than the median will perish.
- aetherson 8y ago
  The vast majority of societies all throughout history have not been what any person would consider "fair." Rebellions of the disadvantaged classes have happened, of course, but for the most part, the ruling classes have done fine. You might reconsider whether an appeal to fairness versus naked pragmatism is the winning approach.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    It's not a question of "fair", it's a question of "fair enough". Every now and then, people get pushed beyond some line past which lies violence. In a democratic society, we enjoy the benefits of seeing the signs well in advance - and there are plenty already. For the most part, yes, the ruling classes have done fine - and so they did for the past 70 years (counting roughly since the last grand compromise of the New Deal, which turned the tide of popular discontent back then), and they grew complacent. Now the tide is rising fast again. FWIW, I don't really consider it a fairness versus naked pragmatism - they are orthogonal. Thing is, when it comes to fairness, there's a perfectly understandable urge, especially among engineers, to get things right, even if it takes more time. And normally, I think, that's a good thing - rushing is generally not a good idea, when you can afford not to. I just don't think we can, anymore, and so a dose of naked pragmatism is needed to force the realization that we may need an imperfect solution now, because we don't have several more decades to hammer out, say, a perfect implementation of universal basic income.
    - aetherson 8y ago
      Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. There isn't any universal law that suggests that if we get 10% more income inequality we'll tip over into violence. Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." Expectations may have changed, but a prophecy that we're 10 years from revolution needs more justification than you've given it. There's nothing in basic human nature that makes current levels of unfairness unsustainable.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        > Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. By what metric? It certainly isn't the case when you look at wealth distribution. Last time we had that much wealth disparity was right before the Great Depression. Given that it was followed by the New Deal, I think it's fair to say that political elites at the time didn't see that as sustainable. Then also, you have to consider the differences in societies then and now. Greater wealth inequality is more sustainable with more oppression, for example. If you can suppress free flow of information, you can conceal the magnitude of the gap somewhat. If you can physically remove the "rabble rousers", you can slow down the spread of discontent. And so on. Specifically: > Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." There's no such thing as "historically fair enough". "Fair enough" is what keeps the majority content, here, now. It's inherently tied to the context. When people vote en masse for brazen populists (whether left or right wing) who promise fast solutions to all their economic problems, despite the obvious risks of that arrangement, that in and of itself is clear evidence that they don't see it as "fair enough" - and so it isn't.
        aetherson 8y ago
        By every metric? Your point is that inequality is high by 20th Century standards. That's certainly fair! But the vast majority of history is some combination of feudal lords, monarchs, tribal leaders and strongmen. Ask a serf about fairness. Also, I think that your account of the New Deal is weird and wrong. It was an (only arguably successful) attempt to deal with the Great Depression, not to combat people unsatisfied with wealth inequality in the 20's. We've had lots of brazen populists in the world, including during the 20th Century. I could be convinced that the current status quo is rapidly heading towards violence -- I'm not convinced that you're wrong. But that's quite a claim, and the evidence you've cited is very sketchy.

int_19h 8y ago

If you're mid-to-high middle class (which probably describes most of HN audience), torches and pitchforks will come for you first, because 1) you live next door, and 2) you don't have a personal jet to scramble to New Zealand when SHTF. Look at the Russian communist revolution for an example of how it happens, and who is the first the mob drags out against the wall. So I wouldn't exactly look forward to it. The educated, well-off classes in US need to understand that fixing the inequality problem isn't just about empathy, or some abstract political thinking. It is literally a matter of physical survival, if you look at it long term. Either we build a society which the majority of its members consider fair, or those of us who are significantly better off than the median will perish.

aetherson 8y ago
The vast majority of societies all throughout history have not been what any person would consider "fair." Rebellions of the disadvantaged classes have happened, of course, but for the most part, the ruling classes have done fine. You might reconsider whether an appeal to fairness versus naked pragmatism is the winning approach.
- int_19h 8y ago
  It's not a question of "fair", it's a question of "fair enough". Every now and then, people get pushed beyond some line past which lies violence. In a democratic society, we enjoy the benefits of seeing the signs well in advance - and there are plenty already. For the most part, yes, the ruling classes have done fine - and so they did for the past 70 years (counting roughly since the last grand compromise of the New Deal, which turned the tide of popular discontent back then), and they grew complacent. Now the tide is rising fast again. FWIW, I don't really consider it a fairness versus naked pragmatism - they are orthogonal. Thing is, when it comes to fairness, there's a perfectly understandable urge, especially among engineers, to get things right, even if it takes more time. And normally, I think, that's a good thing - rushing is generally not a good idea, when you can afford not to. I just don't think we can, anymore, and so a dose of naked pragmatism is needed to force the realization that we may need an imperfect solution now, because we don't have several more decades to hammer out, say, a perfect implementation of universal basic income.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. There isn't any universal law that suggests that if we get 10% more income inequality we'll tip over into violence. Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." Expectations may have changed, but a prophecy that we're 10 years from revolution needs more justification than you've given it. There's nothing in basic human nature that makes current levels of unfairness unsustainable.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      > Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. By what metric? It certainly isn't the case when you look at wealth distribution. Last time we had that much wealth disparity was right before the Great Depression. Given that it was followed by the New Deal, I think it's fair to say that political elites at the time didn't see that as sustainable. Then also, you have to consider the differences in societies then and now. Greater wealth inequality is more sustainable with more oppression, for example. If you can suppress free flow of information, you can conceal the magnitude of the gap somewhat. If you can physically remove the "rabble rousers", you can slow down the spread of discontent. And so on. Specifically: > Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." There's no such thing as "historically fair enough". "Fair enough" is what keeps the majority content, here, now. It's inherently tied to the context. When people vote en masse for brazen populists (whether left or right wing) who promise fast solutions to all their economic problems, despite the obvious risks of that arrangement, that in and of itself is clear evidence that they don't see it as "fair enough" - and so it isn't.
      - aetherson 8y ago
        By every metric? Your point is that inequality is high by 20th Century standards. That's certainly fair! But the vast majority of history is some combination of feudal lords, monarchs, tribal leaders and strongmen. Ask a serf about fairness. Also, I think that your account of the New Deal is weird and wrong. It was an (only arguably successful) attempt to deal with the Great Depression, not to combat people unsatisfied with wealth inequality in the 20's. We've had lots of brazen populists in the world, including during the 20th Century. I could be convinced that the current status quo is rapidly heading towards violence -- I'm not convinced that you're wrong. But that's quite a claim, and the evidence you've cited is very sketchy.