3 ms·

Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton. (Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF, for artistic reasons. He took great pains

Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton. (Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF, for artistic reasons. He took great pains to move away from Stockton. I think I'll ask him about your observation above.) You are saying that the vulnerable society’s ‘want’ is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society. Incorrect. What I'm saying is that causing the de-facto division of society into separate castes is a recipe for social disaster. https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-informal-caste-system/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-info... In addition to markets, there are certain wired-in facts about human psychology. Perceived relative status, if the gap is too wide to let people feel dignified, directly causes social unrest. It's just not smart for the segment of society that controls resources to let that situation come about. That's just how people work. The psychological and social science research on this is clear. Why? I do this all the time. I call it the ‘Five Whys’ method. If you can answer five consecutive ‘Why’s ..issue will clarify. My hunch is that you've strawmanned your particular whys. Judging from other parts of this thread, I would probably agree with all of your answers and conclusions, yet I still come to a different conclusion.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
I don’t see a problem with a fragmented society. It makes for diversity. We should alleviate hardship but it’s not our social responsibility to form a homogeneous society on the basis of wealth. Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status. The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only be saviours of ourselves. It’s ok not to be a super hero in our story. We don’t even have to be hero’s. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..
- stcredzero 8y ago
  We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Relative poverty, specifically, is what causes social unrest. (Perhaps here is another hole in your social sciences education?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. I am also pro-meritocracy. Pareto is as widespread as the normal distribution. Sure. I'm also down with the idea that different groups will know different things and so will have vastly different outcomes in the economy. Thomas Sowell is a personal hero of mine, and I own and am working through something like 5 of his books. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that.. Octavia Butler's viewpoint in her books generally, but especially in the Parable of the Sower series, is valuable for its observation that much of human conflict is determined below the level of consciousness. Society can't ignore those forces, precisely because they can override conscious rationality and are powerful enough to tear even the most powerful societies apart. Principles are important. However, we are not creatures of pure rationality. If a society tries to live as such, purely on principles, it will fail. Probably through its elites becoming out of touch. California to a T, through and through.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    I am familiar with gini coefficient...I don’t understand the relevance of the video tho’...if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state. So I am confused why you’d bring that up..unless you support the measures above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place. Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’. Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous. Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I just don’t understand your stance. Octavia Butler didn’t finish the Parable series. Writer’s block. Maybe there was a reason why..badly plotted. You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently. We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

I don’t see a problem with a fragmented society. It makes for diversity. We should alleviate hardship but it’s not our social responsibility to form a homogeneous society on the basis of wealth. Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status. The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only be saviours of ourselves. It’s ok not to be a super hero in our story. We don’t even have to be hero’s. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that..

stcredzero 8y ago
We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Relative poverty, specifically, is what causes social unrest. (Perhaps here is another hole in your social sciences education?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. I am also pro-meritocracy. Pareto is as widespread as the normal distribution. Sure. I'm also down with the idea that different groups will know different things and so will have vastly different outcomes in the economy. Thomas Sowell is a personal hero of mine, and I own and am working through something like 5 of his books. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that.. Octavia Butler's viewpoint in her books generally, but especially in the Parable of the Sower series, is valuable for its observation that much of human conflict is determined below the level of consciousness. Society can't ignore those forces, precisely because they can override conscious rationality and are powerful enough to tear even the most powerful societies apart. Principles are important. However, we are not creatures of pure rationality. If a society tries to live as such, purely on principles, it will fail. Probably through its elites becoming out of touch. California to a T, through and through.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  I am familiar with gini coefficient...I don’t understand the relevance of the video tho’...if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state. So I am confused why you’d bring that up..unless you support the measures above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place. Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’. Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous. Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I just don’t understand your stance. Octavia Butler didn’t finish the Parable series. Writer’s block. Maybe there was a reason why..badly plotted. You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently. We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.