4 ms·

>The problem is you can't really run an economic system where only a very few percent of people take all the gains, at least not one that is socially stable or

>The problem is you can't really run an economic system where only a very few percent of people take all the gains, at least not one that is socially stable or resembles liberal free market capitalism of the past 100 years. I don't understand this sentiment in the context of the world I live in. If you had to choose which point in history and which place you'd be born into, not knowing your race/gender/sexual preference/family income/level of health it seems very obvious to me that the best time in all of history to be born is right now. And the list of places that are even considerable as best places to be born to is fairly small, but slowly growing. If right now is the best possible time to be born for the "common man" and most people reading this are in list of best places, how can we be so concerned about social stability? Do you disagree with that general sentiment? Over all, is there a different time in history you'd choose to live? Now I want to be clear that I'm not claiming today is perfect/ideal/etc. in any way. We surely have many problems in life. But I genuinely don't understand where this feeling comes from. Could you help me understand?

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
I'm just speaking for my experience in the US, but I definitely disagree that now is the best time to be born. For your "average person" the best time to be born was about 50-80 years ago (obviously racial disparities complicate this a great deal). But my viewpoint also seems to bear out in lots of social science evidence in the US, where there has been an explosion of "diseases of dispair", e.g. suicide, drug-use, disability, etc. among large sub-populations in the US.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Not just racial disparities. Women make up slightly more than half the population. Even if we just limit our scope to white men, I don't see much argument for the idea that white men have it nominally worse off today than they had it 50-80 years ago. I only see that they are not as far ahead of women and racial minorities as they were 50-80 years ago. And 70 years ago was the end of WWII. I assume it was an accident to include that in your range. Regarding the explosion of "disease of dispair", suicide, drug use, etc. I do acknowledge that but I don't see how it's related to the OP. The OP appeared to be talking about relative wealth as being socially disruptive. Let's run a thought experiment there. If we could magically decimate the wealth of everyone with over $1 Billion, without changing anything else, do you believe the "diseases of despair" situation would improve? I personally do not believe it would. My personal belief on that issue is that we've gained one kind of social safety net but lost another. There's seemingly countless ways in which the government offers programs to help people avoid certain kinds of suffering: unemployment insurance, medical care for the poor, disability insurance, social security, etc. But somehow we've managed to lose the other kind of social safety net... strong social ties to the community. I believe this latter thing is the root cause of the disease of despair, and I don't believe any check cut by the government, or any tax program that reduces the wealthy can resolve that problem. Just one anecdotal piece of evidence here is the TED talk about our lack of understanding of addiction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs
  - flukus 8y ago
    50 years ago it was possible to buy a house and raise a family on a single working class income, this is rare now and becoming rarer. We've got bigger TV's and smart phones, but we've gone backwards where it counts. > But somehow we've managed to lose the other kind of social safety net... strong social ties to the community. When you're renting and don't have employment with long term stability it's a lot harder to put down roots. > I believe this latter thing is the root cause of the disease of despair, and I don't believe any check cut by the government A lot of that community comes from things like sports fields, scout halls and the like that governments pay for. Another thing that builds them is bars, but government is taxing the small community bars out of existence, at least around here.
    - krapht 8y ago
      I dislike your first point because there's no comparing the quality of mass-produced housing 50 years ago and that of today's mass-produced housing. It IS possible to purchase a home on a single working class income - look up prices for a double wide trailer; put on foundation. They would also be roughly equivalent square footage, and the double-wide would actually be sturdier.
      - dwiel 8y ago
        It's not that simple. A lot in the midwestern college town I live in costs more than the inflation adjusted median total house+lot price from 70 years ago and trailers are against zoning laws.
peteradio 8y ago
Is OP saying that today sucks? I don't think so. I think what they are saying is that the direction society seems to be heading doesn't seem to be one that will sustain the common man. What are your thoughts when you hear about "vanishing middle class"?
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I think the middle class hasn't been vanishing, it's been expanding into other parts of the world, particularly in India and China. The common man (globally) has more prosperity today than they have ever had. I think many people mistake an accident of history, the relative prosperity of white men in America after WWII as being something other than an aberration. Our stuff just happened to not be destroyed, so we did pretty well. And we're still nominally better off today than we were then, we're just not relatively better off compared to other people in other places because they're catching up to us.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    It's not just white men: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/cdc-life-expectancy-for-white-women-drops-increases-for-black-men/3p6DUseTYj2HsGvQUXVJTL/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/cdc-life-expectancy-for-wh... But even the rise of "the common man (and woman)" in places like India and China only further highlights my point. Rich Western countries have essentially treated labor in India and China like another form of automation - we don't yet have robots for a certain class of tasks that can perform the work at 25% of the cost of a Western worker, but India and China DO have people willing to work at that price. But what do you think will happen to those workers in India and China when we DO build robots that can do those repetitive tasks?
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      Are you arguing that the best time to be a woman was a few years ago when their life expectancy was one month longer? Okay, I'll accept that. Is the decline somehow the result of Jeff Bezos making even more money compared to the average woman in the last few years? Remember, wealth inequality is original proposed root cause of our supposed civil instability. Please try to tie these things together. How does there being more people with more wealth in more places highlight your point at all? It seems to be a complete refutation of it. I expect the people in India and China to slowly transition into service economy jobs, much like the people in the US and other wealthy Western countries did.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

I'm just speaking for my experience in the US, but I definitely disagree that now is the best time to be born. For your "average person" the best time to be born was about 50-80 years ago (obviously racial disparities complicate this a great deal). But my viewpoint also seems to bear out in lots of social science evidence in the US, where there has been an explosion of "diseases of dispair", e.g. suicide, drug-use, disability, etc. among large sub-populations in the US.

Consultant32452 8y ago
Not just racial disparities. Women make up slightly more than half the population. Even if we just limit our scope to white men, I don't see much argument for the idea that white men have it nominally worse off today than they had it 50-80 years ago. I only see that they are not as far ahead of women and racial minorities as they were 50-80 years ago. And 70 years ago was the end of WWII. I assume it was an accident to include that in your range. Regarding the explosion of "disease of dispair", suicide, drug use, etc. I do acknowledge that but I don't see how it's related to the OP. The OP appeared to be talking about relative wealth as being socially disruptive. Let's run a thought experiment there. If we could magically decimate the wealth of everyone with over $1 Billion, without changing anything else, do you believe the "diseases of despair" situation would improve? I personally do not believe it would. My personal belief on that issue is that we've gained one kind of social safety net but lost another. There's seemingly countless ways in which the government offers programs to help people avoid certain kinds of suffering: unemployment insurance, medical care for the poor, disability insurance, social security, etc. But somehow we've managed to lose the other kind of social safety net... strong social ties to the community. I believe this latter thing is the root cause of the disease of despair, and I don't believe any check cut by the government, or any tax program that reduces the wealthy can resolve that problem. Just one anecdotal piece of evidence here is the TED talk about our lack of understanding of addiction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs
- flukus 8y ago
  50 years ago it was possible to buy a house and raise a family on a single working class income, this is rare now and becoming rarer. We've got bigger TV's and smart phones, but we've gone backwards where it counts. > But somehow we've managed to lose the other kind of social safety net... strong social ties to the community. When you're renting and don't have employment with long term stability it's a lot harder to put down roots. > I believe this latter thing is the root cause of the disease of despair, and I don't believe any check cut by the government A lot of that community comes from things like sports fields, scout halls and the like that governments pay for. Another thing that builds them is bars, but government is taxing the small community bars out of existence, at least around here.
  - krapht 8y ago
    I dislike your first point because there's no comparing the quality of mass-produced housing 50 years ago and that of today's mass-produced housing. It IS possible to purchase a home on a single working class income - look up prices for a double wide trailer; put on foundation. They would also be roughly equivalent square footage, and the double-wide would actually be sturdier.
    - dwiel 8y ago
      It's not that simple. A lot in the midwestern college town I live in costs more than the inflation adjusted median total house+lot price from 70 years ago and trailers are against zoning laws.

peteradio 8y ago

Is OP saying that today sucks? I don't think so. I think what they are saying is that the direction society seems to be heading doesn't seem to be one that will sustain the common man. What are your thoughts when you hear about "vanishing middle class"?

Consultant32452 8y ago
I think the middle class hasn't been vanishing, it's been expanding into other parts of the world, particularly in India and China. The common man (globally) has more prosperity today than they have ever had. I think many people mistake an accident of history, the relative prosperity of white men in America after WWII as being something other than an aberration. Our stuff just happened to not be destroyed, so we did pretty well. And we're still nominally better off today than we were then, we're just not relatively better off compared to other people in other places because they're catching up to us.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  It's not just white men: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/cdc-life-expectancy-for-white-women-drops-increases-for-black-men/3p6DUseTYj2HsGvQUXVJTL/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/cdc-life-expectancy-for-wh... But even the rise of "the common man (and woman)" in places like India and China only further highlights my point. Rich Western countries have essentially treated labor in India and China like another form of automation - we don't yet have robots for a certain class of tasks that can perform the work at 25% of the cost of a Western worker, but India and China DO have people willing to work at that price. But what do you think will happen to those workers in India and China when we DO build robots that can do those repetitive tasks?
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Are you arguing that the best time to be a woman was a few years ago when their life expectancy was one month longer? Okay, I'll accept that. Is the decline somehow the result of Jeff Bezos making even more money compared to the average woman in the last few years? Remember, wealth inequality is original proposed root cause of our supposed civil instability. Please try to tie these things together. How does there being more people with more wealth in more places highlight your point at all? It seems to be a complete refutation of it. I expect the people in India and China to slowly transition into service economy jobs, much like the people in the US and other wealthy Western countries did.