7 ms·

Idk if I'd agree that it's "unfair" because that implies there's some natural balance we've disrupted, when in reality wealth is largely the result of labor and

Idk if I'd agree that it's "unfair" because that implies there's some natural balance we've disrupted, when in reality wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity. If a group of people gets together and creates wealth for themselves and their offspring, is it unfair that they are wealthier than the rest of the population? That kind of thinking at some level is fundamentally unfair itself - if you go collect and store nuts for winter you're less likely to starve. If we say that it's unfair now that you have all these nuts and winter is coming, then how does one provide for one's self fairly? Wealth isn't distributed, it's created. I mean you can distribute after that but it would be theft. Nonetheless I hate that some people are just born into economic situations where they are severely less able to actuakize their potential, so I share your sentiment. I just don't like the word unfair as it seems to disregard accomplishment and to me it demonizes people who have succeeded.

lemoncucumber 8y ago
The aspect of capitalism that's problematic to me is not that people can generate wealth through labor, it's that they can generate wealth through wealth. You can make far more money just by being rich and owning capital than you ever can by your own labor. You can own physical property that makes money like farmland, apartment buildings, natural resources, factories, etc. or you can be a shareholder in companies which make money. Either way, it's not really your labor that's making you richer, and that's the part that feels unfair about the whole system. A piece of anecdata to support my point: the richest families in Florence today are the same familes that were rich 700 years ago, too: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-floren...
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  I agree to some extent that wealth begetting wealth can be problematic, but in order to have the first bit of wealth someone has to create it. If you made the first hammer you'd be able to make more hammers much easier. You've effectively made the world wealthier by your work and invention and as a result it's fair that you get more than just the value of your hammer. Your claim about making more wealth from wealth than labor kinda skips over the parts about needing so much wealth and having to accumulate it.
drewblaisdell 8y ago
> in reality wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people that this is true.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  OK so if humans didn't toil to create tools and housing and technology then how did it arise?
  - fwip 8y ago
    The fundamental assertion of capitalism is that capital should beget capital. Under capitalism, wealth is created by labor and taken by those already wealthy.
    - shripadk 8y ago
      > The fundamental assertion of capitalism is that capital should beget capital. This quote explains just half the story. The half of the story being: "success". Pray tell me how is wealth created by labor without someone investing the necessary capital required to begin with? It is not like the labor worked for free. The "wealthy" laboured at one point to earn that capital. They just "chose" to invest their hard-earned capital wisely which helped them beget more capital. Upto that point, your assertion holds true. There are many who were "wealthy" who made blunders when they did not invest their capital wisely and lost it all. Would the fundamental assertion of capitalism "capital should beget capital" hold true in this case? And for all the Zuckerbergs, Jobs and Gates out there, there are a million more who failed. Those million are proof that the fundamental assertion of "capital should beget capital" is false. The only assertion that fits Capitalism is "Survival of the fittest". I can live with that!
- BucketSort 8y ago
  Trick of the wealthy. It's the only thing that keeps people from revolting against this madness. Donald Trump's fortune is largely the result of labor and ingenuity, right? This warped perspective is going to be the death of us.
aznpwnzor 8y ago
> in reality wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity many would argue that in reality wealth is largely the result of capital
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Or rents and political aspects of wealth. "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." -- Adam Smith
danielharan 8y ago
"that implies there's some natural balance we've disrupted" There's a whole history of colonialism to contend with. What was once nearly a quarter of world GDP in 1700 dropped to less than 5% in 250 years. The whole country was deindustrialized. It's a lot easier to actualize our potential in some places. I don't think it's demonizing me to admit that if I was born a woman in Sub-Saharan Africa, or in a war zone, I wouldn't have been able to build wealth like I have.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
> wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity Does that assertion come from a study, or is it just a guess? My guess would be that wealth comes primarily from war and genocide, but I admit I haven't looked at the economic theories.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  War and genocide have been part of human history since before the split from chimpanzees. Wealth in anything like what we’d recognise it dates to after the rise of agriculture. We can be quite confident that European wealth during the age of colonialism didn’t have much to do with colonialism as such because that wealth preceded the colonies and neighbours that differed in having colonies were much the same economically. Britain was rich before it took over India. Germany had no colonies of any economic importance and Austria-Hungary none. They do not suffer by comparison with France with its extensive colonial empire.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    I'm not sure that's the right way to think about causality?
BucketSort 8y ago
Does it appeal to your sense of justice that within the same society some live opulently, yet others live in constant fear of not having the basic necessities of life? Not only would I say this is unjust, but that it is also unsound and a danger to society itself. The worst qualities of humans emerge when they are fighting for survival. I'm fine with a system that has wealth inequality, I don't see any way around that and it's great for causing innovative pressure, but I find it hard to justify the fact that some people are deprived the basic necessities of life. > Wealth isn't distributed, it's created. I mean you can distribute after that but it would be theft. So are you one of those people that believe taxation is theft? Are you a self-made man? Are you Caesar without Rome? It strikes me as incredibly foolish when people ignore the fact that their success is entirely dependent upon their society. Did you create your own school, did you create your own language ... are you really that unaware of the great debt you have to others? Without society, you'd be a degenerate caveman, you owe everything you have to it. Actually, it doesn't strike me as foolish, it strikes me as incredibly useful for rationalizing ones station in life. It must make it easy to walk past the homeless and suffering, feeling like you are innocent and not complicit at all in the silent tragedies the system sustains.
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  I'll be honest - I don't know many people who are of sound mind and body and who consistently make level headed choices living in constant fear of having basic necessities. I know a LOT of people in this situation because they don't improve their skills, don't work many hours, had kids young, had numerous kids, want to live in a high demand area despite low income or because they prioritize luxury items over quality necessities. Factoring things like that in paints a very different picture than what you're saying. Wow I thought we were having a civil discussion until the second half of your post. You have some very presumptuous nerve. Rather than responding to all the ad hominem I'll just explain: My parents fed and clothed me for 18 years. The public services are there for a reason and many of them (ie schools) need to be there. I inherited knowledge from thousands of years of thinking. I believe all humans deserve those types of gifts, and as such I'm willing to pay my fair share back. What I absolutely refuse is to allow people to come in and take more and more until they are satisfied. To tell me that they know better than me (as you are attempting to do) of my privilege and what I owe for it. You want to sacrifice your life's work to others? Go for it. Put your money where your mouth is. But you just keep your opinions about what I owe and what I deserve to yourself because you don't know me and I guarantee you're going to look like an idiot if you continue to try to talk down to me.

lemoncucumber 8y ago

The aspect of capitalism that's problematic to me is not that people can generate wealth through labor, it's that they can generate wealth through wealth. You can make far more money just by being rich and owning capital than you ever can by your own labor. You can own physical property that makes money like farmland, apartment buildings, natural resources, factories, etc. or you can be a shareholder in companies which make money. Either way, it's not really your labor that's making you richer, and that's the part that feels unfair about the whole system. A piece of anecdata to support my point: the richest families in Florence today are the same familes that were rich 700 years ago, too: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-florence https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11691818/barone-mocetti-floren...

thatoneuser 8y ago
I agree to some extent that wealth begetting wealth can be problematic, but in order to have the first bit of wealth someone has to create it. If you made the first hammer you'd be able to make more hammers much easier. You've effectively made the world wealthier by your work and invention and as a result it's fair that you get more than just the value of your hammer. Your claim about making more wealth from wealth than labor kinda skips over the parts about needing so much wealth and having to accumulate it.

drewblaisdell 8y ago

> in reality wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people that this is true.

thatoneuser 8y ago
OK so if humans didn't toil to create tools and housing and technology then how did it arise?
- fwip 8y ago
  The fundamental assertion of capitalism is that capital should beget capital. Under capitalism, wealth is created by labor and taken by those already wealthy.
  - shripadk 8y ago
    > The fundamental assertion of capitalism is that capital should beget capital. This quote explains just half the story. The half of the story being: "success". Pray tell me how is wealth created by labor without someone investing the necessary capital required to begin with? It is not like the labor worked for free. The "wealthy" laboured at one point to earn that capital. They just "chose" to invest their hard-earned capital wisely which helped them beget more capital. Upto that point, your assertion holds true. There are many who were "wealthy" who made blunders when they did not invest their capital wisely and lost it all. Would the fundamental assertion of capitalism "capital should beget capital" hold true in this case? And for all the Zuckerbergs, Jobs and Gates out there, there are a million more who failed. Those million are proof that the fundamental assertion of "capital should beget capital" is false. The only assertion that fits Capitalism is "Survival of the fittest". I can live with that!
BucketSort 8y ago
Trick of the wealthy. It's the only thing that keeps people from revolting against this madness. Donald Trump's fortune is largely the result of labor and ingenuity, right? This warped perspective is going to be the death of us.

aznpwnzor 8y ago

> in reality wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity many would argue that in reality wealth is largely the result of capital

dredmorbius 8y ago
Or rents and political aspects of wealth. "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." -- Adam Smith

danielharan 8y ago

"that implies there's some natural balance we've disrupted" There's a whole history of colonialism to contend with. What was once nearly a quarter of world GDP in 1700 dropped to less than 5% in 250 years. The whole country was deindustrialized. It's a lot easier to actualize our potential in some places. I don't think it's demonizing me to admit that if I was born a woman in Sub-Saharan Africa, or in a war zone, I wouldn't have been able to build wealth like I have.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

> wealth is largely the result of labor and ingenuity Does that assertion come from a study, or is it just a guess? My guess would be that wealth comes primarily from war and genocide, but I admit I haven't looked at the economic theories.

barry-cotter 8y ago
War and genocide have been part of human history since before the split from chimpanzees. Wealth in anything like what we’d recognise it dates to after the rise of agriculture. We can be quite confident that European wealth during the age of colonialism didn’t have much to do with colonialism as such because that wealth preceded the colonies and neighbours that differed in having colonies were much the same economically. Britain was rich before it took over India. Germany had no colonies of any economic importance and Austria-Hungary none. They do not suffer by comparison with France with its extensive colonial empire.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  I'm not sure that's the right way to think about causality?

BucketSort 8y ago

Does it appeal to your sense of justice that within the same society some live opulently, yet others live in constant fear of not having the basic necessities of life? Not only would I say this is unjust, but that it is also unsound and a danger to society itself. The worst qualities of humans emerge when they are fighting for survival. I'm fine with a system that has wealth inequality, I don't see any way around that and it's great for causing innovative pressure, but I find it hard to justify the fact that some people are deprived the basic necessities of life. > Wealth isn't distributed, it's created. I mean you can distribute after that but it would be theft. So are you one of those people that believe taxation is theft? Are you a self-made man? Are you Caesar without Rome? It strikes me as incredibly foolish when people ignore the fact that their success is entirely dependent upon their society. Did you create your own school, did you create your own language ... are you really that unaware of the great debt you have to others? Without society, you'd be a degenerate caveman, you owe everything you have to it. Actually, it doesn't strike me as foolish, it strikes me as incredibly useful for rationalizing ones station in life. It must make it easy to walk past the homeless and suffering, feeling like you are innocent and not complicit at all in the silent tragedies the system sustains.

thatoneuser 8y ago
I'll be honest - I don't know many people who are of sound mind and body and who consistently make level headed choices living in constant fear of having basic necessities. I know a LOT of people in this situation because they don't improve their skills, don't work many hours, had kids young, had numerous kids, want to live in a high demand area despite low income or because they prioritize luxury items over quality necessities. Factoring things like that in paints a very different picture than what you're saying. Wow I thought we were having a civil discussion until the second half of your post. You have some very presumptuous nerve. Rather than responding to all the ad hominem I'll just explain: My parents fed and clothed me for 18 years. The public services are there for a reason and many of them (ie schools) need to be there. I inherited knowledge from thousands of years of thinking. I believe all humans deserve those types of gifts, and as such I'm willing to pay my fair share back. What I absolutely refuse is to allow people to come in and take more and more until they are satisfied. To tell me that they know better than me (as you are attempting to do) of my privilege and what I owe for it. You want to sacrifice your life's work to others? Go for it. Put your money where your mouth is. But you just keep your opinions about what I owe and what I deserve to yourself because you don't know me and I guarantee you're going to look like an idiot if you continue to try to talk down to me.