4 ms·

Good point, but who will define "acceptable" and how? And what happens when it is "not acceptable"? Is a ration of 2 between the lowest income and the highest i

Good point, but who will define "acceptable" and how? And what happens when it is "not acceptable"? Is a ration of 2 between the lowest income and the highest income acceptable? Or 10? Or 1.05? Where do you draw the line and why?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Good point, but who will define "acceptable" and how? The people who decide whether the outcome of the present system is or is not sufficiently worse than they would expect in a revolution in which they dispossess those visibly advantaged by the present system by force to justify engaging in such a revolution, ultimately, decide; at least, that is clearly the author’s point, and as a billionaire he has a vested interest in that decision not coming up in favor of revolution. > And what happens when it is "not acceptable"? Blood in the streets is what happens, or at least the inmediate, direct, personal threat of it.
- learnstats2 8y ago
  Shouldn't we be seeking a Next Best Alternative solution long before bloody revolution?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Shouldn't we be seeking a Next Best Alternative solution long before bloody revolution? That's kind of what Dalio (and all of the other people seeking mitigation of the same trends within the system) is (and are) doing.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
I think one can at least draw the line at having physical, food, water, heat, and educational security. In addition, a society that offers advancement opportunities for all is going to be more pleasant to live in than one where people have very little chance of moving up. You take away everything people have to lose, and they will start seeing that there’s no point in playing by the rules when the deck is stacked against them from birth. I would add paid leave and reduced work hours to my above perks, as I think it’s beneficial for people to be able to participate in civic life, which requires time and for their own leisure.
learnstats2 8y ago
Numbers somewhere around 10 feel comfortable compared to the current ratio of around 2000000 - in terms of income inequality; wealth inequality much greater.
Retric 8y ago
I would argue 100:1 is fine. The difference between somone making 20k / year or 2 million is not that significant in terms of individual leverage over society. But, when you start talking 100,000:1 are they actually that productive or is something else going on.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Good point, but who will define "acceptable" and how? The people who decide whether the outcome of the present system is or is not sufficiently worse than they would expect in a revolution in which they dispossess those visibly advantaged by the present system by force to justify engaging in such a revolution, ultimately, decide; at least, that is clearly the author’s point, and as a billionaire he has a vested interest in that decision not coming up in favor of revolution. > And what happens when it is "not acceptable"? Blood in the streets is what happens, or at least the inmediate, direct, personal threat of it.

learnstats2 8y ago
Shouldn't we be seeking a Next Best Alternative solution long before bloody revolution?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Shouldn't we be seeking a Next Best Alternative solution long before bloody revolution? That's kind of what Dalio (and all of the other people seeking mitigation of the same trends within the system) is (and are) doing.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

I think one can at least draw the line at having physical, food, water, heat, and educational security. In addition, a society that offers advancement opportunities for all is going to be more pleasant to live in than one where people have very little chance of moving up. You take away everything people have to lose, and they will start seeing that there’s no point in playing by the rules when the deck is stacked against them from birth. I would add paid leave and reduced work hours to my above perks, as I think it’s beneficial for people to be able to participate in civic life, which requires time and for their own leisure.

learnstats2 8y ago

Numbers somewhere around 10 feel comfortable compared to the current ratio of around 2000000 - in terms of income inequality; wealth inequality much greater.

Retric 8y ago

I would argue 100:1 is fine. The difference between somone making 20k / year or 2 million is not that significant in terms of individual leverage over society. But, when you start talking 100,000:1 are they actually that productive or is something else going on.