14 ms·

Only in that those who aren't getting support are left behind, and feel like failures because they're not able to match the success of their peers, not knowing

by Kluny 8y ago

Only in that those who aren't getting support are left behind, and feel like failures because they're not able to match the success of their peers, not knowing that they're working with significantly less resources. Also could lead to a lack of sympathy on the part of those who are getting extra help, thinking that those who can't keep up with them are either lazy or less capable, when in fact they are starting from a place of privilege. Causes resentment and division, basically.

edmundsauto 8y ago
Is it possible to resolve this? Parents are going to want to help their children over others; people without that help will feel resentful. Seems like a consequence of human nature, and changing the tax incentives won't ameliorate what is essentially an emotional problem. (The issue isn't parents helping their kids, the issue is the reaction to it)
- trowawee 8y ago
  I think there are a lot of policy changes that could make massive strides towards resolving this. A significantly higher marginal tax rate and a wealth tax would reduce the amount of wealth available to gift. Lowering the amount of money that can be gifted legally would reduce the amount of support that could be offered. Free education and healthcare (and potentially a UBI), forgiving student loans, and some combination of rent control and improved zoning laws (and possibly vacancy taxes) would ameliorate most of the problem areas that people get help with and that cause this resentment. I disagree that this is essentially an emotional problem. This is essentially an inequality problem; the inequality (unsurprisingly) breeds resentment, and trying to fix the resentment without fixing the inequality is just slapping a bandage over a sucking chest wound.
  - edmundsauto 8y ago
    What do you think would be the unintended consequences of the policy changes you mentioned? It seems possible that reducing inequality could have some side effects that might make everyone worse off -- less equality because everyone makes significantly less.
    - trowawee 8y ago
      It's not an outcome I'm particularly worried about. There are a lot of countries with a median GDP per capita greater than or roughly equivalent to the United States[1] with more robust social welfare states and lower GINI coefficients[2]. I'm much more concerned about the effects of runaway inequality. [1]: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/world-bank-poverty-statistics-lack-median-income-data-so-we-filled-gap-ourselves-download-available https://www.cgdev.org/blog/world-bank-poverty-statistics-lac... [2]: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
  - hkai 8y ago
    Would you say that a person would be more motivated or less motivated to learn new things every day and work insanely hard if they receive UBI, get income redistributed to them from richer neighbors, receive free goods and services, and also know that most of their wealth, if they earn it, would be taxed away?
    - trowawee 8y ago
      Well, first, I reject the idea that the only potential motivation for learning new things, building interesting things, and working hard is personal greed, especially given that virtually the entire tech industry is built on the hard work of open source contributors, who built and continue to build incredible things without any expectation of financial recompense. But more importantly, I don't really care if a few people are slightly less motivated if it means that we can unlock the massive amount of latent human potential currently wasted in poverty, hunger, and desperation. The number of people like that would be massively outweighed by the people who aren't scrabbling just to survive, and whose intelligence and work ethic could instead be turned to learning and building the future.
j45 8y ago
Not everyone in GenX got help either, or was born into middle class. It sucks, but it's reality too, and not new. If it helps you feel a little more optimistic, many grew up in the recession around the 1980s which was far worse than 2008. Like PG writes, you can make your life about finding a way to work really hard for a few years so we don't have to one day. It will almost certainly be more work than others but you will improve more than others from that effort you put in. Everyone's equal in their potential to have work ethic, developing has to be applied each according to the formulas of the circumstances of our life. Surrounding yourself with hard workers (regardless of background) is the key I look for. If there's no work ethic and effort, talent or privilege doesn't really get as far.

by Kluny 8y ago

edmundsauto 8y ago

Is it possible to resolve this? Parents are going to want to help their children over others; people without that help will feel resentful. Seems like a consequence of human nature, and changing the tax incentives won't ameliorate what is essentially an emotional problem. (The issue isn't parents helping their kids, the issue is the reaction to it)

trowawee 8y ago
I think there are a lot of policy changes that could make massive strides towards resolving this. A significantly higher marginal tax rate and a wealth tax would reduce the amount of wealth available to gift. Lowering the amount of money that can be gifted legally would reduce the amount of support that could be offered. Free education and healthcare (and potentially a UBI), forgiving student loans, and some combination of rent control and improved zoning laws (and possibly vacancy taxes) would ameliorate most of the problem areas that people get help with and that cause this resentment. I disagree that this is essentially an emotional problem. This is essentially an inequality problem; the inequality (unsurprisingly) breeds resentment, and trying to fix the resentment without fixing the inequality is just slapping a bandage over a sucking chest wound.
- edmundsauto 8y ago
  What do you think would be the unintended consequences of the policy changes you mentioned? It seems possible that reducing inequality could have some side effects that might make everyone worse off -- less equality because everyone makes significantly less.
  - trowawee 8y ago
    It's not an outcome I'm particularly worried about. There are a lot of countries with a median GDP per capita greater than or roughly equivalent to the United States[1] with more robust social welfare states and lower GINI coefficients[2]. I'm much more concerned about the effects of runaway inequality. [1]: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/world-bank-poverty-statistics-lack-median-income-data-so-we-filled-gap-ourselves-download-available https://www.cgdev.org/blog/world-bank-poverty-statistics-lac... [2]: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
- hkai 8y ago
  Would you say that a person would be more motivated or less motivated to learn new things every day and work insanely hard if they receive UBI, get income redistributed to them from richer neighbors, receive free goods and services, and also know that most of their wealth, if they earn it, would be taxed away?
  - trowawee 8y ago
    Well, first, I reject the idea that the only potential motivation for learning new things, building interesting things, and working hard is personal greed, especially given that virtually the entire tech industry is built on the hard work of open source contributors, who built and continue to build incredible things without any expectation of financial recompense. But more importantly, I don't really care if a few people are slightly less motivated if it means that we can unlock the massive amount of latent human potential currently wasted in poverty, hunger, and desperation. The number of people like that would be massively outweighed by the people who aren't scrabbling just to survive, and whose intelligence and work ethic could instead be turned to learning and building the future.

j45 8y ago

Not everyone in GenX got help either, or was born into middle class. It sucks, but it's reality too, and not new. If it helps you feel a little more optimistic, many grew up in the recession around the 1980s which was far worse than 2008. Like PG writes, you can make your life about finding a way to work really hard for a few years so we don't have to one day. It will almost certainly be more work than others but you will improve more than others from that effort you put in. Everyone's equal in their potential to have work ethic, developing has to be applied each according to the formulas of the circumstances of our life. Surrounding yourself with hard workers (regardless of background) is the key I look for. If there's no work ethic and effort, talent or privilege doesn't really get as far.