5 ms·

It's less of a "tribe" thing and more of an analysis of material conditions. People don't break out the guillotines if their lives are stable and their material

by 49531 7y ago

It's less of a "tribe" thing and more of an analysis of material conditions. People don't break out the guillotines if their lives are stable and their material needs are adequately taken care of; if they don't think there is something better on the other end of the blood bath. The same way people don't join unions if they think they will make less money because of their union dues. They do these things as a means to improving their material conditions. The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others. You can't increase wages without decreasing profit. So the profiting "tribe" is at odds with the wage "tribe". I'm scare-quoting "tribe" because the traditional word is class which we've had ironed out of us over the last 40 years. This is class struggle and has existed for a long time.

BadassFractal 7y ago
Is it safe to say that, if the conditions of the lower and middle class are perfectly favorable, people are living healthy, productive, happy lives and there is upwards mobility for those who are willing to do whatever it takes to dedicate their lives to it, then wealth inequality in and of itself isn't the thing we need to optimize for? Wealth inequality seems like a proxy metric for "the lower classes are struggling". Is the correlation (or causation?) between the two well established?
- astine 7y ago
  In general, people will put up with a lot of governmental issues so long as their own personal lives are fine. There are still issues with wealth inequality leading to some groups having an outsized influence in government which is a concern.
  - BadassFractal 7y ago
    That's totally fair. Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? e.g. Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions of he creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a business, as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of an entire state. Does this boil down to the fact that, in the current political system, wealth can be traded for political power, and if that exchange didn't exist, then wealth wouldn't be an issue in the first place?
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      > Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? No. Money can buy manpower, resources, time, and political access. Power can buy the laws in your favor and access to resources and manpower and make time in your favor. > Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions The surplus should have went to the workers. The fact he uses the surplus as his primarily personal slush fund to then reuse is an abomination. > he creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a business Anybody could create something game-changing for society. Just because someone isn't acting for shitty SV style actions (make money on exploiting others), doesn't mean it could be game-changing. And people could start doing once their wages were not stagnating and held down. > as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of an entire state. It was worth that much, and other CEOs it too is worth the same. I've seen time and again the refrain of "We'll bring good jobs in this area, give us a 10 year tax abatement, and do all these improvements". Long story short, the jobs suck, the company moves in free of taxes, sucks off the teat of the city, and then leaves for somewhere else to start the scam all over. The deal (power) sounds too good with all the money surrounding the plan. And, it is. But Mr. Mayor gets to take claim of a pile of jobs, new industry, and something about revitalization. By the time the smoke clears, Mr Mayor will be long gone up the political foodchain. Money and power go hand in hand. Power can be converted through time into money. And Money can be converted into power over time.
      - pas 7y ago
        There is probably a fair exchange rate between CEOs and workers (depending on the risk taken and so on), but naturally, when workers are not in a position to freely negotiate (due to lacking bargaining power, lacking other employment opportunities, lacking other means of keeping themselves healthy, fed and warm), that point is somewhere muuuch lower than the current share of profit going to them (and to capital, in general).
    - icelancer 7y ago
      >> Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? Why does money buy power? As state control expands and authoritarian thinking is embraced by both parties in the United States, there is more centralized power TO purchase. It is in everyone's best interest at the top (politicians and billionaires alike) that government continues to expand the size and scope of their aims, while keeping taxes low. Not so much for the average and poor people, but this seems obvious.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  I used to think that would be the logical result, but increasingly I'm convinced it's the relative not the absolute level of wealth, power/freedom and access that makes the difference in political stability.
dexen 7y ago
>The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others. This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably false in at least two ways. With an open system, you can conceivably have growth for both sides of the market (profit and wages). For one, we are extracting energy and resources from nature, and the supply - at least of energy - is effectively unlimited. Longer term we can also mine the resources from outer space, which again is effectively unlimited. Granted, there are constraints on how quickly we can build out the gathering infrastructure for either, but there is no hard cap. Moreover, with the improvements in efficiency (economies and environmentalism go hand in hand here) we're reducing waste and reusing a lot resources and energy that would've previously been wasted, again moving the needle away from resource limitation and towards open-like system. For another, the discussion is implicitly about USA (and similar case can be made for EU), meanwhile there's well known trade imbalance with goods purchased from abroad. Getting close to, or at, the point of balance is feasible; the current imbalance is result of difference in economical conditions and governmental policy. The goods imported from abroad are specifically the ones that are mass-manufactured, which is where the wage laborers gets their wages from. The suppressed demand for local manufacturing suppresses wages of workers within USA (similarly, within EU). Effectively we have outsourced the growth of wages to other countries. Making the source countries richer obviously has important benefits (stabilizing them politically, long term making them interested in clean environment, etc.), but it is a policy choice that needs to be balanced with in-country prosperity none the less. And then there's the matter of changes in supply of workers, but that's a whole different subject for another day. All in all, sure, reform capitalism: improve the trade balance, let the wages recover due to the demand that's already present, just supplied for from elsewhere.
- 49531 7y ago
  > This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably false in at least two ways. With an open system, you can conceivably have growth for both sides of the market (profit and wages). Unless you're proposing we print money, it is a closed system. There is a relatively finite amount of money, growth, and consumption in any economy. We've seen over the last 40 years that without concerted effort on the side of the working class, the owning class will keep and push wages low while keeping the gains of growth to themselves. It's well known that efficiency has increased while wages have barely grown. No one is going to willingly share their profit with you, especially the lower you are in your income / skill level. That's why the average McDonalds employee in the US creates about $70,000/yr in profit and receives on average $18,000/yr.
danaris 7y ago
> The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others. You can't increase wages without decreasing profit. But while there are certainly many small businesses for which this is not true, for the billionaires and Fortune 500 companies, increasing wages would not decrease profit enough to actually change their lifestyle. At least for many, all it would change would be the number they see when they look at one of their many bank accounts. In the meantime, the low wages mean that the "lifestyle" of a great many in the US is that of working poverty, not knowing whether they will be able to make rent and food in a given month, and certainly not being able to afford much in the way of leisure.

by 49531 7y ago

BadassFractal 7y ago

Is it safe to say that, if the conditions of the lower and middle class are perfectly favorable, people are living healthy, productive, happy lives and there is upwards mobility for those who are willing to do whatever it takes to dedicate their lives to it, then wealth inequality in and of itself isn't the thing we need to optimize for? Wealth inequality seems like a proxy metric for "the lower classes are struggling". Is the correlation (or causation?) between the two well established?

astine 7y ago
In general, people will put up with a lot of governmental issues so long as their own personal lives are fine. There are still issues with wealth inequality leading to some groups having an outsized influence in government which is a concern.
- BadassFractal 7y ago
  That's totally fair. Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? e.g. Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions of he creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a business, as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of an entire state. Does this boil down to the fact that, in the current political system, wealth can be traded for political power, and if that exchange didn't exist, then wealth wouldn't be an issue in the first place?
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    > Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? No. Money can buy manpower, resources, time, and political access. Power can buy the laws in your favor and access to resources and manpower and make time in your favor. > Let's say I'm ok with Steve Jobs hoarding billions The surplus should have went to the workers. The fact he uses the surplus as his primarily personal slush fund to then reuse is an abomination. > he creates something game-changing for society over decades of starting/running a business Anybody could create something game-changing for society. Just because someone isn't acting for shitty SV style actions (make money on exploiting others), doesn't mean it could be game-changing. And people could start doing once their wages were not stagnating and held down. > as long as that doesn't mean his vote is more important than that of an entire state. It was worth that much, and other CEOs it too is worth the same. I've seen time and again the refrain of "We'll bring good jobs in this area, give us a 10 year tax abatement, and do all these improvements". Long story short, the jobs suck, the company moves in free of taxes, sucks off the teat of the city, and then leaves for somewhere else to start the scam all over. The deal (power) sounds too good with all the money surrounding the plan. And, it is. But Mr. Mayor gets to take claim of a pile of jobs, new industry, and something about revitalization. By the time the smoke clears, Mr Mayor will be long gone up the political foodchain. Money and power go hand in hand. Power can be converted through time into money. And Money can be converted into power over time.
    - pas 7y ago
      There is probably a fair exchange rate between CEOs and workers (depending on the risk taken and so on), but naturally, when workers are not in a position to freely negotiate (due to lacking bargaining power, lacking other employment opportunities, lacking other means of keeping themselves healthy, fed and warm), that point is somewhere muuuch lower than the current share of profit going to them (and to capital, in general).
  - icelancer 7y ago
    >> Is there a way to separate wealth inequality from power inequality? Why does money buy power? As state control expands and authoritarian thinking is embraced by both parties in the United States, there is more centralized power TO purchase. It is in everyone's best interest at the top (politicians and billionaires alike) that government continues to expand the size and scope of their aims, while keeping taxes low. Not so much for the average and poor people, but this seems obvious.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I used to think that would be the logical result, but increasingly I'm convinced it's the relative not the absolute level of wealth, power/freedom and access that makes the difference in political stability.

dexen 7y ago

>The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others. This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably false in at least two ways. With an open system, you can conceivably have growth for both sides of the market (profit and wages). For one, we are extracting energy and resources from nature, and the supply - at least of energy - is effectively unlimited. Longer term we can also mine the resources from outer space, which again is effectively unlimited. Granted, there are constraints on how quickly we can build out the gathering infrastructure for either, but there is no hard cap. Moreover, with the improvements in efficiency (economies and environmentalism go hand in hand here) we're reducing waste and reusing a lot resources and energy that would've previously been wasted, again moving the needle away from resource limitation and towards open-like system. For another, the discussion is implicitly about USA (and similar case can be made for EU), meanwhile there's well known trade imbalance with goods purchased from abroad. Getting close to, or at, the point of balance is feasible; the current imbalance is result of difference in economical conditions and governmental policy. The goods imported from abroad are specifically the ones that are mass-manufactured, which is where the wage laborers gets their wages from. The suppressed demand for local manufacturing suppresses wages of workers within USA (similarly, within EU). Effectively we have outsourced the growth of wages to other countries. Making the source countries richer obviously has important benefits (stabilizing them politically, long term making them interested in clean environment, etc.), but it is a policy choice that needs to be balanced with in-country prosperity none the less. And then there's the matter of changes in supply of workers, but that's a whole different subject for another day. All in all, sure, reform capitalism: improve the trade balance, let the wages recover due to the demand that's already present, just supplied for from elsewhere.

49531 7y ago
> This presumes a closed system, and the assumption is demonstrably false in at least two ways. With an open system, you can conceivably have growth for both sides of the market (profit and wages). Unless you're proposing we print money, it is a closed system. There is a relatively finite amount of money, growth, and consumption in any economy. We've seen over the last 40 years that without concerted effort on the side of the working class, the owning class will keep and push wages low while keeping the gains of growth to themselves. It's well known that efficiency has increased while wages have barely grown. No one is going to willingly share their profit with you, especially the lower you are in your income / skill level. That's why the average McDonalds employee in the US creates about $70,000/yr in profit and receives on average $18,000/yr.

danaris 7y ago

> The problem is that one "tribe"'s material conditions are at the expense of the others. You can't increase wages without decreasing profit. But while there are certainly many small businesses for which this is not true, for the billionaires and Fortune 500 companies, increasing wages would not decrease profit enough to actually change their lifestyle. At least for many, all it would change would be the number they see when they look at one of their many bank accounts. In the meantime, the low wages mean that the "lifestyle" of a great many in the US is that of working poverty, not knowing whether they will be able to make rent and food in a given month, and certainly not being able to afford much in the way of leisure.