4 ms·

Thank you! As soon as those wealth inequality posts started popping up I've been waiting for someone to point out the idiocy of lamenting the wealth inequality

by axiom 16y ago

Thank you! As soon as those wealth inequality posts started popping up I've been waiting for someone to point out the idiocy of lamenting the wealth inequality between 22 yearolds just entering the workforce and 65 yearolds about to retire.

chrisaycock 16y ago
Yes, and it's probably exacerbated in developed countries with an aging population.
Unseelie 16y ago
I'd argue, as a 22 year old economist just entering the workforce, that the fact that people just entering their retirement hold the most wealth is quite a social problem. For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics.
- benmccann 16y ago
  Also, in real life, the generation nearing retirement has much better voter turnout than the generation exiting college. So not only do they have more money to influence elections, but they're a more desirable demographic to cater to due to their presence at the polls. We see this play out clearly in their ability to influence politics. E.g. they can vote themselves unsustainable entitlement benefits at the expense of younger generations.
  - bergie 16y ago
    ...which is why we probably never get to retire. The weirdly shaped population pyramid in the Western world can make "maybe Google will buy us" a more reasonable retirement strategy than retirement funds
- zdw 16y ago
  Obviously, we should have a political system that gives higher weight to the votes of people who will participate (suffer?) in the system longer. Therefore, everyone between 18 and 24 years of age gets 10 votes, between 24-30 9, etc, until people over 78 get zero votes (just like minor children under 18). This would deal with the problem nicely. And yes, I am kidding.
  - jackowayed 16y ago
    Population growth would actually do that to a lesser extent (because there are more 25-30-year-olds than 55-60-year-olds) were it not for the fact that young people are less likely to vote.
    - naa42 16y ago
      Well, you need to have population growth for that. It is not the case for many countries (e.g. Europe).
- axod 16y ago
  > For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics. I know this is a popular one, especially on Reddit etc to moan about - old people vote the most, but they don't like our drugs, gay marriage etc But the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. We'll all be there at some point.
  - khafra 16y ago
    > We'll all be there at some point. Yes. > the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. No. A randomly chosen old person has more experience than a randomly chosen young person, by definition. Due to neural plasticity, a young person has more knowledge in every field that changes significantly over the course of a generation. I cannot discern a meaningful definition of "sensible" in this context.
    - axod 16y ago
      My use of 'sensible' was there because young people tend to take more risks, think of the short term rather than the long term. etc
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by axiom 16y ago

chrisaycock 16y ago

Yes, and it's probably exacerbated in developed countries with an aging population.

Unseelie 16y ago

I'd argue, as a 22 year old economist just entering the workforce, that the fact that people just entering their retirement hold the most wealth is quite a social problem. For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics.

benmccann 16y ago
Also, in real life, the generation nearing retirement has much better voter turnout than the generation exiting college. So not only do they have more money to influence elections, but they're a more desirable demographic to cater to due to their presence at the polls. We see this play out clearly in their ability to influence politics. E.g. they can vote themselves unsustainable entitlement benefits at the expense of younger generations.
- bergie 16y ago
  ...which is why we probably never get to retire. The weirdly shaped population pyramid in the Western world can make "maybe Google will buy us" a more reasonable retirement strategy than retirement funds
zdw 16y ago
Obviously, we should have a political system that gives higher weight to the votes of people who will participate (suffer?) in the system longer. Therefore, everyone between 18 and 24 years of age gets 10 votes, between 24-30 9, etc, until people over 78 get zero votes (just like minor children under 18). This would deal with the problem nicely. And yes, I am kidding.
- jackowayed 16y ago
  Population growth would actually do that to a lesser extent (because there are more 25-30-year-olds than 55-60-year-olds) were it not for the fact that young people are less likely to vote.
  - naa42 16y ago
    Well, you need to have population growth for that. It is not the case for many countries (e.g. Europe).
axod 16y ago
> For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics. I know this is a popular one, especially on Reddit etc to moan about - old people vote the most, but they don't like our drugs, gay marriage etc But the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. We'll all be there at some point.
- khafra 16y ago
  > We'll all be there at some point. Yes. > the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. No. A randomly chosen old person has more experience than a randomly chosen young person, by definition. Due to neural plasticity, a young person has more knowledge in every field that changes significantly over the course of a generation. I cannot discern a meaningful definition of "sensible" in this context.
  - axod 16y ago
    My use of 'sensible' was there because young people tend to take more risks, think of the short term rather than the long term. etc
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]