4 ms·

"crushed", "undeserving winners" - people can still be better off than people in the past, despite there being more richer people than them. And what makes you

"crushed", "undeserving winners" - people can still be better off than people in the past, despite there being more richer people than them. And what makes you think the winner's wins are "undeserved"? PG literally wrote an essay about it. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (not sure if it is the one I meant, but it touches on many of the subjects here. Including the "pie fallacy") In that light, it is more surprising that so many people on HN are in favor of socialism.

jazzyjackson 6y ago
Look up any lectures by Hans Rosling to understand why wealth inequality is bad. Unequal societies are less trusting and have all kinds of bad outcomes in healthcare and education. Besides, what's the use of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy a night out on the town without fear of being robbed and killed by the jealous proles? Note this does not imply socialism or expanding safety nets -- I was thinking more of very progressive taxes that fund public infrastructure, green energy, public transportation, public parks and water catchments, the kind of thing that makes the world better for everyone - rich folk inclusive.
cycomanic 6y ago
Well there is sufficient evidence that the pie is not getting bigger for everyone (see e.g. Thomas Piketty's research amongst others). Inequality is increasing and that is dangerous to society. To give you another example, in the 1920s 1930s economists (Keynes amongst others) made projects that by 2020 we would only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. Regarding the winners being undeserved: 1. It can be shown that just using chance (or slightly unequal starting conditions) simple economic systems develop into a state where there is one player who essentially owns all (I linked to the article earlier [1]). So yes it can be just chance. 2. Once the winners have sufficient power they will game the system in their favour. There's lots of evidence for this, just look at the Panama papers for example. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. That’s one possibility, the other is that productivity has no bounds and increased efficiency just means further productivity, not a lessening of work to achieve the same productivity as before.
bonestormii_ 6y ago
I think by definition, if one person collects the majority of the profit from the effort of 100, it is undeserved. If those 100 people can’t afford things like health care and housing, they have been crushed. I’m not arguing socialism v. capitalism. I’m simply pointing out that a trend of widening inequality leads to deep systemic problems, and is not sustainable. We can correct it without gasp socialism. Laws, regulation, and political finance reform are likely sufficient.

jazzyjackson 6y ago

Look up any lectures by Hans Rosling to understand why wealth inequality is bad. Unequal societies are less trusting and have all kinds of bad outcomes in healthcare and education. Besides, what's the use of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy a night out on the town without fear of being robbed and killed by the jealous proles? Note this does not imply socialism or expanding safety nets -- I was thinking more of very progressive taxes that fund public infrastructure, green energy, public transportation, public parks and water catchments, the kind of thing that makes the world better for everyone - rich folk inclusive.

cycomanic 6y ago

Well there is sufficient evidence that the pie is not getting bigger for everyone (see e.g. Thomas Piketty's research amongst others). Inequality is increasing and that is dangerous to society. To give you another example, in the 1920s 1930s economists (Keynes amongst others) made projects that by 2020 we would only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. Regarding the winners being undeserved: 1. It can be shown that just using chance (or slightly unequal starting conditions) simple economic systems develop into a state where there is one player who essentially owns all (I linked to the article earlier [1]). So yes it can be just chance. 2. Once the winners have sufficient power they will game the system in their favour. There's lots of evidence for this, just look at the Panama papers for example. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. That’s one possibility, the other is that productivity has no bounds and increased efficiency just means further productivity, not a lessening of work to achieve the same productivity as before.

bonestormii_ 6y ago

I think by definition, if one person collects the majority of the profit from the effort of 100, it is undeserved. If those 100 people can’t afford things like health care and housing, they have been crushed. I’m not arguing socialism v. capitalism. I’m simply pointing out that a trend of widening inequality leads to deep systemic problems, and is not sustainable. We can correct it without gasp socialism. Laws, regulation, and political finance reform are likely sufficient.