5 ms·

I share the distress. Covid has accelerated the inequality that was already at record levels. For many in tech and other white colar work Covid is either a non-

I share the distress. Covid has accelerated the inequality that was already at record levels. For many in tech and other white colar work Covid is either a non-event or a net benefit, while for many others its life ruining. We better start preparing for a future where many, maybe most, people have no economic value.

naveen99 6y ago
Inequality is an increasing function of population size, so it probably went down some due to COVID. the reason is that for many things there is only value in being the best or within the top finite number in the population. Being top x percent isn’t good enough, even 0.1% with sufficiently large populations. For example: spectator sports, politics, movie stars, the first to discover relativity, semiconductors... and those finite toppers capture a larger and larger percentage of aggregate value as population size grows. In the limit all value is captured by an infinite number of toppers across an infinite number of dimensions to top. this also manifests in evolution where all but a finitely many mutants survive a catastrophic change in the environment and the rest perish.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  Yes, but I think that is not the whole story. The shift in value in the economy from things to bytes has massively amplified that tendency. Information production scales infinitely since information is free to copy. The work of one single genius that deals in information, and arguably sport and entertainment now do deal in information in that sense, as does politics, can be consumed by billions. So there are simply not enough jobs for anyone else. That is in contrast with say medieval societies. Even if you were the best farmer in the world, you output would be consumed by only a few people, leaving plenty of room for lesser farmers to make a living.
  - 0d9eooo 6y ago
    But it also fuzzes value. So what you end up with rather than "value" is network effects, people who are good at advertising, and random chaotic trends that blow like the wind. That is, it's not just enough to be the best, it's required to create the appearance of the best, or to capture whatever the whims of the network are. People are also not always very good judges of long-term value. For the longest time the response I'd get whenever I expressed some sentiment of supporting small business, all things being equal, was something along the lines of "well you should support whoever can deliver the good at the lowest price." Although that's true to some extent, in the long term it leads to personal costs as local services are gone, and there's less and less competition. Short-term benefits, long term costs and so forth. In general, I think there's far too little focus on maintaining healthy competition. The pendulum in public discussions often swings from public to private services and employment, which is a good conversation to have, but there's almost never a serious, critical discussion about increasing competition and what those barriers are. US society is full of things that stifle competition and they don't get 1/10 the attention they deserve. It seems as if when it's brought up, you're forced into these ultra-libertarian or anti-capitalist stereotypes. The other day I was looking for a cycle restoration shop. There's a great one and they should be thriving right now. But their business was destroyed in riots. Not the business owner's fault. You could make an argument that it's just one more downstream effect of a racist cop killing someone over a counterfeit bill, a very significant one. This effect has played out many many times across the country now I'm sure. But who will foot the bill? The Mpls police dept? It seems we used to have this intuitive understanding of "bad things happen to good people" and "the community should pitch in collectively to support these things" but it's fading away. The darwinian model is flawed, unless you're focuses solely on the net benefits to those who benefit, which is circular in its reasoning.
- imtringued 6y ago
  The number of things you can be ranked on increases as the population size increases.

naveen99 6y ago

Inequality is an increasing function of population size, so it probably went down some due to COVID. the reason is that for many things there is only value in being the best or within the top finite number in the population. Being top x percent isn’t good enough, even 0.1% with sufficiently large populations. For example: spectator sports, politics, movie stars, the first to discover relativity, semiconductors... and those finite toppers capture a larger and larger percentage of aggregate value as population size grows. In the limit all value is captured by an infinite number of toppers across an infinite number of dimensions to top. this also manifests in evolution where all but a finitely many mutants survive a catastrophic change in the environment and the rest perish.

zarkov99 6y ago
Yes, but I think that is not the whole story. The shift in value in the economy from things to bytes has massively amplified that tendency. Information production scales infinitely since information is free to copy. The work of one single genius that deals in information, and arguably sport and entertainment now do deal in information in that sense, as does politics, can be consumed by billions. So there are simply not enough jobs for anyone else. That is in contrast with say medieval societies. Even if you were the best farmer in the world, you output would be consumed by only a few people, leaving plenty of room for lesser farmers to make a living.
- 0d9eooo 6y ago
  But it also fuzzes value. So what you end up with rather than "value" is network effects, people who are good at advertising, and random chaotic trends that blow like the wind. That is, it's not just enough to be the best, it's required to create the appearance of the best, or to capture whatever the whims of the network are. People are also not always very good judges of long-term value. For the longest time the response I'd get whenever I expressed some sentiment of supporting small business, all things being equal, was something along the lines of "well you should support whoever can deliver the good at the lowest price." Although that's true to some extent, in the long term it leads to personal costs as local services are gone, and there's less and less competition. Short-term benefits, long term costs and so forth. In general, I think there's far too little focus on maintaining healthy competition. The pendulum in public discussions often swings from public to private services and employment, which is a good conversation to have, but there's almost never a serious, critical discussion about increasing competition and what those barriers are. US society is full of things that stifle competition and they don't get 1/10 the attention they deserve. It seems as if when it's brought up, you're forced into these ultra-libertarian or anti-capitalist stereotypes. The other day I was looking for a cycle restoration shop. There's a great one and they should be thriving right now. But their business was destroyed in riots. Not the business owner's fault. You could make an argument that it's just one more downstream effect of a racist cop killing someone over a counterfeit bill, a very significant one. This effect has played out many many times across the country now I'm sure. But who will foot the bill? The Mpls police dept? It seems we used to have this intuitive understanding of "bad things happen to good people" and "the community should pitch in collectively to support these things" but it's fading away. The darwinian model is flawed, unless you're focuses solely on the net benefits to those who benefit, which is circular in its reasoning.
imtringued 6y ago
The number of things you can be ranked on increases as the population size increases.