3 ms·

Hierarchy is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. We can reduce levels of inequality without producing the negative outcomes you fear. I’m not sure whether this a

Hierarchy is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. We can reduce levels of inequality without producing the negative outcomes you fear. I’m not sure whether this applies to you (I’m not implying that it does), but I continually find it interesting to hear Americans expressing the fear that acting to reduce inequality will somehow limit social mobility, as if they don’t realize that much of the developed world has greater social mobility than their country (or that many countries also rate higher in measures of social welfare, despite having greater social mobility and lower inequality).

enriquec 6y ago
In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. One of my favorite anecdotes is how the 'unclassy american tourist' is a product of us being the first society to afford sending our middle/lower-class abroad for fun. And I'm proud of that.
- jahaja 6y ago
  > In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility Much of Western-Europe show you otherwise, I'm not sure how you could have missed that?
  - enriquec 6y ago
    No it doesn't. It validates exactly what I said. Not sure how you could have missed that.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      I have certainly missed how for example Scandinavian countries fits with this: > In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. Care to explain? Or are you just being childishly contrarian which your last sentence seem to suggest?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility Please enumerate these instances and support the claim that in each of them mobility is reduced due to redistribution. Without that, this sounds like subjective impression shaped by ideological preference being presented as if it were evidence for the ideological preference that produced it.
- anemoiac 6y ago
  > In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility > You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. The data doesn't support your conclusions. The US has lower social mobility than many of its (more redistributive) peers in the developed world. [1] 1 - https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index-2020-why-economies-benefit-from-fixing-inequality#country-rankings https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index...

enriquec 6y ago

In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. One of my favorite anecdotes is how the 'unclassy american tourist' is a product of us being the first society to afford sending our middle/lower-class abroad for fun. And I'm proud of that.

jahaja 6y ago
> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility Much of Western-Europe show you otherwise, I'm not sure how you could have missed that?
- enriquec 6y ago
  No it doesn't. It validates exactly what I said. Not sure how you could have missed that.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    I have certainly missed how for example Scandinavian countries fits with this: > In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. Care to explain? Or are you just being childishly contrarian which your last sentence seem to suggest?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility Please enumerate these instances and support the claim that in each of them mobility is reduced due to redistribution. Without that, this sounds like subjective impression shaped by ideological preference being presented as if it were evidence for the ideological preference that produced it.
anemoiac 6y ago
> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility > You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. The data doesn't support your conclusions. The US has lower social mobility than many of its (more redistributive) peers in the developed world. [1] 1 - https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index-2020-why-economies-benefit-from-fixing-inequality#country-rankings https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index...