5 ms·

I don't know why we always go back to income inequality, it's not a useful metric. What matters is how many people are living good, prosperous lives. You can ha

by tharne 6y ago

I don't know why we always go back to income inequality, it's not a useful metric. What matters is how many people are living good, prosperous lives. You can have have income equality simply by keeping everyone equally poor, or you can have prosperous societies where some people have a lot more than others, but everyone is doing well. Income inequality is only meaningful if the amount if wealth and prosperity in a society is fixed, which it's not.

Splendor 6y ago
I think you're trying to say that it's not a useful metric by itself. Which may be true. But we're able to observe multiple metrics luckily. And we know that not everyone is doing well. So naturally we're going to look to other metrics for more information.
science4sail 6y ago
I think that the greater question here is if human well-being is affected more by absolute wealth or by relative wealth.
AlexandrB 6y ago
Unfortunately the amount of power in society is largely fixed, and income inequality combined with rulings like Citizens United lets that power be captured by the very few. I suppose it's nice that this kind of modern serfdom lets people live relatively "well", but if people sense they have no control over their government you're headed for trouble.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I don't know why we always go back to income inequality Because it's pretty well established that outside of the most abject poverty, relative deprivation is a more significant factor driving experienced disutility than absolute material condition, contrary to the naive assumptions many people make that increasing individual absolute material condition increases individual utility independent of external context. There are, of course, people who don't believe it works that way, people who don't want it to work that way, and people who don't want other people to believe it works that way because such belief threatens their own advantaged position.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  That reads as an argument but my lack of English skills makes it hard to understand what exactly are you saying. However, it does seem to me that that you still haven't addressed one of the main points you're responding to, that we can have perfect equality where everyone lives as the average person below poverty line today. Would that be a better society considering your arguments?
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    I'm a college educated native speaker who reads medical research in my free time and I can't understand what the parent was saying.
  - db579 6y ago
    Arguably yes. I'm not saying it's necessarily the world I would want to live in but I suspect the world's aggregate perceived level of happiness may be higher.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > we can have perfect equality where everyone lives as the average person below poverty line today Well, no, we probably can't. Inequality can be mitigated, but it can’t be eliminated, especially durably. > Would that be a better society considering your arguments? That's really an objectively unanswerable question for many reasons. You can't really measure, on more than an ordinal scale, individual utility, or aggregate it, except by interposing non-objective judgements. Would it be better for lots of people currently above the poverty line? Maybe, depends how far below the poverty line the equal society was.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > ... relative deprivation is a more significant factor driving experienced disutility than absolute material condition ... Which data are you talking about? Because on the one hand, yes. On the other hand most of the data I'm aware of is very context- (especially social-situation-) specific. I don't think there is evidence that the simple existence somewhere out there of very wealthy people is upsetting.
adolph 6y ago
The US is primarily a materialist individualistic society where good is defined by commercial mimesis and folklore of the particular outweigh that of the common. Expressing concern for “income inequality” signals a virtuous desire for all to attain a nirvana of stuff attained through the magic of money.
- bmitc 6y ago
  That is hardly the case. Expressing concern for income inequality means expressing concern for people to have autonomy, proper food and shelter, proper healthcare, savings, and retirement capability. It is not virtue signaling, as you put it.
  - adolph 6y ago
    Yes, as you just stated you are primarily concerned with materialism and by introducing “income inequality” into any and every discussion, similar to a vegan talking food, you signal that you promote virtue despite not understanding that a good life is much more than material concerns. If it is not “virtue signaling” as I did not put it, than what is your motivation for continuing the cyclical social structure of income and “proper” stuff? You and anyone, even the “people” for whom you wish to demonstrate concern, can step off the hedonic treadmill anytime you want.

by tharne 6y ago

Splendor 6y ago

I think you're trying to say that it's not a useful metric by itself. Which may be true. But we're able to observe multiple metrics luckily. And we know that not everyone is doing well. So naturally we're going to look to other metrics for more information.

science4sail 6y ago

I think that the greater question here is if human well-being is affected more by absolute wealth or by relative wealth.

AlexandrB 6y ago

Unfortunately the amount of power in society is largely fixed, and income inequality combined with rulings like Citizens United lets that power be captured by the very few. I suppose it's nice that this kind of modern serfdom lets people live relatively "well", but if people sense they have no control over their government you're headed for trouble.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I don't know why we always go back to income inequality Because it's pretty well established that outside of the most abject poverty, relative deprivation is a more significant factor driving experienced disutility than absolute material condition, contrary to the naive assumptions many people make that increasing individual absolute material condition increases individual utility independent of external context. There are, of course, people who don't believe it works that way, people who don't want it to work that way, and people who don't want other people to believe it works that way because such belief threatens their own advantaged position.

d1zzy 6y ago
That reads as an argument but my lack of English skills makes it hard to understand what exactly are you saying. However, it does seem to me that that you still haven't addressed one of the main points you're responding to, that we can have perfect equality where everyone lives as the average person below poverty line today. Would that be a better society considering your arguments?
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  I'm a college educated native speaker who reads medical research in my free time and I can't understand what the parent was saying.
- db579 6y ago
  Arguably yes. I'm not saying it's necessarily the world I would want to live in but I suspect the world's aggregate perceived level of happiness may be higher.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > we can have perfect equality where everyone lives as the average person below poverty line today Well, no, we probably can't. Inequality can be mitigated, but it can’t be eliminated, especially durably. > Would that be a better society considering your arguments? That's really an objectively unanswerable question for many reasons. You can't really measure, on more than an ordinal scale, individual utility, or aggregate it, except by interposing non-objective judgements. Would it be better for lots of people currently above the poverty line? Maybe, depends how far below the poverty line the equal society was.
roenxi 6y ago
> ... relative deprivation is a more significant factor driving experienced disutility than absolute material condition ... Which data are you talking about? Because on the one hand, yes. On the other hand most of the data I'm aware of is very context- (especially social-situation-) specific. I don't think there is evidence that the simple existence somewhere out there of very wealthy people is upsetting.

adolph 6y ago

The US is primarily a materialist individualistic society where good is defined by commercial mimesis and folklore of the particular outweigh that of the common. Expressing concern for “income inequality” signals a virtuous desire for all to attain a nirvana of stuff attained through the magic of money.

bmitc 6y ago
That is hardly the case. Expressing concern for income inequality means expressing concern for people to have autonomy, proper food and shelter, proper healthcare, savings, and retirement capability. It is not virtue signaling, as you put it.
- adolph 6y ago
  Yes, as you just stated you are primarily concerned with materialism and by introducing “income inequality” into any and every discussion, similar to a vegan talking food, you signal that you promote virtue despite not understanding that a good life is much more than material concerns. If it is not “virtue signaling” as I did not put it, than what is your motivation for continuing the cyclical social structure of income and “proper” stuff? You and anyone, even the “people” for whom you wish to demonstrate concern, can step off the hedonic treadmill anytime you want.