5 ms·

Can I ask a related question? Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality"? Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been

Can I ask a related question? Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality"? Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been increasing dramatically despite increasing inequality? Due to technological advances, hasn't the baseline quality of healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition, shelter, comfort, convenience, etc. significantly improved from the 60s or the 80s? If so, why begrudge the rich, especially those who have driven this advancement, their fleets of yachts?

kkoncevicius 6y ago
Social status is by comparison, that's why. I assume the vast majority of people would choose to be in the aristocracy somewhere in 1300 Europe, compared to middle class today. Even if objectively the middle class has better quality of life.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  Why on earth would you assume that? Middle Ages aristocracy lived comparatively miserable lives - no daily hot shower, no climate control, nothing resembling health care, no running water or sanitation, no access to information, no international supply chain for food or products (eat only what your community can preserve for the winter). I would wager that any of those aristocrats would gladly amputate their limbs to live as an average person today.
  - dsq 6y ago
    Interesting to think of, let's say, one of our society's upper class given the opportunity to be a 'regular' person X years from now. Rejuvenation, instant cure for any illness, pain or wound, immersion into world spanning super intelligence, gratification of any physical or emotional desire, personal host of robotic servants, etc. The price is that they would be regular, that is, devoid of superior wealth or power. Would they take it?
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Three problems: 1. Humans are humans, and they pretty much always judge their success by comparing themselves to others. Or, rather, humans are primates. Take a look at the famous study of the monkey that got cucumber while the other monkey got tastier grapes. 2. Income inequality in and of itself can be a problem because the mega wealthy can essentially buy laws that benefit themselves. There have been many studies that show that politicians are much more responsive to the desires of the rich than the desires of the average person. 3. In any economy, limited resources always go to those on the top of the wealth graph, regardless of cost to produce. So while you may be able to say everyone's standard of living is better, that's cold comfort to someone who won't be able to buy a house in their lifetime because limited land supply goes to the richest.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  > pretty much always judge their success by comparing themselves to others Yes but that doesn't mean this comparison has moral standing. Also this behaviour is pretty low-level, neurologically, and we can train our higher executive functions to override and disregard it. I would argue that should be the expectation. > can essentially buy laws that benefit themselves Again - so what? As long as everyone's lives are improving on every metric, who cares that the wealthy mess with the tax laws or enact regulatory capture. > that's cold comfort to someone who won't be able to buy a house in their lifetime because limited land supply goes to the richest. No, the person (and all other people) should derive their comfort from the gratitude for being able to live in a modern, extremely comfortable world. Edit: to rephrase, isn't the problem here the expectation/belief that you should have/are entitled to a detached house?
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    For many people in the US, over the past couple of decades: 1. Housing has become much more unaffordable. 2. Higher education has become much more unaffordable. 3. Retirement income has become much less guaranteed. 4. Employment is much less stable than it used to be. Just look at the coming eviction tidal wave that will happen after the eviction moratoriums in the US end. Telling people "But look at all the other modern comforts you have now!" will smack as "Let them eat cake" when someone gets kicked out of their house, while the rich got much richer over the past year.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality". Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been increasing dramatically despite increasing inequality? Due to technological advances, hasn't the baseline quality of healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition, shelter, comfort, convenience, etc. significantly improved from the 60s or the 80s? If people are feeling more volatility, and that it can all slip out from under them at any time, then all that baseline quality improvement is not worth much. Also, just like many other animals, we are playing a game rooted in the mechanics of mating involving social hierarchy and various tribal mechanics that are key to securing desired resources and reducing the aforementioned volatility. I do not imagine vast gaps in income/wealth/security help the tribe as a whole in this game.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  > If people are feeling more volatility Do you think this feeling is reflected in actual risk though? If so, how would you quantify it? If not, shouldn't we expect/teach people not to feel so volatile and be more grateful and content?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Yes, the easiest way to see it is in the lack of income security and wage stagnation for the vast majority. You have to hustle, your employer may not be around for your working lifespan, or they might be obviated by cheaper labor from overseas and/or technology and automation. Edit: Another example is health insurance is tied to your employer in the US. It costs anywhere from $400 per child per month to $1k per month per adult, with a $17k out of pocket annual maximum. Imagine you've scraped together some savings for a house or a business or kids' education, and a wage earner becomes ill or injured, and can't work. Now you have giant expenses coming your way at your most vulnerable, and government help from Medicaid (for subpar quality healthcare) doesn't kick in until after you've exhausted all your assets, so you are at risk of getting sent back to square 1.
    - thegrimmest 6y ago
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Because there are people being left behind. Productivity per person has increased massively over the last half century, yet income per worker has been stagnant unless you break into a few specific contexts. This doesn't appear to be a necessary part of innovation as PG and others claim, but rather is a reflection of concentrated wealth's ability to restructure the market and even the legal system to better serve those concentrated interests. This is the pernicious problem we have to fight. It is in no way somehow exogenously necessary for people to have half billion dollar yachts in order to advance the life of the typical human. "Markets measure merit" is a lie told by those best positioned to control markets to manufacture their own "merit."

kkoncevicius 6y ago

Social status is by comparison, that's why. I assume the vast majority of people would choose to be in the aristocracy somewhere in 1300 Europe, compared to middle class today. Even if objectively the middle class has better quality of life.

thegrimmest 6y ago
Why on earth would you assume that? Middle Ages aristocracy lived comparatively miserable lives - no daily hot shower, no climate control, nothing resembling health care, no running water or sanitation, no access to information, no international supply chain for food or products (eat only what your community can preserve for the winter). I would wager that any of those aristocrats would gladly amputate their limbs to live as an average person today.
- dsq 6y ago
  Interesting to think of, let's say, one of our society's upper class given the opportunity to be a 'regular' person X years from now. Rejuvenation, instant cure for any illness, pain or wound, immersion into world spanning super intelligence, gratification of any physical or emotional desire, personal host of robotic servants, etc. The price is that they would be regular, that is, devoid of superior wealth or power. Would they take it?

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Three problems: 1. Humans are humans, and they pretty much always judge their success by comparing themselves to others. Or, rather, humans are primates. Take a look at the famous study of the monkey that got cucumber while the other monkey got tastier grapes. 2. Income inequality in and of itself can be a problem because the mega wealthy can essentially buy laws that benefit themselves. There have been many studies that show that politicians are much more responsive to the desires of the rich than the desires of the average person. 3. In any economy, limited resources always go to those on the top of the wealth graph, regardless of cost to produce. So while you may be able to say everyone's standard of living is better, that's cold comfort to someone who won't be able to buy a house in their lifetime because limited land supply goes to the richest.

thegrimmest 6y ago
> pretty much always judge their success by comparing themselves to others Yes but that doesn't mean this comparison has moral standing. Also this behaviour is pretty low-level, neurologically, and we can train our higher executive functions to override and disregard it. I would argue that should be the expectation. > can essentially buy laws that benefit themselves Again - so what? As long as everyone's lives are improving on every metric, who cares that the wealthy mess with the tax laws or enact regulatory capture. > that's cold comfort to someone who won't be able to buy a house in their lifetime because limited land supply goes to the richest. No, the person (and all other people) should derive their comfort from the gratitude for being able to live in a modern, extremely comfortable world. Edit: to rephrase, isn't the problem here the expectation/belief that you should have/are entitled to a detached house?
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  For many people in the US, over the past couple of decades: 1. Housing has become much more unaffordable. 2. Higher education has become much more unaffordable. 3. Retirement income has become much less guaranteed. 4. Employment is much less stable than it used to be. Just look at the coming eviction tidal wave that will happen after the eviction moratoriums in the US end. Telling people "But look at all the other modern comforts you have now!" will smack as "Let them eat cake" when someone gets kicked out of their house, while the rich got much richer over the past year.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

>Why all the focus on income/wealth "inequality". Shouldn't we be looking at the absolute baseline quality of life? Hasn't it been increasing dramatically despite increasing inequality? Due to technological advances, hasn't the baseline quality of healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition, shelter, comfort, convenience, etc. significantly improved from the 60s or the 80s? If people are feeling more volatility, and that it can all slip out from under them at any time, then all that baseline quality improvement is not worth much. Also, just like many other animals, we are playing a game rooted in the mechanics of mating involving social hierarchy and various tribal mechanics that are key to securing desired resources and reducing the aforementioned volatility. I do not imagine vast gaps in income/wealth/security help the tribe as a whole in this game.

thegrimmest 6y ago
> If people are feeling more volatility Do you think this feeling is reflected in actual risk though? If so, how would you quantify it? If not, shouldn't we expect/teach people not to feel so volatile and be more grateful and content?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Yes, the easiest way to see it is in the lack of income security and wage stagnation for the vast majority. You have to hustle, your employer may not be around for your working lifespan, or they might be obviated by cheaper labor from overseas and/or technology and automation. Edit: Another example is health insurance is tied to your employer in the US. It costs anywhere from $400 per child per month to $1k per month per adult, with a $17k out of pocket annual maximum. Imagine you've scraped together some savings for a house or a business or kids' education, and a wage earner becomes ill or injured, and can't work. Now you have giant expenses coming your way at your most vulnerable, and government help from Medicaid (for subpar quality healthcare) doesn't kick in until after you've exhausted all your assets, so you are at risk of getting sent back to square 1.
  - thegrimmest 6y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Because there are people being left behind. Productivity per person has increased massively over the last half century, yet income per worker has been stagnant unless you break into a few specific contexts. This doesn't appear to be a necessary part of innovation as PG and others claim, but rather is a reflection of concentrated wealth's ability to restructure the market and even the legal system to better serve those concentrated interests. This is the pernicious problem we have to fight. It is in no way somehow exogenously necessary for people to have half billion dollar yachts in order to advance the life of the typical human. "Markets measure merit" is a lie told by those best positioned to control markets to manufacture their own "merit."