3 ms·

Yeah but my point still stands: the more you redistribute, the less incentive people have to work, and the less money you will have overall. If you redistribut

by jseban 5y ago

Yeah but my point still stands: the more you redistribute, the less incentive people have to work, and the less money you will have overall. If you redistribute too much, you will lower your overall productivity and not have enough money and your average will go down. If you redistribute too little, you will have a revolution. What I'm trying to say, is that everyone wants to have a system where you can simply raise the mean without any increase in inequality, but such a system doesn't exist, so there's always a trade off to be made, and when people ask for less inequality, that will also mean less money overall, and also less for you if you are in the middle.

iso1631 5y ago
> Yeah but my point still stands: the more you redistribute, the less incentive people have to work You'll have to back that claim up > everyone wants to have a system where you can simply raise the mean without any increase in inequality, but such a system doesn't exist Well I don't care about the mean - not much use if Rockerfeller takes 90% of the income of a country and the rest have to deal with the 10% even if the mean is high. I care about how much money I have (specifcally what goods and services I can get with it), and how that is affected when various things happen (someone crashes their car into me, I get a cancer diagnosis, find that the CEO has been running the company into the ground and we're all laid off) During the Great Compression, income inequality dropped dramatically, while the median increased. This was driven by policies like strong unions, the New Deal and Price Controls, and resulted in America's golden age, where the working and middle classes were far better off in 1960 than they were in 1930.
- jseban 5y ago
  Yeah but all these sucessful policies driven by strong unions happen in the aftermath of winning a major war, do you think this is a coincidence?

by jseban 5y ago

iso1631 5y ago

> Yeah but my point still stands: the more you redistribute, the less incentive people have to work You'll have to back that claim up > everyone wants to have a system where you can simply raise the mean without any increase in inequality, but such a system doesn't exist Well I don't care about the mean - not much use if Rockerfeller takes 90% of the income of a country and the rest have to deal with the 10% even if the mean is high. I care about how much money I have (specifcally what goods and services I can get with it), and how that is affected when various things happen (someone crashes their car into me, I get a cancer diagnosis, find that the CEO has been running the company into the ground and we're all laid off) During the Great Compression, income inequality dropped dramatically, while the median increased. This was driven by policies like strong unions, the New Deal and Price Controls, and resulted in America's golden age, where the working and middle classes were far better off in 1960 than they were in 1930.

jseban 5y ago
Yeah but all these sucessful policies driven by strong unions happen in the aftermath of winning a major war, do you think this is a coincidence?