5 ms·

This article is baffling. "The rich are unfairly rich-" it says "Because their parents were rich and bought them good schooling no one else can afford! But scho

This article is baffling. "The rich are unfairly rich-" it says "Because their parents were rich and bought them good schooling no one else can afford! But schooling hasn't been able to lift those who aren't already rich out of poverty very well! But if we just fix education the right way, surely THIS time it will work, and everyone can be rich(er)!" People love to believe comfortable myths. For a certain group of people, their comfortable myth is that wealth inequality can be solved by education. It cannot. People become wealthy because of luck. Who your parents are is luck. Where you were born is luck. Your intelligence and physical and mental health are luck. It's all luck. The best schooling in the world can't move this needle much, and its power grows ever weaker as technology and automation eat more and more of the economy. "Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. Most of that group do not want this to happen of course, and they get to make the decisions. But sooner or later, this will become an untenable position.

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
The trouble here is that people don't become wealthy just because of luck. It plays a part, sure, but people have to play the game and know how it works in order to have even a chance of winning. The trouble is that many people don't even try because they don't know how to. Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. Education absolutely helps make more money, especially if you are educated in an in-demand field. Then you have to develop the discipline to spend less than you earn and to know(learn about) how to use an IRA and save from an early age. My personal finance class in high school was vital for this reason. While not everyone internalized its teachings, those who did have had significantly less stressful lives after they got an emergency fund saved up.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. For obvious reasons, if you do not invest your money yourself, that money is being lent out by your bank who invests it on your behalf and that bank then lends it to companies who invest it on the bank's behalf. When companies stop being borrowers and interest rates drop there is no demand for your savings and you shouldn't let your money sit in a bank account.
imtringued 5y ago
>"Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. I disagree because there is no demand for growth and productivity improvements if you can concentrate your wealth without doing anything. >We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. That's wrong, there are four options. The government as borrower of last resort who then subsequently uses the money on improving its infrastructure. This is compatible with fighting climate change. Negative interest rates for the first $100k you borrow from your bank. (private/business loans only, no mortgages) The weakening of cash to achieve negative interest rates on deposits (low cash withdrawal rates would be a start e.g. $3000 per month and $1500 max cash deposits per month). People with low savings can take their money out as cash but people with high savings will be screwed and forced to invest. The central bank as equalizer of last resort, let them send helicopter money until the inflation target has been reached. The helicopter money can be tied to a job guarantee that pays minimum wage. Given enough inflation people will naturally stop working at minimum wage. Yes, all wealth inequality problems stem from the fact that the Fed isn't powerful enough.
xupybd 5y ago
You've missed something else, equity is impossible. No matter how good life gets someone is always worse off in some way. If you could level everyone economically you'd still be uneven. Some are athletically gifted, some are beautiful, some are charismatic and others have none of these things. When I was a kid I complained that my sister was getting a better deal than I was. My dad looked me in they eye and said "Life is not fair"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
inglor_cz 5y ago
Causality in complex human societies is nowhere near as straightforward as you claim. Luck is just one of many factors in our lives. Do people owe a lot to luck? Yes, for example, neither of us two were born in the middle of a raging civil war in central Africa and died at the age of 3 of preventable diseases caused by unsafe drinking water. That is luck, definitely. But plenty of people waste their lucky moments and gain nothing from them. That does not concern wealth alone; people mess up great relationships for trivial reasons, behave recklessly when they should not, commit stupid crimes just for the lulz etc. As far as comfortable myths go, the concept that luck is the main factor (or even the only factor) in someone's fate is a golden example. Luck is perfectly beyond your control, so if you look at your life and conclude that it sucks, you can rest comfortably in knowledge that it is in no sense your own fault, but a product of impersonal force de majeure that just selected you to be doomed. I'd rather be cursed by Voldemort than adapt this mindset. It is very self-destructive.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Luck is just one of many factors in our lives It appears that the other factors you are thinking of are intelligence and temperament. But other people do argue that these are also luck. People do not choose their personality, and while they may change due to external events, that doesn't mean they deserve credit or blame regardless. You can disagree, but maybe believing in free will is just the sort of person you are and nothing that physically exists chooses to act on itself. Mark Twain wrote about this in the essay "What Is Man", although I don't take it entirely at face value. I suspect that he felt some (maybe subconscious) need to excuse himself for believing in the injustice of slavery but not taking part in the Civil War.
Gravyness 5y ago
> But sooner or later, this will become an untenable position. Why can't the "decision makers" make the decision to disregard everyone who isn't a decision maker?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago

The trouble here is that people don't become wealthy just because of luck. It plays a part, sure, but people have to play the game and know how it works in order to have even a chance of winning. The trouble is that many people don't even try because they don't know how to. Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. Education absolutely helps make more money, especially if you are educated in an in-demand field. Then you have to develop the discipline to spend less than you earn and to know(learn about) how to use an IRA and save from an early age. My personal finance class in high school was vital for this reason. While not everyone internalized its teachings, those who did have had significantly less stressful lives after they got an emergency fund saved up.

imtringued 5y ago
>Becoming wealthy is all about making more money than you spend and investing the rest. For obvious reasons, if you do not invest your money yourself, that money is being lent out by your bank who invests it on your behalf and that bank then lends it to companies who invest it on the bank's behalf. When companies stop being borrowers and interest rates drop there is no demand for your savings and you shouldn't let your money sit in a bank account.

imtringued 5y ago

>"Growth" can't save us either. We cannot escape by giving the economy more gas, because the faster the economy goes, the more things get automated, the more jobs vanish, and more wealth gets concentrated. I disagree because there is no demand for growth and productivity improvements if you can concentrate your wealth without doing anything. >We are rapidly approaching a point where a tiny fraction of the population controls almost all economic activity, and in that future, the only way to fix wealth inequality is to tax that group and spread the money around. That's wrong, there are four options. The government as borrower of last resort who then subsequently uses the money on improving its infrastructure. This is compatible with fighting climate change. Negative interest rates for the first $100k you borrow from your bank. (private/business loans only, no mortgages) The weakening of cash to achieve negative interest rates on deposits (low cash withdrawal rates would be a start e.g. $3000 per month and $1500 max cash deposits per month). People with low savings can take their money out as cash but people with high savings will be screwed and forced to invest. The central bank as equalizer of last resort, let them send helicopter money until the inflation target has been reached. The helicopter money can be tied to a job guarantee that pays minimum wage. Given enough inflation people will naturally stop working at minimum wage. Yes, all wealth inequality problems stem from the fact that the Fed isn't powerful enough.

xupybd 5y ago

You've missed something else, equity is impossible. No matter how good life gets someone is always worse off in some way. If you could level everyone economically you'd still be uneven. Some are athletically gifted, some are beautiful, some are charismatic and others have none of these things. When I was a kid I complained that my sister was getting a better deal than I was. My dad looked me in they eye and said "Life is not fair"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

inglor_cz 5y ago

Causality in complex human societies is nowhere near as straightforward as you claim. Luck is just one of many factors in our lives. Do people owe a lot to luck? Yes, for example, neither of us two were born in the middle of a raging civil war in central Africa and died at the age of 3 of preventable diseases caused by unsafe drinking water. That is luck, definitely. But plenty of people waste their lucky moments and gain nothing from them. That does not concern wealth alone; people mess up great relationships for trivial reasons, behave recklessly when they should not, commit stupid crimes just for the lulz etc. As far as comfortable myths go, the concept that luck is the main factor (or even the only factor) in someone's fate is a golden example. Luck is perfectly beyond your control, so if you look at your life and conclude that it sucks, you can rest comfortably in knowledge that it is in no sense your own fault, but a product of impersonal force de majeure that just selected you to be doomed. I'd rather be cursed by Voldemort than adapt this mindset. It is very self-destructive.

perl4ever 5y ago
>Luck is just one of many factors in our lives It appears that the other factors you are thinking of are intelligence and temperament. But other people do argue that these are also luck. People do not choose their personality, and while they may change due to external events, that doesn't mean they deserve credit or blame regardless. You can disagree, but maybe believing in free will is just the sort of person you are and nothing that physically exists chooses to act on itself. Mark Twain wrote about this in the essay "What Is Man", although I don't take it entirely at face value. I suspect that he felt some (maybe subconscious) need to excuse himself for believing in the injustice of slavery but not taking part in the Civil War.

Gravyness 5y ago

> But sooner or later, this will become an untenable position. Why can't the "decision makers" make the decision to disregard everyone who isn't a decision maker?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]