4 ms·

> In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work

> In other words, some people can comfortably retire when they're old, and some are basically forced to work until the day they die, and some never have to work at all. That's not at all the same as saying that everyone should have equal outcomes at all levels of the game, so much as saying that everyone should eventually be able to cross the same finish line. That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody can retire, nobody can retire. No thanks. I will do whatever it takes to keep the US from becoming that kind of a dystopia. > What you're failing to recognize is that wealth disparities are artificially created by government policies. I don't hold that belief. Disparities and inequality are fundamental to human life, which is why I gave the example of attractiveness, health, etc. I also mentioned careless people because you'll always have people who are self-destructive or unable to support themselves, and you can't help every single person. I'm not bothered by that, I accept it as reality. Thus I think it's utopian to believe it's possible to live fully equally, and it only keeps anybody from having nice things just because there's not enough for everyone.

naasking 5y ago
> That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody can retire, nobody can retire. No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period". > I don't hold that belief. Disparities and inequality are fundamental to human life When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude. It's pretty clear that these analogies are not remotely faithful to what we're discussing here.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period". Sure, I'd love that too. It's a great goal but not one that I remotely believe is actually achievable. Feel free to come back within the next 50 years and say you told me so if I end up being wrong. > When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. This is an unfounded claim. I'd love to see what data you're basing this on. > Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude. I can also easily show you disparities of that magnitude: just look at any of the many chronically ill patients that rack up medical expenses throughout their life, versus people who smoke and drink into their 80s and 90s without a problem and never see a doctor. You can easily use total lifetime medical cost as a metric if you want to meet your arbitrary disparity threshold. If you're in the "everyone's beautiful/healthy/smart in their own way" crowd then we have fundamentally different stances and there's little use talking further.

naasking 5y ago

> That's exactly what I was referring to. Unless everybody can retire, nobody can retire. No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period". > I don't hold that belief. Disparities and inequality are fundamental to human life When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude. It's pretty clear that these analogies are not remotely faithful to what we're discussing here.

silicon2401 5y ago
> No, it simplifies to "everybody can retire, period". Sure, I'd love that too. It's a great goal but not one that I remotely believe is actually achievable. Feel free to come back within the next 50 years and say you told me so if I end up being wrong. > When someone refers to "wealth inequality", they're not talking about disparities of 1 or two orders of magnitude, they're talking about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. This is an unfounded claim. I'd love to see what data you're basing this on. > Show me a disparity in beauty or health of 6 orders of magnitude. I can also easily show you disparities of that magnitude: just look at any of the many chronically ill patients that rack up medical expenses throughout their life, versus people who smoke and drink into their 80s and 90s without a problem and never see a doctor. You can easily use total lifetime medical cost as a metric if you want to meet your arbitrary disparity threshold. If you're in the "everyone's beautiful/healthy/smart in their own way" crowd then we have fundamentally different stances and there's little use talking further.