4 ms·

Do you believe there’s more wealth inequality in America today compared to medieval Europe or ancient Egypt?

mgamache 5y ago
Between the very top and bottom? Yes. https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Do you believe the pareto distribution of resources/wealth has changed, or that the over-all growth in total wealth maintaining a similar pareto distribution results in the chart you posted?
  - mgamache 5y ago
    I think that resources in stable system (for example peacetime) tend to be increasingly horded by successful competitors. When rent seeking from those at the top becomes too expensive there is sometimes a reset that is usually violent. Sometimes the reset (war or plague for example) can be from external sources, but is still violent.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      This is how I would put it. Do you agree? Pareto distribution is the norm, marked by brief transitional periods during which the people at the top of the pareto distribution change. These transition periods correlate strongly with wide-scale disasters such as war or plague.
hnbad 5y ago
Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility (within reason), they were told the hereditary social hierarchy is divine will and can't be overcome. "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Wealth inequality is an important factor but expecting everything to boil down to one simple factor is overly simplistic.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  > Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility I assume wealth inequality is worse today than Ancient Egypt, but regardless of how it is, this point is key.
- amelius 5y ago
  > "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. Or to those poor restaurant owners who now have to pay a 30% fee to the likes of Uber eats to maintain a steady income. (If it's up to Apple, developers are next!)
  - usrusr 5y ago
    These days all of them have their perception permanently saturated with the lie that they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it. No surprise many are eager to jump at imagined opportunities whenever they arise. Gambling, speculation, falling victim to some "get rich by becoming a get rich mentor" mentors and so on. Some poor industrial age miner with no better case scenario than becoming a respected poor miner would have been far more resilient (and surely many fell victim to similar schemes nonetheless)
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Who believes they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it? The zeitgeist appears to be there's no opportunity and it's someone else's fault.
  - hnbad 5y ago
    I don't have to tell them that, what do you think why gambling is so popular in poorer communities? Yes, everyone "knows" it's a game of chance but they secretly tell themselves it's a game of skill and that there are rules they just have to get better at recognizing. The gambler's fallacy is a prime example of that. Trading is only different from gambling in that we don't view the belief in "skill" as a sign of addiction and instead feed into it with the mainstream news cycle. There's no practical difference between betting on stocks and betting on horse racing except the levels of complexity permitted. The trick to winning at stock gambling is that unlike with regular gambling if you have enough money, you can effectively "be the bank". The more money you, the easier it becomes to diversify your investments and in some cases you can effectively bet on black and red at the same time and still turn a profit. It's less about skill and more about having the wealth to feed complex financial vehicles that practically guarantee an ROI over time. > Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. The sweatshop worker doesn't believe their skill at their job translates into wealth. The sweatshop worker knows they're in a deadend job barely making enough to feed their family and that they'll be cycled out if they get sick, injured or simply have a few bad days. They might still believe their "skill" at gambling could make them money. But they probably don't have enough money to be able to "invest" in trading.
pjc50 5y ago
What does that have to do with anything? People are only realistically able to compare with what they know during their lifetimes, and we're a very technologically and socially different society. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to compare 19th-century England or Tsarist Russia? Or, if we're going to restrict to what people actually know, the boomer childhood era? (although if you're going to the Tudor era, maybe consider the legal restrictions on conspicuous consumption: https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws-under-henry-viii/ https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws... )
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Why are you participating in a subthread about desperation and wealth inequality's influence on gambling and its reach back in history to at least Ancient Egypt? Maybe this topic doesn't interest you.
jodrellblank 5y ago
There's surely more visible wealth inequality. A peasant villager would never visit the Royal Court, and if they did visit the local manor or landlord they would find one family with fine clothes and plenty of food who also went to Church on Sunday and suffered toothache and pissed in a pot under the bed at night. They would never have an endless Instagram feed of fashion model people with jetset lifestyles, building on decades of TV shows like "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" or "Keeping up with the Kardashians". Consider how much you have heard about a Hollywood star or Jeff Bezos compared with how much you have heard of Hugh Grosvenor, the world's richest person under 30. Before TV, before newspapers, before most people could read, you'd never have heard of either of them. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We... )
- acdha 5y ago
  There’s another key difference: say you were a peasant who did happen to live near, maybe even worked for the king, so you knew exactly what you were missing out on. Nobody told you that was a life option: quite the opposite, god had put you in your station and you’d be slapped down hard if you tried to change that. Your baseline for comparison was far closer: maybe apprenticing or marrying a child into a skilled trade, ending up in one of the coveted relatively stable service positions, etc. but nobody expected you to ascend too high.
wayoutthere 5y ago
Dude the wealthy today have their own personal space programs while the labor class can barely afford food and medicine. We have more wealth inequality than we ever have.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  At what point in history do you believe resource/wealth distribution began to follow the pareto distribution model?
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Easy; the colonial era (so right around 1500). Movement of wealth before then was limited by zero-sum resource conflict and patriarchal inheritance of the nobility. But the new world opened up a way for noble second and third sons (who were trained and had the resources) to build their own fortunes if only they can be ruthless enough in seizing them.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      What are your thoughts on the wealth distribution in Babylon between Hammurabi and his subjects? His reign was around 1700 BCE.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Estimates says a Pyramid took half a million man years to build. Assume modern wage of $50k a year, that would sum up wealth of a single pyramid to $25 billion if we translate those hours to modern wage hours. So by that rough estimate wealth inequality between top and average seems about the same back then compared to now. Jeff Bezos might be worth more than half a million man years, but not 10 times more. Also the Pharaohs owned more than the Pyramids so the estimate underestimates their wealth.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    So you’re saying the situation where the pharaohs used slave labor to build the pyramids is analogous to the time we’re living in? On that we can agree.

Between the very top and bottom? Yes. https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300

Consultant32452 5y ago
Do you believe the pareto distribution of resources/wealth has changed, or that the over-all growth in total wealth maintaining a similar pareto distribution results in the chart you posted?
- mgamache 5y ago
  I think that resources in stable system (for example peacetime) tend to be increasingly horded by successful competitors. When rent seeking from those at the top becomes too expensive there is sometimes a reset that is usually violent. Sometimes the reset (war or plague for example) can be from external sources, but is still violent.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    This is how I would put it. Do you agree? Pareto distribution is the norm, marked by brief transitional periods during which the people at the top of the pareto distribution change. These transition periods correlate strongly with wide-scale disasters such as war or plague.

hnbad 5y ago

Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility (within reason), they were told the hereditary social hierarchy is divine will and can't be overcome. "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Wealth inequality is an important factor but expecting everything to boil down to one simple factor is overly simplistic.

skinnymuch 5y ago
> Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility I assume wealth inequality is worse today than Ancient Egypt, but regardless of how it is, this point is key.
amelius 5y ago
> "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. Or to those poor restaurant owners who now have to pay a 30% fee to the likes of Uber eats to maintain a steady income. (If it's up to Apple, developers are next!)
- usrusr 5y ago
  These days all of them have their perception permanently saturated with the lie that they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it. No surprise many are eager to jump at imagined opportunities whenever they arise. Gambling, speculation, falling victim to some "get rich by becoming a get rich mentor" mentors and so on. Some poor industrial age miner with no better case scenario than becoming a respected poor miner would have been far more resilient (and surely many fell victim to similar schemes nonetheless)
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Who believes they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it? The zeitgeist appears to be there's no opportunity and it's someone else's fault.
- hnbad 5y ago
  I don't have to tell them that, what do you think why gambling is so popular in poorer communities? Yes, everyone "knows" it's a game of chance but they secretly tell themselves it's a game of skill and that there are rules they just have to get better at recognizing. The gambler's fallacy is a prime example of that. Trading is only different from gambling in that we don't view the belief in "skill" as a sign of addiction and instead feed into it with the mainstream news cycle. There's no practical difference between betting on stocks and betting on horse racing except the levels of complexity permitted. The trick to winning at stock gambling is that unlike with regular gambling if you have enough money, you can effectively "be the bank". The more money you, the easier it becomes to diversify your investments and in some cases you can effectively bet on black and red at the same time and still turn a profit. It's less about skill and more about having the wealth to feed complex financial vehicles that practically guarantee an ROI over time. > Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. The sweatshop worker doesn't believe their skill at their job translates into wealth. The sweatshop worker knows they're in a deadend job barely making enough to feed their family and that they'll be cycled out if they get sick, injured or simply have a few bad days. They might still believe their "skill" at gambling could make them money. But they probably don't have enough money to be able to "invest" in trading.

pjc50 5y ago

What does that have to do with anything? People are only realistically able to compare with what they know during their lifetimes, and we're a very technologically and socially different society. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to compare 19th-century England or Tsarist Russia? Or, if we're going to restrict to what people actually know, the boomer childhood era? (although if you're going to the Tudor era, maybe consider the legal restrictions on conspicuous consumption: https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws-under-henry-viii/ https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws... )

Consultant32452 5y ago
Why are you participating in a subthread about desperation and wealth inequality's influence on gambling and its reach back in history to at least Ancient Egypt? Maybe this topic doesn't interest you.

jodrellblank 5y ago

There's surely more visible wealth inequality. A peasant villager would never visit the Royal Court, and if they did visit the local manor or landlord they would find one family with fine clothes and plenty of food who also went to Church on Sunday and suffered toothache and pissed in a pot under the bed at night. They would never have an endless Instagram feed of fashion model people with jetset lifestyles, building on decades of TV shows like "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" or "Keeping up with the Kardashians". Consider how much you have heard about a Hollywood star or Jeff Bezos compared with how much you have heard of Hugh Grosvenor, the world's richest person under 30. Before TV, before newspapers, before most people could read, you'd never have heard of either of them. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We... )

acdha 5y ago
There’s another key difference: say you were a peasant who did happen to live near, maybe even worked for the king, so you knew exactly what you were missing out on. Nobody told you that was a life option: quite the opposite, god had put you in your station and you’d be slapped down hard if you tried to change that. Your baseline for comparison was far closer: maybe apprenticing or marrying a child into a skilled trade, ending up in one of the coveted relatively stable service positions, etc. but nobody expected you to ascend too high.

wayoutthere 5y ago

Dude the wealthy today have their own personal space programs while the labor class can barely afford food and medicine. We have more wealth inequality than we ever have.

Consultant32452 5y ago
At what point in history do you believe resource/wealth distribution began to follow the pareto distribution model?
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Easy; the colonial era (so right around 1500). Movement of wealth before then was limited by zero-sum resource conflict and patriarchal inheritance of the nobility. But the new world opened up a way for noble second and third sons (who were trained and had the resources) to build their own fortunes if only they can be ruthless enough in seizing them.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    What are your thoughts on the wealth distribution in Babylon between Hammurabi and his subjects? His reign was around 1700 BCE.
Jensson 5y ago
Estimates says a Pyramid took half a million man years to build. Assume modern wage of $50k a year, that would sum up wealth of a single pyramid to $25 billion if we translate those hours to modern wage hours. So by that rough estimate wealth inequality between top and average seems about the same back then compared to now. Jeff Bezos might be worth more than half a million man years, but not 10 times more. Also the Pharaohs owned more than the Pyramids so the estimate underestimates their wealth.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  So you’re saying the situation where the pharaohs used slave labor to build the pyramids is analogous to the time we’re living in? On that we can agree.