4 ms·

No, I'm saying that there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve. We can all pull a number out of thin air that's just super high

No, I'm saying that there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve. We can all pull a number out of thin air that's just super high, that's tough to imagine people in the bottom 20% commonly getting to in their lifetime. For argument's sake, let's say that number is a net worth of $500K. (Because that just so happens to be the minimum net worth to be in the top 20% of Americans[0].) What would you prefer: a world where more or fewer people were able to amass that much wealth? To me, the obvious answer is more. It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy. Sure, you could look at the numbers and conclude that there's more class mobility, but that's just because more people are poorer, not because more people are making it to $500K. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/net-worth-to-be-wealthy-at-every-age-2019-8#51-to-55-years-old-586470-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/net-worth-t...

GavinMcG 5y ago
> there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve Sure, but if that number is such that a significant proportion of society is born with it and pass it along to their children while everyone else can't hope to get there, that's a very different society and social structure than one where a few extremely lucky people happen to achieve it each generation without a self-reinforcing class structure. > It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy It could. If we actively redistributed wealth from the top quintile to the bottom quintile, it would do a lot of people a lot of good.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
You're totally conflating relative and absolute wealth. Society is probably better off when the median absolute wealth increases, which will be achieved by more people achieving higher wealth levels. But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large). If more people make it to $500k, the 5th quintile threshold will move up. That means that the gap between the bottom quintile and the top quintile will increase. We could choose to be happy that more people have made it to $500k, or we could choose to be upset that the gap between the lower 4 quintiles and the upper one has grown.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  > But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large). Why is it clear?
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Eventually, if the wealth divide becomes too great and ossified, the logical thing for the poor to do is have a violent revolution (since there is no other way to advance their station in life). This sucks for basically everyone, rich or poor. I think we all have a selfish interest in making sure it doesn't come to that.
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      This sounds like a very dishonest and bad faith argument. Would you defend a policy against immigration because it may lead to terrorism by nationalists, or would you rather try to solve the real problem? It seems that you don’t think that society is worse off as relative wealth inequality grows. Society is worse off when people who are mad for whatever reasons start to kill other people. And in any case we should note that it is not actual differences that rustle jimmies, but perceived differences.
    - csallen 5y ago
      Sure, but a big wealth divide does not imply ossification, it just means it's a longer path to get to the top. You can have a big divide and still have mobility.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        You could have that, but the US just has a big divide and not much mobility, despite the folk tales that say we do.
tshaddox 5y ago
> No, I'm saying that there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve. Social mobility isn’t really about the “difficulty” of achieving any particular level of wealth. It’s about how many people who start at some lower level of wealth achieve some higher level of wealth. Income inequality is also not really about the “difficulty” of something. It’s not exactly “difficult” to inherit the wealth of the wealthiest person in the world, either, but it obviously can only happen to a very small number of people in the world.
DarylZero 5y ago
> What would you prefer: a world where more or fewer people were able to amass that much wealth? To me, the obvious answer is more. Fewer. That wealth represents the obligation of other people to labor on behalf of the owner or their heirs. A world with lots of rich people is a world where the poor are born into indentured servitude. Equality allows the newborn to enter life debt free.
- csallen 5y ago
  I think you have some flawed assumptions. 1. Wealth doesn't require a lot of labor to prop it up, especially not in an increasingly technological world where digital products enable infinite copies at no marginal cost, where code can "labor" in the background without manpower, and where the internet provides infinite distribution to all corners of the globe. 2. Labor today looks significantly different than it did in the past. It's increasingly fulfilling and service-like. In fact, many of the richest people spend exorbitant amounts of time "laboring," e.g. via writing or other creative pursuits. 3. A smaller wealth gap doesn't imply mobility of freedom from debt, any more than a shorter track implies faster sprinters. You can have a more equal society with a narrower distribution of wealth but also greater absolute poverty and misery.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    What flawed assumption do you think I'm making? Wealth represents owed labor, because ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them.
    - csallen 5y ago
      > Wealth represents owed labor That's the flawed assumption you're making. Wealth does not just come from labor. It largely comes from technology. Technology provides leverage. It's not uncommon that a single person today can do something that generates 10,000x the entertainment/utility/productivity/wealth any single person could have in the past. The average person today is far wealthier than the average person hundreds of years ago, and we have fewer indentured servants, not more. That's because we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology. As a result, we should (and do) have far more wealthy people. Also, just mathematically speaking, more wealthy people can't mean more servants. To use an extreme example, a society with 99% wealthy people could only have 1% servants, max.

GavinMcG 5y ago

> there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve Sure, but if that number is such that a significant proportion of society is born with it and pass it along to their children while everyone else can't hope to get there, that's a very different society and social structure than one where a few extremely lucky people happen to achieve it each generation without a self-reinforcing class structure. > It does nobody any good for fewer people to be wealthy It could. If we actively redistributed wealth from the top quintile to the bottom quintile, it would do a lot of people a lot of good.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

You're totally conflating relative and absolute wealth. Society is probably better off when the median absolute wealth increases, which will be achieved by more people achieving higher wealth levels. But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large). If more people make it to $500k, the 5th quintile threshold will move up. That means that the gap between the bottom quintile and the top quintile will increase. We could choose to be happy that more people have made it to $500k, or we could choose to be upset that the gap between the lower 4 quintiles and the upper one has grown.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
> But as is becoming increasing clear (again), society is worse off when relative wealth distinctions grow (at least, if they grow too large). Why is it clear?
- bawolff 5y ago
  Eventually, if the wealth divide becomes too great and ossified, the logical thing for the poor to do is have a violent revolution (since there is no other way to advance their station in life). This sucks for basically everyone, rich or poor. I think we all have a selfish interest in making sure it doesn't come to that.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    This sounds like a very dishonest and bad faith argument. Would you defend a policy against immigration because it may lead to terrorism by nationalists, or would you rather try to solve the real problem? It seems that you don’t think that society is worse off as relative wealth inequality grows. Society is worse off when people who are mad for whatever reasons start to kill other people. And in any case we should note that it is not actual differences that rustle jimmies, but perceived differences.
  - csallen 5y ago
    Sure, but a big wealth divide does not imply ossification, it just means it's a longer path to get to the top. You can have a big divide and still have mobility.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      You could have that, but the US just has a big divide and not much mobility, despite the folk tales that say we do.

tshaddox 5y ago

> No, I'm saying that there's always going to be some level of wealth that's difficult to achieve. Social mobility isn’t really about the “difficulty” of achieving any particular level of wealth. It’s about how many people who start at some lower level of wealth achieve some higher level of wealth. Income inequality is also not really about the “difficulty” of something. It’s not exactly “difficult” to inherit the wealth of the wealthiest person in the world, either, but it obviously can only happen to a very small number of people in the world.

DarylZero 5y ago

> What would you prefer: a world where more or fewer people were able to amass that much wealth? To me, the obvious answer is more. Fewer. That wealth represents the obligation of other people to labor on behalf of the owner or their heirs. A world with lots of rich people is a world where the poor are born into indentured servitude. Equality allows the newborn to enter life debt free.

csallen 5y ago
I think you have some flawed assumptions. 1. Wealth doesn't require a lot of labor to prop it up, especially not in an increasingly technological world where digital products enable infinite copies at no marginal cost, where code can "labor" in the background without manpower, and where the internet provides infinite distribution to all corners of the globe. 2. Labor today looks significantly different than it did in the past. It's increasingly fulfilling and service-like. In fact, many of the richest people spend exorbitant amounts of time "laboring," e.g. via writing or other creative pursuits. 3. A smaller wealth gap doesn't imply mobility of freedom from debt, any more than a shorter track implies faster sprinters. You can have a more equal society with a narrower distribution of wealth but also greater absolute poverty and misery.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  What flawed assumption do you think I'm making? Wealth represents owed labor, because ordinary people have an obligation to pay rent, and otherwise buy resources from the previous generation of humans, who allocated nature before they were born; so they have an obligation to work for owners; and wealth takes the form of ownership of a share of the work done by them.
  - csallen 5y ago
    > Wealth represents owed labor That's the flawed assumption you're making. Wealth does not just come from labor. It largely comes from technology. Technology provides leverage. It's not uncommon that a single person today can do something that generates 10,000x the entertainment/utility/productivity/wealth any single person could have in the past. The average person today is far wealthier than the average person hundreds of years ago, and we have fewer indentured servants, not more. That's because we can generate wealth much more easily today, thanks to technology. As a result, we should (and do) have far more wealthy people. Also, just mathematically speaking, more wealthy people can't mean more servants. To use an extreme example, a society with 99% wealthy people could only have 1% servants, max.