4 ms·

Measuring simply by how well those who have it worst is a much better metric. A world where all people have it terrible is a bad world. A world where everyone h

by lkbm 5y ago

Measuring simply by how well those who have it worst is a much better metric. A world where all people have it terrible is a bad world. A world where everyone has it at least okay is a much better world. There are downsides to inequality, but a metric that counts "everyone is miserable" as a success is an awful metric.

jacquesm 5y ago
No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. Which will result in a very large underclass who are deemed to have it 'well' and a small upperclass who have it 'amazing'. The alternative is not a world where people have it terrible, it could also be a world where everybody has it good and to strive every day to make it better still. Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. So, your alternative would be better than what we have today, but your reading of my comment is incomplete.
- lkbm 5y ago
  > No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. No, my metric is chosen over yours because mine is not relative. I don't care how well the worst off had it compared to other people. I care how well off they are. This means that in order to make the world better, the only option is to improve the lives of the worst off. > Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. Hence the focus solely on making them better off. Doesn't matter how well off Elon Musk is if it doesn't improve the lives of those in need. > but your reading of my comment is incomplete. Your comment was one sentence. I read the whole thing. If you meant something else, you gotta say it.

by lkbm 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. Which will result in a very large underclass who are deemed to have it 'well' and a small upperclass who have it 'amazing'. The alternative is not a world where people have it terrible, it could also be a world where everybody has it good and to strive every day to make it better still. Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. So, your alternative would be better than what we have today, but your reading of my comment is incomplete.

lkbm 5y ago
> No, because 'well' is then relative to what the 'haves' think it should be for those who have it worst. No, my metric is chosen over yours because mine is not relative. I don't care how well the worst off had it compared to other people. I care how well off they are. This means that in order to make the world better, the only option is to improve the lives of the worst off. > Note that you are likely in the top 10% of wealth on this planet at the moment and we're talking about those 90% further down, a very large fraction of which doesn't even qualify for 'sufficient' under the current system. Hence the focus solely on making them better off. Doesn't matter how well off Elon Musk is if it doesn't improve the lives of those in need. > but your reading of my comment is incomplete. Your comment was one sentence. I read the whole thing. If you meant something else, you gotta say it.