8 ms·

1) No fallacy, if the the Pie gets bigger, but a small percentage of people get an increasingly larger percentage of that pie, inequality is increasing. 2) The

by zafka 15y ago

1) No fallacy, if the the Pie gets bigger, but a small percentage of people get an increasingly larger percentage of that pie, inequality is increasing. 2) The author did state that more and more people are going to college. Thus if you have a fixed size of "Ivy League schools" a smaller percentage of the total will get into the top schools.

javert 15y ago
But the passage I'm citing isn't about inequality increasing, as you're discussing. It's about people at lower levels getting less, in an absolute sense. Which is a fallacy.
- luciferous 15y ago
  I'm not sure I see how this is a fallacy. Can you explain even anecdotally?
  - javert 15y ago
    “Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” -Milton Friedman I just googled "Fixed pie fallacy" - I was assuming (probably wrongly) that most people were familiar with it. I'm not even certain Friedman was the first to identify it. The first thing I come up with on Google is [1]. It's a decent overview. [1] http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2006/12/fixed-pie-fallacy.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2006/12/fixed-pie-fallacy.html
    - davidmathers 15y ago
      Harvard is not fungible.
      - javert 15y ago
        Right, but top-quality education is fungible. Not everybody needs to go to an Ivy League, just like not everybody needs to own a 75-ft yacht. I'm OK with that.
      - chc 15y ago
        If the quality we're interested in is "being Harvard," then no, Harvard is not fungible. But if the quality is "providing a college education," the Harvard is extremely fungible in many cases.
        ap22213 15y ago
        People don't seek Harvard for the education only. They seek it or lots of things: access to wealth, access to knowledge and network, increased status, increased reputation. Otherwise why would there be exceptional demand (and price) for harvard?
    - luciferous 15y ago
      Sure, there's no disputing that the fixed pie fallacy exists, but you have not made a convincing argument that this situation is an instance of the fallacy.
- davidmathers 15y ago
  1. You're attacking a straw man, which actually is a fallacy. 2. Even if the passage you cited were about "getting less in an absolute sense", there's still no fallacy. zafka already pointed this out in his #1 above. What's so hard to comprehend?
  - javert 15y ago
    Please stop.
endtime 15y ago
Inequality is only bad inasmuch as populists use it to rile people up. Let's say I have $100 and you have $50. Then someone gives me another $100 and gives you $5. Inequality has increased, but is the situation worse? Is anyone worse off?
- gridspy 15y ago
  If that happens to everyone in the marketplace, then inflation just occurred. The market had a total of $100 + $50 and now has a total of $150 + $105. The cash in the market increased by 58% so all the price of all goods will also increase by 58%. This means that the money I have is now worth less than before, and I am now poorer than before.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Actually the hypothetical actors will have $200 and $55 respectively. To reinforce your point, if price of goods does go up 58%, the actor that started out with $50 will be 30% poorer in real terms (now having $55 and his $50 basket of goods now costing $79), whereas the actor that started out with $100 will be 26% richer (now having $200 and his $100 basket of goods now costing $158).
  - endtime 15y ago
    Okay, I oversimplified - but you are doing so as well. Societies as a whole can become wealthier over time. The difference between the 90th percentile and the 10th might be higher today than it was 200 years ago, but the 10th percentile today is also probably better off than the 90th 200 years ago in absolute terms. Edit: s/dollars/utilons/g
    - gridspy 15y ago
      Yes, it is true that we are all much better off than we were 200 years ago. This is due to both economic and technical progress. For instance, I can light and heat my house economically. However, the 90th percentile might be even better off today if there was more equality - we could more efficiently share the fruits of our technical progress. PG makes an effective argument that such equality would reduce the benefit and thus the motivation to innovate and create the present level of comfort / economic success : http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html Overall, equality is a complex beast. I think that we need some level of inequality to ensure that there is sufficient motivation to succeed. We also need to do our best to help those who 'fall behind'

by zafka 15y ago

javert 15y ago

But the passage I'm citing isn't about inequality increasing, as you're discussing. It's about people at lower levels getting less, in an absolute sense. Which is a fallacy.

luciferous 15y ago
I'm not sure I see how this is a fallacy. Can you explain even anecdotally?
- javert 15y ago
  “Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” -Milton Friedman I just googled "Fixed pie fallacy" - I was assuming (probably wrongly) that most people were familiar with it. I'm not even certain Friedman was the first to identify it. The first thing I come up with on Google is [1]. It's a decent overview. [1] http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2006/12/fixed-pie-fallacy.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2006/12/fixed-pie-fallacy.html
  - davidmathers 15y ago
    Harvard is not fungible.
    - javert 15y ago
      Right, but top-quality education is fungible. Not everybody needs to go to an Ivy League, just like not everybody needs to own a 75-ft yacht. I'm OK with that.
    - chc 15y ago
      If the quality we're interested in is "being Harvard," then no, Harvard is not fungible. But if the quality is "providing a college education," the Harvard is extremely fungible in many cases.
      - ap22213 15y ago
        People don't seek Harvard for the education only. They seek it or lots of things: access to wealth, access to knowledge and network, increased status, increased reputation. Otherwise why would there be exceptional demand (and price) for harvard?
  - luciferous 15y ago
    Sure, there's no disputing that the fixed pie fallacy exists, but you have not made a convincing argument that this situation is an instance of the fallacy.
davidmathers 15y ago
1. You're attacking a straw man, which actually is a fallacy. 2. Even if the passage you cited were about "getting less in an absolute sense", there's still no fallacy. zafka already pointed this out in his #1 above. What's so hard to comprehend?
- javert 15y ago
  Please stop.

endtime 15y ago

Inequality is only bad inasmuch as populists use it to rile people up. Let's say I have $100 and you have $50. Then someone gives me another $100 and gives you $5. Inequality has increased, but is the situation worse? Is anyone worse off?

gridspy 15y ago
If that happens to everyone in the marketplace, then inflation just occurred. The market had a total of $100 + $50 and now has a total of $150 + $105. The cash in the market increased by 58% so all the price of all goods will also increase by 58%. This means that the money I have is now worth less than before, and I am now poorer than before.
- jarek 15y ago
  Actually the hypothetical actors will have $200 and $55 respectively. To reinforce your point, if price of goods does go up 58%, the actor that started out with $50 will be 30% poorer in real terms (now having $55 and his $50 basket of goods now costing $79), whereas the actor that started out with $100 will be 26% richer (now having $200 and his $100 basket of goods now costing $158).
- endtime 15y ago
  Okay, I oversimplified - but you are doing so as well. Societies as a whole can become wealthier over time. The difference between the 90th percentile and the 10th might be higher today than it was 200 years ago, but the 10th percentile today is also probably better off than the 90th 200 years ago in absolute terms. Edit: s/dollars/utilons/g
  - gridspy 15y ago
    Yes, it is true that we are all much better off than we were 200 years ago. This is due to both economic and technical progress. For instance, I can light and heat my house economically. However, the 90th percentile might be even better off today if there was more equality - we could more efficiently share the fruits of our technical progress. PG makes an effective argument that such equality would reduce the benefit and thus the motivation to innovate and create the present level of comfort / economic success : http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html Overall, equality is a complex beast. I think that we need some level of inequality to ensure that there is sufficient motivation to succeed. We also need to do our best to help those who 'fall behind'