4 ms·

> If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without ha

by csa 4y ago

> If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything? This assumes zero-sum. Many issues are not zero-sum issues.

endisneigh 4y ago
All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described?
- csa 4y ago
  > All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described? Nice move adding “short term” in there. The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). A classic example of this is growing (or shrinking) the middle class. The US did a fairly good job of this in the 20th century. The pie got bigger and the rich got richer on an absolute level. A counter example is Japan in the recent “lost decades”. The haves basically stuck it to the youth and the have nots, and they have created quite a predicament for themselves. A once vibrant economy with a high velocity of money is a shadow of its former self. So many groups turtles down and said “I got mine”, and basically was content letting the pie shrink.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    > The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). Sure, but we're talking about the study linked, which is about perception and consequently relative status.
    - csa 4y ago
      You keep moving the target… I think if you try, you can probably come up with similar examples that meet any criteria you want to change or add.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Did you not read the study? lol
        csa 4y ago
        > Did you not read the study? lol I actually did read the study. Not only that, but I’ve done research on this topic. You started off with a broad question that I thought was worth answering. In general, many (most?) people fairly actively do not try to make the pie bigger via their actions, even if their words say otherwise. In my opinion, encouraging people to make the pie bigger via their actions is a task worth taking, and this expands beyond the specific topic of social standing. I addressed your abstract question that applies to many contexts with an answer that also applies to many contexts (but with a concrete contextual example… as examples often are). I try not to engage in the HN game of moving the target and/or whataboutism, but sometimes the topic warrants making statements for others to read. This thread is one of those times. Anyway, best of luck moving forward.
epicureanideal 4y ago
But the issue in the article seems to be zero sum.
drewcoo 4y ago
This isn't about "many issues." This is about relative social standing. Which is zero sum.
- convolvatron 4y ago
  social standing is even less zero sum than capital. if I choose to respect you, that doesn't mean I have to kick the next person I see in the groin. edit: sorry, now I see. how can you lord your wealth over the peasants if they are as rich as you? why should we as a society care how much you get you put yourself above others for no good reason?
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    That's not what relative social standing means.
    - kwhitefoot 4y ago
      Perhaps you could clear up the problem b y defining it for us so that we have a clear target to aim at.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        The classic terms are sufficient. Upper, middle and lower class are all inherently relative terms. Everyone cannot be "upper class," or middle, or lower.
        kwhitefoot 4y ago
        The terms might be classic (whatever that means) but the meaning varies from place to place and time to time. Class in the UK does not necessarily have the same meaning as in the US for instance.

by csa 4y ago

endisneigh 4y ago

All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described?

csa 4y ago
> All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described? Nice move adding “short term” in there. The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). A classic example of this is growing (or shrinking) the middle class. The US did a fairly good job of this in the 20th century. The pie got bigger and the rich got richer on an absolute level. A counter example is Japan in the recent “lost decades”. The haves basically stuck it to the youth and the have nots, and they have created quite a predicament for themselves. A once vibrant economy with a high velocity of money is a shadow of its former self. So many groups turtles down and said “I got mine”, and basically was content letting the pie shrink.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  > The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95). Sure, but we're talking about the study linked, which is about perception and consequently relative status.
  - csa 4y ago
    You keep moving the target… I think if you try, you can probably come up with similar examples that meet any criteria you want to change or add.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Did you not read the study? lol
      - csa 4y ago
        > Did you not read the study? lol I actually did read the study. Not only that, but I’ve done research on this topic. You started off with a broad question that I thought was worth answering. In general, many (most?) people fairly actively do not try to make the pie bigger via their actions, even if their words say otherwise. In my opinion, encouraging people to make the pie bigger via their actions is a task worth taking, and this expands beyond the specific topic of social standing. I addressed your abstract question that applies to many contexts with an answer that also applies to many contexts (but with a concrete contextual example… as examples often are). I try not to engage in the HN game of moving the target and/or whataboutism, but sometimes the topic warrants making statements for others to read. This thread is one of those times. Anyway, best of luck moving forward.

epicureanideal 4y ago

But the issue in the article seems to be zero sum.

drewcoo 4y ago

This isn't about "many issues." This is about relative social standing. Which is zero sum.

convolvatron 4y ago
social standing is even less zero sum than capital. if I choose to respect you, that doesn't mean I have to kick the next person I see in the groin. edit: sorry, now I see. how can you lord your wealth over the peasants if they are as rich as you? why should we as a society care how much you get you put yourself above others for no good reason?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  That's not what relative social standing means.
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    Perhaps you could clear up the problem b y defining it for us so that we have a clear target to aim at.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      The classic terms are sufficient. Upper, middle and lower class are all inherently relative terms. Everyone cannot be "upper class," or middle, or lower.
      - kwhitefoot 4y ago
        The terms might be classic (whatever that means) but the meaning varies from place to place and time to time. Class in the UK does not necessarily have the same meaning as in the US for instance.