5 ms·

We are dealing with millions here. To move the needle for 297 million people, the other 33 million have to do a lot. Assume the 297 million people all make $10

by bena 4y ago

We are dealing with millions here. To move the needle for 297 million people, the other 33 million have to do a lot. Assume the 297 million people all make $100k. That's $29.7 million. Now have the 33 million make an even $1 million. That's $33 million. That's 10% of the population making over 50% of the income. Altogether, that's $30.7 million income across 330 million people. Or about $190k per year. Yes, that's almost double what the 297 makes, but it's far closer to them than to the 33 million. > If a government regulation benefits Bill Gates $10 billion and every single American $20 I think he meant to say "costs every single American $20", because otherwise, it's technically an ok deal if it benefits everyone even if it benefits one person a whole bunch. And his following statements seem to indicate we should be subtracting $6bn from $10bn. And I also have a problem with the hypothetical. It's set up in a way to give only one outcome. He couldn't even make it $40 dollars, because then it's $12bn to $10bn. And he has to work with billions because 300 million people are a fucking lot. But arguing about whether we should be measuring averages one way or the other is kind of missing the real point. Are the people taking the bulk of the income deserving of that income? For the most part, the people taking the lion's share of the income are only doing so because they have put themselves in the position to determine how the profits of an enterprise are allotted. And it's clear that they are not allotting the profits based on the value the employees are bringing to the company.

chii 4y ago
> Are the people taking the bulk of the income deserving of that income? they deserve what they can get, as long as it is legal and above board (aka, no bribery, corruption etc). There's some level of morality being assigned to the idea of "deserve". I dont believe such morals exist, and that it stems from jealousy. > And it's clear that they are not allotting the profits based on the value the employees are bringing to the company. i dont think it's as clear as you make it out to be.
- bena 4y ago
  They don't necessarily deserve it. If I control how an asset is allocated due to some arbitrary event, it does not follow that I deserve whatever I've allotted to myself. It can be "legal and above board" and still be unjust. Because the laws and boards can be constructed to allow what I'm doing. Also, define bribe. Define corruption. If my best friend is a lawmaker and I spend every weekend with them and I manage to persuade them due partly to the amount of time I get to push my point view, is that corruption? Is it corruption if I become friends with him solely because he's a lawmaker? If I didn't know before I became friends. If we were friends before? Why are any of these different, if any? I like how you say it's not clear that they aren't allocating profits based on the value, but somehow it's very clear they deserve it, what corruption is, and what bribery is. No. The only thing that is not clear is that maybe they don't deserve the sheer amount of wealth they've extracted from everyone else.
  - chii 4y ago
    > If I control how an asset is allocated due to some arbitrary event, it does not follow that I deserve whatever I've allotted to myself. i take issue with the idea that an "arbitrary event" is the reason why such an allotment is considered undeserved. This isn't any different than a lottery winner being considered undeserving of their winnings. If one traces far back enough, you could argue that the current western country's wealth is undeserved, because way far back, an "arbitrary event" (aka, conquest and dominion) gave them the kick-start that nobody else got. I would instead argue that no event is arbitrary - the lottery winner chose to make their bet, the lobbyist deliberately attempt to influence the law to their favour, etc. If such actions are not considered illegal by the laws of society at the time, then it is fair game. The good thing about western society is that laws aren't set by a dictator, but instead can be changed via some sort of consensus procedure. The only argument i hear that such wealth is undeserved is that "i couldn't have done the same, therefore it must be undeserved".
    - bena 4y ago
      I mean, technically, lottery jackpot winners aren't deserving of the jackpot, no. And I see you're getting it. There's way more luck involved than most people give credit for. It's undeserved not because no one else could have done the same, is that because a lot of people could have done the same given the same circumstances. Take your lottery example. If you buy one ticket, you have one chance. If you buy 50,000 tickets, you have 50,000 tickets. But you first need $100,000 to do that. And the laws aren't being changed by some sort of consensus... of people who already have the most. And they change those laws to ensure they get to keep the most and anyone else who would like to get ahead have a hard time doing that. The large income inequality makes socioeconomic mobility more difficult.
istinetz 4y ago
>Assume the 297 million people all make $100k. That's $29.7 million. Now have the 33 million make an even $1 million. That's $33 million. That's 10% of the population making over 50% of the income. Altogether, that's $30.7 million income across 330 million people. Or about $190k per year. Can you revisit this
- bena 4y ago
  My bad. When I wrote the second number, I just added 1 to 29.7. Should be 62.7 Other than that, it should come out to about $190k

by bena 4y ago

chii 4y ago

> Are the people taking the bulk of the income deserving of that income? they deserve what they can get, as long as it is legal and above board (aka, no bribery, corruption etc). There's some level of morality being assigned to the idea of "deserve". I dont believe such morals exist, and that it stems from jealousy. > And it's clear that they are not allotting the profits based on the value the employees are bringing to the company. i dont think it's as clear as you make it out to be.

bena 4y ago
They don't necessarily deserve it. If I control how an asset is allocated due to some arbitrary event, it does not follow that I deserve whatever I've allotted to myself. It can be "legal and above board" and still be unjust. Because the laws and boards can be constructed to allow what I'm doing. Also, define bribe. Define corruption. If my best friend is a lawmaker and I spend every weekend with them and I manage to persuade them due partly to the amount of time I get to push my point view, is that corruption? Is it corruption if I become friends with him solely because he's a lawmaker? If I didn't know before I became friends. If we were friends before? Why are any of these different, if any? I like how you say it's not clear that they aren't allocating profits based on the value, but somehow it's very clear they deserve it, what corruption is, and what bribery is. No. The only thing that is not clear is that maybe they don't deserve the sheer amount of wealth they've extracted from everyone else.
- chii 4y ago
  > If I control how an asset is allocated due to some arbitrary event, it does not follow that I deserve whatever I've allotted to myself. i take issue with the idea that an "arbitrary event" is the reason why such an allotment is considered undeserved. This isn't any different than a lottery winner being considered undeserving of their winnings. If one traces far back enough, you could argue that the current western country's wealth is undeserved, because way far back, an "arbitrary event" (aka, conquest and dominion) gave them the kick-start that nobody else got. I would instead argue that no event is arbitrary - the lottery winner chose to make their bet, the lobbyist deliberately attempt to influence the law to their favour, etc. If such actions are not considered illegal by the laws of society at the time, then it is fair game. The good thing about western society is that laws aren't set by a dictator, but instead can be changed via some sort of consensus procedure. The only argument i hear that such wealth is undeserved is that "i couldn't have done the same, therefore it must be undeserved".
  - bena 4y ago
    I mean, technically, lottery jackpot winners aren't deserving of the jackpot, no. And I see you're getting it. There's way more luck involved than most people give credit for. It's undeserved not because no one else could have done the same, is that because a lot of people could have done the same given the same circumstances. Take your lottery example. If you buy one ticket, you have one chance. If you buy 50,000 tickets, you have 50,000 tickets. But you first need $100,000 to do that. And the laws aren't being changed by some sort of consensus... of people who already have the most. And they change those laws to ensure they get to keep the most and anyone else who would like to get ahead have a hard time doing that. The large income inequality makes socioeconomic mobility more difficult.

istinetz 4y ago

>Assume the 297 million people all make $100k. That's $29.7 million. Now have the 33 million make an even $1 million. That's $33 million. That's 10% of the population making over 50% of the income. Altogether, that's $30.7 million income across 330 million people. Or about $190k per year. Can you revisit this

bena 4y ago
My bad. When I wrote the second number, I just added 1 to 29.7. Should be 62.7 Other than that, it should come out to about $190k