5 ms·

I can get behind celebrating ambition, but only if it doesn't as a side effect involve widening wage inequality in the society.

tdehnel 4y ago
Oh stop it. Every time we make progress there will be some unequal effect. Some people will benefit and others will lose out. We should do our best to balance the trade offs, but to say someone shouldn’t be ambitious if there is some unequal effect is preposterous and pessimistic.
CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's response to this: "He'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less rich."[1] Every ethical dollar earned is a byproduct of value creation. Maybe you meant something more like "as long as he's not ripping off his customers," but otherwise that's an odd thing to say in response to someone who makes good money but is still looking for side jobs. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&t=48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&t=48s
- cardanome 4y ago
  - scatters 4y ago
    > artificially increasing supply of labor Say's Law: supply creates its own demand. Or in this specific case, this is the lump-of-labor fallacy. Perhaps if the left had some basic understanding of economics past Marx, they wouldn't be blinded by their comically unreasoning hatred of Thatcher.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
    Did you unironically make an ad hominem? Well it sounds like you got it figured out what's best for everyone's health, ethics, and economics. Thankfully we have wise people to tell us what we can and can't work on...
impossiblefork 4y ago
Why does wage inequality matter? Inequality isn't strongly driven by wages, but is by capital income. Personally, the way I see it, the more money goes to wages, the better, and if that's because some guy is earning millions a year, I still think it's good. Income from people starting new companies, that's fine too. What's bad is rent extraction, ossification, monopolies and private institutions that have power over people.

tdehnel 4y ago

Oh stop it. Every time we make progress there will be some unequal effect. Some people will benefit and others will lose out. We should do our best to balance the trade offs, but to say someone shouldn’t be ambitious if there is some unequal effect is preposterous and pessimistic.

CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago

I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's response to this: "He'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less rich."[1] Every ethical dollar earned is a byproduct of value creation. Maybe you meant something more like "as long as he's not ripping off his customers," but otherwise that's an odd thing to say in response to someone who makes good money but is still looking for side jobs. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&t=48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&t=48s

cardanome 4y ago
- scatters 4y ago
  > artificially increasing supply of labor Say's Law: supply creates its own demand. Or in this specific case, this is the lump-of-labor fallacy. Perhaps if the left had some basic understanding of economics past Marx, they wouldn't be blinded by their comically unreasoning hatred of Thatcher.
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
  Did you unironically make an ad hominem? Well it sounds like you got it figured out what's best for everyone's health, ethics, and economics. Thankfully we have wise people to tell us what we can and can't work on...

impossiblefork 4y ago

Why does wage inequality matter? Inequality isn't strongly driven by wages, but is by capital income. Personally, the way I see it, the more money goes to wages, the better, and if that's because some guy is earning millions a year, I still think it's good. Income from people starting new companies, that's fine too. What's bad is rent extraction, ossification, monopolies and private institutions that have power over people.