5 ms·

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. Tha

by mannyv 4y ago

What does inequality mean in this context? The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. That is the easy way to reduce inequality/ What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. The real questions is the vast majority feel better off? In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They have increased absolute inequaliry and increased equality at the same time. In fact, inequality as a concept is a ridiculous measure. What does equality in that context even mean? That everyone should make the same amount, no matter the ability or position? 90% of humanity would vehemently disagree with that. In fact, people try to flee countries who implement that sort of resource allocation.

bombolo 4y ago
So you are saying there is nothing wrong with a country where a few own everything and everyone else doesn't even have access to healthcare? > In fact, people try to flee countries who implement that sort of resource allocation. Yes, rich people, lol. People who GET access to things like housing and healthcare remain.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  I feel like you are mischarecterizing OPs argument. His argument is that rather than focus on inequality we should focus on increasing everyone's standard of living overall.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
    > > we should focus on increasing everyone's standard of living overall The most important quality of life metric is mental health. There is no way around the fact that mental health is heavily impacted by the fact that citizens feel worthless when they assess their social status vis-a-vis the top 1% And no amount of stuff will solve this problem because social status is a zero-sum game. It's one of those problems that simply cannot be solved.
    - flanflan 4y ago
      i dont think people revolt because they feel bad when they compare themselves to the 1%. People revolt because they have nothing to lose. Their material conditions are the most important thing in this equation. I'm sure that a populace can tolerate inequality to a point (look at the inequality in the US and Europe, for example) but once a large enough slice of the population has nothing to lose then it's choppy boy time.
      - JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
        You are right, but it’s desirable to prevent suicides and mass depression just as much as it’s desirable to prevent revolts. Revolts spark because people have nothing to lose Mass depression, bad mental health on a country level and suicides happen when people feel worthless
throw0101c 4y ago
> What does inequality mean in this context? Everything going to the top, and nothing going to those on the bottom. > The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. Seems like your examples also have things going to the people at the top. A comment from a few years ago that I saved: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. > However, we also suppose that some level of inequality can lead to greater productivity, and thus greater utility overall. The question is then what level produces the best outcome? […] * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342
- gfdsgfsdgfdsg 4y ago
  Why aren't poor Americans immigrating elsewhere if they have "nothing"? The poor in other countries are risking their lives to come to America.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > "nothing" * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proverbial https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proverbial * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literal https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literal
sopooneo 4y ago
I think your point about "feel better off" is critical, but I wonder if that stems more from comparison across generations or across the current population.
Devasta 4y ago
There are some things, like political campaigns, where absolute inequality does matter. One man one vote may be true in theory, but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth.
- Closi 4y ago
  Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules/influence in a system which has wealthy people? Personally I think lower inequality in our society would be a good thing - but also with political influence there are more direct faults/solutions.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules? In the US those are intertwined: > The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC More speech for the rich.
    - gfdsgfsdgfdsg 4y ago
      The New York Times is funded by the rich. Should their speech be restricted too?
      - throw0101c 4y ago
        In the context elections and political sway, if you want to be closer to one-person-one-vote, then the New York Times would be restricted when it comes to elections so they do not have more sway than a random blogger.
    - Closi 4y ago
      What I mean is that they are only intertwined because of that campaign financing rule - they aren't inherently intertwined. And the more obvious and immediate solution (to me) is to change that rule and stop them from being intertwined rather than to somehow fix all wealth inequality. As an absurd example, let's say I made a law that said that people with brown eyes can slap people with blue eyes. In this world, slapping people and eye-colour would be intertwined. This doesn't mean it's inherently a problem with brown eyes, or that eye colour and slapping are inherently intertwined. The obvious fix for this would be to change the rule rather than to change everyone's eye colours. As in the US wealth and political donations are linked, the initial problem is that those two are linked together. There is nothing inherent that says you need to reduce income inequality to reduce the impact of wealth on politics - i.e. you can reduce the impact by changing legislation so the two aren't intertwined.
JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
> > What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. 1) It's always paternalistic to try and explain to people how they should feel, especially when the social group in question is 55-60% of a country of 330M, it's not a matter of being right or wrong. It's a matter of Tilting at the windmills vs. not Tilting at the windmills. 2) It's impossible to solve inequality because every complex system is a Pareto system, however Pareto says nothing about the speed of the turnover of the top 20%.
indiogrindio 4y ago
> 90% of humanity would vehemently disagree with that. > The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west > In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They have increased absolute inequaliry and increased equality at the same time. Sources? Do you have any data or metrics available for your claims (outside of Facebook memes)?
- surement 4y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/size-poverty-gap-countries?tab=chart&country=CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/size-poverty-gap-countrie...

by mannyv 4y ago

bombolo 4y ago

So you are saying there is nothing wrong with a country where a few own everything and everyone else doesn't even have access to healthcare? > In fact, people try to flee countries who implement that sort of resource allocation. Yes, rich people, lol. People who GET access to things like housing and healthcare remain.

kneebonian 4y ago
I feel like you are mischarecterizing OPs argument. His argument is that rather than focus on inequality we should focus on increasing everyone's standard of living overall.
- JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
  > > we should focus on increasing everyone's standard of living overall The most important quality of life metric is mental health. There is no way around the fact that mental health is heavily impacted by the fact that citizens feel worthless when they assess their social status vis-a-vis the top 1% And no amount of stuff will solve this problem because social status is a zero-sum game. It's one of those problems that simply cannot be solved.
  - flanflan 4y ago
    i dont think people revolt because they feel bad when they compare themselves to the 1%. People revolt because they have nothing to lose. Their material conditions are the most important thing in this equation. I'm sure that a populace can tolerate inequality to a point (look at the inequality in the US and Europe, for example) but once a large enough slice of the population has nothing to lose then it's choppy boy time.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
      You are right, but it’s desirable to prevent suicides and mass depression just as much as it’s desirable to prevent revolts. Revolts spark because people have nothing to lose Mass depression, bad mental health on a country level and suicides happen when people feel worthless

throw0101c 4y ago

> What does inequality mean in this context? Everything going to the top, and nothing going to those on the bottom. > The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west...by making everyone poor. Seems like your examples also have things going to the people at the top. A comment from a few years ago that I saved: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. > However, we also suppose that some level of inequality can lead to greater productivity, and thus greater utility overall. The question is then what level produces the best outcome? […] * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342

gfdsgfsdgfdsg 4y ago
Why aren't poor Americans immigrating elsewhere if they have "nothing"? The poor in other countries are risking their lives to come to America.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > "nothing" * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proverbial https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proverbial * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literal https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literal

sopooneo 4y ago

I think your point about "feel better off" is critical, but I wonder if that stems more from comparison across generations or across the current population.

Devasta 4y ago

There are some things, like political campaigns, where absolute inequality does matter. One man one vote may be true in theory, but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth.

Closi 4y ago
Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules/influence in a system which has wealthy people? Personally I think lower inequality in our society would be a good thing - but also with political influence there are more direct faults/solutions.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules? In the US those are intertwined: > The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC More speech for the rich.
  - gfdsgfsdgfdsg 4y ago
    The New York Times is funded by the rich. Should their speech be restricted too?
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      In the context elections and political sway, if you want to be closer to one-person-one-vote, then the New York Times would be restricted when it comes to elections so they do not have more sway than a random blogger.
  - Closi 4y ago
    What I mean is that they are only intertwined because of that campaign financing rule - they aren't inherently intertwined. And the more obvious and immediate solution (to me) is to change that rule and stop them from being intertwined rather than to somehow fix all wealth inequality. As an absurd example, let's say I made a law that said that people with brown eyes can slap people with blue eyes. In this world, slapping people and eye-colour would be intertwined. This doesn't mean it's inherently a problem with brown eyes, or that eye colour and slapping are inherently intertwined. The obvious fix for this would be to change the rule rather than to change everyone's eye colours. As in the US wealth and political donations are linked, the initial problem is that those two are linked together. There is nothing inherent that says you need to reduce income inequality to reduce the impact of wealth on politics - i.e. you can reduce the impact by changing legislation so the two aren't intertwined.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago

> > What the left fails to realize is that absolute inequality doesn't matter. 1) It's always paternalistic to try and explain to people how they should feel, especially when the social group in question is 55-60% of a country of 330M, it's not a matter of being right or wrong. It's a matter of Tilting at the windmills vs. not Tilting at the windmills. 2) It's impossible to solve inequality because every complex system is a Pareto system, however Pareto says nothing about the speed of the turnover of the top 20%.

indiogrindio 4y ago

> 90% of humanity would vehemently disagree with that. > The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west > In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They have increased absolute inequaliry and increased equality at the same time. Sources? Do you have any data or metrics available for your claims (outside of Facebook memes)?

surement 4y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/size-poverty-gap-countries?tab=chart&country=CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/size-poverty-gap-countrie...