5 ms·

Comparing absolute numbers for income is a bit of a fool's errands, even when you use PPP. The philosopher John Rawls has a famous thought experiment of choosi

Comparing absolute numbers for income is a bit of a fool's errands, even when you use PPP. The philosopher John Rawls has a famous thought experiment of choosing a form of social and economic organization without knowing where you personally might end up on whatever heirarchy it generates or contains. Rawls' point was that in such circumstances, most even semi-rational people will choose the one that makes it the most likely that they will not end up in a non-disadvantaged position, which is the fundamental concept behind an egalitarian to oppurtunity and inequality. Given that, faced with a choice between: 1) a society that carries out substantive income/wealth redistribution so that few people (if anyone) has issues with a broad set of "basic" needs 2) a society that offers limited substantive income/wealth redistribution in the name of "high rewards for high achievement" or something similar most people in Rawls thought experiment will choose the former. You only choose (2) when you have reason to believe you will be a high achiever, which in a truly meritocratic society, you cannot know in advance. So, the US is a society in which median (PPP) income is highest, but low income redistribution ensures that large numbers of people struggle to enjoy the things that US society considers "normal". By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. Rawls would maintain that a rational person with a belief in justice would always pick (1), and that only irrationality or some (unfounded) conviction of one's own certainty of outsize success would lead someone to pick (2).

rank0 3y ago
I appreciate the response! > By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. The idea that EU citizens do not face poverty is simply false. The EU sheltered homelessness rate is very close to the US, both under 0.2% which is phenomenal honestly… Poverty rate statistics are quite tricky to decipher. But all the data I can find says that there isn’t an outsized difference between the regions. Rates in US states vary as much as EU member countries with plenty of states from both regions exceeding or below US/EU averages. I’m not trying to be a blind patriot stereotype or even claim that the US is “better” than other portions of the world. My only point is that objectively speaking, living standards in America are PHENOMENAL. We should not “redistribute wealth like other western nations” because I can’t think of any G20 nations that have a clearly preferable economic system. Also to your point about Rawls, if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work. We’ve witnessed this countless times over the past century in all the failed socialist/communist societies. In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations! Nobody is going to work for free. The US spends more money than any other nation on social welfare programs. It’s inefficient and unsustainable. How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now? If you can think of a particular nation’s system we should emulate I’d love to hear the argument with an open mind. I honest to god cannot think of any.
- jinjin2 3y ago
  How about Denmark? Seems like a smooth running country. Hardly any national debt. Free healthcare and education for all. Consistently rated as one of the happiest countries on earth.
  - rank0 3y ago
    I don’t know much about Denmark but it sounds like a great place! I’d be concerned that policy in Denmark wouldn’t work in the US due to the enormous differences in size, culture, geography, etc. That’s why I think it really only makes sense to compare G20 countries or entire regions like US:EU
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Do you think that Delaware or Wyoming's economic systems are substantively different from those of the USA as a whole? Obviously, the specific industries/service sectors of these states are quite different from one another, and from other states, but they represent applications of "the American way" to very small populations (1M and 600k respectively, massively smaller than Denmark). The Danish way of things is clearly an entirely adequate model for populations of up to 5M or so. Claims about culture, geography are red herrings (they are almost always overstated, and sometimes just outright lied about). Whether it can scale to, say, 40M larger (as in our biggest states) is a valid question, but given the much greatest similarity between Denmark and Germany than Denmark and anywhere in the USA, despite Germany's 84M population, I'd suggest the burden of proof there is on those who say it can't scale. Of course, the Nordic social democracies do have their own problems, and there's no shortage of people from those nations who will fill your ear with complaints. Some of them deserve to be listened to, but if you think that society is better when modelled around collective self-improvement, broad social interdependence, and a general sense of shared responsibility for everyone's welfare, they are mostly noise.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  "sheltered homelessness" is an important metric, but it's not the one I would to differentiate between levels of income/wealth redistribution, precisely because it affects such a small part of the population. the metric(s) I would use need to be ones that are meaningful (and meaningfully different) for more substantial parts of the population. So, some suggestions could be: * medical care induced bankruptcy * personal bankruptcy in general * percentage of income spent on housing costs * disposable income after housing, health care, education and transportation costs * some measure of "timely" access to medical care * inter-generational economic mobility There are certainly issues within the EU with any and all of these (worse in some places than in others), but overall my understanding is that the US generally does worse on all of them. I am originally from the UK, and I would argue that while there are aspects of quality of life here in the USA that are vastly better than the UK or the EU, most of those things are primarily the domain of those who make median or above median income. I certainly don't think that the economic system in the USA is better than those found in the EU, even though there are some metrics where you might make that case. But mostly what the USA has a lot of that the EU has much less of is economic churn - businesses constantly starting and almost all of them failing, followed by more businesses starting etc. This gives the impression of very prosperous, active economy, but I would question whether we really do much better out of this model than the EU does with their much less entrepeneurial systems. > if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work The people who earn the most in our system are not the people who do difficult or unpleasant work, and it just seems preposterous to me to suggest that there is a link here. > In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations! This is not an example of what I think you're claiming it is an example of. Defaulting on pension obligations is about a failure to honor past labor contracts, not income/wealth redistribution. > How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now? Same way we can afford a war whenever "we decide" to fight one. Same way we can "choose" to spend more than the next 10 top military spenders combined. We are a rich country, and we could choose to place substantially more emphasis on the quality of life of all our people. But we "choose" to do otherwise.

rank0 3y ago

I appreciate the response! > By contrast, social democratic societies in Europe have lower median (PPP) income, but higher income redistribution means that far fewer people face such struggles. The idea that EU citizens do not face poverty is simply false. The EU sheltered homelessness rate is very close to the US, both under 0.2% which is phenomenal honestly… Poverty rate statistics are quite tricky to decipher. But all the data I can find says that there isn’t an outsized difference between the regions. Rates in US states vary as much as EU member countries with plenty of states from both regions exceeding or below US/EU averages. I’m not trying to be a blind patriot stereotype or even claim that the US is “better” than other portions of the world. My only point is that objectively speaking, living standards in America are PHENOMENAL. We should not “redistribute wealth like other western nations” because I can’t think of any G20 nations that have a clearly preferable economic system. Also to your point about Rawls, if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work. We’ve witnessed this countless times over the past century in all the failed socialist/communist societies. In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations! Nobody is going to work for free. The US spends more money than any other nation on social welfare programs. It’s inefficient and unsustainable. How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now? If you can think of a particular nation’s system we should emulate I’d love to hear the argument with an open mind. I honest to god cannot think of any.

jinjin2 3y ago
How about Denmark? Seems like a smooth running country. Hardly any national debt. Free healthcare and education for all. Consistently rated as one of the happiest countries on earth.
- rank0 3y ago
  I don’t know much about Denmark but it sounds like a great place! I’d be concerned that policy in Denmark wouldn’t work in the US due to the enormous differences in size, culture, geography, etc. That’s why I think it really only makes sense to compare G20 countries or entire regions like US:EU
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Do you think that Delaware or Wyoming's economic systems are substantively different from those of the USA as a whole? Obviously, the specific industries/service sectors of these states are quite different from one another, and from other states, but they represent applications of "the American way" to very small populations (1M and 600k respectively, massively smaller than Denmark). The Danish way of things is clearly an entirely adequate model for populations of up to 5M or so. Claims about culture, geography are red herrings (they are almost always overstated, and sometimes just outright lied about). Whether it can scale to, say, 40M larger (as in our biggest states) is a valid question, but given the much greatest similarity between Denmark and Germany than Denmark and anywhere in the USA, despite Germany's 84M population, I'd suggest the burden of proof there is on those who say it can't scale. Of course, the Nordic social democracies do have their own problems, and there's no shortage of people from those nations who will fill your ear with complaints. Some of them deserve to be listened to, but if you think that society is better when modelled around collective self-improvement, broad social interdependence, and a general sense of shared responsibility for everyone's welfare, they are mostly noise.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
"sheltered homelessness" is an important metric, but it's not the one I would to differentiate between levels of income/wealth redistribution, precisely because it affects such a small part of the population. the metric(s) I would use need to be ones that are meaningful (and meaningfully different) for more substantial parts of the population. So, some suggestions could be: * medical care induced bankruptcy * personal bankruptcy in general * percentage of income spent on housing costs * disposable income after housing, health care, education and transportation costs * some measure of "timely" access to medical care * inter-generational economic mobility There are certainly issues within the EU with any and all of these (worse in some places than in others), but overall my understanding is that the US generally does worse on all of them. I am originally from the UK, and I would argue that while there are aspects of quality of life here in the USA that are vastly better than the UK or the EU, most of those things are primarily the domain of those who make median or above median income. I certainly don't think that the economic system in the USA is better than those found in the EU, even though there are some metrics where you might make that case. But mostly what the USA has a lot of that the EU has much less of is economic churn - businesses constantly starting and almost all of them failing, followed by more businesses starting etc. This gives the impression of very prosperous, active economy, but I would question whether we really do much better out of this model than the EU does with their much less entrepeneurial systems. > if you go too far with redistribution you remove the incentive for people to do difficult or unpleasant work The people who earn the most in our system are not the people who do difficult or unpleasant work, and it just seems preposterous to me to suggest that there is a link here. > In a less extreme example we just witnessed France default on its pension obligations! This is not an example of what I think you're claiming it is an example of. Defaulting on pension obligations is about a failure to honor past labor contracts, not income/wealth redistribution. > How can we honestly consider expanding wealth distribution programs when we can’t even afford what we have now? Same way we can afford a war whenever "we decide" to fight one. Same way we can "choose" to spend more than the next 10 top military spenders combined. We are a rich country, and we could choose to place substantially more emphasis on the quality of life of all our people. But we "choose" to do otherwise.