3 ms·

> This continues a common but remarkably greedy line of thought where the existence of someone, somewhere, with a billion dollars suddenly robs life of all joy

by lapcat 3y ago

> This continues a common but remarkably greedy line of thought where the existence of someone, somewhere, with a billion dollars suddenly robs life of all joy for everyone else. This is missing the point. It's not the "mere existence" of the ultra-wealthy, it's that the ultra-wealthy have increasingly been taking all of the economic gains in society. For example: "while the top 10 per cent grew its share of total income by 7.6 per cent between 1980 and 2018 (from 28.5 per cent to 36.1 per cent), the top 1 per cent grew theirs by 6.3 per cent (from 6.8 per cent to 13.1 per cent), which leaves only 1.3 per cent of share growth for the rest of the top 10 per cent." > The focus really should be on absolute living standards and how to raise them. That is the focus on the article. The point was that the top 10% are not necessarily raising their absolute living standards, because most of the income gains are going to the top 1%, inflation is rising, housing prices are rising, student loan debt is rising, existence in the top 10% is often only temporary and precarious (think layoffs and other economic trends), and as the article says, "The children of high earners will increasingly see their position depend on, as Maren Toft and Sam Friedman put it, the “bank of mum and dad”, and on what they inherit, rather than only on their professional status." Someone can easily fall out of the top 10%. It's a lot more difficult to fall out of the top 1% and back into the working class. Wealth begets wealth.

roenxi 3y ago
> the ultra-wealthy have increasingly been taking all of the economic gains in society What, do only the ultra-wealthy have smartphones? High level the big issue is overpopulation. At the pointy end of the stick we have the crusade against cheap energy. You can blame the outcomes on the ultra-wealthy looking after themselves, but fact is that most of the damage was done by policies people were out there vocally supporting. Picking the ultra-wealthy as a bogyman isn't going to fix things. The ultra-wealthy don't have huge storehouses of food to feed the hungry. They don't have 10 years supply of cheap gas for everyone. They can't magic cheap goods out of the air without someone else working to build them.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > What, do only the ultra-wealthy have smartphones? Everybody seems to cite smartphones as raising our standard of living, but as someone who lived a long time before smartphones existed, I'm not seeing it. In fact, I would argue that smartphones have overall made us worse off. We're like slaves to those little devices, unable to put them away, always with our heads down in subservience. > fact is that most of the damage was done by policies people were out there vocally supporting. Agreed. I wasn't "blaming" the ultra-wealthy, and neither was the linked article. It's merely an empirical observation that the system isn't benefitting most people. And the article discusses what to do: "High earners have two options. The first is to stockpile every possible advantage for themselves and their children. The second is to contribute to a common safety net that benefits everyone. While the latter looks highly unlikely in the current political climate, high earners won’t be able to isolate themselves from mounting inequality for much longer." Obviously, the authors favor the latter option: "Making our social services – our schools, housing and health – more efficient and equitable will help all of us through predictable and unpredictable phases of our life and in turn prevent inequality from continuing to exert such a huge drag on our productivity and well-being."
  - batshibstein 3y ago
    The point isn't really whether its a net benefit or not, the point it's a "luxury" of tens to several hundred dollars per month that is almost universal at this point that is not really comparable to any other discretionary purchase historically.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Is it a luxury though? Almost everyone needs a phone, and many businesses and other organizations basically assume that you have a smartphone nowadays, or at least have internet access, and a smartphone is one of the cheaper ways of accessing the internet, especially if you need a phone already. A smartphone is not an absolute requirement in life, but what is? Food and water. Other than that, not much. After all, there are homeless people. But we wouldn't say that a home is a "luxury item" or "discretionary purchase".
closewith 3y ago
The comment you replied to is so tone deaf that I wonder if they're trolling.
- lapcat 3y ago
  I wish that were the case, but we wouldn't have such a problem with inequality if the only defenders of the system were trolls.
- roenxi 3y ago
  But, putting aside your tone policing, do you see any flaws in the argument? Pretend Elon Musk disappeared and you got your $8 allocation from his fortune ($180 billion over 8 billion humans), would that really make a difference to your life? Even for people living in complete poverty where $8 might be more money that they see in a year it is still a pitiful amount of real resources. As a one-off payment. The existence of very wealthy people really isn't the thing holding back median living standards.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > The existence of very wealthy people really isn't the thing holding back median living standards. What you're missing here is the power and political influence of the ultra-wealthy. They aren't just passive participants in the system. Rather, they actively shape the system to suit themselves. They can buy politicians. Or as you said yourself, "the ultra wealthy buy up a few media firms and then gently redirect all the anger towards the middle class and/or stirs up social issues." You mentioned Musk: he bought up Twitter, the influential social network, and has turned it into his own political propaganda machine.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      I put it to you that not only did I hit that point, but you just quoted the part where I explained that very thing. You're citing my words to make a point that I was also making.
      - 3y ago

by lapcat 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

> the ultra-wealthy have increasingly been taking all of the economic gains in society What, do only the ultra-wealthy have smartphones? High level the big issue is overpopulation. At the pointy end of the stick we have the crusade against cheap energy. You can blame the outcomes on the ultra-wealthy looking after themselves, but fact is that most of the damage was done by policies people were out there vocally supporting. Picking the ultra-wealthy as a bogyman isn't going to fix things. The ultra-wealthy don't have huge storehouses of food to feed the hungry. They don't have 10 years supply of cheap gas for everyone. They can't magic cheap goods out of the air without someone else working to build them.

lapcat 3y ago
> What, do only the ultra-wealthy have smartphones? Everybody seems to cite smartphones as raising our standard of living, but as someone who lived a long time before smartphones existed, I'm not seeing it. In fact, I would argue that smartphones have overall made us worse off. We're like slaves to those little devices, unable to put them away, always with our heads down in subservience. > fact is that most of the damage was done by policies people were out there vocally supporting. Agreed. I wasn't "blaming" the ultra-wealthy, and neither was the linked article. It's merely an empirical observation that the system isn't benefitting most people. And the article discusses what to do: "High earners have two options. The first is to stockpile every possible advantage for themselves and their children. The second is to contribute to a common safety net that benefits everyone. While the latter looks highly unlikely in the current political climate, high earners won’t be able to isolate themselves from mounting inequality for much longer." Obviously, the authors favor the latter option: "Making our social services – our schools, housing and health – more efficient and equitable will help all of us through predictable and unpredictable phases of our life and in turn prevent inequality from continuing to exert such a huge drag on our productivity and well-being."
- batshibstein 3y ago
  The point isn't really whether its a net benefit or not, the point it's a "luxury" of tens to several hundred dollars per month that is almost universal at this point that is not really comparable to any other discretionary purchase historically.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Is it a luxury though? Almost everyone needs a phone, and many businesses and other organizations basically assume that you have a smartphone nowadays, or at least have internet access, and a smartphone is one of the cheaper ways of accessing the internet, especially if you need a phone already. A smartphone is not an absolute requirement in life, but what is? Food and water. Other than that, not much. After all, there are homeless people. But we wouldn't say that a home is a "luxury item" or "discretionary purchase".

closewith 3y ago

The comment you replied to is so tone deaf that I wonder if they're trolling.

lapcat 3y ago
I wish that were the case, but we wouldn't have such a problem with inequality if the only defenders of the system were trolls.
roenxi 3y ago
But, putting aside your tone policing, do you see any flaws in the argument? Pretend Elon Musk disappeared and you got your $8 allocation from his fortune ($180 billion over 8 billion humans), would that really make a difference to your life? Even for people living in complete poverty where $8 might be more money that they see in a year it is still a pitiful amount of real resources. As a one-off payment. The existence of very wealthy people really isn't the thing holding back median living standards.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The existence of very wealthy people really isn't the thing holding back median living standards. What you're missing here is the power and political influence of the ultra-wealthy. They aren't just passive participants in the system. Rather, they actively shape the system to suit themselves. They can buy politicians. Or as you said yourself, "the ultra wealthy buy up a few media firms and then gently redirect all the anger towards the middle class and/or stirs up social issues." You mentioned Musk: he bought up Twitter, the influential social network, and has turned it into his own political propaganda machine.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    I put it to you that not only did I hit that point, but you just quoted the part where I explained that very thing. You're citing my words to make a point that I was also making.
    - 3y ago