5 ms·

who cares what percentage of the pie someone has, it matters how big the pie is. Suggesting or alluding to redistribution of wealth will inevitably shrink the o

by viggity 15y ago

who cares what percentage of the pie someone has, it matters how big the pie is. Suggesting or alluding to redistribution of wealth will inevitably shrink the overall size of the pie.

locopati 15y ago
So if a small group of people have all the pie, but that pie is enormous, that's great? Even if you are not in that group and will never have a chance to come near the group, except perhaps, if you're lucky, as a pie server or perhaps one who cleans up after the pie party?
_delirium 15y ago
I think it actually significantly matters at the extremes; having a large proportion of a country's wealth gives you significant relative power in that country's society, and so very clumpy wealth distributions produce more unstable, top-heavy societies and economies. I don't have much problem with moderate or even fairly large levels of inequality, but stuff like a small number of people controlling 20-30% of a country's resources tends to make the whole thing teeter a bit. I disagree with your last statement, and in general think the opposite is true; extremely large concentrations of wealth, of the kind seen in aristocratic or oligarchical societies, tend to shrink the size of the pie. A main question would be where the transition point is; I think the U.S. is probably still on the reasonably-good side of the line, though less comfortably so than it was in the 1950s-80s. There's very little (no?) evidence that modest levels of wealth distribution harm economic growth, either. A Soviet command economy, yes, but a social safety net in a market economy doesn't equal communism, and there's some modest evidence that it can actually improve entrepreneurship (because people end up less scared of leaving cushy corporate jobs).
ClHans 15y ago
One quick aside: all taxes redistribute wealth, and the consequences of doing so are well-known and positive. There's simply nothing wrong with the "redistribution of wealth" as you seem to suggest. Now, onto the larger point. We care because unequal societies have a whole host of social ills: higher crime, lower social mobility, poorer health outcomes. There is, in fact, a wide and deep body of scientific literature about this. You are, of course, free to disagree with the science on income inequality, but that places the burden on you to say, "the science is wrong!", or to say, "high crime and poor health doesn't matter!" Good luck with that.
- ClHans 15y ago
  Downvoted for what? For pointing out that all taxes redistribute wealth, and with this redistributed wealth we buy roads, food safety, police and fire, public education, a largely functioning justice system, and in fact the safety and security of a generally-free market...in another word...civilization? Or downvoted for pointing out that the observable evidence suggests that we, as a society, would be better off in a number of measurable ways (e.g. reduced crime rates, greater social mobility, better overall health), in a society with greater money equality? It may be a challenging idea if all one's ever heard is, "don't take my slice, just grow the pie," but there is, unfortunately, no evidence--historical or contemporary--that "just grow the pie" actually works in the real world.
  - functionoid 15y ago
    Do rich people use more roads, public education, food safety? What is your point in making rich people pay more for these services other than they worked hard for their money and you want to take a free ride?
    - ClHans 15y ago
      Whether rich people use roads, public education, or food safety is beside the point. (And, frankly speaking, I'd venture to guess that rich people do use roads more, because poor people are more likely to ride the bus or walk.) They pay more because, if we taxed everyone at the same rate, we wouldn't have anywhere near enough money we needed to maintain even the somewhat shoddy state of civilization in the country. You may not like the idea that the government has to pay for all of the things it does, and that's a fair response, but it doesn't really address the bigger picture: what kind of quality of life do we want in this country? Just to play into the "low taxes for all" thought experiment, say we slash taxes across the board and have to cut a ton of stuff from our budget. Well, I can think of what I'd cut, and I'm sure you can do the same, and I'd bet there's some overlap, and some contention. But how would these cuts make life harder for your average American (who, mind you, is poor and sick and works their ass off week after week for very little wages)? If we don't care about them--if we throw them to the wolves of fate--is this the kind of country we want to live in, one we will take pride in? How would history view us, at the dawn of the 21st century? And, to be wise students of history, and reflect on how we got here, rather than assume our forebears were idiots who didn't know what they were doing, why do we have the regulations on business that we do? Why do we have food safety? Why do we have regulations on overtime pay? (And whose bright idea was it to exempt IT workers from that?) Why do we have regulations on medicine, or laws that dictate how and where we drive our cars? I'm not trying to ask a bunch of leading questions. I don't have the answers here. I just think it's useful to think more broadly than "a flat tax is a fair tax is a just tax is the right thing to do", both historically and ethically. enjoy,
ArtB 15y ago
My problem is that interpersonal conflicts are strongly effected by wealth. Someone who can afford lots of lawyers have a much greater chance of winning than someone who can barely afford one. Often people settle just to avoid crippling legal costs. Also people with greater wealth can use that money to promote their ideas and persuade other to their positions. They can afford their children much better opportunities. Not to mention that greater wealth disparities encourage keeping-up-with-the-Joneses arms races and other social ills. I honestly suspect that shrinking the pie but making it more evenly distributed would be best for all for the increased social harmony and stability.
- ClHans 15y ago
  You don't need to suspect it. You can read the social science literature and have some confidence that hard-working researchers have confirmed your suspicion. Here's a good place to start: Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction by Wilkerson and Pickett.
  - ClHans 15y ago
    I assume someone downvoted me for the typo (sorry! the name is supposed to be Wilkinson), and not because they find it uncomfortable when science supports ideas that run counter to their own. Here's another good resource, this time from Stanford - http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ enjoy!
Gormo 15y ago
What is this 'pie'? The analogy seems to imply that there's some pre-existing pool of wealth from which people draw shares of varying size, and I'm fairly sure that nothing like this exists in reality. Wealth doesn't originate in some pre-defined aggregation; it's generated by particular people in particular contexts. This concept of different people having different 'shares' of wealth relies on starting with some universal aggregation, and this always seems to be measured by calculating everyone's separate individual income and adding each of these values to into a single sum. But this implicitly acknowledges that wealth doesn't originate in an aggregation, so what's the justification for construing any aggregation at all?

by viggity 15y ago

who cares what percentage of the pie someone has, it matters how big the pie is. Suggesting or alluding to redistribution of wealth will inevitably shrink the overall size of the pie.

locopati 15y ago

So if a small group of people have all the pie, but that pie is enormous, that's great? Even if you are not in that group and will never have a chance to come near the group, except perhaps, if you're lucky, as a pie server or perhaps one who cleans up after the pie party?

_delirium 15y ago

I think it actually significantly matters at the extremes; having a large proportion of a country's wealth gives you significant relative power in that country's society, and so very clumpy wealth distributions produce more unstable, top-heavy societies and economies. I don't have much problem with moderate or even fairly large levels of inequality, but stuff like a small number of people controlling 20-30% of a country's resources tends to make the whole thing teeter a bit. I disagree with your last statement, and in general think the opposite is true; extremely large concentrations of wealth, of the kind seen in aristocratic or oligarchical societies, tend to shrink the size of the pie. A main question would be where the transition point is; I think the U.S. is probably still on the reasonably-good side of the line, though less comfortably so than it was in the 1950s-80s. There's very little (no?) evidence that modest levels of wealth distribution harm economic growth, either. A Soviet command economy, yes, but a social safety net in a market economy doesn't equal communism, and there's some modest evidence that it can actually improve entrepreneurship (because people end up less scared of leaving cushy corporate jobs).

ClHans 15y ago

One quick aside: all taxes redistribute wealth, and the consequences of doing so are well-known and positive. There's simply nothing wrong with the "redistribution of wealth" as you seem to suggest. Now, onto the larger point. We care because unequal societies have a whole host of social ills: higher crime, lower social mobility, poorer health outcomes. There is, in fact, a wide and deep body of scientific literature about this. You are, of course, free to disagree with the science on income inequality, but that places the burden on you to say, "the science is wrong!", or to say, "high crime and poor health doesn't matter!" Good luck with that.

ClHans 15y ago
Downvoted for what? For pointing out that all taxes redistribute wealth, and with this redistributed wealth we buy roads, food safety, police and fire, public education, a largely functioning justice system, and in fact the safety and security of a generally-free market...in another word...civilization? Or downvoted for pointing out that the observable evidence suggests that we, as a society, would be better off in a number of measurable ways (e.g. reduced crime rates, greater social mobility, better overall health), in a society with greater money equality? It may be a challenging idea if all one's ever heard is, "don't take my slice, just grow the pie," but there is, unfortunately, no evidence--historical or contemporary--that "just grow the pie" actually works in the real world.
- functionoid 15y ago
  Do rich people use more roads, public education, food safety? What is your point in making rich people pay more for these services other than they worked hard for their money and you want to take a free ride?
  - ClHans 15y ago
    Whether rich people use roads, public education, or food safety is beside the point. (And, frankly speaking, I'd venture to guess that rich people do use roads more, because poor people are more likely to ride the bus or walk.) They pay more because, if we taxed everyone at the same rate, we wouldn't have anywhere near enough money we needed to maintain even the somewhat shoddy state of civilization in the country. You may not like the idea that the government has to pay for all of the things it does, and that's a fair response, but it doesn't really address the bigger picture: what kind of quality of life do we want in this country? Just to play into the "low taxes for all" thought experiment, say we slash taxes across the board and have to cut a ton of stuff from our budget. Well, I can think of what I'd cut, and I'm sure you can do the same, and I'd bet there's some overlap, and some contention. But how would these cuts make life harder for your average American (who, mind you, is poor and sick and works their ass off week after week for very little wages)? If we don't care about them--if we throw them to the wolves of fate--is this the kind of country we want to live in, one we will take pride in? How would history view us, at the dawn of the 21st century? And, to be wise students of history, and reflect on how we got here, rather than assume our forebears were idiots who didn't know what they were doing, why do we have the regulations on business that we do? Why do we have food safety? Why do we have regulations on overtime pay? (And whose bright idea was it to exempt IT workers from that?) Why do we have regulations on medicine, or laws that dictate how and where we drive our cars? I'm not trying to ask a bunch of leading questions. I don't have the answers here. I just think it's useful to think more broadly than "a flat tax is a fair tax is a just tax is the right thing to do", both historically and ethically. enjoy,

ArtB 15y ago

My problem is that interpersonal conflicts are strongly effected by wealth. Someone who can afford lots of lawyers have a much greater chance of winning than someone who can barely afford one. Often people settle just to avoid crippling legal costs. Also people with greater wealth can use that money to promote their ideas and persuade other to their positions. They can afford their children much better opportunities. Not to mention that greater wealth disparities encourage keeping-up-with-the-Joneses arms races and other social ills. I honestly suspect that shrinking the pie but making it more evenly distributed would be best for all for the increased social harmony and stability.

ClHans 15y ago
You don't need to suspect it. You can read the social science literature and have some confidence that hard-working researchers have confirmed your suspicion. Here's a good place to start: Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction by Wilkerson and Pickett.
- ClHans 15y ago
  I assume someone downvoted me for the typo (sorry! the name is supposed to be Wilkinson), and not because they find it uncomfortable when science supports ideas that run counter to their own. Here's another good resource, this time from Stanford - http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ enjoy!

Gormo 15y ago

What is this 'pie'? The analogy seems to imply that there's some pre-existing pool of wealth from which people draw shares of varying size, and I'm fairly sure that nothing like this exists in reality. Wealth doesn't originate in some pre-defined aggregation; it's generated by particular people in particular contexts. This concept of different people having different 'shares' of wealth relies on starting with some universal aggregation, and this always seems to be measured by calculating everyone's separate individual income and adding each of these values to into a single sum. But this implicitly acknowledges that wealth doesn't originate in an aggregation, so what's the justification for construing any aggregation at all?