3 ms·

I'm so sick of people who think that wealth is a zero sum game. It, unequivocally, is not. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game for income disparity to be a p

I'm so sick of people who think that wealth is a zero sum game. It, unequivocally, is not. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game for income disparity to be a problem. GDP typically grows at less than 5% a year, yet average income for the top 1% has grown at 10% annually over the last 20 years (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/what-does-economic-growth-mean-for-americans/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/what-does-econo...).

Gormo 15y ago
But, to viggity's point, what does the rate of increase of the average income of the top 1% of earners have to do with people who aren't in the top 1% of earners? If you agree that it isn't a zero-sum game, how does one party being better off imply that some other party is worse off?
- scarmig 15y ago
  Because if we can have a world where that growth is more equitably distributed, you can avoid wage stagnation among the median worker? The marginal utility of a dollar is much greater for those making $50,000 a year than the person making $50,000,000 a year. It's not a sickness itself, but it's a symptom of the sickness. And pointing out that inequality has radically increased in the past decades is just pointing out we have a fever of 105F going on, here. Dumping someone in the snow won't fix it, but you also don't just ignore it and say that administering medicine would be violating a free market.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  Then I will posit this: There is a maximum amount of US dollars in the world at any one time we measure it. We shall call this A. The wealthy 1% own .1A . That leaves, by simple averages that 99% can only have .9A . US Dollars are being made at X per hour. This 'wealth generation' devalues the preexisting currency forcing money to follow this formula A => A+X The value that A was before is now what A+X has to be. Anybody who owned A before wealth 'generation' now owns less. Yes, I would call our system zero-sum for increasingly small amounts of capital. It is only when you can bypass the marginilization of X is it not zero sum.
- vannevar 15y ago
  [H]ow does one party being better off imply that some other party is worse off? If you were a partner in a business growing at 5% a year, and your income grew only 1% while your partner's grew 10%, would you let him get away with pointing out that you're better off than last year?

Gormo 15y ago

But, to viggity's point, what does the rate of increase of the average income of the top 1% of earners have to do with people who aren't in the top 1% of earners? If you agree that it isn't a zero-sum game, how does one party being better off imply that some other party is worse off?

scarmig 15y ago
Because if we can have a world where that growth is more equitably distributed, you can avoid wage stagnation among the median worker? The marginal utility of a dollar is much greater for those making $50,000 a year than the person making $50,000,000 a year. It's not a sickness itself, but it's a symptom of the sickness. And pointing out that inequality has radically increased in the past decades is just pointing out we have a fever of 105F going on, here. Dumping someone in the snow won't fix it, but you also don't just ignore it and say that administering medicine would be violating a free market.
TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
Then I will posit this: There is a maximum amount of US dollars in the world at any one time we measure it. We shall call this A. The wealthy 1% own .1A . That leaves, by simple averages that 99% can only have .9A . US Dollars are being made at X per hour. This 'wealth generation' devalues the preexisting currency forcing money to follow this formula A => A+X The value that A was before is now what A+X has to be. Anybody who owned A before wealth 'generation' now owns less. Yes, I would call our system zero-sum for increasingly small amounts of capital. It is only when you can bypass the marginilization of X is it not zero sum.
vannevar 15y ago
[H]ow does one party being better off imply that some other party is worse off? If you were a partner in a business growing at 5% a year, and your income grew only 1% while your partner's grew 10%, would you let him get away with pointing out that you're better off than last year?