4 ms·
That's a perspective that makes sense when all individuals are given an equal income, and it's up to each one to decide how they want to allocate that income.
by ysavir 3y ago
That's a perspective that makes sense when all individuals are given an equal income, and it's up to each one to decide how they want to allocate that income.
But that's very far from how the actual world works. In reality, some people make very little while having little to start with, some make lots of money, even when they have little to start with, and others might make lots of money while also being born into lots of money.
To look at the system and ask "why are people complaining? It's the same price for everyone." ignores that is actually has a different cost for everyone, regardless of what the price might be. And that perspective is what pushes society in a direction where many are forced to pay with their time, while the few who found their way to large incomes/born with large bank accounts, can pay with money, essentially establishing a class tier.
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, we could allocate each American the US Standard Car and the US Standard Breakfast Meal and they can wear the US Standard Clothing, but there are societies that tried that and there are societies that have done what the US has done and our poor people are better than their 75th percentile, so I think having different incomes and charging more for more services is okay.
- piva00 3y agoThe retort to extremes by bringing failures of Communism do not address any of the key points from the parent comment. Red scare is a concept from the 1950s, time to update the boogeyman. Of course it's ok to charge for more services but there's a limit until your whole society is divided into an underclass and an overclass sharing the same spaces, the same rides in a theme park, the same social contexts and can see the divide. That generates social unsatisfaction, people have an inherent sense of fairness (and many animals as well) which can create social tension, boil that to the limit and you have the violence and crime you see in the USA but not in many other developed countries. The statement about what the US does is the right thing because it's one of the richest countries on Earth is ignorant, or simply naïve. Also, a comical clichê of Americans worldview.
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, I suppose we could limit Disneyland to only the rich but I somehow doubt that would create more happiness in the world.
- ysavir 3y agoCan you explain how this relates to my comment above? There was no sentiment there that all people should have the same possessions and experiences. The point of the post was that objective price can't be evaluated without consideration of the actual subjective cost it represents to people.
- renewiltord 3y agoIt's that it's preferable to any alternative. It's not a class tier so much as a gradient of availability and that is good.
- ysavir 3y agoI really need you to connect the dots for me here. What you described is vastly different to what I described. Why do you feel they are equal?
- renewiltord 3y agoI'll do you one better. This prompt to ChatGPT-4 led to it comprehending quite well https://pastebin.com/KY9Zne5R https://pastebin.com/KY9Zne5R I think you should be able to query it for comprehension. I wrote it from your perspective to get you started. I tried it out with a conversation and it was able to have a very reasonable discussion about the subject. Should be easier than having to wait for my reply.
- ysavir 3y agoYou're putting a whole lot of effort into not having to explain something you were so willing to share.
- renewiltord 3y agoIt's clear that I cannot explain things to you, either through my fault of being legible or your fault at comprehending. Give the model a shot.