4 ms·
>Yes, poor people are better off in absolute terms than 200 years ago Not than poor people 200 years ago, than kings 200 years ago. No king of early 1800s coul
by jojobas 3y ago
>Yes, poor people are better off in absolute terms than 200 years ago
Not than poor people 200 years ago, than kings 200 years ago. No king of early 1800s could have tropical fruits, antibiotics or an entire library of human knowledge at his fingertips.
>Why is income inequality so bad?
Does a burger taste any worse if you know someone's having caviar?
Also, how would you compare today's wealth inequality with that of 200 years ago, when peasants, being some 90% of the population, didn't own nearly anything at all?
- woodruffw 3y ago> Does a burger taste any worse if you know someone's having caviar? Human beings have a fine-tuned sense of inequality and injustice; it's one of the things that makes us self-legislating agents, rather than beasts scrabbling for the top. The burger absolutely does taste worse if you know that it isn't a fair representation of the value of your labor. To make this more salient: your argument would apply to people living under repressive regimes as much as it does to content Westerners sitting at home. Or do you think that North Koreans in China have no right to object, given that their equivalent domestic forced labor would be even worse?
- fervor 3y agoIndeed, what is the value of your labor?
- jojobas 3y agoWell we (and they) know a society can do better than North Korea and it's reasonable to strive for that, but it's not obvious you can do better than the West. Sure some countries do better others, and one can say higher taxes and social services are the way, but that's still good old capitalism.
- caditinpiscinam 3y agoBetter than kings 200 years ago? You'd call going from Buckingham palace to homeless on the street an upgrade? Also, libraries existed 200 years ago, as did tropical fruits. Really not sure what your argument is there.