5 ms·

Are you suggesting disparities in material wealth did not exist in neolithic times? Why would you think that?

Retric 2y ago
No, it’s suggesting the orders of magnitude were smaller. Bill gates has what 1 million times more wealth than the average person his age, more? There’s no way someone in a Neolithic village could get that kind of advantage over the average person in a neolithic village. Someone having 10x the productivity/wealth/etc sure, but 10,000x just isn’t on the table at least as considered by the time period. We place extreme value on gold where a shiny stone might be worth thousands of tons of food, but nobody back then would make such an exchange. Extreme wealth takes social structures to support it. People 2,000 years ago had less wealth than today on average but you could still have some guy with more concubines in their haram than existed in a Neolithic village.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The average person is very unlikely to meet somebody like Bill Gates. For most practical intents and purposes inequality is much smaller than that.
  - Retric 2y ago
    I suspect most Americas have seen someone with 100+ million dollars in assets at some point in their life. How many people have gone to a Miley Cyrus concert or professional sports etc? The indirect impact is even more profound, consider all the propaganda pushed by billionaires buying media etc.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      They may have a few times, maybe. Far from a given. Now consider an average middle class American, who might afford Swift tickets, could have on the order of a million dollars net worth (albeit mostly illiquid, tied up in their property). That puts them two orders of magnitude off of Taylor Swift, the sort of person they might see a few times in their life. But it puts them six orders of magnitude above somebody who's flat broke on rock bottom, and they certainly meet that sort of person a lot more than they meet Taylor Swift. The inequality gap between a middle class person and somebody at rock bottom is wider much wider and more pervasive in society than the gap between a common middle class "millionaire" and the billionaires, but all nearly all the internet whining about inequality is focused on the billionaires. Now I grant you, comparing different amounts of zeros is kind of a silly way to think about inequality. Let's get a bit more real: the middle class and billionaires both take a lot for granted that somebody at rock bottom cannot. They both know where they're going to sleep tonight, both feel secure in the knowledge that they're going to have a roof over their heads, stomachs filled with food, medical needs met, etc. Somebody living on the streets has none of that, and that difference is I think far more profound than the difference between the middle class and billionaires. The middle class have to go to work and don't own megayachts or helicopters, but these are trivial matters that needn't worry them so much as somebody living on the street has to worry. Now what about Neolithic times? I think people at rock bottom still existed back then. People who were cast out from their group, due to disease or getting on the losing side of a power struggle, being a weirdo, or whatever the reason. There were probably people who got banished and probably died soon after. And I think there were probably people who were very popular, who were respected and loved by others, or maybe were feared. People who benefited from a strong social safety net, who got given food by others and were protected by others. The inequality gap between them and the banished would have been immense, just as the inequality gap between the homeless and middle class today is immense. If my assumptions about neolithic society are accurate, then it's absurd to say that neolithic society didn't have meaningful inequality because they didn't have billionaires.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > The inequality gap between them and the banished would have been immense, just as the inequality gap between the homeless and middle class today is immense. You can be poor in America and still have access to healthcare, food, housing, etc. Almost everything that you think of as middle class kicks in at really low income levels and net negative assets due to government assistance. As in what people own is worth less than their debt. Meanwhile someone exclude from their community in Neolithic times could have several days worth of food after killing a deer. They had less long term safety, but in terms of material wealth or income the difference wouldn’t be that huge.
  - anvil-on-my-toe 2y ago
    What difference does it make if I meet him? Our lives and access to resources are still impacted by mega wealthy people. I pay taxes that build roads and schools which enable commercial tycoons like Bill Gates to reap enormous profits. Bill Gates buys farm land, which drives up prices and blocks me from accessing that land.
    - quesera 2y ago
      I don't understand your point. Bill Gates pays a lot more taxes than you do, and contributes greatly more to those same roads and schools. You were blocked from accessing that farmland before Bill Gates bought it, and regardless of who bought it, you would still be blocked from accessing it. There is plenty of farmland for sale in the US, if you were considering buying it yourself.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Bill Gates pays a much lower tax rate than I do, so I’m subsidizing his economic activities. Before a Microsoft employee drives on public roads someone needs to have paid to create and maintain those roads. Without government spending creating an environment conducive to wealth creation you don’t end up with billionaire business men you get warlords and poor people.
        quesera 2y ago
        > I’m subsidizing his economic activities That is one, not universally-accepted, perspective, I guess.
        iamthirsty 2y ago
        > Bill Gates pays a much lower tax rate than I do, so I’m subsidizing his economic activities. Given it's est. he'd have paid $500m+ in income tax in 2023[1], I think your calculation is off — he's subsidizing your economic activity. Just because the rate is lower, doesn't mean the real $ amount — what actually matters — isn't vastly higher. — [1]: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/much-bill-gates-pays-property-191026984.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/much-bill-gates-pays-property-1910...
  - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
    The inequality is in the political power that super rich have compared to the average person. Most billionaires can quite easily get access to political leaders, and convince them (or legally/illegally bribe them) to change the system in the billionaire's favor. A single common person has next to zero chance of impacting any public policy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

No, it’s suggesting the orders of magnitude were smaller. Bill gates has what 1 million times more wealth than the average person his age, more? There’s no way someone in a Neolithic village could get that kind of advantage over the average person in a neolithic village. Someone having 10x the productivity/wealth/etc sure, but 10,000x just isn’t on the table at least as considered by the time period. We place extreme value on gold where a shiny stone might be worth thousands of tons of food, but nobody back then would make such an exchange. Extreme wealth takes social structures to support it. People 2,000 years ago had less wealth than today on average but you could still have some guy with more concubines in their haram than existed in a Neolithic village.

lupusreal 2y ago
The average person is very unlikely to meet somebody like Bill Gates. For most practical intents and purposes inequality is much smaller than that.
- Retric 2y ago
  I suspect most Americas have seen someone with 100+ million dollars in assets at some point in their life. How many people have gone to a Miley Cyrus concert or professional sports etc? The indirect impact is even more profound, consider all the propaganda pushed by billionaires buying media etc.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    They may have a few times, maybe. Far from a given. Now consider an average middle class American, who might afford Swift tickets, could have on the order of a million dollars net worth (albeit mostly illiquid, tied up in their property). That puts them two orders of magnitude off of Taylor Swift, the sort of person they might see a few times in their life. But it puts them six orders of magnitude above somebody who's flat broke on rock bottom, and they certainly meet that sort of person a lot more than they meet Taylor Swift. The inequality gap between a middle class person and somebody at rock bottom is wider much wider and more pervasive in society than the gap between a common middle class "millionaire" and the billionaires, but all nearly all the internet whining about inequality is focused on the billionaires. Now I grant you, comparing different amounts of zeros is kind of a silly way to think about inequality. Let's get a bit more real: the middle class and billionaires both take a lot for granted that somebody at rock bottom cannot. They both know where they're going to sleep tonight, both feel secure in the knowledge that they're going to have a roof over their heads, stomachs filled with food, medical needs met, etc. Somebody living on the streets has none of that, and that difference is I think far more profound than the difference between the middle class and billionaires. The middle class have to go to work and don't own megayachts or helicopters, but these are trivial matters that needn't worry them so much as somebody living on the street has to worry. Now what about Neolithic times? I think people at rock bottom still existed back then. People who were cast out from their group, due to disease or getting on the losing side of a power struggle, being a weirdo, or whatever the reason. There were probably people who got banished and probably died soon after. And I think there were probably people who were very popular, who were respected and loved by others, or maybe were feared. People who benefited from a strong social safety net, who got given food by others and were protected by others. The inequality gap between them and the banished would have been immense, just as the inequality gap between the homeless and middle class today is immense. If my assumptions about neolithic society are accurate, then it's absurd to say that neolithic society didn't have meaningful inequality because they didn't have billionaires.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > The inequality gap between them and the banished would have been immense, just as the inequality gap between the homeless and middle class today is immense. You can be poor in America and still have access to healthcare, food, housing, etc. Almost everything that you think of as middle class kicks in at really low income levels and net negative assets due to government assistance. As in what people own is worth less than their debt. Meanwhile someone exclude from their community in Neolithic times could have several days worth of food after killing a deer. They had less long term safety, but in terms of material wealth or income the difference wouldn’t be that huge.
- anvil-on-my-toe 2y ago
  What difference does it make if I meet him? Our lives and access to resources are still impacted by mega wealthy people. I pay taxes that build roads and schools which enable commercial tycoons like Bill Gates to reap enormous profits. Bill Gates buys farm land, which drives up prices and blocks me from accessing that land.
  - quesera 2y ago
    I don't understand your point. Bill Gates pays a lot more taxes than you do, and contributes greatly more to those same roads and schools. You were blocked from accessing that farmland before Bill Gates bought it, and regardless of who bought it, you would still be blocked from accessing it. There is plenty of farmland for sale in the US, if you were considering buying it yourself.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Bill Gates pays a much lower tax rate than I do, so I’m subsidizing his economic activities. Before a Microsoft employee drives on public roads someone needs to have paid to create and maintain those roads. Without government spending creating an environment conducive to wealth creation you don’t end up with billionaire business men you get warlords and poor people.
      - quesera 2y ago
        > I’m subsidizing his economic activities That is one, not universally-accepted, perspective, I guess.
      - iamthirsty 2y ago
        > Bill Gates pays a much lower tax rate than I do, so I’m subsidizing his economic activities. Given it's est. he'd have paid $500m+ in income tax in 2023[1], I think your calculation is off — he's subsidizing your economic activity. Just because the rate is lower, doesn't mean the real $ amount — what actually matters — isn't vastly higher. — [1]: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/much-bill-gates-pays-property-191026984.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/much-bill-gates-pays-property-1910...
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  The inequality is in the political power that super rich have compared to the average person. Most billionaires can quite easily get access to political leaders, and convince them (or legally/illegally bribe them) to change the system in the billionaire's favor. A single common person has next to zero chance of impacting any public policy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]