5 ms·

> At one given instant sure [goods and services are finite] I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. > the key thing is that over time the collection

> At one given instant sure [goods and services are finite] I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. > the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows. That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services.

Manuel_D 2y ago
> I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased. Yes, the amount of wealth at Monday, 03-Jun-24 04:12:33 UTC is going to be finite, because that's a fixed point in time. This is just a pointless tangent, because in our world time is not frozen. In our reality, where time flows, wealth is not finite and is indeed grown in absolute terms. > That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services. Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring true for most of human history, but not in our age. 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita_1500_to_2003.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita...
- dventimi 2y ago
  >>> At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services? >> At one given instant sure > Wrong, wealth is not finite Perhaps you could make up your mind. > Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring true for most of human history, but not in our age. These people do not live in a preindustrial society. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/28/poverty-racism-gary-indiana-factory-jobs https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/28/poverty-raci...
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    At any one given instant in time, the planets have just one position around the sun. Does that mean orbital paths are a lie? The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any one point in time is fixed. At a particular instant in time, there is an exact number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. And that number is fixed and doesn't change, unless you pick a different timestamp. Does that mean we can just keep burning fossil fuels and the amount of carbon dioxide doesn't change? No, because time isn't frozen. We don't live in a world where time is fixed. Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this.
    - dventimi 2y ago
      > Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this. Then let's cut out fanciful stories of the planets and the birds and the bees and cut to the chase. In the 8 years between its IPO and Elon Musk taking it private again, Twitter (now X) made a profit in only two, according to Wikipedia. Meanwhile according to Glassdoor it has a median total comp for a Twitter Software Engineer in SF at $250k. But the median restaurant worker in SF makes about $40k according to Ziprecruiter. All of these people, Twitter engineers and regular restaurant workers, are generally competing for housing in the Bay Area. Tell me. Who's typically going to win those bids for housing, the Twitter engineer or the restaurant worker?
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        Sure, the tech workers are going to be able to afford better housing. But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers. The city will have to raise taxes or cut services to make up for the budget shortfall from the exodus of higher paid (and thus higher tax paying) residents. This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budget-picture-worsens-as-cuts-loom-in-2024/article_115ad370-b4c9-11ee-b308-abaf8af11cbc.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge... This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased Possibly the word you want to be using is limited; it is slightly harder for people to make pretend that the pie is fixed with that one. Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite, since wealth doesn't have to be physical.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    > Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite. Sounds like they might be your opponent! > since wealth doesn't have to be physical. Living in the physical world as I do, I require that my needs for physical wealth be met first: goods and services like food, shelter, safety, furnishings, entertainment, and the political power to maintain them. Non-physical wealth--love, feelings of accomplishment, etc.--are important, but they come later. What about you? Are you satisfied with non-physical wealth alone?
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      > LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow?
      - dventimi 2y ago
        > Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." That's a pretty important qualifier. > Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow? That's two questions. Obviously, any one of us exists for a finite interval of time, that's for sure. Let's call that "a lifetime." Does technological innovation occur, does the world's productive output increase, and do average living standards rise over a typical lifetime? Sure. Does that mean that wealth is infinite? Not at all. Among other things, it depends on exactly what you mean by "infinite" which, so far, you've never said. Does time flow? I'll leave that to the philosophers. OK. I've answered your questions. Now answer this one, please. If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead?

Manuel_D 2y ago

> I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased. Yes, the amount of wealth at Monday, 03-Jun-24 04:12:33 UTC is going to be finite, because that's a fixed point in time. This is just a pointless tangent, because in our world time is not frozen. In our reality, where time flows, wealth is not finite and is indeed grown in absolute terms. > That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services. Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring true for most of human history, but not in our age. 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita_1500_to_2003.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita...

dventimi 2y ago
>>> At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services? >> At one given instant sure > Wrong, wealth is not finite Perhaps you could make up your mind. > Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring true for most of human history, but not in our age. These people do not live in a preindustrial society. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/28/poverty-racism-gary-indiana-factory-jobs https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/28/poverty-raci...
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  At any one given instant in time, the planets have just one position around the sun. Does that mean orbital paths are a lie? The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any one point in time is fixed. At a particular instant in time, there is an exact number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. And that number is fixed and doesn't change, unless you pick a different timestamp. Does that mean we can just keep burning fossil fuels and the amount of carbon dioxide doesn't change? No, because time isn't frozen. We don't live in a world where time is fixed. Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this.
  - dventimi 2y ago
    > Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this. Then let's cut out fanciful stories of the planets and the birds and the bees and cut to the chase. In the 8 years between its IPO and Elon Musk taking it private again, Twitter (now X) made a profit in only two, according to Wikipedia. Meanwhile according to Glassdoor it has a median total comp for a Twitter Software Engineer in SF at $250k. But the median restaurant worker in SF makes about $40k according to Ziprecruiter. All of these people, Twitter engineers and regular restaurant workers, are generally competing for housing in the Bay Area. Tell me. Who's typically going to win those bids for housing, the Twitter engineer or the restaurant worker?
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Sure, the tech workers are going to be able to afford better housing. But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers. The city will have to raise taxes or cut services to make up for the budget shortfall from the exodus of higher paid (and thus higher tax paying) residents. This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budget-picture-worsens-as-cuts-loom-in-2024/article_115ad370-b4c9-11ee-b308-abaf8af11cbc.html https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge... This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off.
roenxi 2y ago
> Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased Possibly the word you want to be using is limited; it is slightly harder for people to make pretend that the pie is fixed with that one. Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite, since wealth doesn't have to be physical.
- dventimi 2y ago
  > Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite. Sounds like they might be your opponent! > since wealth doesn't have to be physical. Living in the physical world as I do, I require that my needs for physical wealth be met first: goods and services like food, shelter, safety, furnishings, entertainment, and the political power to maintain them. Non-physical wealth--love, feelings of accomplishment, etc.--are important, but they come later. What about you? Are you satisfied with non-physical wealth alone?
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow?
    - dventimi 2y ago
      > Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." That's a pretty important qualifier. > Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow? That's two questions. Obviously, any one of us exists for a finite interval of time, that's for sure. Let's call that "a lifetime." Does technological innovation occur, does the world's productive output increase, and do average living standards rise over a typical lifetime? Sure. Does that mean that wealth is infinite? Not at all. Among other things, it depends on exactly what you mean by "infinite" which, so far, you've never said. Does time flow? I'll leave that to the philosophers. OK. I've answered your questions. Now answer this one, please. If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead?