3 ms·

Neither of those is my argument and it's quite obvious you're arguing in bad faith. Here's my argument restated: "inequality is a far stronger contributor to u

Neither of those is my argument and it's quite obvious you're arguing in bad faith. Here's my argument restated: "inequality is a far stronger contributor to unhappiness than absolute wealth." This is an empirical fact, not a belief or a wish about the way the world ought to work, and it overrides your belief/wish that people "should" just care about absolute living standards. You said, "there is no reason to believe that one person being insanely well off makes someone else worse off." This is quite literally incorrect. This has been studied. There is plenty of reason -- i.e. empirical evidence -- to believe exactly that. Here's a simple question: was every person in the 1100s woefully depressed/anxious/angry to a far greater degree than any modern first-worlder dissatisfied with their station in life? If no, then your premise is disproven. People's happiness and satisfaction are not determined by their absolute standard of living (regardless of whether you think they should be).

roenxi 2y ago
> Here's a simple question: was every person in the 1100s woefully depressed/anxious/angry to a far greater degree than any modern first-worlder dissatisfied with their station in life? Again, I like the logical rigour in your argument. The only problem you have is that the underlying point is stupid. The answer is yes. The 1100s is woefully depressing/anxiety inducing/infuriating compared to the modern first world. Nobody would choose to go back to the 1100s. Trying to defend that position is dumb and a disservice to the very real problems in the present caused by low real living standards. There is an urgent and pressing need to get poor people (indeed, all people) cheap energy, more goods and better services. Telling them that they'd have had to suck it up and cope in the 1100s isn't a path to good outcomes. I think you're probably trying to make a point about hedonistic adjustment? It isn't a bad point in the abstract but it doesn't work in this argument. The people who account for that usually end up taking vows of poverty or Epicurean-style hedonism. Which is cool and all but the logical end of that philosophy is maximising inequality. The wealthy are still wealthy but the adherents are as poor as they can manage because they'll be happy regardless of what inequality is present. > This is quite literally incorrect. This has been studied. You've asserted that twice, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. A fairly cursory glance at reality and the literature suggests that people can't actually detect inequality with any reliability [0, 1] and I don't think people are at all consistent on defining what the word means. It is hard for the average person to get worked up about something they can't detect. You have no idea how equal we two are, for example. And even among peers in meatspace it's a struggle to estimate any real metric - credit is a huge confounder. People do get worked up by being in a lower class or in an unpleasant spot in the status hierarchy - but that isn't inequality as much as 10% of the population is going to be in each decile as a statistical matter of fact. It isn't possible to change that. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590051X23000084 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590051X2... - "Moreover, and somewhat surprisingly, the reality is contrary to people’s perception since low (high) actual income inequality in the region is often reflected in its overestimated (underestimated) perception." is a choice tidbit. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214211062106 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214211062... - Leads with "While some scholars suggest that awareness of income inequality is strongest when the actual level of inequality is high, others find that individuals’ awareness of income inequality is largely unresponsive to actual inequality"

roenxi 2y ago

> Here's a simple question: was every person in the 1100s woefully depressed/anxious/angry to a far greater degree than any modern first-worlder dissatisfied with their station in life? Again, I like the logical rigour in your argument. The only problem you have is that the underlying point is stupid. The answer is yes. The 1100s is woefully depressing/anxiety inducing/infuriating compared to the modern first world. Nobody would choose to go back to the 1100s. Trying to defend that position is dumb and a disservice to the very real problems in the present caused by low real living standards. There is an urgent and pressing need to get poor people (indeed, all people) cheap energy, more goods and better services. Telling them that they'd have had to suck it up and cope in the 1100s isn't a path to good outcomes. I think you're probably trying to make a point about hedonistic adjustment? It isn't a bad point in the abstract but it doesn't work in this argument. The people who account for that usually end up taking vows of poverty or Epicurean-style hedonism. Which is cool and all but the logical end of that philosophy is maximising inequality. The wealthy are still wealthy but the adherents are as poor as they can manage because they'll be happy regardless of what inequality is present. > This is quite literally incorrect. This has been studied. You've asserted that twice, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. A fairly cursory glance at reality and the literature suggests that people can't actually detect inequality with any reliability [0, 1] and I don't think people are at all consistent on defining what the word means. It is hard for the average person to get worked up about something they can't detect. You have no idea how equal we two are, for example. And even among peers in meatspace it's a struggle to estimate any real metric - credit is a huge confounder. People do get worked up by being in a lower class or in an unpleasant spot in the status hierarchy - but that isn't inequality as much as 10% of the population is going to be in each decile as a statistical matter of fact. It isn't possible to change that. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590051X23000084 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590051X2... - "Moreover, and somewhat surprisingly, the reality is contrary to people’s perception since low (high) actual income inequality in the region is often reflected in its overestimated (underestimated) perception." is a choice tidbit. [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214211062106 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214211062... - Leads with "While some scholars suggest that awareness of income inequality is strongest when the actual level of inequality is high, others find that individuals’ awareness of income inequality is largely unresponsive to actual inequality"