4 ms·

> No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. I didn't say it's "inherently" better. I said it's better for "the non-tech workers", which is j

> No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. I didn't say it's "inherently" better. I said it's better for "the non-tech workers", which is just a stand-in for "anyone below the median." I'm sure flattening the income distribution might not be regarded as better by people above the median. Oh well! > Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people with an income of $10,000? The latter example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. > Again: I care about my own material conditions. If a genie gave me the choice to double my income doubling (in real terms, as in the actual value of goods and services accessible to me doubles), while everyone else's income increases tenfold of course that's be a good thing. Why would I forego an improvement to my own conditions? You haven't. You just experienced a loss in your material conditions. Congratulations. Now, everyone else has 5 times as much income as you (assuming everyone started equally). They can easily outbid you for housing, for food, for vacations, for everything. You better think fast and invent something of value that they don't have so you have a little monopoly at least for a little while, otherwise you're screwed.

Manuel_D 2y ago
> The latter example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. Everyone is worse off in the latter scenario. > You haven't. You just experienced a loss in your material conditions. No, I just doubled my material conditions. Again, it seems you're just not able to comprehend the notion that material conditions are not zero-sum. The fact that other people gained more does not mean o lost. Think of this in more concrete terms: I have a 2,000 square foot house and one car. A genie offers me the ability to get a 4,000 sq ft house and a second car, but everyone else gets a 20,000 sq foot mansion and 9 cars. I may become less wealthy relative to everyone else, but I'm still better off than I was initially. It seems like it's just impossible for you to convince of a scenario where society can collectively experience increases in living conditions. The only way you're able to think about value is in relative terms, not in terms absolute increases. It's pretty a sad, and unfortunately common train of thought.
- dventimi 2y ago
  >> Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people with an income of $10,000? > Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. In your example, how exactly do these people receive their income, be it $10,000 or $60,000 or $600,000?
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    As you wrote in your own comment, dollars are imaginary. Maybe they get paid in salary, maybe it's equity. Or benefits in the form of healthcare. The important thing is the value of goods and services they can buy. Before, they could rent 3,000 sq foot house and buy 6 cars, now they can only rent a 500 sq ft apartment and buy one car. Again, if we achieve a flat income distribution by reducing the value of what everyone can it with their income is that a good thing? Everyone's purchasing power is reduced: the 90% can only buy 1/6th as much as they could before, the top 10% 1/60th as much. But since the income distribution is now flat, this is somehow a good thing even according to you though everyone can buy only a fraction of what they could before. This is what you're seemingly not able to comprehend: the total sum of value in the world isn't static. If I bulldoze a 2 story apartment building and build a 20 story apartment building I've just created a 10x increase in the residential floorspace on that block. If I develop cheap rocket motors I can put satellites into orbit for much less money, and thus enable things like high speed global internet. If I build a much more efficient factory for building cars and tractors, then foods gets much cheaper and farmers can replace draught animals with machinery. And shipping companies can haul much more cargo with trucks. The total value of goods and services in the world can, and is, increased. And it has more than doubled in the span of a typical lifetime for the last century. It doesn't take ages, it happens fast. Most people who get enormously wealthy do so by founding or investing in companies that do something novel to increase the sum of value. Let's flip the previous analogy on its head: a genie gives you the ability to increase the real purchasing power of 90% of people by 6x, and the top 10% of people by 60x. Is that a bad thing, because the income distribution is now more unequal even though everyone is left strictly better off?
    - 2y ago

Manuel_D 2y ago

> The latter example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. Everyone is worse off in the latter scenario. > You haven't. You just experienced a loss in your material conditions. No, I just doubled my material conditions. Again, it seems you're just not able to comprehend the notion that material conditions are not zero-sum. The fact that other people gained more does not mean o lost. Think of this in more concrete terms: I have a 2,000 square foot house and one car. A genie offers me the ability to get a 4,000 sq ft house and a second car, but everyone else gets a 20,000 sq foot mansion and 9 cars. I may become less wealthy relative to everyone else, but I'm still better off than I was initially. It seems like it's just impossible for you to convince of a scenario where society can collectively experience increases in living conditions. The only way you're able to think about value is in relative terms, not in terms absolute increases. It's pretty a sad, and unfortunately common train of thought.

dventimi 2y ago
>> Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people with an income of $10,000? > Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. In your example, how exactly do these people receive their income, be it $10,000 or $60,000 or $600,000?
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  As you wrote in your own comment, dollars are imaginary. Maybe they get paid in salary, maybe it's equity. Or benefits in the form of healthcare. The important thing is the value of goods and services they can buy. Before, they could rent 3,000 sq foot house and buy 6 cars, now they can only rent a 500 sq ft apartment and buy one car. Again, if we achieve a flat income distribution by reducing the value of what everyone can it with their income is that a good thing? Everyone's purchasing power is reduced: the 90% can only buy 1/6th as much as they could before, the top 10% 1/60th as much. But since the income distribution is now flat, this is somehow a good thing even according to you though everyone can buy only a fraction of what they could before. This is what you're seemingly not able to comprehend: the total sum of value in the world isn't static. If I bulldoze a 2 story apartment building and build a 20 story apartment building I've just created a 10x increase in the residential floorspace on that block. If I develop cheap rocket motors I can put satellites into orbit for much less money, and thus enable things like high speed global internet. If I build a much more efficient factory for building cars and tractors, then foods gets much cheaper and farmers can replace draught animals with machinery. And shipping companies can haul much more cargo with trucks. The total value of goods and services in the world can, and is, increased. And it has more than doubled in the span of a typical lifetime for the last century. It doesn't take ages, it happens fast. Most people who get enormously wealthy do so by founding or investing in companies that do something novel to increase the sum of value. Let's flip the previous analogy on its head: a genie gives you the ability to increase the real purchasing power of 90% of people by 6x, and the top 10% of people by 60x. Is that a bad thing, because the income distribution is now more unequal even though everyone is left strictly better off?
  - 2y ago