3 ms·

>> 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 comme

>> 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?
- dventimi 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. Well, no, I didn't write that, but setting that aside, maybe you can pick whichever one strengthens your argument the most.

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?

dventimi 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. Well, no, I didn't write that, but setting that aside, maybe you can pick whichever one strengthens your argument the most.