6 ms·

This article reads like "see how good you have it", when for most folks the upsetting part these days is around inequality, globally as well as nationally. You

This article reads like "see how good you have it", when for most folks the upsetting part these days is around inequality, globally as well as nationally. You're not going to convince folks the world is better when they know what kind of deal they're getting vs others out there. Blame the rise of mass communication if you want, but it's depressingly easy to see what both ends of inequality looks like and dismiss articles like this as "so what".

mouse_ 2y ago
Excellent take. Thank you.
imjonse 2y ago
The article itself has this towards the end: " There are big problems that remain. None of the above should give us reason to become complacent. On the contrary, it shows us that a lot of work still needs to be done — accomplishing the fastest reduction of extreme poverty is an important achievement, but the fact that 85% of the world live on less than $30 per day is unacceptable. We also must not accept the restrictions of our liberty that remain. It is also clear that humanity’s impact on the environment is at a level that is not sustainable and is endangering the biosphere and climate on which we depend. " The problem is that those who would like to maintain the status quo are bound to pick only the optimistic stats and suggest nothing should be done because the trend is naturally towards a better society. The truth is that progress is made in spite of these people, and in spite of some of the policies they promote. So such articles are more like a reality check of sorts, showing that we can make progress but we need to work hard for it, it does not just happen by the magic waving of an invisible hand.
- thro2309 2y ago
  [dead]
- Diederich 2y ago
  This is an outstanding analysis, thank you, and very succinctly summarizes my own views.
agent008t 2y ago
Also, most people in Western Europe / US care more about how things have changed for white collar / educated workers in their country/block.
renewiltord 2y ago
It's interesting to me that people care about equality. I can't say that I, personally, do. I care only about absolute life standards. If my life is improving I don't care that someone else's is too. But absolute life standards do matter. If Bezos gets another rocketship every minute that's fine if I get another million dollars every minute. I can't really care about his life like that. For those always looking in others' bowl to see if they got more, I can see how this makes them unhappy. It sounds corrosive to the soul.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  Historically, the best off maintain their largess by making sure there are enough in the fat and happy middle to not support a revolt by those left to deprivation and exploitation. It's reasonable to be fat enough and happy enough that you don't want to rock the boat and don't mind that others have "more in their bowl", which is why this pattern persists through geography and time, but you might want to keep an eye out on how the worst off are doing, whether they're growing or shrinking, and whether things are getting worse or better for them because the other part of the pattern is not unprecedented or unreasonable either.
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  You absolutely do care about equality. There are some places where absolute standards are fine, but when we discuss social contracts - equality is fundamental. You are not operating as a solitary individual, you are operating within a society that both takes and gives to you, and ensuring that social contracts remain fair is fundamental to keeping that society as a whole alive and functional. ex - how would you feel if the government issues everyone rebates on taxes. you receive 1 dollar. Everyone else receives 100k. Or the government funds schools - your kids receive 1 free book, every other child receives a free college education. Or the government increases park allocations - you are given a 5ftx5ft greenspace, the neighborhood over receives a 10 acre maintained park. Absolute standards are bogus when we are discussing the allocation of group resources. You paid in, you should be monitoring how that resource is paid out. To be oblivious is to essentially be abused. We should care deeply about wealth inequality in society at large. We should not compare ourselves to our neighbors in individual circumstances. They are different things.
diob 2y ago
I also never find it convincing that these sort of articles are written by folks well above a middle class standard of living.
- jampekka 2y ago
  And funded by billionaires.
umvi 2y ago
> You're not going to convince folks the world is better when they know what kind of deal they're getting vs others out there So people can never be happy if inequality exists? Sounds like an unsolvable problem. No matter how good everything gets, people will still be unhappy because someone else seemingly has it better. 1000 years from now: "Poor person: Sure, I own a 7000 sq ft mansion with an electric drone that can fly me around everywhere and my life expectancy is 105 and my standard of living is an order of magnitude better than the richest people living in 20XX, but Elon Musk VII's life expectancy is 120 and he owns an entire planet with a space fleet, my life sucks, the universe is so unfair."
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Happiness = Reality minus expectations. Also, people, like many animals, are innately driven to compare each other and themselves. This may be a trait that provides (or has provided) an evolutionary advantage, especially in in the process of mating.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nandhinianand 2y ago
  Interesting that you read that comment as inequality... > You're not going to convince folks the world is better when they know what kind of deal they're getting vs others out there Somehow i read that as equal opportunities.... To me a fair deal generally means, something close to equal opportunities(of course, ceteris paribus, and rarely do we have all other things equal, but adjusting for it..)
  - em-bee 2y ago
    but opportunities are far from equal in many parts of the world, including the US. poverty alone limits your opportunities when you can't even afford a car to apply for a job, or are stuck in a bad school that limits your chances to go to college. in other parts of the world you can't even go to school if you can't afford it.
cryptonector 2y ago
For those who are dirt poor inequality might look like a problem, but as TFA shows the trend line is -and long has been- that everyone gets wealthy enough to have a decent life. If no one is dirt poor, does it really matter if some are much wealthier than others? For example, Elon Musk has many many many times more wealth than I, and I don't care. Ditto Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and so on and on. I don't care about inequality -- I care about poverty and ending it. Formulations like "the problem is no longer poverty but inequality" are a lot like the post-USSR formulations like "now that we have solved the production problem we need to solve the distribution problem". It's Marxism moving the goal posts as economic freedom delivers all the things that Marxists say they want. To argue that one should be given power to solve the problems that are already being solved one has to keep making yet other problems into bigger problems than they really are.
- 1propionyl 2y ago
  > If no one is dirt poor, does it really matter if some are much wealthier than others? Yes, because the wealth distribution has a self-reinforcing inertia, especially over generations. Absent mechanisms for redistribution of personal wealth (e.g. confiscatory inheritance/estate tax over a certain amount) it will only concentrate into a kleptocracy. Too much inequality is bad, even if the lowest 5% lives very well, because it is not a sustainable equilibrium. On the other hand, too little inequality is also not sustainable or desirable.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    I agree that accumulation of power is bad, and since wealth eventually becomes power, accumulation of wealth beyond some point can be bad. However, complaints about inequality invariably seem to go beyond complaints about the lofty 0.001%.
  - pglevy 2y ago
    But this hasn't happened. See the book Missing Billionaires by White and Hagani. Subsequent generations are much better at squandering wealth than hoarding it. So that issue sort of takes care of itself.
WalterBright 2y ago
> for most folks the upsetting part these days is around inequality When I was young, the discussion was always about the quality of life for the poor. The inequality problem is a fairly recent thing. When people are free, inequality is the result. To remove inequality requires a totalitarian government. Be careful what you wish for.
- Diederich 2y ago
  > To remove inequality requires a totalitarian government. Be careful what you wish for. Are a lot of people actively and actually suggesting the full removal of inequality? Finding ways to reduce it is a very different thing.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Every step towards forcible equality is a step towards totalitarianism. Instead, examine government policies that hold people back from being free. For example, making it difficult for a business to employ people.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      This discussion needs to distinguish equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. People don't mind playing games, but if they perceive the games' rules to be tilted (or some players to be cheating), then they will want to flip the board.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        There will always be people who want to "flip the board". The communists had equal opportunity. It didn't work out so well. The magic ingredients are: 1. equality under the law 2. freedom
    - error_logic 2y ago
      Avoiding totalitarianism means recognizing the need for both public and private power structures counteracting each other, not going all-in on one of them alone. Also progressive taxation (a moderate position) which avoids the authoritarian measures of both left and right while counteracting the cancerous effects of exponential growth.
skybrian 2y ago
Yes, looking at global or even national statistics tells you nothing about your own circumstances, which you can judge for yourself without any statistics at all. And it’s true that averages can be misleading. Inequality isn’t about your personal circumstances, though. It’s about what you read in the news. You need statistics to judge it. These statistics are relevant when people talk about where the country is going or where the world is going.
autoexec 2y ago
Yeah, a lot of people in the US are seeing their standard of living decline and their children having to struggle a lot more and in ways neither they or their parents had to. Even the most basic things like clean drinking water and reliable electric power are getting less common in the US. No amount of telling people how bad farmers had it in the 1800s will make people feel better about the new struggles they have to deal with or the things they have to give up having today.

mouse_ 2y ago

Excellent take. Thank you.

imjonse 2y ago

The article itself has this towards the end: " There are big problems that remain. None of the above should give us reason to become complacent. On the contrary, it shows us that a lot of work still needs to be done — accomplishing the fastest reduction of extreme poverty is an important achievement, but the fact that 85% of the world live on less than $30 per day is unacceptable. We also must not accept the restrictions of our liberty that remain. It is also clear that humanity’s impact on the environment is at a level that is not sustainable and is endangering the biosphere and climate on which we depend. " The problem is that those who would like to maintain the status quo are bound to pick only the optimistic stats and suggest nothing should be done because the trend is naturally towards a better society. The truth is that progress is made in spite of these people, and in spite of some of the policies they promote. So such articles are more like a reality check of sorts, showing that we can make progress but we need to work hard for it, it does not just happen by the magic waving of an invisible hand.

thro2309 2y ago
[dead]
Diederich 2y ago
This is an outstanding analysis, thank you, and very succinctly summarizes my own views.

agent008t 2y ago

Also, most people in Western Europe / US care more about how things have changed for white collar / educated workers in their country/block.

renewiltord 2y ago

It's interesting to me that people care about equality. I can't say that I, personally, do. I care only about absolute life standards. If my life is improving I don't care that someone else's is too. But absolute life standards do matter. If Bezos gets another rocketship every minute that's fine if I get another million dollars every minute. I can't really care about his life like that. For those always looking in others' bowl to see if they got more, I can see how this makes them unhappy. It sounds corrosive to the soul.

swatcoder 2y ago
Historically, the best off maintain their largess by making sure there are enough in the fat and happy middle to not support a revolt by those left to deprivation and exploitation. It's reasonable to be fat enough and happy enough that you don't want to rock the boat and don't mind that others have "more in their bowl", which is why this pattern persists through geography and time, but you might want to keep an eye out on how the worst off are doing, whether they're growing or shrinking, and whether things are getting worse or better for them because the other part of the pattern is not unprecedented or unreasonable either.
horsawlarway 2y ago
You absolutely do care about equality. There are some places where absolute standards are fine, but when we discuss social contracts - equality is fundamental. You are not operating as a solitary individual, you are operating within a society that both takes and gives to you, and ensuring that social contracts remain fair is fundamental to keeping that society as a whole alive and functional. ex - how would you feel if the government issues everyone rebates on taxes. you receive 1 dollar. Everyone else receives 100k. Or the government funds schools - your kids receive 1 free book, every other child receives a free college education. Or the government increases park allocations - you are given a 5ftx5ft greenspace, the neighborhood over receives a 10 acre maintained park. Absolute standards are bogus when we are discussing the allocation of group resources. You paid in, you should be monitoring how that resource is paid out. To be oblivious is to essentially be abused. We should care deeply about wealth inequality in society at large. We should not compare ourselves to our neighbors in individual circumstances. They are different things.

diob 2y ago

I also never find it convincing that these sort of articles are written by folks well above a middle class standard of living.

jampekka 2y ago
And funded by billionaires.

umvi 2y ago

> You're not going to convince folks the world is better when they know what kind of deal they're getting vs others out there So people can never be happy if inequality exists? Sounds like an unsolvable problem. No matter how good everything gets, people will still be unhappy because someone else seemingly has it better. 1000 years from now: "Poor person: Sure, I own a 7000 sq ft mansion with an electric drone that can fly me around everywhere and my life expectancy is 105 and my standard of living is an order of magnitude better than the richest people living in 20XX, but Elon Musk VII's life expectancy is 120 and he owns an entire planet with a space fleet, my life sucks, the universe is so unfair."

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Happiness = Reality minus expectations. Also, people, like many animals, are innately driven to compare each other and themselves. This may be a trait that provides (or has provided) an evolutionary advantage, especially in in the process of mating.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nandhinianand 2y ago
Interesting that you read that comment as inequality... > You're not going to convince folks the world is better when they know what kind of deal they're getting vs others out there Somehow i read that as equal opportunities.... To me a fair deal generally means, something close to equal opportunities(of course, ceteris paribus, and rarely do we have all other things equal, but adjusting for it..)
- em-bee 2y ago
  but opportunities are far from equal in many parts of the world, including the US. poverty alone limits your opportunities when you can't even afford a car to apply for a job, or are stuck in a bad school that limits your chances to go to college. in other parts of the world you can't even go to school if you can't afford it.

cryptonector 2y ago

For those who are dirt poor inequality might look like a problem, but as TFA shows the trend line is -and long has been- that everyone gets wealthy enough to have a decent life. If no one is dirt poor, does it really matter if some are much wealthier than others? For example, Elon Musk has many many many times more wealth than I, and I don't care. Ditto Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and so on and on. I don't care about inequality -- I care about poverty and ending it. Formulations like "the problem is no longer poverty but inequality" are a lot like the post-USSR formulations like "now that we have solved the production problem we need to solve the distribution problem". It's Marxism moving the goal posts as economic freedom delivers all the things that Marxists say they want. To argue that one should be given power to solve the problems that are already being solved one has to keep making yet other problems into bigger problems than they really are.

1propionyl 2y ago
> If no one is dirt poor, does it really matter if some are much wealthier than others? Yes, because the wealth distribution has a self-reinforcing inertia, especially over generations. Absent mechanisms for redistribution of personal wealth (e.g. confiscatory inheritance/estate tax over a certain amount) it will only concentrate into a kleptocracy. Too much inequality is bad, even if the lowest 5% lives very well, because it is not a sustainable equilibrium. On the other hand, too little inequality is also not sustainable or desirable.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  I agree that accumulation of power is bad, and since wealth eventually becomes power, accumulation of wealth beyond some point can be bad. However, complaints about inequality invariably seem to go beyond complaints about the lofty 0.001%.
- pglevy 2y ago
  But this hasn't happened. See the book Missing Billionaires by White and Hagani. Subsequent generations are much better at squandering wealth than hoarding it. So that issue sort of takes care of itself.

WalterBright 2y ago

> for most folks the upsetting part these days is around inequality When I was young, the discussion was always about the quality of life for the poor. The inequality problem is a fairly recent thing. When people are free, inequality is the result. To remove inequality requires a totalitarian government. Be careful what you wish for.

Diederich 2y ago
> To remove inequality requires a totalitarian government. Be careful what you wish for. Are a lot of people actively and actually suggesting the full removal of inequality? Finding ways to reduce it is a very different thing.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Every step towards forcible equality is a step towards totalitarianism. Instead, examine government policies that hold people back from being free. For example, making it difficult for a business to employ people.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    This discussion needs to distinguish equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. People don't mind playing games, but if they perceive the games' rules to be tilted (or some players to be cheating), then they will want to flip the board.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      There will always be people who want to "flip the board". The communists had equal opportunity. It didn't work out so well. The magic ingredients are: 1. equality under the law 2. freedom
  - error_logic 2y ago
    Avoiding totalitarianism means recognizing the need for both public and private power structures counteracting each other, not going all-in on one of them alone. Also progressive taxation (a moderate position) which avoids the authoritarian measures of both left and right while counteracting the cancerous effects of exponential growth.

skybrian 2y ago

Yes, looking at global or even national statistics tells you nothing about your own circumstances, which you can judge for yourself without any statistics at all. And it’s true that averages can be misleading. Inequality isn’t about your personal circumstances, though. It’s about what you read in the news. You need statistics to judge it. These statistics are relevant when people talk about where the country is going or where the world is going.

autoexec 2y ago

Yeah, a lot of people in the US are seeing their standard of living decline and their children having to struggle a lot more and in ways neither they or their parents had to. Even the most basic things like clean drinking water and reliable electric power are getting less common in the US. No amount of telling people how bad farmers had it in the 1800s will make people feel better about the new struggles they have to deal with or the things they have to give up having today.