5 ms·

I'm never able to get to the "so what?" with these. Productivity growth sounds nice, but then it mentions that there's more inequality, higher cost of living, a

I'm never able to get to the "so what?" with these. Productivity growth sounds nice, but then it mentions that there's more inequality, higher cost of living, and more workers struggle in the US than other developed countries. How do I reconcile this? They make a point that eventually the other countries' economies would shrink and won't be able to afford those benefits, but also the US doesn't have those benefits even now. Anyone can elucidate me?

WalterBright 2y ago
> How do I reconcile this? I'm curious why you care that some people have more money than you do? If you want mo' moolah: 1. upgrade your job skills 2. minimize spending (like get a roommate, eschew restaurant food, buy a used car) 3. invest the money you save If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business
- didibus 2y ago
  Not sure I understand how you're reconciliating it? Maybe I'm missing the link you are making with caring or not about other people being richer than oneself, how is that relevant here? What I'm asking is more, what conclusion should I take from the article?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Isn't caring about inequality mean complaining about people having more money than oneself?
    - Jensson 2y ago
      The issue is when others money means high costs for you, such as in healthcare or education or construction. A lot of stuff is really expensive in USA due to the high wages/profits and those workers not being any more productive, that directly hurts your quality of life unless you got an equivalent raise.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        You mentioned healthcare, education, and construction. Those three all have very heavy government interference and regulation. It's unrealistic to blame those high prices on the free market. Consider, on the other hand, the software industry. Essentially zero regulation. Yet the software, very high quality software, tends to be free!!! Why is it that the most regulated, subsidized, and interfered with industries are the most expensive, while the least regulated, unsubsidized, free market industries are the most productive with the lowest prices?
        Jensson 2y ago
        > It's unrealistic to blame those high prices on the free market. I didn't blame the free market, we talked about inequality nobody mentioned free market. That inequality is partially fueled by the unfree regulatory capture, things would be more equal if some regulations were removed.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Musk's wealth did not come about through regulatory capture. Neither did Amazon's, Microsoft's, Google's, etc.
    - tmnvix 2y ago
      Sometimes it's just about inequality. Believe it or not, a lot of us don't like to see those around us go without.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        You're free to help others as much as you like. Those who do have my respect. Those who want to tear down others do not.
        tmnvix 2y ago
        I agree. Though I would just add that I don't consider removing unfair advantages to be tearing others down.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Life is not fair and cannot be made fair. However, living in the US means the opportunity for you is there. It's up to you.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      No, it mean complaining about people having too much and people having too little. It might sound strange for you, but lots of people discuss economics/politics for a greater social good, not their own personal interest.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > It might sound strange for you Wow, you sure misunderstand me. Free markets result in the greater good. Socialism does not. Hence, I prefer free markets.
    - didibus 2y ago
      I think you got hung up on that specific. The bigger issue is that the US has a higher cost of living, and more workers struggle compared to other developed countries. This is why I find the article confusing. At first, it paints a picture of the US as incredibly productive, which should mean that the average citizen's quality of life, and maybe even up to the 99th percentile, would be better than in other developed countries. But then it claims that the average quality of life in the US is actually worse (as in struggling workers and high cost of living). So, I’m left wondering... Why do we care so much about the country’s productivity if it doesn’t improve the average person’s life? In fact, if it’s making things worse for the majority, what’s the point? The only way I can make sense of this is by looking at the distribution of gains. The graph that would explain this would have extreme outliers at the very top, where all the productivity gains are concentrated. This isn’t just inequality in the typical sense of some people having more than others. It’s an extreme form of inequality where almost all the benefits go to the tail end, leaving the majority worse off despite the country’s overall productivity. At least, that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. But at the same time, I don't just believe this, that's why I'm failing to reconcile the contradiction in the article. What's the conclusion you take from the article? P.S.: I don’t mind other people being richer than me as long as it’s mutually beneficial, or if their wealth has no impact on me, good or bad. Most people likely feel the same. The problem arises when someone’s wealth comes at the expense of others. For example, Kings and Emperors in the past were resented because their wealth and power actively held others back and were built off the labor of the masses. On the other hand, I don’t mind someone like Bill Gates being wealthy because his success indirectly benefited me, I have a comfortable job in part because of the industry he helped create.
- adamc 2y ago
  I thought the question was "why should I care about productivity if it doesn't necessarily make my life better?". The article didn't really make the case that average workers were benefiting from this.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The Law of Supply and Demand means that worker total compensation tends to track their productivity.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Would you say that construction is way more productive today in USA than 40 years ago? It seems like stuff are more expensive and less productive at the same time today.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        If you've ever tried to build a house in the US, you'll find out where the money goes. I have, and there's good reason why I am not in the construction business. Oh, and check this out: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/developer-martin-selig-defaults-on-240m-debt-as-seattle-office-woes-mount/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/developer-martin-selig... That's gotta hurt!
        Jensson 2y ago
        So you agree USA has problems? That is the point, the source of that inequality doesn't matter the inequality is still hurting you. There are seemingly less such problems in Europe.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Of course the USA has problems. I've pointed out several. But inequality is not a problem. People wanting to make it big come to the USA. That's why the USA has the biggest, most successful, companies that drive the US gdp forward. Inequality is only a problem for people who are envious.
- criddell 2y ago
  Income inequality is strong predictor of unhappiness in a population. You ask why I care about income inequality? It's because I want more happiness in my community.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
      What if you conduct a survey that asks you to rate your happiness level from 0 to 10.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        How would you know that your 6 is equivalent to the other guy's 8? Nobody knows. It's impossible. There are also cultural differences to what "happiness" even means. Any study about happiness is likely to be bogus.
        jimmySixDOF 2y ago
        There is actually an annual UN World Happiness Report and there have been various pushes to OKR/KPI Gross National Happiness (see Bhutan for example). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness
        CatWChainsaw 2y ago
        Then it seems any study about any emotion or subjective interpretation is also bogus.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  > If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business I'm pretty sure that in my case that would be a fast way to lose a lot of money, but YYMV, I guess.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that in my case that would be a fast way to lose a lot of money 80% of people who start a business lose money on it. Hence, making a lot of money on a business is quite unusual, not the norm.

WalterBright 2y ago

> How do I reconcile this? I'm curious why you care that some people have more money than you do? If you want mo' moolah: 1. upgrade your job skills 2. minimize spending (like get a roommate, eschew restaurant food, buy a used car) 3. invest the money you save If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business

didibus 2y ago
Not sure I understand how you're reconciliating it? Maybe I'm missing the link you are making with caring or not about other people being richer than oneself, how is that relevant here? What I'm asking is more, what conclusion should I take from the article?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Isn't caring about inequality mean complaining about people having more money than oneself?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    The issue is when others money means high costs for you, such as in healthcare or education or construction. A lot of stuff is really expensive in USA due to the high wages/profits and those workers not being any more productive, that directly hurts your quality of life unless you got an equivalent raise.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      You mentioned healthcare, education, and construction. Those three all have very heavy government interference and regulation. It's unrealistic to blame those high prices on the free market. Consider, on the other hand, the software industry. Essentially zero regulation. Yet the software, very high quality software, tends to be free!!! Why is it that the most regulated, subsidized, and interfered with industries are the most expensive, while the least regulated, unsubsidized, free market industries are the most productive with the lowest prices?
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > It's unrealistic to blame those high prices on the free market. I didn't blame the free market, we talked about inequality nobody mentioned free market. That inequality is partially fueled by the unfree regulatory capture, things would be more equal if some regulations were removed.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Musk's wealth did not come about through regulatory capture. Neither did Amazon's, Microsoft's, Google's, etc.
  - tmnvix 2y ago
    Sometimes it's just about inequality. Believe it or not, a lot of us don't like to see those around us go without.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      You're free to help others as much as you like. Those who do have my respect. Those who want to tear down others do not.
      - tmnvix 2y ago
        I agree. Though I would just add that I don't consider removing unfair advantages to be tearing others down.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Life is not fair and cannot be made fair. However, living in the US means the opportunity for you is there. It's up to you.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    No, it mean complaining about people having too much and people having too little. It might sound strange for you, but lots of people discuss economics/politics for a greater social good, not their own personal interest.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > It might sound strange for you Wow, you sure misunderstand me. Free markets result in the greater good. Socialism does not. Hence, I prefer free markets.
  - didibus 2y ago
    I think you got hung up on that specific. The bigger issue is that the US has a higher cost of living, and more workers struggle compared to other developed countries. This is why I find the article confusing. At first, it paints a picture of the US as incredibly productive, which should mean that the average citizen's quality of life, and maybe even up to the 99th percentile, would be better than in other developed countries. But then it claims that the average quality of life in the US is actually worse (as in struggling workers and high cost of living). So, I’m left wondering... Why do we care so much about the country’s productivity if it doesn’t improve the average person’s life? In fact, if it’s making things worse for the majority, what’s the point? The only way I can make sense of this is by looking at the distribution of gains. The graph that would explain this would have extreme outliers at the very top, where all the productivity gains are concentrated. This isn’t just inequality in the typical sense of some people having more than others. It’s an extreme form of inequality where almost all the benefits go to the tail end, leaving the majority worse off despite the country’s overall productivity. At least, that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. But at the same time, I don't just believe this, that's why I'm failing to reconcile the contradiction in the article. What's the conclusion you take from the article? P.S.: I don’t mind other people being richer than me as long as it’s mutually beneficial, or if their wealth has no impact on me, good or bad. Most people likely feel the same. The problem arises when someone’s wealth comes at the expense of others. For example, Kings and Emperors in the past were resented because their wealth and power actively held others back and were built off the labor of the masses. On the other hand, I don’t mind someone like Bill Gates being wealthy because his success indirectly benefited me, I have a comfortable job in part because of the industry he helped create.
adamc 2y ago
I thought the question was "why should I care about productivity if it doesn't necessarily make my life better?". The article didn't really make the case that average workers were benefiting from this.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The Law of Supply and Demand means that worker total compensation tends to track their productivity.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Would you say that construction is way more productive today in USA than 40 years ago? It seems like stuff are more expensive and less productive at the same time today.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      If you've ever tried to build a house in the US, you'll find out where the money goes. I have, and there's good reason why I am not in the construction business. Oh, and check this out: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/developer-martin-selig-defaults-on-240m-debt-as-seattle-office-woes-mount/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/developer-martin-selig... That's gotta hurt!
      - Jensson 2y ago
        So you agree USA has problems? That is the point, the source of that inequality doesn't matter the inequality is still hurting you. There are seemingly less such problems in Europe.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        Of course the USA has problems. I've pointed out several. But inequality is not a problem. People wanting to make it big come to the USA. That's why the USA has the biggest, most successful, companies that drive the US gdp forward. Inequality is only a problem for people who are envious.
criddell 2y ago
Income inequality is strong predictor of unhappiness in a population. You ask why I care about income inequality? It's because I want more happiness in my community.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    What if you conduct a survey that asks you to rate your happiness level from 0 to 10.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      How would you know that your 6 is equivalent to the other guy's 8? Nobody knows. It's impossible. There are also cultural differences to what "happiness" even means. Any study about happiness is likely to be bogus.
      - jimmySixDOF 2y ago
        There is actually an annual UN World Happiness Report and there have been various pushes to OKR/KPI Gross National Happiness (see Bhutan for example). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness
      - CatWChainsaw 2y ago
        Then it seems any study about any emotion or subjective interpretation is also bogus.
UncleOxidant 2y ago
> If you really want to make big money: 1. start your own business I'm pretty sure that in my case that would be a fast way to lose a lot of money, but YYMV, I guess.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that in my case that would be a fast way to lose a lot of money 80% of people who start a business lose money on it. Hence, making a lot of money on a business is quite unusual, not the norm.