6 ms·

Any system that allows humans agency will end up with a Pareto-style distribution in that thing (non-linear). Doesn’t matter if it’s wealth, HN upvotes, Crime,

Any system that allows humans agency will end up with a Pareto-style distribution in that thing (non-linear). Doesn’t matter if it’s wealth, HN upvotes, Crime, Traffic accidents, Productivity, Tetris scores, academic papers published, etc. As for the slight drift in US wealth distribution since 1980, it’s wholly explained by the change in age demographics. Since 1980 we’ve gone from a nation of people 30 years old to 40 years old. 10 years is a lot of time when it comes to compounding returns on productive assets (stocks, etc). Due to compounding, wealth held by each age group also gets more Pareto-extreme heading into retirement age. Adjust that out, and this is mostly a nothing burger. But emotionally people don’t feel that way so nothing I say will change that. Narrative zeitgeist always wins over objective reality. Average Americans are wealthier than they've ever been. Another chart to drive this home, the percentage of Americans who have a passport since 1989 (Note, this is also influenced by age demographics, but not as dramatically as wealth): https://www.statista.com/statistics/804430/us-citzens-owning-a-passport/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/804430/us-citzens-owning...

ahaferburg 2y ago
It's not a slight drift, it's a massive change since the 1950's. Looking at averages is completely irrelevant when talking about inequality. Here's a video from 12 years ago: Wealth Inequality in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
- pembrook 2y ago
  If we're moving the goalposts to the 1950's, why not instead compare the 1920's to now? Hey why not the 1880's? My point is that pareto distributions ("inequality") are not some evil to be eliminated, they're the direct memetic outcome of how humans work. We can of course cut all the tall poppies to make everyone equal, but that's just cutting off your nose to spite one's face. Allowing inequality to exist is why average Americans are the wealthiest people on the planet. Turns out all those tall poppies drive the productivity gains that accrue to all of us (hence why we've gone from near-zero Americans holding passports to 50% of people during the same time frame that inequality has increased). I know, it doesn't fit with the narrative you have in your head so I won't convince you otherwise.

ahaferburg 2y ago

It's not a slight drift, it's a massive change since the 1950's. Looking at averages is completely irrelevant when talking about inequality. Here's a video from 12 years ago: Wealth Inequality in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

pembrook 2y ago
If we're moving the goalposts to the 1950's, why not instead compare the 1920's to now? Hey why not the 1880's? My point is that pareto distributions ("inequality") are not some evil to be eliminated, they're the direct memetic outcome of how humans work. We can of course cut all the tall poppies to make everyone equal, but that's just cutting off your nose to spite one's face. Allowing inequality to exist is why average Americans are the wealthiest people on the planet. Turns out all those tall poppies drive the productivity gains that accrue to all of us (hence why we've gone from near-zero Americans holding passports to 50% of people during the same time frame that inequality has increased). I know, it doesn't fit with the narrative you have in your head so I won't convince you otherwise.