4 ms·

Why do we keep moving toward a system where being ahead is the most viable way to get ahead?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Power accumulates the same way rivers flow into the ocean If there is no continuous effort to tax rich people and split up political power, democracy will fall back into feudalism
- quantified 2y ago
  "While" not "if"
- CoastalCoder 2y ago
  Asking someone who knows history better than I do: Is it the case that every time a society has developed extreme wealth concentration, that concentration gets diffused only via violence? E.g., by internal revolution or by takeover by another country?
  - Centigonal 2y ago
    the US Gilded Age into the Great Depression, Labor Movement, and New Deal appears to be a counterexample.
    - eszed 2y ago
      I agree. You can, however, make a case that that time period was revolutionary - i.e. that power relationships were transformed - though without (much, at least widespread) violence. That's certainly the argument made by those within American society who want to undo the legislation and institutions by which those changes came about.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gosub100 2y ago
Because "we" don't have a functioning democracy. Only the illusion of one.
DrillShopper 2y ago
Because money controls things
floatrock 2y ago
because r > g
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Not sure what that is but it's more like the Lotka-Volterra equations (predator–prey model). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equat...
  - btrettel 2y ago
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce... for an explanation of r > g.
robocat 2y ago
I think systems grow by themselves - more like a biological ecosystem. Even powerful politicians seem to often be reduced to dealing with the outcomes of a system without seeming to understand how that system works. The idea that people are in charge leads to conspiratorial theories: imagined incentives of people behind the scenes. However I know I look at the world differently from most people: so it is just as likely my own views are warped.
vkou 2y ago
Because of the golden rule. The people with all the gold make all the rules.
phendrenad2 2y ago
It's always been this way. The "rags-to-riches" stories are fabrications to keep the average worker thinking they have a chance. You have a better chance of winning the lottery, which coincidentally, is another psyop to keep people believing that they have a chance.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  > You have a better chance of winning the lottery You are off by several orders of magnitude - a person starting in wealth quintile 1 (numbered poorest to richest) has an ~18% chance to reach quintile 4 or 5, and starting from quintile 2, that rises to 25%. Source: Figure 1, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealth-mobility-is-low-and-decreases-with-age/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealt...
  - phendrenad2 2y ago
    Well I think that the PSID, which supplies the data for that paper/article, is fundamentally flawed and the potential error margin is too huge for it to be taken seriously.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      This PSID? https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is the longest running longitudinal household survey in the world The study began in 1968 with a nationally representative sample of over 18,000 individuals living in 5,000 families in the United States. Information on these individuals and their descendants has been collected continuously, including data covering employment, income, wealth, expenditures, health, marriage, childbearing, child development, philanthropy, education, and numerous other topics. Over 7,600 peer-reviewed publications have been based on the PSID. How flawed do you think it is and why? What is the potential error margin? 20%? 200%? 1000%? And if this data is flawed, which alternative, better data did you base your statement on? The one about wealth mobility being largely a myth.

Power accumulates the same way rivers flow into the ocean If there is no continuous effort to tax rich people and split up political power, democracy will fall back into feudalism

quantified 2y ago
"While" not "if"
CoastalCoder 2y ago
Asking someone who knows history better than I do: Is it the case that every time a society has developed extreme wealth concentration, that concentration gets diffused only via violence? E.g., by internal revolution or by takeover by another country?
- Centigonal 2y ago
  the US Gilded Age into the Great Depression, Labor Movement, and New Deal appears to be a counterexample.
  - eszed 2y ago
    I agree. You can, however, make a case that that time period was revolutionary - i.e. that power relationships were transformed - though without (much, at least widespread) violence. That's certainly the argument made by those within American society who want to undo the legislation and institutions by which those changes came about.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gosub100 2y ago

Because "we" don't have a functioning democracy. Only the illusion of one.

DrillShopper 2y ago

Because money controls things

floatrock 2y ago

because r > g

HPsquared 2y ago
Not sure what that is but it's more like the Lotka-Volterra equations (predator–prey model). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equat...
- btrettel 2y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century#Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce... for an explanation of r > g.

robocat 2y ago

I think systems grow by themselves - more like a biological ecosystem. Even powerful politicians seem to often be reduced to dealing with the outcomes of a system without seeming to understand how that system works. The idea that people are in charge leads to conspiratorial theories: imagined incentives of people behind the scenes. However I know I look at the world differently from most people: so it is just as likely my own views are warped.

vkou 2y ago

Because of the golden rule. The people with all the gold make all the rules.

phendrenad2 2y ago

It's always been this way. The "rags-to-riches" stories are fabrications to keep the average worker thinking they have a chance. You have a better chance of winning the lottery, which coincidentally, is another psyop to keep people believing that they have a chance.

like_any_other 2y ago
> You have a better chance of winning the lottery You are off by several orders of magnitude - a person starting in wealth quintile 1 (numbered poorest to richest) has an ~18% chance to reach quintile 4 or 5, and starting from quintile 2, that rises to 25%. Source: Figure 1, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealth-mobility-is-low-and-decreases-with-age/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealt...
- phendrenad2 2y ago
  Well I think that the PSID, which supplies the data for that paper/article, is fundamentally flawed and the potential error margin is too huge for it to be taken seriously.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    This PSID? https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is the longest running longitudinal household survey in the world The study began in 1968 with a nationally representative sample of over 18,000 individuals living in 5,000 families in the United States. Information on these individuals and their descendants has been collected continuously, including data covering employment, income, wealth, expenditures, health, marriage, childbearing, child development, philanthropy, education, and numerous other topics. Over 7,600 peer-reviewed publications have been based on the PSID. How flawed do you think it is and why? What is the potential error margin? 20%? 200%? 1000%? And if this data is flawed, which alternative, better data did you base your statement on? The one about wealth mobility being largely a myth.