6 ms·
Yeah I'm glad somebody's talking about it. Wealth inequality seems like it will be THE defining issue of our lives (accelerated drastically by AI). I think the
by zug_zug 6mo ago
Yeah I'm glad somebody's talking about it. Wealth inequality seems like it will be THE defining issue of our lives (accelerated drastically by AI).
I think there are many practical ways to solve it, and would love to see more proposals out there. Instead I tend to see nihilism or division.
- tardedmeme 6mo agoExtreme power inequality seems to be the default state of human society. Power concentrates until it's maximally concentrated, then stays there. Power shakeups seem to usually replace one group of elites with another group of smaller or the same size. Exceptions to this rule come about for specific reasons. Before the industrial revolution, there just wasn't that much power to go around. Everyone was working their land for sustenance, and the rent-seeking nobility extracted some percent of production because that's what there was to extract. When the industrial revolution came, those who figured out how to exploit it became the new nobility and worked their employees to the bone. It was only after actual, bloody, war between the factory owners and the employees that we got labor rights, which were a truce agreement. And that agreement's been steadily declining since Reagan. It took a while because the beneficiaries of the labor rights era were able to hold onto their wealth and pass it down to their children, but now we're back in the same factory feudalism situation again, but with different technological status.
- readthenotes1 6mo agoI don't know why you're down voted. Perhaps the observation that inequality is often and the noble savage utopian dream of "all pigs are equal" is not the norm is too a bitter pill to swallow
- verall 6mo agoI believe it's because in many cases, the unspoken follow on to "inequality is the norm" is "and so it's useless (or actively harmful) to try to defy that norm." Not that above commentator is meaning that. But many "thought leaders" i.e. Jordan Petersen play around with similar motte-and-bailey - "hierarchies are natural" (examples with lobsters, apes, whatever) --> "existing hierarchies should be preserved" (not defended in the argument but implied). Probably some downvoters are reacting to the structural similarity, although taken in good faith i think above commenter makes a fine point about the historical pattern of periods of equality being short lived and brought about by great intentional effort while sliding back to inequality seems to occur all of the time.
- goatlover 6mo agoWe do need to include the vast human pre-history when makings sweeping claims about the natural state of human society. There might be something about civilizations that concentrate power which wasn't seen nearly as much among hunter-gatherer groups. If so, there might be steps that can be taken to counter it (indeed the past several centuries would strongly suggest so).
- red-iron-pine 5mo agoas someone else put it, the best loved, most successful hunter-gatherer still wore skins and slept in a cave with the rest of the tribe. the surpluses of the agrarian farmers meant that the pharaoh lived a life vastly different from anyone in his kingdom.
- harimau777 6mo agoThat sounds like the same observation that Thomas Jefferson made: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Obscurity4340 5mo agoHe always knew just what to say
- joe_mamba 6mo ago>Everyone was working their land for sustenance, and the rent-seeking nobility extracted some percent of production because that's what there was to extract Until the black death came in the 1300's and killed an estimated 30–60% of Europe's population, and now the nobility had nobody to rent seek or even to work their land. So then, for the first time ever, the surviving workers gained bargaining power as landowners (lords) competed for labor, leading to high cash wages, better working conditions, and more freedom for peasants, because the feudal lords hadn't yet figured out how to replace the peasants with slaves, H1-Bs and illegals from across the planet. So according to history, including your post-WW1 example, the only times peasants gained bargaining power was when millions of them died through world wars and global pestilence. Looking at recent unfolding history, "There's something very familiar about all this" -Biff Tannen
- thrance 6mo agoI think you'll find that any specific change in political directions come about from specific reasons (what would even be the alternative?).
- 6AA4FD 6mo agoGreat works on this subject, to my mind refuting your nebulous thesis, include Debt by Graeber, Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow, and Mutual Aid by Kropotkin.
- bryanrasmussen 6mo agogenerally the power shakeup that replaces an elite with another elite is one that replaces an old elite with a rising elite better able to take advantage of some economic conditions the old elite is ill-equipped to take advantage of https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-new-exploiters-9d8a06842eeb https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-new-exploiters-9d8a0684...
- nervysnail 6mo ago[flagged]
- Muromec 6mo ago... was an ideology that gave 200 million of people universal healthcare, universal childcare, public housing and increased luteracy rates but took away democracy and national self determination, unleashed genocide and allied with literal Hitler
- sophacles 6mo agoMost ideologies are terrible in those regards. The various forms of democratic capitalism have been pretty big on genocide and oppression too. Most of them were were pretty unconcerned with Hitler until after the marxist-leninists were already fighting him. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
- hermitcrab 6mo ago>Most of them were were pretty unconcerned with Hitler until after the marxist-leninists were already fighting him. Britain, France and allies were fighting Hitler in 1939. Russia was allied with Hitler until 1941, when Hitler attacked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
- jrflowers 6mo agoI love this link about a treaty, which the Soviets broke quickly, that was the direct result of a different treaty between Nazi Germany, the UK, France, and Italy that was signed a year earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement It seems like the signatories to that treaty had no issue with the Nazis annexing particular bits of Europe at the time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- hermitcrab 5mo ago
- _ink_ 6mo agoWhat are these practical ways to solve it? And who do you think will implement them? Especially when Billionaires control the opinions of a big chunk of the population.
- roxolotl 6mo agoYou can read about the transition from the Gilded Age to The Progressive Era in US history for potential solutions. Anti-trust and political reform is a bit part. Political opinions were controlled undemocratically during that period as well through political machines. Direct election of senators, direct primaries, women’s suffrage were enacted to help with that.
- pocksuppet 5mo agoAny political solution (as in voting, bills, laws) will have to start with getting political power. You can't do politics without political power.
- ethanwillis 6mo agoAnd when these things aren't possible?
- XorNot 6mo agoThe US despite everything still runs a popular vote driven democracy that is clearly capable of implementing on short notice, sweeping changes to policy. The problem remains that the US voter consistently demonstrates they don't actually care about these problems though, compared to using the state to intentionally inflict misery on subgroups they don't like. The most radical thing the current administration proves is how unimportant taxes and cost of living actually were to its voters, given the broad support it retains despite overtly and continuously raising or making both those problems worse (read cares as: "understands" - for a group which wouldn't shut up about it, apparently significant changes aren't crippling enough to get them to change their vote in many cases).
- 6mo ago
- pitaj 6mo agoMy hot take is that wealth inequality is the least bad problem we could have, if it is even a problem at all. What people are actually experiencing is not wealth inequality, but cost disease. Vital things (housing, healthcare, education) are more expensive - and that's mostly the fault of state action.
- gazebo2 6mo agoBut that state action is the direct result of wealth's influence over the state and how it operates
- inglor_cz 6mo agoTwo of the three (housing and education) don't seem to be caused by that. Neither restrictive zoning, nor the administrative bloat in academia that caused tuition to skyrocket, were lobbied into existence by people like Bezos and Musk. They are result of tireless lobbying of relatively unimportant people seeking their own little rent.
- FireBeyond 6mo ago> nor the administrative bloat in academia that caused tuition to skyrocket While, let's be clear, administrative bloat in academia is a very real issue, pointing to that as the true root issue is far more nebulous. Student loans being made non-dischargeable by bankruptcy meant that universities could afford to raise tuitions because lenders would be happy/ier to fund those loans because they will get their pound of flesh, even if it takes decades longer than designed.
- nullocator 6mo agoAren't most of the housing issues in this country NIMBYism and zoning? NIMBYism lead by vocal, wealthy property owners? Zoning controlled by governments lead and captured by wealthy and corporate interests?
- BrenBarn 6mo ago
- georgeecollins 6mo agoA great practical suggestion comes in the recent book: "The Second Estate" by Ray Madoff. It is an excellent analysis of the changes to tax policy in the US that have gotten us here. (Yes, I know this isn't just a US problem, but the US is the most important part.) One key suggestion is just to make transferring money into any trust (any!) a taxable event so that capital gains must be realized. It sounds trivial but the effect to various tax evasion strategies is very important. It's also something that really ought to be uncontroversial. Read the book!
- aidenn0 6mo agoUsing an asset as debt-collateral triggering gains being realized would be good too. As would unifying the income and capital gains tax. I disagree with TFA's idea that a wealth tax is the best solution. IMO wealth is easier to hide than income, it's just that nobody bothers right now with there being no wealth tax.
- slibhb 6mo agoInequality isn't a big problem. Those who claim it is seem to think that the existence of really rich people causes the existence of really poor people. That is not the case. It's natural that things are less equal now that we're not farmers or hunter-gatherers. Economies of scale will massively enrich those who take build them. Sometimes it is claimed that inequality is a problem because the rich will control politics. But populism is surging and the rich seem to have a harder time controlling politics than ever, largely due to the disintegration of the print/tv media.
- stavros 6mo agoI don't think anyone says that really poor people are caused by the existence of really rich people. The argument, as I understand it, is that spreading the wealth of billionaires around would mean fewer really poor people.
- tim333 5mo agoThe UK went through getting rid of that with the landed gentry at the start of the twentieth century. Mostly tax - income and inheritance. It requires the political will to vote in people who will do it though.