4 ms·
Why do you see inequality as the problem, instead of poverty?
by argentinian 3mo ago
Why do you see inequality as the problem, instead of poverty?
- oblio 3mo agoBecause they go together. The hallmark of developed countries is that they're even, mostly egalitarian and developed everywhere. The hallmark of developing or underdeveloped countries is precisely the staggering levels of inequality. Not everyone is poor in a developing/underdeveloped country. Quite a few people there live lives that would make upper middle classes in developed countries blush. Life "just" sucks for the majority of people there.
- argentinian 3mo agoCorrelation is not causation. Would you say USA is a developed country, considering for example Los Angeles slums? And there's a bigger inequality between Elon musk and a well paid software developer than between a poor person in a developing country and a rich politician from that country.
- oblio 3mo ago> Would you say USA is a developed country I'm not saying anything (directly). We have definitions for these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country According to any way we currently categorize developed countries, the US is one of them.
- argentinian 3mo agoAcording to what you say: - "The hallmark of developed countries is that they're even, mostly egalitarian and developed everywhere." - "they go together" (poverty and inequality). - The US is a developed country. - The US has a great wealth inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_we... What you say implies contradictions.
- oblio 3mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884765
- RetroTechie 3mo ago> The hallmark of developed countries is that they're even, mostly egalitarian and developed everywhere. Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_we... Developed-but-very-unequal, and less-developed-but-more-equal are a thing.
- oblio 3mo agoWealth is a lagging indicator. Also, I have my own standard (https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
- argentinian 3mo agoMany underdeveloped African countries have low Gini. Do you prefer perfect equality in poverty, or some inequality and some wealth, a mixture of coexisting inequality and wealth.
- lordnacho 3mo agoMost countries we are discussing are richer now than a few decades ago, yet still have domestic servants. Those servants will be richer in a few decades but will still be in that situation.
- argentinian 3mo agoThen I think that terrible labor laws are the main problem, not inequality
- 59percentmore 3mo agoThe terrible labor laws exist because of the inequality. The people with servants write the laws and, in their magnaminity, don't let the servants vote.
- argentinian 3mo agoYou are writing about democratic countries. Everyone votes. I sense that you're pointing to a different problem.
- oblio 3mo agoEven in democracies, voting can be distorted. Gerrymandering, lobbying, revolving doors, plain old bribes, etc.
- argentinian 3mo agoSo, corruption is the problem, not inequality.
- 59percentmore 3mo agoCorruption is a enabled by inequality.
- 59percentmore 3mo agoLogically-speaking, poverty can't exist without inequality. It's a condition of "want" that requires others to "have". Practically-speaking, inequality is insidious because it enables violations of rights and unjust denial of opportunity even when poverty has been eradicated. Cold comfort, to the middle-class family of people mowed down by a rich motorist who faces negligible jail time because the money they can spend on a lawyer is outside the scope of what the legal system is built to handle.
- argentinian 3mo agoThere's poverty without inequality. In some primitive tribes everyone was poor. When natural adverse conditions hit some regions, also poverty was widespread. That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system. I don't think you would consider equal and just that every person could influence justice. The problem is the justice system.
- 59percentmore 3mo agoIf everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance. >That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense as those doing the wrong, at which point righteousness should prevail.
- argentinian 3mo agoYou redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition. Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money: e.g advantageous connections with others, deception, etc. There's corruption among poor people, and rich people also steal from other rich people. An utopic idea of equality blocks the capacity of observing how things work.
- aetimmes 3mo agoBecause exploitation is a two-actor system and poverty is a unary operator.
- argentinian 3mo agoThat two actor system needs an poor person to exploit. You are confirming my statement that poverty is the main problem.
- comfysocks 3mo agoAnd you need a rich person to do the exploiting. The power differential is a key ingredient.
- argentinian 3mo agoWhat's your definition of exploitation? There's is poor people who exploit other poor people. Poor people that sends children to work for example. Only the rich can exploit? You are not using the definition of exploitation from the dictionaries. A stronger or armed person has a power differential with a weaker person. A smarter and less smart person too. So, exploitation doesn't seem to be related exclusively to wealth inequality. It's a moral thing, not a matter of wealth differences. A simple narrative of "us-good VS them-bad" is reductionistic.
- RetroTechie 3mo agoInequality is a big factor. Story says the woman in this case felt she was compensated. Like feeling 'lucky' to enjoy (some) perks of living in a rich household. If that family had been as poor as her (or her mother), that stops being true. Then it becomes hard to keep a slave from walking away without resorting to violence. Another big factor is the victim simply not knowing any better. Not being able to read might have helped with that (and I'd guess she probably wasn't allowed a phone, to keep her isolated from outside). Point is there's a lot of space between "whips & chains" and "paying below minimum wage". Unfortunately some people are really good at exploiting that space.
- argentinian 3mo agoYour first paragraph says that poverty makes people accept things they wouldn't if they had more money. Poverty is the problem there. Education and a society's culture are certainly important too.
- RetroTechie 3mo agoYes poverty is a factor. But inequality too - it helps to create [the powerless vs the powerful] situations. Even if those on the bottom may not qualify as poor. > Education and a society's culture are certainly important too. Agreed.
- argentinian 3mo agoIn the powerless VS powerful situation, taking aside poverty, what do you mean? The powerful manipulating the justice system with money?
- RetroTechie 3mo ago> The powerful manipulating the justice system with money? That's a good example. Curtailing voter rights is another. And then there's money -> influence on media.