4 ms·

"We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. " Yeah, relative income isn't really a good measure. You want to raise the floor for people

• throwaway27448 3mo ago
  Wealth inequality itself causes a great number of ills in this country. We should absolutely aim to lower this gap as a goal in itself.
  • logicchains 3mo ago
    Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.
    • simianwords 3mo ago
      The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.
      • cyberjerkXX 3mo ago
        All human relationships have inequalities. Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian bullshit. It always leads to worse outcomes than intendent because humans are imperfect. Intentions should never be the measure of success, only outcomes.
        • watwut 3mo ago
          Those hierarchies are the result and consequence of goverment being captured by super rich. Removing it and weakening sociopathic predators is correct. They will cauase less damage when they are not constantly given advantages.
        • SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
          > Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian yes, "destroy hierarchies" is utopian. But that's a complete straw man version of "reduce very high levels of inequality that have highly visible political impacts".
          • simianwords 3mo ago
            Non trivial number of people believe that everyone is equal in abilities. Non trivial number of people believe that communism is a preferable end goal - a goal that excludes hierarchies from forming.
            • SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
              > Non trivial number of people believe that everyone is equal in abilities. really? Have you ever met anyone like this? Cool story, but also another straw man - not relevant to the article and to "We should absolutely aim to lower this gap".
      • logicchains 3mo ago
        >The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. The only agency it reduces is the agency for people to make decisions about what should be done with other people's wealth. Which is not a productive agency for them to have as they've got an incredible conflict of interest to just waste it on themselves.
        • simianwords 3mo ago
          I have changed my opinions on this. Land reform initiatives have been carried out globally at different points and it has been seen as broadly useful and necessary. Why? Medial and pre-medieval times, debt cancellation was also broadly necessary and done. Why?
      • SideburnsOfDoom 3mo ago
        > The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. Yes! > But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Bafflegab. > Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency Sophistry. Why is "efficiency" a goal and how would you even define it? Look at the current pollical great power of Oligarchs. Does this strike you as "efficient"? I see it as producing poor outcomes, and that's all.
    • danbruc 3mo ago
      Envy is the completely wrong framing, it is about fairness. If you design widgets and 99 people build them and everyone works the same number of hours, then the fair share is 1 % for everyone. One percent of the work, one percent of the profit. If you take 2 % [1] while everyone else only gets 0.99 %, that is unfair. And look, the difference for each individual is tiny, 0.99 % or 1 %, that makes it easy to dismiss despite being the source of the unfair inequality. [1] 1.99 % if we want to be precise.
      • gadders 3mo ago
        What about the chap that mortgaged his house to rent a factory and buy a widget maker and employs these people? What % should he take?
        • danbruc 3mo ago
          He will get the same as the others if he works the same number of hours to run the company. The dept would ideally be company debt and not personal dept, after all one reason to found a company is to separate personal and business risks. But if you invest personal money in the company, you get that money back plus some risk and opportunity premium just as you would pay back any other loan. What fraction that is will of course depend on the amount, premium, and payback period. Just investing some money will not provide you a perpetual income.
          • gadders 3mo ago
            That sounds like an amazing way to stop people taking risks to start companies.
            • danbruc 3mo ago
              Only people that see businesses primarily as a way to get rich and not as a way to satisfy consumer demand while doing something you like.
              • 3mo ago
    • mcphage 3mo ago
      > Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. No, it really is the wealth inequality.
  • mlrtime 3mo ago
    You missed the point, If the floor and the medium are rising, why does the gap need to narrow? Why is this better factually, not ideologically.
    • danbruc 3mo ago
      Because the gap indicates unfairness and people care about that. If you are poor, raising the floor will be good enough, you primary worry will be sufficient income. Once you reach a comfortable life, your priority will - or at least may - shift, now you are in a position that allows you to worry if the situation is fair. Also narrowing the gap is a way to raise the floor including in absence of growth while raising the floor without narrowing the gap depends on growth. But I think this is not too relevant in practice because taking a lot of money from a few wealthy people will often result in rather small changes as the money has to be spread among a lot of people.
      • mlrtime 3mo ago
        Fairness is ideology. The world will never ever be fair, nature isn't fair. We should strive for fairness of course (raising the min/medium). But that still isn't a convincing reason (I want to be convinced)
    • watwut 3mo ago
      Because needs and preferences of lower level are less and less reflected in policies and production. They are becomming permanent underclass with no future. They dont matter for politics nor for economics. Preferences of super rich are overwriting them, while super rich become richer, while super rich offload all risk they take on others.
      • mlrtime 3mo ago
        That still doesn't explain why the gap needs to narrow if the min/median are rising. The pie can increase, everyone can be better off without shrinking the gap.
    • inigyou 3mo ago
  • gadders 3mo ago
    Well, I guess there are two parts of it: 1) Raise the floor for everyone 2) Work to make sure that the path for talented (however you define that) people to go from low earners to high earners is as simple as possible.
• panick21_ 3mo ago
  Yes you want to raise the floor, but the US is doing a famously bad job at that. I generally agree that if it was true that the inequality would lead to consistent floor raising it would be fine, but it doesn't.