5 ms·

The disparity between rich and poor is something that society actively decides upon, and society would be well advised to take into account the ramifications of

The disparity between rich and poor is something that society actively decides upon, and society would be well advised to take into account the ramifications of its decision. Part of that information being that the absolute value of an individual's wealth is far from the only important factor - relative values are important to. Humans judge their wealth relative to other people. To look at it in a nice, emotive context, which society do you suppose is happier: the one where the cure for all cancers exists, but is so labour intensive that only the rich can afford it, or the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat? I'd caution you not to underestimate the pain of knowing that your loved one could be saved, if only you had a bit more money. Whether someone is ugly or not is not really something that society makes an active choice about at the moment - I'm not sure it's relevant. NB: No, I am not a commie, and I am in full favour of some income disparity as a motivator towards useful output. I just find the assertion that it doesn't matter if the rich have an ever-increasing share of the pie as long as the pie keeps growing a touch disingenuous. edit: formatting

anamax 18y ago
> To look at it in a nice, emotive context, which society do you suppose is happier: the one where the cure for all cancers exists, but is so labour intensive that only the rich can afford it, or the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat? I'd caution you not to underestimate the pain of knowing that your loved one could be saved, if only you had a bit more money. Spare me the sanctimony. Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow. You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little? > I just find the assertion that it doesn't matter if the rich have an ever-increasing share of the pie as long as the pie keeps growing a touch disingenuous. Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? It's not that the pie keeps growing. It's that the amount of pie that the poor get keeps growing.
- AlisdairO 18y ago
  > Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow. And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. > You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little? No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly), but has lesser income disparity will probably be happier than one with massive income disparity and faster overall progress. I'm not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong', but I am saying that this is a fact. Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? > Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle? > No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly). Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there. Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers. > I am saying that this is a fact. Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences. > Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.) >> Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? > Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem. Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence. As far as "caring" goes, you've conceded that my way results in faster delivery of essential goods to poor people. That leaves us with I'm evil and your way kills people.

anamax 18y ago

> To look at it in a nice, emotive context, which society do you suppose is happier: the one where the cure for all cancers exists, but is so labour intensive that only the rich can afford it, or the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat? I'd caution you not to underestimate the pain of knowing that your loved one could be saved, if only you had a bit more money. Spare me the sanctimony. Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow. You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little? > I just find the assertion that it doesn't matter if the rich have an ever-increasing share of the pie as long as the pie keeps growing a touch disingenuous. Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? It's not that the pie keeps growing. It's that the amount of pie that the poor get keeps growing.

AlisdairO 18y ago
> Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow. And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. > You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little? No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly), but has lesser income disparity will probably be happier than one with massive income disparity and faster overall progress. I'm not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong', but I am saying that this is a fact. Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? > Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem.
- anamax 18y ago
  > And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle? > No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly). Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there. Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers. > I am saying that this is a fact. Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences. > Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.) >> Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? > Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem. Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence. As far as "caring" goes, you've conceded that my way results in faster delivery of essential goods to poor people. That leaves us with I'm evil and your way kills people.