6 ms·

The discourse around inequality in this article and elsewhere is frustrating to me, because it advances the idea that inequality is fundamentally unjust, using

The discourse around inequality in this article and elsewhere is frustrating to me, because it advances the idea that inequality is fundamentally unjust, using the lives of the poor as the example. To me this misses the point. The problem is not inequality, the problem is poverty. If everyone had enough that their basic needs were met and they were not struggling to survive, the fact that some people can afford Lamborghinis and some cannot would not be unjust in my opinion. Without inequality, there are no Elon Musks. Bootstrapping SpaceX and Tesla required more than 1/6,000,000,000'th of the world's resources. Big results require investment, and it's not practical to crowdfund a multi-million dollar investment. So who should we entrust to make big bets? Doesn't it only make sense that the people who have already been the most successful in creating wealth should have the freedom to take that wealth to try out new ideas? Inequality is not the problem. Poverty is the problem. Lack of access to education is the problem. We should strive to see that everyone can focus on improving their life and doing interesting things without struggling to survive. And if the most successful people take their spoils and build a 150-foot yacht, or take a ride into space, or invest in the next big company, more power to them.

blah32497 13y ago
Yep yep. The John Rawls's theory of justice should be a required topic in school. What matters is how well the poorest in society are doing, not the income distribution. If a system creates a mega rich class but ends up with the poorest in society being better off - then that's a better system. I'd also qualify that "poverty" is flexible and always changing. I live on 10K/yr in college (2 years ago). I had to share a room with a roommate, ate a lot of rice and beans. I was a pain in the ass - though not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. However not being able to afford a cellphone or a car, having an ancient computer and not being able to afford a lot of social activities (movies, restaurants, etc.) had a noticeable negative affect on my life. If I had grown up my whole life on 10K/yr it probably would have had a major impact. 20 years ago, a car and a phone and internet were a luxury, in Africa or South America it's still a luxury. In modern america, it's poverty.
- glomph 13y ago
  We are so far from a distribution that even a Rawls based system would support that it seems pretty crass to even talk about it in my mind.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The problem is not inequality, the problem is poverty. In terms of experienced disutility, the two are largely the same; relative deprivation is a very significant source of disutility.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  Arguable. Being hungry, homeless or sick is an actual problem that causes people great suffering. Driving a Honda while one's neighbor drives a Ferrari shouldn't cause anyone any suffering (if it does, it's self-inflicted). The former is poverty, the latter is inequality.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Arguable. Well, in a world where no one studied the issue, maybe. > Being hungry, homeless or sick is an actual problem that causes people great suffering. So is relative deprivation. > Driving a Honda while one's neighbor drives a Ferrari shouldn't cause anyone any suffering. "Should" and "is" aren't the same thing. One is a statement of preference, the other of reality.
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      So are you arguing that having less luxury than others (but still luxury) causes people psychological pain, so society should give everyone everything they want? I don't think even the most hardcore communists ever asked for that.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > So are you arguing that having less luxury than others (but still luxury) causes people psychological pain, so society should give everyone everything they want? No. You can tell that, because I didn't: 1) Assert the premise you propose, or 2) Assert the conclusion you propose. > I don't think even the most hardcore communists ever asked for that. Probably not. It's a ridiculous strawman you just invented.
baddox 13y ago
> Inequality is not the problem. Poverty is the problem. Not necessarily. The article doesn't develop the argument, but hints at the fact that if the perception of unfairness (due to observed wealth inequality irrespective of the poverty rate) in a society becomes sufficiently widespread, there could be negative consequences. The most extreme example is probably a violent revolution of the less wealth against the extremely wealthy.
pyoung 13y ago
I think you are taking these arguments too literally. The issue isn't inequality in itself, it is the degree to which inequality exists. Wealth inequality in the US is at all time highs. Part of this is due to globalization and technology, but a good part of it is also attributable to record low tax rates and business friendly government policy. Meanwhile, tuition at the public university I attended has increased by 400% in the past 10 years. I don't think anyone cares about rich people driving fancy cars. They can spend their money how they like. Additionally, I don't think we will ever get rid of poverty entirely. The implicit agreement that we have reached as a society is that as long as the government ensures equal opportunity and social mobility, we will tolerate a certain degree of wealth inequality. Unfortunately, that inequality is so extreme that it is negatively impacting opportunity and mobility.
- haberman 13y ago
  Your comment does exactly what I am describing. Your advocacy assumes all of the following are true without actually offering any evidence for them: - "too much" wealth inequality is an a priori problem - "extreme" inequality negatively impacts opportunity and mobility - the increase in school tuition is somehow a symptom of this You also said I'm taking things too literally, but is Elon Musk not an example of the "extreme" wealth inequality you are describing?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You also said I'm taking things too literally, but is Elon Musk not an example of the "extreme" wealth inequality you are describing? How can an individual be an example of extreme wealth inequality?
    - haberman 13y ago
      Because that one individual comprises 0.00000001% of the world's population but controls 0.003% of its wealth. His net worth is 210,314 times what would be "allowed" in a world with perfect equality.
avmich 13y ago
Poverty is a relative term. The article mentions that people compare their lives not to kings of the past, but to riches of the present.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
JDulin 13y ago
Inequality not being fundamentally unjust does not imply it isn't a huge problem for society. First of all, it makes it easy for the wealthy to lock the poor (and the rich) into their locations on the income graphs. The systems the wealthy can set in place are an impediment to a meritocracy by ensuring the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, whether that is through boarding schools and trust funds or the Drug War and a toothless minimum wage. If the resulting massive disparity in wages implies one thing, it's that our civilization is wasting a lot of untapped human productivity on the low end of the wealth graph. Secondly, it creates social resentment, fragmentation, and stratification. These are just emotions and Sociology Major words, yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. If the people at the bottom of the ladder feel like they don't have the power to climb, a society can end very badly as its political process becomes more polarized and communities are segregated. Finally, it creates large gaps not just in material wealth, but political. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, you think either the Koch Brothers or George Soros are destroying America. Either way, it can be agreed that democracies are undermined by a few unelected individuals wielding huge amounts of power. Less income inequality means less political inequality. Nothing you said is wrong, but it's unhelpful. It distracts from how important dealing with growing income inequality will be in the future by saying "The discourse... is frustrating to me, because it's not pedantically right." It might be necessary if sama was arguing against large wealth disparities in a post-poverty civilization, but that is not what we have. Like you said: Poverty is the problem. And while we have poverty, poverty and inequality are closely linked.
- haberman 13y ago
  > It might be necessary if sama was arguing against large wealth disparities in a post-poverty civilization, but that is not what we have. Like you said: Poverty is the problem. And while we have poverty, poverty and inequality are closely linked. This is where you lose me. Solving the problem of poverty is a matter of making sure that the poorest people have enough. Solving the "problem" of inequality is a matter of making sure that nobody has "too much."
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    As long as resources are finite, there is an upper bound on how much one individual can have without depriving others. I'm not convinced we're near it, though...
RivieraKid 13y ago
Inequality has couple of negative side effects like less cohesive society or power inequality.

blah32497 13y ago

Yep yep. The John Rawls's theory of justice should be a required topic in school. What matters is how well the poorest in society are doing, not the income distribution. If a system creates a mega rich class but ends up with the poorest in society being better off - then that's a better system. I'd also qualify that "poverty" is flexible and always changing. I live on 10K/yr in college (2 years ago). I had to share a room with a roommate, ate a lot of rice and beans. I was a pain in the ass - though not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. However not being able to afford a cellphone or a car, having an ancient computer and not being able to afford a lot of social activities (movies, restaurants, etc.) had a noticeable negative affect on my life. If I had grown up my whole life on 10K/yr it probably would have had a major impact. 20 years ago, a car and a phone and internet were a luxury, in Africa or South America it's still a luxury. In modern america, it's poverty.

glomph 13y ago
We are so far from a distribution that even a Rawls based system would support that it seems pretty crass to even talk about it in my mind.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The problem is not inequality, the problem is poverty. In terms of experienced disutility, the two are largely the same; relative deprivation is a very significant source of disutility.

ahomescu1 13y ago
Arguable. Being hungry, homeless or sick is an actual problem that causes people great suffering. Driving a Honda while one's neighbor drives a Ferrari shouldn't cause anyone any suffering (if it does, it's self-inflicted). The former is poverty, the latter is inequality.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Arguable. Well, in a world where no one studied the issue, maybe. > Being hungry, homeless or sick is an actual problem that causes people great suffering. So is relative deprivation. > Driving a Honda while one's neighbor drives a Ferrari shouldn't cause anyone any suffering. "Should" and "is" aren't the same thing. One is a statement of preference, the other of reality.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    So are you arguing that having less luxury than others (but still luxury) causes people psychological pain, so society should give everyone everything they want? I don't think even the most hardcore communists ever asked for that.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > So are you arguing that having less luxury than others (but still luxury) causes people psychological pain, so society should give everyone everything they want? No. You can tell that, because I didn't: 1) Assert the premise you propose, or 2) Assert the conclusion you propose. > I don't think even the most hardcore communists ever asked for that. Probably not. It's a ridiculous strawman you just invented.

baddox 13y ago

> Inequality is not the problem. Poverty is the problem. Not necessarily. The article doesn't develop the argument, but hints at the fact that if the perception of unfairness (due to observed wealth inequality irrespective of the poverty rate) in a society becomes sufficiently widespread, there could be negative consequences. The most extreme example is probably a violent revolution of the less wealth against the extremely wealthy.

pyoung 13y ago

I think you are taking these arguments too literally. The issue isn't inequality in itself, it is the degree to which inequality exists. Wealth inequality in the US is at all time highs. Part of this is due to globalization and technology, but a good part of it is also attributable to record low tax rates and business friendly government policy. Meanwhile, tuition at the public university I attended has increased by 400% in the past 10 years. I don't think anyone cares about rich people driving fancy cars. They can spend their money how they like. Additionally, I don't think we will ever get rid of poverty entirely. The implicit agreement that we have reached as a society is that as long as the government ensures equal opportunity and social mobility, we will tolerate a certain degree of wealth inequality. Unfortunately, that inequality is so extreme that it is negatively impacting opportunity and mobility.

haberman 13y ago
Your comment does exactly what I am describing. Your advocacy assumes all of the following are true without actually offering any evidence for them: - "too much" wealth inequality is an a priori problem - "extreme" inequality negatively impacts opportunity and mobility - the increase in school tuition is somehow a symptom of this You also said I'm taking things too literally, but is Elon Musk not an example of the "extreme" wealth inequality you are describing?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You also said I'm taking things too literally, but is Elon Musk not an example of the "extreme" wealth inequality you are describing? How can an individual be an example of extreme wealth inequality?
  - haberman 13y ago
    Because that one individual comprises 0.00000001% of the world's population but controls 0.003% of its wealth. His net worth is 210,314 times what would be "allowed" in a world with perfect equality.

avmich 13y ago

Poverty is a relative term. The article mentions that people compare their lives not to kings of the past, but to riches of the present.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

JDulin 13y ago

Inequality not being fundamentally unjust does not imply it isn't a huge problem for society. First of all, it makes it easy for the wealthy to lock the poor (and the rich) into their locations on the income graphs. The systems the wealthy can set in place are an impediment to a meritocracy by ensuring the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, whether that is through boarding schools and trust funds or the Drug War and a toothless minimum wage. If the resulting massive disparity in wages implies one thing, it's that our civilization is wasting a lot of untapped human productivity on the low end of the wealth graph. Secondly, it creates social resentment, fragmentation, and stratification. These are just emotions and Sociology Major words, yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. If the people at the bottom of the ladder feel like they don't have the power to climb, a society can end very badly as its political process becomes more polarized and communities are segregated. Finally, it creates large gaps not just in material wealth, but political. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, you think either the Koch Brothers or George Soros are destroying America. Either way, it can be agreed that democracies are undermined by a few unelected individuals wielding huge amounts of power. Less income inequality means less political inequality. Nothing you said is wrong, but it's unhelpful. It distracts from how important dealing with growing income inequality will be in the future by saying "The discourse... is frustrating to me, because it's not pedantically right." It might be necessary if sama was arguing against large wealth disparities in a post-poverty civilization, but that is not what we have. Like you said: Poverty is the problem. And while we have poverty, poverty and inequality are closely linked.

haberman 13y ago
> It might be necessary if sama was arguing against large wealth disparities in a post-poverty civilization, but that is not what we have. Like you said: Poverty is the problem. And while we have poverty, poverty and inequality are closely linked. This is where you lose me. Solving the problem of poverty is a matter of making sure that the poorest people have enough. Solving the "problem" of inequality is a matter of making sure that nobody has "too much."
- dllthomas 13y ago
  As long as resources are finite, there is an upper bound on how much one individual can have without depriving others. I'm not convinced we're near it, though...

RivieraKid 13y ago

Inequality has couple of negative side effects like less cohesive society or power inequality.