4 ms·

"The best thing one can probably say about this widening inequality is that it means we are making technological progress" This is not a considered analysis. I

"The best thing one can probably say about this widening inequality is that it means we are making technological progress" This is not a considered analysis. It's perfectly possible for wealth distribution to widen without technological progress. Where is the economics? Where is the history? Where is the politics? I've enjoyed Sam's posts before, but this strikes me as a flavor of SV hubristic reductionism. Not every human issue revolves around technology, and technology is not the solution to every ill.

ThomPete 13y ago
examples please
chubot 13y ago
Yeah there is an assumption in the article that technology is the leading cause of wealth inequality. What about regressive government policies? The rich have more of an ability to influence policy in this country. Therefore they can get laws passed that are favorable to themselves, e.g. regressive policies. It would be very surprising if you didn't see this, and if it were not a cause of huge income disparity. But we don't have to look very hard to see it. For one, actually working for a living is taxed at a greater rate than letting your money sit around in various accounts. I'm glad Warren Buffett spoke out about this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have done much. Another example of a de facto regressive policy is the employer-provided health insurance system. People in the middle class who work for corporations generally get health insurance for free and don't have to worry about it, while poor people went insured (hopefully this will be resolved by Obamacare; it's not clear to me how it will play out). There is a vicious cycle between being sick and poor. People are poor because they're sick, not necessarily because they are lazy. And they are sick because they're poor and don't go to the doctor. Also, I decided awhile ago that I think the minimum income idea is stupid. Being fed and healthy are basic human rights. Having $15,000 of cash every year isn't. We should get the former right first before even thinking about the latter. This philosophy also doesn't have the motivation problem. You should be guaranteed the option to make money (i.e. by being healthy; sick people don't have the option to make money). But the first dollar you make should come from work.
- AnimalMuppet 13y ago
  > Also, I decided awhile ago that I think the minimum income idea is stupid. Being fed and healthy are basic human rights. Having $15,000 of cash every year isn't. We should get the former right first before even thinking about the latter. But the minimum income idea might be a much better way of getting to where everyone is fed and healthy (or at least fed and has access to medical care). It's probably more efficient than the massive bureaucracies that run the massive programs that currently don't seem to manage to do a very good job...
  - chubot 13y ago
    The problem is it might take $0 to keep one person healthy, while it will take $100,000 or $1M to keep another person healthy. In other words, it follows a power law distribution. It also varies widely based on location. I think this is a fatal flaw, and it makes the "basic rights" approach strictly better than "basic income".
    - AnimalMuppet 13y ago
      See, that's why you use some of the basic income to buy medical insurance...

ThomPete 13y ago

examples please

chubot 13y ago

Yeah there is an assumption in the article that technology is the leading cause of wealth inequality. What about regressive government policies? The rich have more of an ability to influence policy in this country. Therefore they can get laws passed that are favorable to themselves, e.g. regressive policies. It would be very surprising if you didn't see this, and if it were not a cause of huge income disparity. But we don't have to look very hard to see it. For one, actually working for a living is taxed at a greater rate than letting your money sit around in various accounts. I'm glad Warren Buffett spoke out about this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have done much. Another example of a de facto regressive policy is the employer-provided health insurance system. People in the middle class who work for corporations generally get health insurance for free and don't have to worry about it, while poor people went insured (hopefully this will be resolved by Obamacare; it's not clear to me how it will play out). There is a vicious cycle between being sick and poor. People are poor because they're sick, not necessarily because they are lazy. And they are sick because they're poor and don't go to the doctor. Also, I decided awhile ago that I think the minimum income idea is stupid. Being fed and healthy are basic human rights. Having $15,000 of cash every year isn't. We should get the former right first before even thinking about the latter. This philosophy also doesn't have the motivation problem. You should be guaranteed the option to make money (i.e. by being healthy; sick people don't have the option to make money). But the first dollar you make should come from work.

AnimalMuppet 13y ago
> Also, I decided awhile ago that I think the minimum income idea is stupid. Being fed and healthy are basic human rights. Having $15,000 of cash every year isn't. We should get the former right first before even thinking about the latter. But the minimum income idea might be a much better way of getting to where everyone is fed and healthy (or at least fed and has access to medical care). It's probably more efficient than the massive bureaucracies that run the massive programs that currently don't seem to manage to do a very good job...
- chubot 13y ago
  The problem is it might take $0 to keep one person healthy, while it will take $100,000 or $1M to keep another person healthy. In other words, it follows a power law distribution. It also varies widely based on location. I think this is a fatal flaw, and it makes the "basic rights" approach strictly better than "basic income".
  - AnimalMuppet 13y ago
    See, that's why you use some of the basic income to buy medical insurance...