9 ms·

"But it feels really unfair. People seem to be more sensitive to relative economic status than absolute. So even if people are much better off being poor toda

"But it feels really unfair. People seem to be more sensitive to relative economic status than absolute. So even if people are much better off being poor today than king 500 years ago, most people compare themselves to the richest people today, and not the richest people from the past." I don't think this is the whole story. It's not just that it feels unfair, it's that it really is unfair. Rich people can buy political representation, and unlike wealth, representation is a zero-sum game.

chatmasta 13y ago
Do you have a better idea for how to distribute political representation?
- abstractbill 13y ago
  Well I don't think the whole system has to be broken down and rebuilt from scratch. There are lots of pretty basic ideas floating around for getting money out of politics.
  - wwweston 13y ago
    There are some good ideas floating around, and we could do a lot better than the direction we're going now, but I don't think it's really possible to try and eliminate all the ways in which money buys influence. Once you can employ people to work for your political ends (by directly engaging with congressional staff, by producing supportive research, by working a PR campaign...), you have a bigger voice than someone else, whether laws allow you funnel campaign cash by the shipping container or not. My guess is that the only real way to balance this out is have more citizens talking to congressional staff.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      To say nothing of the fact that glamour can be used - and IS used - in lieu of money. Associating with movie stars, successful businesspersons, so on, is it's own reward.
- tomp 13y ago
  Make lobbying illegal (which the US, or at least it's Supreme Court, seems unwilling to do). Prevent big donations to politicians. Make tax returns and all other indicators of wealth public, i.e. completely transparent, at least for public officials (like Sweden).
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    The solution to 'people don't vote right', in the long term, has to be to increase engagement and education. Ever more rules about how the political discourse must be carried out is just running in circles.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  Perhaps in-depth public accounting of all political contributions/favors/etc and the finances of all politicians who serve one or more consecutive terms? If you want to be a politician you have to submit to public scrutiny of your finances prior to and following your political career? I don't know really... But I think that might help weed out career politicians who rely on sources of dubious income.
benched 13y ago
Randians / Grahamians here always seem quick to echo that 'wealth isn't zero sum'. (I presume this is to help those who are or aspire to be wealthy feel awesome about their noble path.) Wealth may not be zero sum, but wealth buys plenty of important things that are zero sum - things that are in limited supply. A big strategic one is access to education. Poor people do not have the same access to university education that rich people do. A big practical one is housing. Why do the children of well-off parents deserve access to education more than poor kids? Of course, in reality, there is no 'deserve' about it - it's just straightforward game mechanics. But that's what public policy is all about - consciously deciding, do we like this? Do we like this business of limited numbers of people having it relatively easy, while large numbers of people continually face a whole other order of struggle, one that many just don't find their way out of? And heaven help the poor if even that conversation is captured by those who are already sitting pretty - especially those with moral conviction that the 'right sort of people' are already ok, and the only ones who fall through the cracks do so by moral failure.
- philwelch 13y ago
  I'm not convinced that university education is zero sum. Harvard is zero sum, but there's no important limit to the number of universities in the world nor the quality of each university.
  - mcguire 13y ago
    Probably not naturally, no, but in practice they can likely be treated as zero-sum. Network effects and all.
  - dictum 13y ago
    The irreplaceable benefit of ivies, and especially Harvard, is getting an easy entry into established old-boy networks. It sucks for individuals who don't get the opportunity to get this ticket to OBNs plus a good education, but for society as a whole, it's good that not everyone gets to go to Harvard. Universities should be part of their communities, not ivory towers. Students should come out of them willing to help their communities, not move to NY or SF and cash out quick. For an individual that's great. For society, it's mixed: sometimes the individual cashes out because they ve found a cure for cancer or a better way to grow food, but sometimes, because they played Soros with a country's currency.
dictum 13y ago
Also, most people don't compare themselves to the richest people today or the richest people from the past. They compare themselves to richer neighbors/relatives/coworkers/friends. In the same way people don't get the implication of the word "trillion" when they hear it on the news, people don't really lament Bill Gates's billions or the Walton family's billions. They lament cousin Jack who's making 300k/year while they're making 60k.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Can they? In spite of increased income inequality, our political process is becoming more hostile to the rich than it was historically. Of course, after taking a walk through my locale (Parbhani, India), I'm fairly unsympathetic to claims that relative status is what matters. Perhaps it was the man lifting his lungi to poop next to an open sewer. Maybe it was the auto driver sleeping on the job. It could be the garbage everywhere (taking off your shoes when you enter an Indian home isn't a cultural quirk). Maybe it's the fact that the very nice hotel I'm staying in would be shut down immediately in the US. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most of the people around me would be happy to have these problems fixed, even if it resulted in the income of "rich" people (like Americans below the American poverty line) quadrupling. Inequality is a first world problem.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  You're saying there are no wealthy people in India? Or that there are no wealthy people in any given third world country? If that is part of your claim I think you may want to check the facts on that one... Edit: You described inequality in your post given that so many have it so bad and some are incredibly well off by comparison.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I'm saying that having a porcelain throne while someone else has a solid gold one is better than pooping in the sewer even if the rich man does the same thing.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Fair enough, but that does not make inequality a 'first world problem'. Inequality is a thing in both systems, just because the difference is much more vast (or less so) does not mean that there is no inequality.
- benched 13y ago
  I agree that 'inequality' is too simplistic a concept to adequately describe what the problem is in the US. I believe the real problem is more that the stresses a poor person must contend with to hold down even the smallest apartment, buy food, and in many cases maintain a car, are extremely high compared with middle-class people. It's that the economy is skewed in such a way that makes the whole game seem unfair to a huge fraction of the population. You're right that the basic standard of infrastructure is higher in the US, and that most people here enjoy those benefits, so there's a relative effect there.
philwelch 13y ago
Fortunately(?), the extremely wealthy aren't a cabal of people with identical political opinions.
Jun8 13y ago
"Rich people can buy political representation" While that's true it's a very simplified picture of how money affects politics, which applies everywhere but is perhaps most conspicuous in the US. Different lobbies/pressure groups/unions also affect politics through large donations. As a small example, consider the California Teacher's Association: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Teachers_Association#Spending_in_California_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Teachers_Association.... Goes on to show that financial pressures in politics may work both ways.
allochthon 13y ago
it's that it really is unfair. Moreover, the the creation of wealth depends upon a functioning society with a working police force, fire department, transportation system, etc., not to mention the accumulative effect that inherited money brings to kids growing up in a supportive environment and going to the best schools. It is a myth that the wealthy earned their wealth all on their own, but one Americans love because of their (our) infatuation with rugged individualism and personal agency. I personally do not mind levying tons of taxes to level the playing field, but that's probably just my temperament. I want to live in a society in which there is equal opportunity, not a plutocracy with a handful of perpetual dynasties.
- nickff 13y ago
  >"I personally do not mind levying tons of taxes to level the playing field" The question that comes to mind is whether you mind paying the taxes yourself, not what you think about foisting costs on others. It is very easy (and inexpensive) to say that every problem should be solved on someone else's dime; one might even care enough to vote with that in mind, but you are not taking any personal responsibility, or even using clever rhetoric to convince someone else to act.
  - allochthon 13y ago
    It is very easy (and inexpensive) to say that every problem should be solved on someone else's dime It's not someone else's dime, full stop. The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount. The mechanism for valuating people's contributions is self-serving and broken right now. A teacher contributes 1000000 times more to society than a hedge fund manager, despite what the hedge fund manager will tell you about the benefits of liquidity that his activities are supposedly bringing about.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >"The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount." Though I have never seen convincing evidence (either way) on this subject, I will accept it ad argumentum. Using coercion to force someone else to pay for things I want is still a cheap and lazy way for me to achieve my ends. My point is that one should convince the hedge fund manager to donate money to important causes. Alternatively, you might contribute your own hard-earned money to achieve the ends you profess (or pretend) to value so highly.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
"most people compare themselves to the richest people today" This is insane! People compare themselves to their peers - NOT to the richest people. We are envious of our successful friends and family members - particularly our brother in law ;) Whether Zuckerberg has $1B or $5B or $50B makes literally no difference to us.

chatmasta 13y ago

Do you have a better idea for how to distribute political representation?

abstractbill 13y ago
Well I don't think the whole system has to be broken down and rebuilt from scratch. There are lots of pretty basic ideas floating around for getting money out of politics.
- wwweston 13y ago
  There are some good ideas floating around, and we could do a lot better than the direction we're going now, but I don't think it's really possible to try and eliminate all the ways in which money buys influence. Once you can employ people to work for your political ends (by directly engaging with congressional staff, by producing supportive research, by working a PR campaign...), you have a bigger voice than someone else, whether laws allow you funnel campaign cash by the shipping container or not. My guess is that the only real way to balance this out is have more citizens talking to congressional staff.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    To say nothing of the fact that glamour can be used - and IS used - in lieu of money. Associating with movie stars, successful businesspersons, so on, is it's own reward.
tomp 13y ago
Make lobbying illegal (which the US, or at least it's Supreme Court, seems unwilling to do). Prevent big donations to politicians. Make tax returns and all other indicators of wealth public, i.e. completely transparent, at least for public officials (like Sweden).
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The solution to 'people don't vote right', in the long term, has to be to increase engagement and education. Ever more rules about how the political discourse must be carried out is just running in circles.
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Perhaps in-depth public accounting of all political contributions/favors/etc and the finances of all politicians who serve one or more consecutive terms? If you want to be a politician you have to submit to public scrutiny of your finances prior to and following your political career? I don't know really... But I think that might help weed out career politicians who rely on sources of dubious income.

benched 13y ago

Randians / Grahamians here always seem quick to echo that 'wealth isn't zero sum'. (I presume this is to help those who are or aspire to be wealthy feel awesome about their noble path.) Wealth may not be zero sum, but wealth buys plenty of important things that are zero sum - things that are in limited supply. A big strategic one is access to education. Poor people do not have the same access to university education that rich people do. A big practical one is housing. Why do the children of well-off parents deserve access to education more than poor kids? Of course, in reality, there is no 'deserve' about it - it's just straightforward game mechanics. But that's what public policy is all about - consciously deciding, do we like this? Do we like this business of limited numbers of people having it relatively easy, while large numbers of people continually face a whole other order of struggle, one that many just don't find their way out of? And heaven help the poor if even that conversation is captured by those who are already sitting pretty - especially those with moral conviction that the 'right sort of people' are already ok, and the only ones who fall through the cracks do so by moral failure.

philwelch 13y ago
I'm not convinced that university education is zero sum. Harvard is zero sum, but there's no important limit to the number of universities in the world nor the quality of each university.
- mcguire 13y ago
  Probably not naturally, no, but in practice they can likely be treated as zero-sum. Network effects and all.
- dictum 13y ago
  The irreplaceable benefit of ivies, and especially Harvard, is getting an easy entry into established old-boy networks. It sucks for individuals who don't get the opportunity to get this ticket to OBNs plus a good education, but for society as a whole, it's good that not everyone gets to go to Harvard. Universities should be part of their communities, not ivory towers. Students should come out of them willing to help their communities, not move to NY or SF and cash out quick. For an individual that's great. For society, it's mixed: sometimes the individual cashes out because they ve found a cure for cancer or a better way to grow food, but sometimes, because they played Soros with a country's currency.

dictum 13y ago

Also, most people don't compare themselves to the richest people today or the richest people from the past. They compare themselves to richer neighbors/relatives/coworkers/friends. In the same way people don't get the implication of the word "trillion" when they hear it on the news, people don't really lament Bill Gates's billions or the Walton family's billions. They lament cousin Jack who's making 300k/year while they're making 60k.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Can they? In spite of increased income inequality, our political process is becoming more hostile to the rich than it was historically. Of course, after taking a walk through my locale (Parbhani, India), I'm fairly unsympathetic to claims that relative status is what matters. Perhaps it was the man lifting his lungi to poop next to an open sewer. Maybe it was the auto driver sleeping on the job. It could be the garbage everywhere (taking off your shoes when you enter an Indian home isn't a cultural quirk). Maybe it's the fact that the very nice hotel I'm staying in would be shut down immediately in the US. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most of the people around me would be happy to have these problems fixed, even if it resulted in the income of "rich" people (like Americans below the American poverty line) quadrupling. Inequality is a first world problem.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
You're saying there are no wealthy people in India? Or that there are no wealthy people in any given third world country? If that is part of your claim I think you may want to check the facts on that one... Edit: You described inequality in your post given that so many have it so bad and some are incredibly well off by comparison.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I'm saying that having a porcelain throne while someone else has a solid gold one is better than pooping in the sewer even if the rich man does the same thing.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Fair enough, but that does not make inequality a 'first world problem'. Inequality is a thing in both systems, just because the difference is much more vast (or less so) does not mean that there is no inequality.
benched 13y ago
I agree that 'inequality' is too simplistic a concept to adequately describe what the problem is in the US. I believe the real problem is more that the stresses a poor person must contend with to hold down even the smallest apartment, buy food, and in many cases maintain a car, are extremely high compared with middle-class people. It's that the economy is skewed in such a way that makes the whole game seem unfair to a huge fraction of the population. You're right that the basic standard of infrastructure is higher in the US, and that most people here enjoy those benefits, so there's a relative effect there.

philwelch 13y ago

Fortunately(?), the extremely wealthy aren't a cabal of people with identical political opinions.

Jun8 13y ago

"Rich people can buy political representation" While that's true it's a very simplified picture of how money affects politics, which applies everywhere but is perhaps most conspicuous in the US. Different lobbies/pressure groups/unions also affect politics through large donations. As a small example, consider the California Teacher's Association: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Teachers_Association#Spending_in_California_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Teachers_Association.... Goes on to show that financial pressures in politics may work both ways.

allochthon 13y ago

it's that it really is unfair. Moreover, the the creation of wealth depends upon a functioning society with a working police force, fire department, transportation system, etc., not to mention the accumulative effect that inherited money brings to kids growing up in a supportive environment and going to the best schools. It is a myth that the wealthy earned their wealth all on their own, but one Americans love because of their (our) infatuation with rugged individualism and personal agency. I personally do not mind levying tons of taxes to level the playing field, but that's probably just my temperament. I want to live in a society in which there is equal opportunity, not a plutocracy with a handful of perpetual dynasties.

nickff 13y ago
>"I personally do not mind levying tons of taxes to level the playing field" The question that comes to mind is whether you mind paying the taxes yourself, not what you think about foisting costs on others. It is very easy (and inexpensive) to say that every problem should be solved on someone else's dime; one might even care enough to vote with that in mind, but you are not taking any personal responsibility, or even using clever rhetoric to convince someone else to act.
- allochthon 13y ago
  It is very easy (and inexpensive) to say that every problem should be solved on someone else's dime It's not someone else's dime, full stop. The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount. The mechanism for valuating people's contributions is self-serving and broken right now. A teacher contributes 1000000 times more to society than a hedge fund manager, despite what the hedge fund manager will tell you about the benefits of liquidity that his activities are supposedly bringing about.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >"The system misallocated the money in the first place by giving them a disproportionate amount." Though I have never seen convincing evidence (either way) on this subject, I will accept it ad argumentum. Using coercion to force someone else to pay for things I want is still a cheap and lazy way for me to achieve my ends. My point is that one should convince the hedge fund manager to donate money to important causes. Alternatively, you might contribute your own hard-earned money to achieve the ends you profess (or pretend) to value so highly.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

"most people compare themselves to the richest people today" This is insane! People compare themselves to their peers - NOT to the richest people. We are envious of our successful friends and family members - particularly our brother in law ;) Whether Zuckerberg has $1B or $5B or $50B makes literally no difference to us.