4 ms·

Let's say I live in a 1000 sq ft house and everyone else in my town lives in a 500 sq ft house; there is a certain level of inequality. Years pass, the economy

by nugget 12y ago

Let's say I live in a 1000 sq ft house and everyone else in my town lives in a 500 sq ft house; there is a certain level of inequality. Years pass, the economy rumbles on, we invent new products and more efficient services, and now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. Inequality has increased, but the net standard of living has increased as well. Objectively, everyone is better off. Of course, some people may feel poorer because now they see the mcmansion on the hill and wonder why they don't live in that level of luxury (which didn't even exist before). Most economists seem to credit capitalism with the extreme advancements in quality of life, even for the poorest citizens, in first world economies. Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well.

shiven 12y ago
... now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. So what did you do so special that you get a 5-fold increase in your living area and what did others do so wrong that they got a 2-fold increase only? Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well. The part that grinds on the human psyche is just a plain old sense of fairness and justice. Why muddy it up with religion?
- timtas 12y ago
  If I experience a 2-fold increase, and it's "grinding on my psyche" that that someone else got a 5-fold increase, you can bet it's because someone with something to gain is whispering discontent into my ear.
  - shiven 12y ago
    Or, I see the ever-widening gap with my own eyes? Not requiring the use of my ears at all.
jljljl 12y ago
This is not how inequality has developed, however. If you look at the changes of real in come between the top percentile income brackets vs. the median percentile income bracket, top incomes have grown dramatically while median to lower incomes have stagnated. It's also challenging to just look at consumption and assume everyone is the same. Consumption levels might be stable, but the lower income brackets may be taking on more debt to finance that consumption. Additionally, as Pikketty points out, a lot of the spending/benefit gap between higher and lower incomes has emerged in categories like education and healthcare, which is not as easy to track by looking at people's houses or a consumption based standard of living.
anigbrowl 12y ago
IT's just as likely that people will still be in 500 square foot houses or that most of them will have been subdivided into 250 foot apartments while a small number of people have bought 2000 foot houses. People certainly do not always end up better in absolute terms. Furthermore, relative gains matter because they say something an individual's economic standing in society. Your average person's quality of life might have improved significantly compared to a generation ago, but so has that of everyone else, with whom one is in economic competition. It's great than an iPad of 2014 is many, many times more powerful and costs less than a Mac of 1984, but having a Mac in 1984 gave you a significant economic edge, whereas owning an iPad today just means that you're not poor. Notwithstanding the enormous technical superiority of the current device, its economic utility depends on how well you can leverage it in today's economy, not of an earlier one where such a device would have been miraculous and allowed you to take over a small country.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  If you believe people have not ended up better in absolute terms, what good or service do they have less of today than in the past?
MisterBastahrd 12y ago
Now let's say you have 5 times the political influence. Is everyone still better off, or just you?

by nugget 12y ago

shiven 12y ago

... now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. So what did you do so special that you get a 5-fold increase in your living area and what did others do so wrong that they got a 2-fold increase only? Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well. The part that grinds on the human psyche is just a plain old sense of fairness and justice. Why muddy it up with religion?

timtas 12y ago
If I experience a 2-fold increase, and it's "grinding on my psyche" that that someone else got a 5-fold increase, you can bet it's because someone with something to gain is whispering discontent into my ear.
- shiven 12y ago
  Or, I see the ever-widening gap with my own eyes? Not requiring the use of my ears at all.

jljljl 12y ago

This is not how inequality has developed, however. If you look at the changes of real in come between the top percentile income brackets vs. the median percentile income bracket, top incomes have grown dramatically while median to lower incomes have stagnated. It's also challenging to just look at consumption and assume everyone is the same. Consumption levels might be stable, but the lower income brackets may be taking on more debt to finance that consumption. Additionally, as Pikketty points out, a lot of the spending/benefit gap between higher and lower incomes has emerged in categories like education and healthcare, which is not as easy to track by looking at people's houses or a consumption based standard of living.

anigbrowl 12y ago

IT's just as likely that people will still be in 500 square foot houses or that most of them will have been subdivided into 250 foot apartments while a small number of people have bought 2000 foot houses. People certainly do not always end up better in absolute terms. Furthermore, relative gains matter because they say something an individual's economic standing in society. Your average person's quality of life might have improved significantly compared to a generation ago, but so has that of everyone else, with whom one is in economic competition. It's great than an iPad of 2014 is many, many times more powerful and costs less than a Mac of 1984, but having a Mac in 1984 gave you a significant economic edge, whereas owning an iPad today just means that you're not poor. Notwithstanding the enormous technical superiority of the current device, its economic utility depends on how well you can leverage it in today's economy, not of an earlier one where such a device would have been miraculous and allowed you to take over a small country.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
If you believe people have not ended up better in absolute terms, what good or service do they have less of today than in the past?

MisterBastahrd 12y ago

Now let's say you have 5 times the political influence. Is everyone still better off, or just you?