4 ms·

Exactly. Inequality is not a problem - poverty is. I'd much rather be in a place where I'm a millionaire between trillionaires, than having little and be betwe

by lukasm 12y ago

Exactly. Inequality is not a problem - poverty is. I'd much rather be in a place where I'm a millionaire between trillionaires, than having little and be between millionaires. Sadly, envy and need for the social status are very strong.

james1071 12y ago
No, you wouldn't.
withdavidli 12y ago
Missing how economics work here. Prices will be adjusted to what the market can bare. There's still a 10^3 difference. That's being work like being worth $1,000 when everyone else is a millionaire. Edit: sorry, was calculating for billion. it's a 10^6 difference. $1 vs $1,000,000
- Dewie 12y ago
  I think people are talking about wealth here, not money per se. If everyone can afford at least two houses, three boat and 12 cabins, they are certainly more well-off than most people are today, no matter what relative money-wealth is being discussed.
  - eternauta3k 12y ago
    The rich will have orders of magnitude more political power to force you to not abort / pray in school / you get the idea.
    - Dewie 12y ago
      Yeah, but that concern was not what I was replying to.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      Don't the rich tend to swing liberal, at least in America? Especially in the newer industries that will see much of the wealth accumulate.
  - withdavidli 12y ago
    Yes, but in that vein we can say that even America's poorest are better off than some middle class in other countries, or even the wealthy over 100 years ago. It's hard to objectively define "well-off" because psychologically people will be comparing what they have and don't have to those around them. So if a person owned 2 houses , 3 boats, and 12 cabins think they're well-off if everyone around them owns double/triple what they do, or would they think they are poor? Just a different perspective. Edit: Please note that my line of thought would eventually lead to which is better? Objectively more "things" vs psychological well being (where things are relative to what others have).
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      You compare yourself with the people you know who tend to be those in similar economic positions to yourself. I've never felt jealous of a billionaire CEO with a private jet for example but I'm more likely to feel jealous of a friend who has a better laptop or car than me.
    - AJ007 12y ago
      Are America's poorest better off because of technology, or better off because of America's dominance over the rest of the world's resources? My suspicion is that as the developing world becomes more educated, the poor and middle class in the US will look poorer. Some of this might be an actual loss in standard of living as the share of global resources the US can consume drops. This change, induced by technology (mass education) is going to be a bigger issue for the developed world sooner than computers-taking-away-jobs will be. Presumably more educated people are less likely to give away their resources for cheap (or in corrupt countries for free), less likely to work 16 hours a day in a factory, to accept mass pollution as a by product of manufacturing, etc. That is just an assumption, it could be wrong and education will have no impact on these things. The psychological aspect -- comparatively, might have more to do with whether an individual thinks their condition is improving as opposed to the distance between individuals. If you generally believe what Ray Kurzweil predicts, none of this will really matter in 2100 as we could be well in to the post-human era. Humans, in their natural form, could very well be relics in a zoo.
- lukasm 12y ago
  I'm not talking of a situation where entire society consist of these people. I'm taking about wealth. Consider two separate cities.
Someone 12y ago
What makes you think your envy and need for social status are that much lower than average?
acgourley 12y ago
Sounds like an interesting primate study - Group A: 100 bananas a day vs 10 bananas a day. Group B: 6 bananas a day vs 4 bananas a day, etc.
legutierr 12y ago
To echo what asgard1024 wrote: inequality is a problem if you are concerned with your own ability to make decisions for yourself. We see that today in our political system: money buys access, and concentrated wealth breeds concentrated power. Envy and social status are not the primary reasons people fear inequality; instead, it is the fear that someone else has control over your destiny, and you are powerless to stop it. And this is what we see every day, even as entrepreneurs--regulatory capture by entrenched interests (and government corruption generally) prevents innovation and real competition, keeping too much wealth in the undeserving hands of those who have rigged the game in their own favor. Furthermore, it is also quite possible that levels of inequality that we are seeing in the United States drag down economic growth, at least to the point that the material status of the poor is decreasing in absolute, objective terms. This makes perfect sense when you consider how important individual freedom is for broad economic growth--if economic inequality makes people less able to pursue their own objectives and best interests, all but the rich and politically connected will find themselves unable to contribute the best of themselves to society and to the markets. It's entirely conjecture to attempt to assert that high levels of inequality are an inevitable result of sustained economic growth, and that high levels of inequality are necessary to sustain growth. However, it makes it very easy to hold conservative views in opposition to redistributive policies if you also believe that redistributive policies hurt growth--even when there is no actual evidence backing that belief. Again, there is no evidence that redistributive policies as such harm growth. However, there may be evidence of a "goldilocks zone", an ideal level of inequality that spurs growth most effectively--where the opposite extremes of communism and the modern "gilded age"--and their well-documented drawbacks--are both avoided. To me this seems like common sense.
- lukasm 12y ago
  >fear that someone else has control over your destiny That's true for people here. Most of society want "bread and circuses". Money is not the only motivator, so not inevitable to sustain growth. There is also problem with growth measurements e.g. Github improved my life by a lot, but contributed little to GDP.

by lukasm 12y ago

james1071 12y ago

No, you wouldn't.

withdavidli 12y ago

Missing how economics work here. Prices will be adjusted to what the market can bare. There's still a 10^3 difference. That's being work like being worth $1,000 when everyone else is a millionaire. Edit: sorry, was calculating for billion. it's a 10^6 difference. $1 vs $1,000,000

Dewie 12y ago
I think people are talking about wealth here, not money per se. If everyone can afford at least two houses, three boat and 12 cabins, they are certainly more well-off than most people are today, no matter what relative money-wealth is being discussed.
- eternauta3k 12y ago
  The rich will have orders of magnitude more political power to force you to not abort / pray in school / you get the idea.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    Yeah, but that concern was not what I was replying to.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Don't the rich tend to swing liberal, at least in America? Especially in the newer industries that will see much of the wealth accumulate.
- withdavidli 12y ago
  Yes, but in that vein we can say that even America's poorest are better off than some middle class in other countries, or even the wealthy over 100 years ago. It's hard to objectively define "well-off" because psychologically people will be comparing what they have and don't have to those around them. So if a person owned 2 houses , 3 boats, and 12 cabins think they're well-off if everyone around them owns double/triple what they do, or would they think they are poor? Just a different perspective. Edit: Please note that my line of thought would eventually lead to which is better? Objectively more "things" vs psychological well being (where things are relative to what others have).
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    You compare yourself with the people you know who tend to be those in similar economic positions to yourself. I've never felt jealous of a billionaire CEO with a private jet for example but I'm more likely to feel jealous of a friend who has a better laptop or car than me.
  - AJ007 12y ago
    Are America's poorest better off because of technology, or better off because of America's dominance over the rest of the world's resources? My suspicion is that as the developing world becomes more educated, the poor and middle class in the US will look poorer. Some of this might be an actual loss in standard of living as the share of global resources the US can consume drops. This change, induced by technology (mass education) is going to be a bigger issue for the developed world sooner than computers-taking-away-jobs will be. Presumably more educated people are less likely to give away their resources for cheap (or in corrupt countries for free), less likely to work 16 hours a day in a factory, to accept mass pollution as a by product of manufacturing, etc. That is just an assumption, it could be wrong and education will have no impact on these things. The psychological aspect -- comparatively, might have more to do with whether an individual thinks their condition is improving as opposed to the distance between individuals. If you generally believe what Ray Kurzweil predicts, none of this will really matter in 2100 as we could be well in to the post-human era. Humans, in their natural form, could very well be relics in a zoo.
lukasm 12y ago
I'm not talking of a situation where entire society consist of these people. I'm taking about wealth. Consider two separate cities.

Someone 12y ago

What makes you think your envy and need for social status are that much lower than average?

acgourley 12y ago

Sounds like an interesting primate study - Group A: 100 bananas a day vs 10 bananas a day. Group B: 6 bananas a day vs 4 bananas a day, etc.

legutierr 12y ago

To echo what asgard1024 wrote: inequality is a problem if you are concerned with your own ability to make decisions for yourself. We see that today in our political system: money buys access, and concentrated wealth breeds concentrated power. Envy and social status are not the primary reasons people fear inequality; instead, it is the fear that someone else has control over your destiny, and you are powerless to stop it. And this is what we see every day, even as entrepreneurs--regulatory capture by entrenched interests (and government corruption generally) prevents innovation and real competition, keeping too much wealth in the undeserving hands of those who have rigged the game in their own favor. Furthermore, it is also quite possible that levels of inequality that we are seeing in the United States drag down economic growth, at least to the point that the material status of the poor is decreasing in absolute, objective terms. This makes perfect sense when you consider how important individual freedom is for broad economic growth--if economic inequality makes people less able to pursue their own objectives and best interests, all but the rich and politically connected will find themselves unable to contribute the best of themselves to society and to the markets. It's entirely conjecture to attempt to assert that high levels of inequality are an inevitable result of sustained economic growth, and that high levels of inequality are necessary to sustain growth. However, it makes it very easy to hold conservative views in opposition to redistributive policies if you also believe that redistributive policies hurt growth--even when there is no actual evidence backing that belief. Again, there is no evidence that redistributive policies as such harm growth. However, there may be evidence of a "goldilocks zone", an ideal level of inequality that spurs growth most effectively--where the opposite extremes of communism and the modern "gilded age"--and their well-documented drawbacks--are both avoided. To me this seems like common sense.

lukasm 12y ago
>fear that someone else has control over your destiny That's true for people here. Most of society want "bread and circuses". Money is not the only motivator, so not inevitable to sustain growth. There is also problem with growth measurements e.g. Github improved my life by a lot, but contributed little to GDP.