5 ms·

Right, but the trick is the inequality doesn't imply poverty. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game; FatCat having more doesn't necessarily require that SkinnyCat have l

by cheald 12y ago

Right, but the trick is the inequality doesn't imply poverty. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game; FatCat having more doesn't necessarily require that SkinnyCat have less, even though the size of the pie slices grows or shrinks; the pie grows as well.

nmeofthestate 12y ago
"Your new TV is bigger and slimmer, so why should you care the planetary economic system rewards a tiny minority with wealth that is almost incomprehensible?" Okay, but the trouble is, it's a feeble argument for persuading people not to pay attention to the fact that 1% of the planet has half the wealth. People actually care about the fairness of how wealth is distributed. Did these fabulously wealthy people start working even harder, to justify the even more unequal wealth breakdown? The 1% used to own <50% of all wealth. Soon they'll own 51%. What changed? I'd argue they've done nothing to deserve this increased wealth, and it's entirely justifiable that humanity is allowed to look at how to redistribute that wealth. Of course we have to be careful not to kill the golden goose - maybe they'll all emigrate to Mars where taxes are lower...
- realusername 12y ago
  Not to mention the democratic problem of having 10 people weighting so much into the balance.
AlisdairO 12y ago
In the south of the UK (the part where most of the jobs are) housing is a dominant cost in most people's lives. Since there's a shortage of housing and buildable land, the cost of housing goes up with people's ability to pay. This absolutely trends towards a zero sum game, so income distribution is a clear concern. Political power is also purchasable to some extent in virtually every country, so income inequality matters there too.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
But sometimes it's not the size of your piece that matters, but it's the size of your piece relative to others. Examples: - buying a law. - legal bribes, like endowing a chair at Harvard to ensure your kid gets in - hiring personal servants - real estate: the average price of a house anywhere with a functioning banking system is approx 2-3x the average salary For example, a bright Indian software developer faces the choice: do I make $40K in India or $200K in Silicon Valley? The latter can afford a fancier car, the former can afford more servants. Absolute wealth matters when purchasing items that can be created by spending dollars: cars, computers, food, energy, et cetera. Relative wealth matters when purchasing items which cannot generally be created by spending dollars: land, people.
- cheald 12y ago
  I was careful to not say "the poor have it just as good as the rich", because I specifically did not mean to say that. The rich certainly have far more power, opportunity, and resources available to them because economics, but I've noticed a trend to conflate inequality with poverty, or to assume that those with more only have it because they took it from those with less, and both are rooted in the fallacious assumption that wealth is zero-sum. Greater relative wealth means greater purchasing power of scarce resources. But the production of wealth is a consequence of the production of additional resources, which results in greater accessibility of things that were once solely the domain of the rich. I'm not making a value judgement about wealth inequality here - I'm simply pointing out that the rich becoming richer does not mean the the poor are able to afford less - and in fact often indirectly means that the poor can afford more.

by cheald 12y ago

nmeofthestate 12y ago

"Your new TV is bigger and slimmer, so why should you care the planetary economic system rewards a tiny minority with wealth that is almost incomprehensible?" Okay, but the trouble is, it's a feeble argument for persuading people not to pay attention to the fact that 1% of the planet has half the wealth. People actually care about the fairness of how wealth is distributed. Did these fabulously wealthy people start working even harder, to justify the even more unequal wealth breakdown? The 1% used to own <50% of all wealth. Soon they'll own 51%. What changed? I'd argue they've done nothing to deserve this increased wealth, and it's entirely justifiable that humanity is allowed to look at how to redistribute that wealth. Of course we have to be careful not to kill the golden goose - maybe they'll all emigrate to Mars where taxes are lower...

realusername 12y ago
Not to mention the democratic problem of having 10 people weighting so much into the balance.

AlisdairO 12y ago

In the south of the UK (the part where most of the jobs are) housing is a dominant cost in most people's lives. Since there's a shortage of housing and buildable land, the cost of housing goes up with people's ability to pay. This absolutely trends towards a zero sum game, so income distribution is a clear concern. Political power is also purchasable to some extent in virtually every country, so income inequality matters there too.

bryanlarsen 12y ago

But sometimes it's not the size of your piece that matters, but it's the size of your piece relative to others. Examples: - buying a law. - legal bribes, like endowing a chair at Harvard to ensure your kid gets in - hiring personal servants - real estate: the average price of a house anywhere with a functioning banking system is approx 2-3x the average salary For example, a bright Indian software developer faces the choice: do I make $40K in India or $200K in Silicon Valley? The latter can afford a fancier car, the former can afford more servants. Absolute wealth matters when purchasing items that can be created by spending dollars: cars, computers, food, energy, et cetera. Relative wealth matters when purchasing items which cannot generally be created by spending dollars: land, people.

cheald 12y ago
I was careful to not say "the poor have it just as good as the rich", because I specifically did not mean to say that. The rich certainly have far more power, opportunity, and resources available to them because economics, but I've noticed a trend to conflate inequality with poverty, or to assume that those with more only have it because they took it from those with less, and both are rooted in the fallacious assumption that wealth is zero-sum. Greater relative wealth means greater purchasing power of scarce resources. But the production of wealth is a consequence of the production of additional resources, which results in greater accessibility of things that were once solely the domain of the rich. I'm not making a value judgement about wealth inequality here - I'm simply pointing out that the rich becoming richer does not mean the the poor are able to afford less - and in fact often indirectly means that the poor can afford more.