4 ms·

Do you feel the need to remedy this injustice, when, as you claim, the difference between you and a poor person is luck?

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and is a massive drag on innovation and productivity. It's not just about personal stories. Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different. And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer. You might think 'There are others' - and you'd be right. But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.
- stegosaurus 12y ago
  'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.' Not only the startup economy. Brief thought experiment: Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields. Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other. This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other). But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    > Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other. If they don't have dollars, they can pay each other in IOUs (which aren't divisible, but otherwise would work fine).
    - stegosaurus 12y ago
      Well, that's basically what credit is. You expect to be paid in the future, so you can buy things now. Affordability is about more than simply having some means to pay, though. I often struggle to find a word that fits well here. The dictionary defines afford to mean: 'to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect'. By that standard, some people who can't afford to go to college actually do. The means are available via loans, but there are serious consequences and they will be saddled with large amounts of debt. So what's the term for that? I don't think 'afford' as a proxy for 'strictly possible' is very useful and I'd be glad to hear of an alternative.
  - thwarted 12y ago
    This is called "comparative advantage". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This description of it by P.J. O'Rourke in "Eat the Rich" uses the respective talents of John Grisham and Courtney Love to explain it. http://appliedabstractions.com/2004/11/30/ricardo-explained-by-orourke/ http://appliedabstractions.com/2004/11/30/ricardo-explained-...
dchest 12y ago
This is a loaded question. Where is injustice?
- gargarplex 12y ago
  Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose
  - mjfl 12y ago
    I think there's a disease that infects modern thought that attributes any success to "dumb luck". It makes the pursuit of a better life seem pointless and social inequality seem like an injustice we must point the government at to remedy. I don't think this is a new thought, just the modern flavor of a cycle that repeats itself every century or so. Find the rich man, the jew, the doctor. Sack his residence and take all of his belongings.
    - zo1 12y ago
      And the premise that underlies that whole thing: It's unfair due to the wealthy having an unfair advantage because of their wealth. It's the easy answer to a chicken/egg problem, one that suits the agenda. The problem being which came first, wealth or whatever it is that "gives" wealth. Ambition, dedication, drive, charisma, you name it.
      - Heyr 12y ago
        Well, in the case of the real world currently, usually wealth came first. It came first because you can inherit wealth in various forms: either through land, money or even education. Parents being able to afford a way better education for their children offer them far more than those who don't.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    I think the fundamental question here is: what is the natural state, equality or inequality? If inequality is the natural state (which I think it is), it can't be a "purpose", it just exists.
twisties 12y ago
Not sure how to interpret the pounding of downvotes. Do others feel that no injustice exists in a situation where comfortable living and hopeless suffering are deemed products by luck? Is it a disagreement that the GP's situation is based on luck (I never made that claim, GP did)? Is it disagreement that people living comfortably based on self-admitted luck should concern themselves with those who perpetually suffer because they weren't as lucky? Something else I'm oblivious to?
- falcolas 12y ago
  The abruptness of your comment seemed to imply that it is less of a genuine question, and more of a passive-aggressive lashing out against the luck I had (or the emphasis I place on luck in getting where I am today). But then again, I'm terrible at sensing the subtext of other people's written words, so I ended up simply taking the question at its face value.
falcolas 12y ago
Frankly, yes. But since I can do nothing about a person's luck, I do what I can for the person themselves. And I do that by simply doing the same things which were done for me. When I can afford to, I will freely give money to someone who is down on their luck (I've paid many a utility bill these past few years). I recommend people for jobs and guide them on getting the skills which will pay. I open my house to people who need it, letting them stay as long as necessary to get back on their feet. It's not much, but it's something (and more importantly, it's something I actually have the power to do). And in my limited experience, it's helped.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and is a massive drag on innovation and productivity. It's not just about personal stories. Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different. And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer. You might think 'There are others' - and you'd be right. But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.

stegosaurus 12y ago
'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.' Not only the startup economy. Brief thought experiment: Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields. Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other. This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other). But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  > Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other. If they don't have dollars, they can pay each other in IOUs (which aren't divisible, but otherwise would work fine).
  - stegosaurus 12y ago
    Well, that's basically what credit is. You expect to be paid in the future, so you can buy things now. Affordability is about more than simply having some means to pay, though. I often struggle to find a word that fits well here. The dictionary defines afford to mean: 'to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect'. By that standard, some people who can't afford to go to college actually do. The means are available via loans, but there are serious consequences and they will be saddled with large amounts of debt. So what's the term for that? I don't think 'afford' as a proxy for 'strictly possible' is very useful and I'd be glad to hear of an alternative.
- thwarted 12y ago
  This is called "comparative advantage". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage This description of it by P.J. O'Rourke in "Eat the Rich" uses the respective talents of John Grisham and Courtney Love to explain it. http://appliedabstractions.com/2004/11/30/ricardo-explained-by-orourke/ http://appliedabstractions.com/2004/11/30/ricardo-explained-...

dchest 12y ago

This is a loaded question. Where is injustice?

gargarplex 12y ago
Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose
- mjfl 12y ago
  I think there's a disease that infects modern thought that attributes any success to "dumb luck". It makes the pursuit of a better life seem pointless and social inequality seem like an injustice we must point the government at to remedy. I don't think this is a new thought, just the modern flavor of a cycle that repeats itself every century or so. Find the rich man, the jew, the doctor. Sack his residence and take all of his belongings.
  - zo1 12y ago
    And the premise that underlies that whole thing: It's unfair due to the wealthy having an unfair advantage because of their wealth. It's the easy answer to a chicken/egg problem, one that suits the agenda. The problem being which came first, wealth or whatever it is that "gives" wealth. Ambition, dedication, drive, charisma, you name it.
    - Heyr 12y ago
      Well, in the case of the real world currently, usually wealth came first. It came first because you can inherit wealth in various forms: either through land, money or even education. Parents being able to afford a way better education for their children offer them far more than those who don't.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  I think the fundamental question here is: what is the natural state, equality or inequality? If inequality is the natural state (which I think it is), it can't be a "purpose", it just exists.

twisties 12y ago

Not sure how to interpret the pounding of downvotes. Do others feel that no injustice exists in a situation where comfortable living and hopeless suffering are deemed products by luck? Is it a disagreement that the GP's situation is based on luck (I never made that claim, GP did)? Is it disagreement that people living comfortably based on self-admitted luck should concern themselves with those who perpetually suffer because they weren't as lucky? Something else I'm oblivious to?

falcolas 12y ago
The abruptness of your comment seemed to imply that it is less of a genuine question, and more of a passive-aggressive lashing out against the luck I had (or the emphasis I place on luck in getting where I am today). But then again, I'm terrible at sensing the subtext of other people's written words, so I ended up simply taking the question at its face value.

falcolas 12y ago

Frankly, yes. But since I can do nothing about a person's luck, I do what I can for the person themselves. And I do that by simply doing the same things which were done for me. When I can afford to, I will freely give money to someone who is down on their luck (I've paid many a utility bill these past few years). I recommend people for jobs and guide them on getting the skills which will pay. I open my house to people who need it, letting them stay as long as necessary to get back on their feet. It's not much, but it's something (and more importantly, it's something I actually have the power to do). And in my limited experience, it's helped.