3 ms·

How does that follow? A person working in London cannot live like a person working in Preston (for the same amount). The same quality of life costs more. Sure

How does that follow? A person working in London cannot live like a person working in Preston (for the same amount). The same quality of life costs more. Surely you understand this? Do you work FT? I don't really know how to go further with this, it feels a bit like trying to prove that the sky is blue.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
If that's the case, then you need to adjust your income/wealth/etc inequality numbers by that same factor. I.e., the inequality for a person living in London and earning 2x as much as someone in Preston might need to be adjusted down to perfect equality (assuming the cost of living in London is also 2x Preston). So why didn't you adjust your numbers in this way? Also, if inequality is merely a matter of where one lives, why do you care? As I said, this sort of observation seriously undermines basically every complaint about inequality.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  Well, my argument is that most cannot save. Relevant amounts, anyway (a grand a year isn't going to really get you anywhere). Your rebuttal was that the 5th decile earning twice as much surely can, because the 1st decile survive by spending less. My argument is that the 5th decile are predominantly in higher cost of living areas and end up in roughly the same situation. But let's just concede and say that they can. No doubt some can - there are people earning median UK wage in the north. The bottom guys still can't save at all. Do they just not matter? Should 10/20/30/40% of the population be stuck renting for their entire lives? Is that reasonable? I am not making the claim that a London worker earning double a Preston worker is a problem. My claim is that people earning far more than that being able to build masses of capital whilst others cannot build capital at all is a problem. It's not really about the numbers at all; it's more the idea that me "owning" 20 homes and forcing others to labour if they want to live in them is OK. I dunno. I kind of don't have enough interest in continuing this, I gain nothing from convincing you. I know people who cannot save, many of them, they exist. They aren't intelligent enough to get out of that hole unless they won a lottery or similar. I don't need to convince you that they exist, because I can like, go and visit them. I want to fix that, you seemingly don't, best of luck.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

If that's the case, then you need to adjust your income/wealth/etc inequality numbers by that same factor. I.e., the inequality for a person living in London and earning 2x as much as someone in Preston might need to be adjusted down to perfect equality (assuming the cost of living in London is also 2x Preston). So why didn't you adjust your numbers in this way? Also, if inequality is merely a matter of where one lives, why do you care? As I said, this sort of observation seriously undermines basically every complaint about inequality.

stegosaurus 11y ago
Well, my argument is that most cannot save. Relevant amounts, anyway (a grand a year isn't going to really get you anywhere). Your rebuttal was that the 5th decile earning twice as much surely can, because the 1st decile survive by spending less. My argument is that the 5th decile are predominantly in higher cost of living areas and end up in roughly the same situation. But let's just concede and say that they can. No doubt some can - there are people earning median UK wage in the north. The bottom guys still can't save at all. Do they just not matter? Should 10/20/30/40% of the population be stuck renting for their entire lives? Is that reasonable? I am not making the claim that a London worker earning double a Preston worker is a problem. My claim is that people earning far more than that being able to build masses of capital whilst others cannot build capital at all is a problem. It's not really about the numbers at all; it's more the idea that me "owning" 20 homes and forcing others to labour if they want to live in them is OK. I dunno. I kind of don't have enough interest in continuing this, I gain nothing from convincing you. I know people who cannot save, many of them, they exist. They aren't intelligent enough to get out of that hole unless they won a lottery or similar. I don't need to convince you that they exist, because I can like, go and visit them. I want to fix that, you seemingly don't, best of luck.