People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality • Hacker News Board

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#51

Post by dnautics » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:05 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #45

mmanfrin wrote: post #29

I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are talking about equality of access , not equality of 'things'. The Great American Dream is about someone seizing an opportunity; equality means we all have an opportunity to seize an opportunity. Economic Inequality means there is a disproportionate number of opportunities at the top, and very few at the bottom. Not everyone takes those chances, b…

> I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are talking about equality of access, not equality of 'things'. The features which provide access to economic opportunities are, themselves, economic goods, and wealth is largely (though not entirely) fungible, so the two things are not entirely separable. You can't provide an equality of access that meets some common standards of fairness without…

I would argue the opposite. You can't provide an equality of access that meets any given standard of fairness without creating inequality, because now you are favoring those who happen to conform to/ or be better suited to/ or have a better temperament for the new standard over the old.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#52

Post by nemo44x » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #43

nemo44x wrote: post #24

Karl Marx saw a couple flaws in Capitalism, similar to what we practice today. I think he's right about one and wrong about the other. And the part he's right about is what people find unfair. He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what b…

> He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it. Given your other statements, this is not a sensible position. A widget is priced according to the value it delivers a buyer -…

Because of policy, as I stated. They can't negotiate a better deal because the labor pool they are competing with is global. So they are now valued less and feel it is unfair.

I'm not here preaching socialism. I'm just saying a near term effect of rampant globalization is people are going to be displaced and feel they are being exploited. I think this is where unrest comes from.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#53

Post by rayiner » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

Randgalt wrote: post #42

The article never defines what fairness is. Another word for fairness is "justice". The article betrays its bias when it analyzes how income is "distributed". Of course, income isn't distributed - it's earned. If person A earns 100x person B then of course it's just. However, if income were indeed distributed, all things being equal, unequal distribution would not be just. So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard…

"Distribution" is a neutral term that refers to how quantities are spread out in a population. E.g. you can talk about age, weight, or height distribution in a population.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#54

Post by bweitzman » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #44

bweitzman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does mean that the pool isn't the thing you value most though, since you value your commute more than the pool.

It depends on the shape of your preference curves. If you're a 1.5 hour commute from work, your highest value change might be a shorter commute. But if you're a 20 minute commute from work, your highest value change might be a pool. Similarly, if you live in a rich society, you might prefer a more equal society to one that's somewhat more wealthy on average. But if you live in a poor society, you might prefer one tha…

Yeah I agree, I think the issue is that "really value" is ambiguous and implies that there's only one thing which we can optimize for at a time. I don't think that's true, but I don't think it's a logical fallacy either, just a bad assumption.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#55

Post by Randgalt » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #53

Randgalt wrote: post #42

The article never defines what fairness is. Another word for fairness is "justice". The article betrays its bias when it analyzes how income is "distributed". Of course, income isn't distributed - it's earned. If person A earns 100x person B then of course it's just. However, if income were indeed distributed, all things being equal, unequal distribution would not be just. So, do you believe wealth is earned by hard…

"Distribution" is a neutral term that refers to how quantities are spread out in a population. E.g. you can talk about age, weight, or height distribution in a population.

Age, height, even weight (for the most part) are qualities of humans that cannot be controlled. Wealth is qualitatively different than these attributes.

Edit: no one would ever talk about the distribution of "ability at basketball" for example.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#56

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:13 PM UTC

some-guy wrote: post #36

mmanfrin wrote: post #29

I've always felt that when people talk about economic equality, they are talking about equality of access , not equality of 'things'. The Great American Dream is about someone seizing an opportunity; equality means we all have an opportunity to seize an opportunity. Economic Inequality means there is a disproportionate number of opportunities at the top, and very few at the bottom. Not everyone takes those chances, b…

When I think of inequality and opportunity in the US, I think about the education system. Sadly, the quality of K-12 education in the United States is too strongly tied to economic output / wealth / income of a region, which seems regressive to me.

it certainly isn't confined to the US. You simply have to read the right sites to see that that is a world wide phenomenon. What isn't talked about is that a lot of what keeps people from success also affects their local schools, as in they don't participate because they don't have the drive to do it. The same lack of drive to push ahead.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#57

Post by vinhboy » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:13 PM UTC

atom-morgan wrote: post #40

vinhboy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. And most people knows this. But conservatives wants everyone to think it means "wealth redistribution".

Then why be so specific by saying income inequality?

Same reason why we call "sea stars", "starfish", when it's not a fish.

At this point it's just a name. It's a phrase a lot of people recognize and has become a rallying cry liberals. You can't change it anymore.

TL;DR Because marketing.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#58

Post by Domenic_S » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

ionforce wrote: post #8

mc32 wrote: post #3

This makes sense. It's not that we should all be uniform but rather we all have access to being uniform if we so choose. Even if we attempted equality, time would introduce inequality due to the risks people take. One invests wisely, the other gambles away. Do we compensate the gambler to reestablish equilibrium? Should a soon to be retiree have the same wealth or earning power as a new graduate of X degree, or even…

There's no guarantee that the parents would be spending their added income on these dependents.

That doesn't stop child support payments; why would it matter here?

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#59

Post by jsprogrammer » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #39

jsprogrammer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how is it a solution? Also, the pie is fixed.

> Then how is it a solution? I didn't claim that it was. Maybe you should ask saulrh that. > Also, the pie is fixed. Economic growth has exceeded population growth rather reliably for the last two hundred years or so. The pie is definitely not fixed.

Unless you believe something like the Banach-Tarski paradox [0] is possible in our world, there is a relatively constant amount of matter within our reach. (In fact, there is a finite amount of matter that we will ever be able to reach.)

This puts a hard cap on how much "stuff" can exist. Therefore, the pie is fixed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#60

Post by s73v3r » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #43

nemo44x wrote: post #24

Karl Marx saw a couple flaws in Capitalism, similar to what we practice today. I think he's right about one and wrong about the other. And the part he's right about is what people find unfair. He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what b…

> He's right in that Capitalism is not about marking up a product to generate a profit by taking the cost of the goods and the labor to produce it but rather by paying labor less than what their labor is worth. And this is what bothers people. It isn't fair. And they are helpless to change it. Given your other statements, this is not a sensible position. A widget is priced according to the value it delivers a buyer -…

Your statement only makes sense in a context where both the buyer and seller have roughly equal power. As it is, that has almost never been true when talking about labor. An employer who doesn't have enough employees is still going to be able to compete and make money, just not as much. However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve.