Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#91

Post by weeksie »

nshepperd wrote: post #49
weeksie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look into John Rawls' theory of justice. It'll answer a lot of your questions.

I'll take Rawls' veil of ignorance and say yes, I'd rather be born into unequal world A than equal world B if everyone in world A has strictly more pie than in world B. Destroying parts of the pie clearly isn't Pareto optimal, either.

Most people would, depending on the amount of inequality and how bad off the least fortunate are. There's been pretty good research on that. Rawls' thought experiment is meant to reveal what people in a society would consider just, not to be prescriptive. Rawls had ideas as to what people would choose and but he was wrong about how much equality they would prefer.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#92

Post by AC__ »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #74
AC__ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would probably enjoy wealth, yes. However, what I truly desire most would be to understand the Universe. Understand reality. What are we? Are we?(see some of Dr. James Gates work on supersymmetry) So many questions and, it would seem, way too much geopolitical bullshit on this planet to ever truly get any answers.

That's what you say. Biologically we aren't designed that way. We're designed to seek status and achievement as it aids in reproduction. Understanding the universe doesn't help you achieve this goal in anyway. It probably hinders you. Too many people like to think about themselves as robotic savants desiring only to be logical and more intelligent. This is a fantasy story that is somewhat true but side steps the issu…

I've noticed a lot of people around HN seem to have chosen the blue pill.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#93

Post by nemo44x »

mrchucklepants wrote: post #62
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…

The answer to the first question is the time-value of money. The capitalist has put his capital into the production and is delaying the return on his investment to the future. The employee is being paid now, regardless of when the income from their labor is realized. This is why a good is sold for more than the worker is paid. The worker is not being paid less than their labor is worth.

And the money earned with labor is taxed heavily while the money earned with capital is taxed minimally. This seems fair?

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#94

Post by stvswn »

mmanfrin wrote: post #85
stvswn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome? This is specifically not what Sanders is talking about. He's saying that the basic fact that the rich have become richer than they used to be, relative to everyone else, is wrong and must change. How do you read this differently?: https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequalit...

Really? Every single point there is about increasing taxes on the rich and reducing taxes/burdens or increasing pay for the poor, leading to one thing: more opportunity for the poor to pursue life decisions that aren't mandated by position or need (e.g., not going to school because you cant afford it or dont have the time when not working your two jobs). The rich being richer and the poor being poorer is an indicatio…

I also think that we fundamentally disagree as to what "equality of opportunity" means.

You think it means that the government has a role in making sure the poor and the rich have the same outcomes available to them. In that sense, the rich being able to afford fancier educations, better housing, better healthcare, etc. is something that needs to be fixed.

I think it means that the law is blind as to your station in life -- that you are free to do with your life as you please, as your abilities and good fortune allow. That you do not get special treatment from your government if you happen to be rich or connected -- but definitely not that you can be assured that life will be fair, and that the hand you're dealt will be worth the same as your neighbor's.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#95

Post by api »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #74
AC__ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would probably enjoy wealth, yes. However, what I truly desire most would be to understand the Universe. Understand reality. What are we? Are we?(see some of Dr. James Gates work on supersymmetry) So many questions and, it would seem, way too much geopolitical bullshit on this planet to ever truly get any answers.

That's what you say. Biologically we aren't designed that way. We're designed to seek status and achievement as it aids in reproduction. Understanding the universe doesn't help you achieve this goal in anyway. It probably hinders you. Too many people like to think about themselves as robotic savants desiring only to be logical and more intelligent. This is a fantasy story that is somewhat true but side steps the issu…

There's an old saying about this:

"The secret to success is being smart enough to play the game well, but not so smart you figure the game out. Then you realize how stupid it is and you don't want to play anymore."

Someone like... say... Donald Trump strikes me as just the right amount of smart.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#96

Post by mmanfrin »

stvswn wrote: post #88
mmanfrin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Every single point there is about increasing taxes on the rich and reducing taxes/burdens or increasing pay for the poor, leading to one thing: more opportunity for the poor to pursue life decisions that aren't mandated by position or need (e.g., not going to school because you cant afford it or dont have the time when not working your two jobs). The rich being richer and the poor being poorer is an indicatio…

Oh -- so income inequality is evidence of disparity of opportunity, so you are actually concerned with income inequality. You'd prefer incomes to be more equal. If opportunity were perfectly equal (your ideal state), what would you imagine income distribution to look like? Would that be acceptable then? In other words, at what distribution would you not argue that the distribution itself is evidence of unfairness?

  You'd prefer incomes to be more equal
The way you've worded your questions you are trying to lead me in to a talk of wealth redistribution. Incomes being more equal is not about distributing, but in countering things that are naturally regressive by:

Establishign a more progressive tax rate, ending on the cap of social security payments (which is the literal definition of a regressive tax), a livable minimum wage, equal access to education (education being generally a flat cost, and so affects the poor a lot harder than the wealthy), a singlepayer healthcare system which will put a much larger portion of income for the poor (than the rich) back in to their pockets ($300/mo for insurance is a lot more to someone who earns $1k a month than to someone earning $10k a month).

These happen to be points 1, 8, 2, 7, and 9 on the page you linked.

See? You can make income (and thus opportunity) more fair without redistributing.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#97

Post by mmanfrin »

stvswn wrote: post #94
mmanfrin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Every single point there is about increasing taxes on the rich and reducing taxes/burdens or increasing pay for the poor, leading to one thing: more opportunity for the poor to pursue life decisions that aren't mandated by position or need (e.g., not going to school because you cant afford it or dont have the time when not working your two jobs). The rich being richer and the poor being poorer is an indicatio…

I also think that we fundamentally disagree as to what "equality of opportunity" means. You think it means that the government has a role in making sure the poor and the rich have the same outcomes available to them. In that sense, the rich being able to afford fancier educations, better housing, better healthcare, etc. is something that needs to be fixed. I think it means that the law is blind as to your station in…

  That you do not get special treatment from your government 
  if you happen to be rich or connected
Sure you do. Up until a few years ago you paid a significantly smaller tax rate, since capital gains were taxed at 15%. The rich also hit the social security tax cap, which means the rich pay a smaller tax rate there too. Not to mention tax protection shelters that having an expensive accountant affords you.

You also have access to better lawyers to protect you from crimes you commit, which means you'll serve a lighter sentencing (on average).

Being rich has very clear advantages beyond simply having more money, and to deny that is to be willfully obtuse.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#98

Post by nickff »

nemo44x wrote: post #89
nickff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia entry is titled 'price', but is actually mostly about price theory.

The theory might be sound but the effects of policy unilaterally advantage the capitalist at the expense of the local worker. This is why people feel they are being treated unfairly. They are competing with other groups around the world who haven't caught up yet. I believe we will eventually progress to the mean here but until then there are people feeling cheated. The trade agreements and bank bailouts did not consi…

Price theory shows how businesses don't 'mark up' to generate prices; they sell for as much as they can, whether at a loss or a profit.

>"policy unilaterally advantage the capitalist at the expense of the local worker"

This is obviously untrue, and can simply be demonstrated by looking at how many of the supposedly disadvantaged workers strike out on their own, and form new businesses; if it were so easy and so sure, everyone would be doing it. Most employees with enough money to form a business in their field do not, because they do not think it is worth it.

>"people feel they are being treated unfairly"

People can feel they are being treated unfairly for a number of reasons, but we should make it clear that there are a few kinds of fairness that people care about, and they are not always mutually compatible. Fairness of treatment refers to procedural guarantees, and fairness of outcome refers to how equitable people feel the result of the process was. Conservatives tend to value the former, and liberals tend to value the latter.

>"I believe we will eventually progress to the mean here but until then there are people feeling cheated. The trade agreements and bank bailouts did not consider the displacement in the near term and thus has created a growing group that is angry due to feeling that the system is not fair."

You should be careful about making sweeping predictions based on simple theories, as they have the unfortunate tendency to be wrong. Tetlock's book is a good read on the subject of predictions and judgement if you are interested.[1]

[1] http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#99

Post by vinhboy »

stvswn wrote: post #82
vinhboy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution. "There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans." - Bernie Sanders (Also a really misleading stat. If you have a $1 net worth, you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.)

First, my mistake, I mean to type "wealth redistribution".

Second, no, that is not what he's talking about.

He's pointing out a symptom of "income inequality"

The solution is not "wealth redistribution", the solution is to be fair.

Pay a fair wage, provide universal healthcare, reduce the cost of tuition, close tax loopholes, end corporate lobbying, etc...

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#100

Post by vinhboy »

stvswn wrote: post #86
stvswn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution. "There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans." - Bernie Sanders (Also a really misleading stat. If you have a $1 net worth, you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.)

And I'd add -- the Waltons would be a weird example to key on if you were concerned mainly with punishing Wall St. speculators but keeping dynamism and entrepreneurship alive. Regardless of how you feel about WalMart, the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. Not sure why they're first among the villains for ol' Bernie.

> the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business.

This is where we disagree.

Yes, they have every right to be rich because of their business success.

But their unequal wealth is a result of a broken system that allows for "income inequality".

Some would go as far as saying their business success is a direct result of their ability to exploit "income inequality".

Post reply on HN