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

'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#11

Post by greggman »

crystalmeph wrote: post #4

If you want people to fight inequality with you, you have to first prove to them it's actually a problem. It's a bit of a leap to convince somebody that just because Bill Gates is much richer than the typical person, somebody more deserving must have gone without for him to get so rich.

Random semi-related anecdote

Japanese video game companies pay like 1/3rd or less what USA video game companies pay in salary. AFAIK similar things are true for other industries. Maybe not as bad as 1/3rd but that's not relevant to the point below.

In Japanese school (17 years ago) my teacher brought up the topic that CEOs don't get paid as much in Japan so it's more equal. My response at the time was "why do I care that my USA CEO makes 100x my salary and my Japanese CEO only 10x, the 100x CEO is still managing to pay me 2x to 3x more than the 10x CEO."

How true that is overall I have no idea. I can say that video game programmers in Japan with 15 years experience make less than interns at Google.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#12

Post by Jabanga »

heartsucker wrote: post #9
Jabanga wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal…

Because the children have no control over who their parents are, and we shouldn't punish with a lifetime of diminished opportunities because their parents aren't as "good" as others.

But we're not punishing them. We're simply not taking, by force, money from one person, to spend it raising the children of another.

If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#13

Post by ebencooke »

Jabanga wrote: post #7
ikeyany wrote: post #5

Obama used a few phrases that not only sounded pleasing, but accurately addressed what's happening to Americans: "Everyone, including the rich, need to pay their share." "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." He tapped into equality of opportunity, while acknowledging that some will be more successful than others. Th…

I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal…

I disagree because I think children should not be punished for the quality of their parent(s).

I also think you are making a big (and incorrect) assumption that children who do not receive "investment" have parents that are neglecting them, rather than have parents who lack the means to make a substantial "investment".

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#14

Post by Jabanga »

ebencooke wrote: post #13
Jabanga wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal…

I disagree because I think children should not be punished for the quality of their parent(s). I also think you are making a big (and incorrect) assumption that children who do not receive "investment" have parents that are neglecting them, rather than have parents who lack the means to make a substantial "investment".

I mean some people are born smarter than others. Maybe low IQ people deserve a monthly stipend, that high-IQ people are forced to pay, to compensate them for how unfair the universe was to them.

I'm sorry for the facetiousness, but I just don't see any reasonable case for the government playing this kind of role in society. It all seems very moralizing and controlling.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#15

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

crystalmeph wrote: post #4

If you want people to fight inequality with you, you have to first prove to them it's actually a problem. It's a bit of a leap to convince somebody that just because Bill Gates is much richer than the typical person, somebody more deserving must have gone without for him to get so rich.

It's not a leap at all.

MS lost an anti-trust case. There were good legal and ethical reasons why MS in general and Gates in particular had to admit in a public courtroom that "cutting off the oxygen supply" to their competitors meant destroying other companies and other people's livelihoods.

Aside from that, once a company gets big enough it effectively becomes a kind of proxy mini-government in its market space, and smaller entrepreneurs either work with it and pay tribute for market access, or sometimes simply pay for the right to continue to exist.

And even then there's no guarantee that they really will be allowed to exist.

This is what inequality means. It's not just about poor people having no money and rich people having plenty of money. It's about inequality of power and influence.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#16

Post by JBReefer »

eric_b wrote: post #6

Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately…

Remember the speaker when it comes to inequality - sometimes, it looks to me more about upper middle class/the professional class assuaging internal guilt than a movement from the lower class.

I agree honest, a bunch of my friends from home don't do shit, don't want to do shit, and are perfectly happy with life. Honestly, probably happier than my wealthy friends. Low cost of living takes a lot of stress off your back.

The above only applies to people in that exact situation - there are of course huge structural problems with poverty in America w/r/t/ race, immigration status, etc. that are 100% not semi-idyllic image I'm describing.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#17

Post by Rapzid »

eric_b wrote: post #6

Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately…

I don't find that very weird. But then, as a currently successful person, I believe way less in the concept of "free will" than most.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#18

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Jabanga wrote: post #14
ebencooke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree because I think children should not be punished for the quality of their parent(s). I also think you are making a big (and incorrect) assumption that children who do not receive "investment" have parents that are neglecting them, rather than have parents who lack the means to make a substantial "investment".

I mean some people are born smarter than others. Maybe low IQ people deserve a monthly stipend, that high-IQ people are forced to pay, to compensate them for how unfair the universe was to them. I'm sorry for the facetiousness, but I just don't see any reasonable case for the government playing this kind of role in society. It all seems very moralizing and controlling.

Does it work better when low IQ people "deserve" to be shafted by high IQ people for being stupid?

Is that any less moralising and controlling?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#19

Post by jeffdavis »

"Inequality" is a bad rallying cry because no two people are equal, and few would like to be equal to someone else. So what people mean by "inequality" is always something else, and varies in meaning from person to person. Even if you choose something concrete, like "equality of income", few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old.

Ordinarily a meaningless word is great for a rallying cry, but things like "equal" and "fair" are just too meaningless.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#20

Post by Jabanga »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #18
Jabanga wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean some people are born smarter than others. Maybe low IQ people deserve a monthly stipend, that high-IQ people are forced to pay, to compensate them for how unfair the universe was to them. I'm sorry for the facetiousness, but I just don't see any reasonable case for the government playing this kind of role in society. It all seems very moralizing and controlling.

Does it work better when low IQ people "deserve" to be shafted by high IQ people for being stupid? Is that any less moralising and controlling?

How are they being shafted? As for whether they deserve to be born rich, poor, smart, dumb, it's not for the government to say who deserves to be born with what.
Post reply on HN