'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#31

Post by EthanHeilman » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #2

I'd take the calls to "fight inequality" more seriously if they didn't have such a nationalist tone. 71% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day, if inequality was ended on a global scale the majority of the people out there protesting would see a dramatic drop in income. I have a feeling that isn't what they are talking about.

It depends which form of inequality you are taking about. For instance consider the argument that the criminal justice system does not provide equal justice based on race or income and that it should. If this inequality was fixed this does not imply a net reduction in justice. Instead decreases in this form of inequality would result in a net increase in justice.

Based on your comment I assume you are addressing income inequality.

>the majority of the people out there protesting would see a dramatic drop in income. I have a feeling that isn't what they are talking about.

I do know activists that view fairness as such an important virtue that they would be overjoyed to take that bargain even if it hurt their bottom line. However, according to the BBC [0]:

> the world's average salary is $1,480 (£928) a month, which is just less than $18,000 (£11,291) a year.

18,000/365 is roughly 50 dollars a day. According the the 2014 US Census [1] about 18-33% of US households make this or less (18% is single earner, 33% is two earner households). So for 18-33% of the US population nothing changes or things improve.

However, no one has a magic income equality wand. Even if someone did have a magic income equality wand is not clear if the second order effects of global radical income redistribution would be positive and almost nothing would prevent the causes of income inequality from reasserting themselves. For this reason most attempts to fix such inequality focus on the root causes, e.g. differences in the quality of education, disease, malnutrition or structural power imbalances (such as unfairness in the justice system, structural racism/sexism, who gets business loans, rent-seeking, etc...). Almost all of these would likely raise the average level of income rather than just flatten it.

[0]: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#32

Post by openasocket » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #12

heartsucker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're talking like we don't do these things already. We've have public schools for over a century, we have various forms of welfare, all kinds of special grant programs to help the poor pay for college, etc. And society hasn't collapsed, the poor aren't popping out a dozen kids because they know they get free primary education. All people are proposing is that we improve these programs. It's not an ideological argument, it's a negotiation over degrees.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#33

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

eric_b wrote: post #29

thomasmeeks wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a fair point and I know plenty of people like that as well. However, to give another perspective on it. When I think of changing an unequal situation, I look at the situations you described like this: "Did something happen early on in that person's life that just kind of made them give up?" I've known people like that, and although it is _also_ true that they _could_ lift themselves out of that situation, when…

I totally agree with you. I've thought about this as well. Most of the folks I know in bad situations had some early stumbles and they sort of just gave up, as you say. The thing is - and where I struggle - is that the early stumbles weren't insurmountable. It's like they had no fire, no tenacity, no will power.

Fire, tenacity, and willpower for... what, exactly? Towards what end? Why should everyone have to play ubermensch just to survive?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#34

Post by djrogers » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:03 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #24

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 think there's a bit of a squeeze area where people who work hard at jobs that pay between 30k and 50k (or even higher depending on the area) can find themselves basically paycheck to paycheck. And it's not all down to making bad decisions. On top of that it's hard to hold every to a standard of making perfect decisions all the time. For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst…

> For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst in '08.

And? Unless they lost their jobs in the mean time, or made some very very bad decisions with their mortgages, they are in all likelihood no longer upside down.

A drop in the value of your home doesn't take money out of your pocket - you're still making the same payments, you just feel worse about it.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#35

Post by ikeyany » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

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…

Quality schooling, basic health care, and a way to pay for college for academic excellence aren't going to take away all the nice things you can afford to treat your child to. A decent minimum line is as much helping you (a functioning, healthy society lasts much longer) as it is others. Every other first world country has those things I mentioned above for its citizens, and it's embarrassing how apathetic the public/Congress seem to be about it.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#36

Post by eric_b » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #24

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 think there's a bit of a squeeze area where people who work hard at jobs that pay between 30k and 50k (or even higher depending on the area) can find themselves basically paycheck to paycheck. And it's not all down to making bad decisions. On top of that it's hard to hold every to a standard of making perfect decisions all the time. For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst…

I don't disagree that there is a group of folks who are working hard and still struggling. I also agree that there should be some wiggle room for a few bad decisions not to sink you completely (depending on the severity of the decision).

But, in my experience this is not a large group of people. And, for the most part, this group isn't the one I see complaining in the news media.

And in any event, none of the policies the government currently has are meant for this group. They are somewhat lost in the shuffle. Should we do more for this group? Absolutely! But, I don't have a lot of hope much will get done.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#37

Post by kefka » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #12

heartsucker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I know right? Those poor people's kids don't deserve:

Clean water, electricity, a home, education, or any of those "rich people" things. If they did deserve it, they'd have them. Since they dont, they deserve a life of misery, suffering, and edging to destitution.

^^^ If you can understand the above, its the reason why youre on the wrong side of history here. You can couch the discussion as "stealing from the rich"... But in the end, we all should have equal access and usage to the essentials of life. We have more than enough resources; there just being hoarded by greedy people who are great at explaining why they deserve it.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#38

Post by Goronmon » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #12

heartsucker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

You have it reversed. Not providing, say, an education to all children, regardless of parental investment, will leave us with a large number of uneducated citizens languishing to fend for themselves. That sounds pretty bad for society.

Not sure how your making the case that educating children ends up poorly for everyone...unless, of course, you mean that it's harder for the wealthy and powerful to control an educated populace compared to an uneducated one.

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

No one is forced to live in a country that provides for it citizens. People can always choose to leave if they feel it's unfair to have basic responsibilities like paying taxes.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#39

Post by Frondo » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

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…

Because they are all human beings living in the richest country on earth. Why shouldn't they?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#40

Post by eli_gottlieb » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #27

nailer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We force people to pay for roads, firefighters, police, healthcare and ensure all children have the same opportunity. Healthy adults can stand for themselves, children and the ill need protection.

But that's not a justification. That's just telling me we do this a lot.

Look, if you want to drag out the old "taxation is theft" chestnut, I'm going to drag out the "property is theft" chestnut, and everyone else can drag out their old chestnuts, and we can totally derail the thread.

Do you want to derail the thread just to vomit out slogans we've all heard a thousand times and found wanting?