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

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#71

Post by Jabanga »

nailer wrote: post #41
Jabanga wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're right, it's not a justification. The reason I think we do all those things is because it's good for society: there might be talented kids that have poor parents, so giving them a good start in life creates more successful adults. More successful adults is good for the economy and for the harmoniousness of society.

We could provide people with the market means to provide student loans to the parents of promising children. Then the market will take care of it, without any compulsion, and far more effectively than a nondiscriminating blanket redistribution based solely on reported income levels.

I personally think that guaranteeing equality of opportunity will have more negative social effects than positive, by reducing incentive to produce resources in order to provide for one's own children, since one can instead be poor and let the state force other people to pay for their upbringing.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#72

Post by EthanHeilman »

cmdrfred wrote: post #53
EthanHeilman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inco…

Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system.

>Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year.

Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners.

>The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars

And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000.

The BBC's analysis (linked to in my post) computes it for earners and therefore is comparable. This is also why it is higher (18,000 USD rather than 10,000 USD). I gave a range for 1-2 earners per household.

>and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system

Are you confusing median and mean here?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#73

Post by Zak »

I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea.

Rather than inequality, I think people are more concerned about some combination of:

* Poverty - that some people don't have enough resources to meet their basic needs

* Lack of opportunity - that for too many people, working hard and making reasonable decisions is unlikely to result in a proportional gain in wealth

* Corruption - that wealth results in undue influence over the political process and control over the lives of others

* Unjust rewards - that some activities which arguably, or definitely cause a net harm to society or a reduction in total wealth are rewarded, and that some beneficial activities are not rewarded, or rewarded insufficiently

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#74

Post by Brendinooo »

It's funny what you remember from the grade school days. In hindsight, one of the most influential stories I had to read was "Harrison Bergeron"[0], which I always come back to whenever I see people talk about equality. Danilov's last lines in "Enemy at the Gates"[1] have stuck with me as well.

"Equality" is a bit of a fraught term - it can mean lots of things in lots of different contexts. But "Harrison Bergeron" depicted an equal society, and it wasn't pretty.

Perhaps fights against inequality that cut down tall poppies are just inherently more difficult to sell. Debates about racial inequality have arguably made better headway over time in US politics because they tend to focus on elevating an oppressed group; granting them rights they lacked to make them equals with those who already had those rights. With income inequality, however, the solutions are often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as bringing people down; beating up on those who have had success.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

[1]: "Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#75

Post by Rapzid »

Jabanga wrote: post #48
openasocket wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argum…

How redistributive were public schools 100 years ago, when they were almost exclusively paid for by local taxes within communities where people had very similar levels of income, and when education spending as a share of GDP was miniscule compared to today? I would argue that the harm of redistribution has historically been more than counterbalanced by the accelerating rate of technological innovation, but that the l…

Only 100 years ago? A lot? It appears the federal government has been involved in public education nearly from the start. Article I Section 8 of the constitution provides impetus; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;". From the very start the federal government has provided land grants for public schools, and States have been happily applying funds received from the federal government to the costs of education.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#76

Post by CocaKoala »

djrogers wrote: post #43
radicalbyte wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and any child with "bad" parents has to work ten times as hard because they've spent their entire life swimming against the current. There's a reason why certain communities have radically different outcomes. The more motivated kind set their offspring up so that the default outcome is, on average, success. They have to try hard to not succeed.

> They have to try hard to not succeed. That is utter crap. They do have to make some bad decisions, but it's not like success is guaranteed for everyone who grows up in a white middle class neighborhood.

Just because it's possible to fail doesn't mean that it isn't easier to succeed. Consider the case of Eric Couch, who stole two cases of beer, drove 70 mp/h (30 miles per hour over the speed limit) and crashed, killing four people. Two hours after the crash, his BAC was .24%. He was 18.

His lawyer argued that he suffered from 'affluenza', and he was sentenced to probation and therapy; note that Eric was a repeat offender (having been previously cited for Minor in Possession and Minor in Consumption of Alcohol.

Eric Couch wasn't sentenced to a jail term until he violated the terms of his probation and fled to Mexico.

Success isn't guaranteed, but does everybody get the same leeway as Eric Couch?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#77

Post by Jabanga »

kefka wrote: post #37
Jabanga wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

They don't deserve to take someone else's money by force, in order to pay for those things. I don't think opposing forced income redistribution puts me on the side of history.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#78

Post by AbrahamParangi »

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.

I'd argue that Society is literally the business of using force to align incentives towards global optima.

In the same way that society taxes you to pay for goods and services that others use, others are taxed to pay for services that you use. Society does this because it has been historically more adaptive to make everyone pay for roads, fire departments, and strategic bombers regardless of whether or not they actually want them.

If you don't think people should be forced to pay for things that others use, I challenge you to find a society where this doesn't happen.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#79

Post by Frondo »

CocaKoala wrote: post #56
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…

What about people who tried hard, worked diligently, made smart decisions, got bogged down in poverty, and decided that there's no point in trying hard, working diligently, and making smart decisions if they're just going to get bogged down in poverty?

This is something I think gets lost, poor people in low-paying jobs have a pretty tenuous existence. They'll set aside their $10 a month for savings (and end up with $120 at the end of a year) and the first emergency wipes out their savings. So they start saving again--$10 a month or whatever--and a few more years, another emergency wipes it out.

It always gets me how people talk about how you can just live frugally, on poverty wages, and you'll slowly be less poor. That might work, if you have no emergencies in life, literally never make a mistake or display bad judgment in any way (remember, one emergency will wipe out years of saving and mistake-free life choices), and don't even think of having a family or raising children.

But positing that as "the way things ought to be for everyone" in the richest country on earth? That's fucked up.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#80

Post by aaronchall »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #30
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…

Counter-anecdote: my wife has a Master's degree and works 60 hours a week, trying to transition from biotech to teaching. She has to cobble together multiple jobs, some of which are in the "low-wage sectors". She works 60 hours a week because, well, budgets have been cut to school districts. She'll be earning $16k/year next year as a teaching fellow, albeit earning her education Master's while doing it. We have a fri…

Your wife is being paid to go to school and she'll make better money as a teacher when she completes?

Brilliant, welcome to the middle class.

If you're unambitious and living on 20k a year (like your friend in foodservice), you can get a roommate, a beater car, and still have a fun life. That's not exploitation, that's her choice.

If she wants the responsibility of providing for a family, she should probably take on more responsibility in her career, and make way for our unemployed youths who need their first jobs so future employers will take them seriously for real ones.

Post reply on HN