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

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#81

Post by NLips »

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.

The BBC article agrees. The $18,000 a year is based on PPP, so for equality of _effective_ income, that's possibly a better number to use.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#82

Post by humanrebar »

thomasmeeks wrote: post #26
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…

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…

> Did something happen early on in that person's life that just kind of made them give up?

That is a retrospective way to address fairness. Another is, "Given where they are, can they start doing better and end up in a better place?"

A systemic problem that can (or used to) shove people down economically could be different than a systemic problem that doesn't allow a (reasonable) way to advance once they're at the bottom.

Point being, maybe people gave up. Maybe it's their fault. Maybe there was nothing they could do about it. But it's imperative that they have credible ways to undo that decision going forward.

Relevant issues (different people will add and/or subtract from the list):

1. permanent felony records and difficulty in getting records expunged after a history of good citizenship

2. hard cut-offs in government benefit programs

2a. getting a raise should not be a personal net loss

2b. getting married should not be a personal net loss

2c. getting more hours should not be a personal net loss, for you or your employer (the ACA really messed up here)

2d. moving to a better situation should not put your benefits at risk

3. Age discrimination needs to be taken more seriously

3a. 50-year-old college grads should have the same shots as anyone else. Otherwise, retraining from failed industries will be prohibitively difficult.

3b. New grads can't afford to wait 5-10 years for their first shot... this causes delayed marriages, delayed savings for retirement, an aging workforce, etc.

4. Home addresses are tied to wealth. Public schools are tied to home addresses. So public educational opportunity for kids is tied to how much wealth their parents have. Something has to be done about this.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#83

Post by Jabanga »

Rapzid wrote: post #75
Jabanga wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

The federal department of education was only created in 1980. All government spending on education, as a percentage of GDP, was a tiny fraction of what it is today. And the revenue for the education spending was weighted far more towards local sources, making it less redistributive.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#84

Post by openasocket »

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…

Subsidizing education is absolutely not redistribution of wealth! It is an investment. Giving a child a good education increases that child's lifelong income, some of which is taken as tax, which can mean putting money into education can result in a profit over time. This is especially true when you consider that giving a child a good education decreases their likelihood of having to live on welfare or unemployment. Not to mention that having a better education decreases criminality! You think welfare is expensive, consider that it costs about $50K a year to hold a person in prison. And I'm just talking about money: there's all kinds of benefits to society as a whole when the populace is better educated. Decreased crime rates means fewer robberies, rapes and murders. A better educated workforce means a larger talent pool for high-tech companies, which is matched by an increased demand for various products.

So don't just write off publicly subsidized education as wealth redistribution!

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#85

Post by Jabanga »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #78
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.

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 actua…

I find that to be an odd definition of society. I think you mean government. And I don't believe redistribution from effective producers of economic resources to less effective producers is societally beneficial.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#86

Post by eli_gottlieb »

eric_b wrote: post #69
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So farmers have spent thousands of years of civilization valiantly striving to out-ubermensch each-other, and the rest of us just never heard about it? Shepherds? Priests? Scientists? Artists and writers? Shit, how have I missed the evolutionary war of all against all going on all around me? There are so many gene-rivals I could have stabbed in back-alleys! Or does evolution maybe allow for successful strategies towa…

Oh please, you're propping up a strawman. You don't need to be an "ubermensch" to survive, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't expect to be lazy and make bad choices and also expect to have as much as someone who works hard and makes smart choices. That was my point regarding evolutionary history and nature. Farmers that worked hard and planned ahead did better than those who did nothing. Thos…

I don't wish. I put my efforts into overthrowing your so-called "natural" order. Nature, after all, is merely everything compatible with the laws of physics. If we create a universal basic income, or pass living-wage laws, those are natural!

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#87

Post by seasharp »

eric_b wrote: post #69
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So farmers have spent thousands of years of civilization valiantly striving to out-ubermensch each-other, and the rest of us just never heard about it? Shepherds? Priests? Scientists? Artists and writers? Shit, how have I missed the evolutionary war of all against all going on all around me? There are so many gene-rivals I could have stabbed in back-alleys! Or does evolution maybe allow for successful strategies towa…

Oh please, you're propping up a strawman. You don't need to be an "ubermensch" to survive, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't expect to be lazy and make bad choices and also expect to have as much as someone who works hard and makes smart choices. That was my point regarding evolutionary history and nature. Farmers that worked hard and planned ahead did better than those who did nothing. Thos…

Strawman? His question was why is it necessary for everyone to be an ubermensch and your response not one message before his said "Because that's how nature works[.]"

Unless you meant to write something completely different, that's your stance and he rebutted it

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#88

Post by Jabanga »

eastWestMath wrote: post #44
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…

Jesus fucking christ dude, it's not about giving parents the opportunity to see their children be successful. It's about giving children the chance to be successful.

That's a great ideal to strive toward, but I don't see the case for forcing everyone to adopt that ideal.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#89

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Jabanga wrote: post #61
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think that's very constructive. The parent comment said [X] should be the rallying cry. I said in my opinion it shouldn't, and I gave my rationale. By all means bring out your chestnuts. I welcome a rigorous discussion, instead of blind conformity to mainstream political mores.

No, you don't welcome a rigorous discussion. You want to repeat discussions we've already had, in which you were not persuaded to others' points of view, and you didn't persuade them either. The likelihood that we'll all see the divine light of von Mises and convert this time is extraordinarily low. Stop trying.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#90

Post by ikeyany »

Jabanga wrote: post #54
ikeyany wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see any basis for that. Substantial taxes could very well reduce how much one can invest into their own children. I also don't see how other countries doing it is a justification.

Do you really consider everyone paying their share to be 'substantial taxes'?
Post reply on HN