Inequality in Equalland • Hacker News Board

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#81

Post by khafra » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:08 PM UTC

johngalt wrote: post #50

pavel_lishin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the job was something he absolutely loved doing, that might be an attractive offer. What if the job was laying in a park, testing out the effectiveness of new marijuana strains?

It's not my point that there are no other motivations, merely that money is a primary one.

I think we can all agree that your point was not well supported. By the way, how much do you get paid for participating in HN? Your average karma is 4.4; by the community's judgement, you put some good work into commenting.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#82

Post by khafra » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:13 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #60

Unseelie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue, as a 22 year old economist just entering the workforce, that the fact that people just entering their retirement hold the most wealth is quite a social problem. For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics.

> For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics. I know this is a popular one, especially on Reddit etc to moan about - old people vote the most, but they don't like our drugs, gay marriage etc But the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. We'll all be there at some point.

> We'll all be there at some point.

Yes.

> the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible.

No.

A randomly chosen old person has more experience than a randomly chosen young person, by definition. Due to neural plasticity, a young person has more knowledge in every field that changes significantly over the course of a generation. I cannot discern a meaningful definition of "sensible" in this context.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#83

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:16 PM UTC

cdavid wrote: post #72

lsd5you wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable. According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fai…

There has been many studies for a long time (several decades) which show that as far as environment matters, what matters is not so much money, but what is called in sociology "cultural capital" (not sure it is the right expression in English). For example, in France (but I guess in other countries as well), children from teachers succeed much better than children from workers, even though income is not so much diffe…

But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold).

No, it's predictive value for individual success is pretty weak. That's not the same thing. Here is a rather famous graph:

http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/occupati...

If 50% of current variation in IQ us caused by genetics, this does not conflict with the Flynn effect.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#84

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:21 PM UTC

monos wrote: post #64

ugh wrote: post #31

This is a nice demonstration that ‘raw’ inequality data is not very useful. “X% have Y% of the wealth!” really doesn’t tell you very much. I’m actually only concerned about the consequences of inequality (which could be positive or negative), not about inequality itself. What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly don’t want to reduce inequality out of…

> What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the > wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly > don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite. You might want reduce it because the lowest x% don't have enough to eat. Share the cake.

This is not necessary in the US or most other industrialized nations - our bottom x% tends to eat too much, not to little.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#85

Post by lsd5you » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:28 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #65

lsd5you wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number. In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).

He said genetics wouldn't be so important if everyone didn't have access to decent schools. In other words, he's saying genetics is more important if the school inequality is equalized. You're actually agreeing with him.

I had to reread both of these comments a couple of times, before it dawned on me why you disagreed - correctly.

Since I am from the UK public school reads 'posh elite school', not 'state school' so it had an opposite sense to my thinking.

As to the alleged assumption, I'm not entirely sure to what degree I am making it. I am assuming of course the same conditions as the experiments I mentioned - which were, I am fairly sure, western society in general in the last few decades. I won't pass judgement as to whether this meets the condition of decent state schools for all.

In all not too sure what the point of the original observation was, it could go in both directions. The figure of 50% only makes sense given some context.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#86

Post by wlievens » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:28 PM UTC

monos wrote: post #64

ugh wrote: post #31

This is a nice demonstration that ‘raw’ inequality data is not very useful. “X% have Y% of the wealth!” really doesn’t tell you very much. I’m actually only concerned about the consequences of inequality (which could be positive or negative), not about inequality itself. What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly don’t want to reduce inequality out of…

> What do I care if 1% of the population have 99% of the > wealth if there are no consequences to it? I certainly > don’t want to reduce inequality out of spite. You might want reduce it because the lowest x% don't have enough to eat. Share the cake.

What part of 'if there are no consequences to it' did you glance over?

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#87

Post by lsd5you » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:36 PM UTC

cdavid wrote: post #72

lsd5you wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable. According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fai…

There has been many studies for a long time (several decades) which show that as far as environment matters, what matters is not so much money, but what is called in sociology "cultural capital" (not sure it is the right expression in English). For example, in France (but I guess in other countries as well), children from teachers succeed much better than children from workers, even though income is not so much diffe…

I suppose the counter point is that teachers are 'underpaid' for their intelligence, when compared to workers. There is probably an element of that since teaching is vocational and most people entering the profession do so in the knowledge that they will not earn as much. Hence we should not be surprised that their children do better - for both cultural and genetic reasons (50-50?).

The original point was about academic success, which is surely more corelated with IQ than economic success.

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#88

Post by axod » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:46 PM UTC

khafra wrote: post #82

axod wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics. I know this is a popular one, especially on Reddit etc to moan about - old people vote the most, but they don't like our drugs, gay marriage etc But the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. We'll all be there at some point.

> We'll all be there at some point. Yes. > the fact is old people have more experience, more knowledge, and are just far more sensible. No. A randomly chosen old person has more experience than a randomly chosen young person, by definition. Due to neural plasticity, a young person has more knowledge in every field that changes significantly over the course of a generation. I cannot discern a meaningful definition of…

My use of 'sensible' was there because young people tend to take more risks, think of the short term rather than the long term. etc

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#89

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:50 PM UTC

Unseelie wrote: post #21

axiom wrote: post #4

Thank you! As soon as those wealth inequality posts started popping up I've been waiting for someone to point out the idiocy of lamenting the wealth inequality between 22 yearolds just entering the workforce and 65 yearolds about to retire.

I'd argue, as a 22 year old economist just entering the workforce, that the fact that people just entering their retirement hold the most wealth is quite a social problem. For instance, the ability of the older wealth to influence politics.

[deleted]

Re: Inequality in Equalland

#90

Post by btilly » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 1:54 PM UTC

cdavid wrote: post #73

InclinedPlane wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think a high-school dropout who spends his days playing Black Ops should have the same wealth as a trained surgeon who saves lives in the ER? No thanks. That idea is brain dead.

That reductio ad absurdum, and most likely not what the OP meant. The idea that a fair society is one where inequalities are rather low is not exclusive to extreme left ideologies. How you articulate inequality and justice is one of the most pertinent way to describe right vs left ideologies, and economics do not preclude either view (up to a certain degree). If you read serious works about how fairness and inequalit…

Low inequalities and no inequalities are very different.

Suppose that we start with equal wealth. And then I buy and consume a chocolate bar. Odds are that I'm now happier and poorer than you. Who would seriously argue that this wealth inequality is a bad thing?

I'm right there with people who complain about the amount of inequality that we have today. I don't think that it is healthy or productive. But if you believe in having private property and money, you have accepted that some level of inequality is acceptable.