Live data from Hacker News

Is Inequality Inevitable?

scientificamerican.com

121–130 of 628 posts

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#121
post #66

A lot of it misses the point. Equality is unavoidable as long as people are allowed to compete for stuff. If people are allowed to compete for property then those that are better at competing will have more property. It might be possible to have property equality when people have access to same things but compete for different things, for example status, choice of partners, etc. And the most important point people se…

You make it sound as though the economic pie is fixed and economics zero-sum. But that's clearly not the case, otherwise we'd still be living with stone age per-capita GDP (i.e., ~0). And it's not just that "those that are better at competing will have more property". Every person is free to make a variety of choices for themselves, including how much they prioritize wealth creation. Since each one of us has only one…

Per capita GDP increased less from the Stone Age to now than you might think. Even if you discount all goods other than food to zero, it’s less than 100x growth in the last ~5-10,000 years. That’s less than 0.1% per year growth over that timeframe.

Though valuing ancient goods at equivalent modern prices is debatable, it seems like a reasonable metric.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#122
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some people are naturally lazier than others, and, while the most lazy still deserve a bare minimum social support system, they definitely don't deserve the same amount as the least lazy.

Does the dollar amount of additional wealth given to the least-lazy person matter? Or is it only significant that they earn some marginal amount more than the second least-lazy person?

The larger the correlation between effort and reward, the more motivation.

A more marginal reward would result in more marginal motivation. A significant reward would provide significant motivation.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#123
post #11
post #5

Of course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level of existing wealth.

It scales linearly. If you have 3 (or 10) times as much as I have, and we both invest all our money in the same interest bearing account, then after N years you will still have 3 (or 10) times as much as I have. So, according to your model, the initial wealth distribution should not change. (Of course, you can argue that those with more wealth consume a smaller part of it, and that gives rise to inequality, but that'…

Why are we ignoring the consumption factor? That's a very natural part of the wealth accumulation game.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, but the point is that most of that is stuff he had no control over. The Econ 101 fantasy of "work hard, get ahead" doesn't apply if being a straight white male born into a middle class western family means you're starting 80% of the way to the finish line.

Please keep your prejudices out of this. How did hunter-gatherers get ahead?

A combination of hard work and good luck. But of course, it was a lot harder to inherit massive wealth in those days. :)

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#125
post #66

A lot of it misses the point. Equality is unavoidable as long as people are allowed to compete for stuff. If people are allowed to compete for property then those that are better at competing will have more property. It might be possible to have property equality when people have access to same things but compete for different things, for example status, choice of partners, etc. And the most important point people se…

> Inequality does not mean we need to have people who can't satisfy their most basic things. It is possible for people to be allowed to compete for wealth and at the same time ensure those that don't want or can't compete have their basic needs like food, shelter and medical care satisfied.

How?

I get that there's a lot of waste and inefficiency in those industries. Whenever zoning laws prevent a developer from building new housing, that's a third party actively preventing someone's basic needs from being satisfied. Whenever med-school admissions hold the number of new doctors below that needed to service all the uninsured, that's a third party actively preventing basic needs from being satisfied. Whenever food just gets thrown out because nobody bought it or it didn't meat the supermarket's quality standards, those were peoples' basic needs that could've been satisfied.

But in most cases this inefficiency happens because of a quality/quantity tradeoff that society has collectively made in the past. When the Bay Area was first settled in the 1930s-50s, it was common for workers to move here, setup tents, and then go to Orchard Supply Hardware, buy some lumber, and build their own houses. Can people do that today? Absolutely not - we have building codes, year-long permitting processes, zoning requirements. Much of that original housing stock still remains, and is a disaster waiting to happen in an earthquake.

Similarly, a common response these days to the shortage of health care and the need to provide affordable health care is for nurse practitioners to get certified (often via online courses) to be a physician's assistant, and to use PAs for much of the routine medical care (coughs, colds, rashes, etc.) that takes up the bulk of a doctor's time. I have several doctor friends who have railed at length about this practice. They have an obvious self-interest in doing so, but they also have a compelling argument: children will die. For most visits, the PA just needs to tell you to take some ibuprofen, but in some rare cases, those recurrent bloody noses are actually a sign of a serious medical condition that needs treatment ASAP. A doctor will have run across those conditions in their training & practice and know what to look for, but a PA is very likely to miss it. Thus, you are literally killing children if you relax the regulations that set the bar for becoming a licensed MD.

Many of our current societal ills come because "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Unrestricted capitalism is very effective at "good enough" solutions, where the product is good enough for you to buy but may be a little rough around the edges or have corner cases that, well, kill you if you get unlucky. To mitigate the corner cases, we've added a lot of regulations that generally prevent suppliers from killing their customers through negligence, but a side-effect is that it's dramatically reduced the population of people who could be potential suppliers. That lets those few trained practitioners dictate the terms of supplying the service, so they can raise their prices until only the wealthy can afford to pay.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#126

Have there been any efforts to quantify what level of inequality is reasonable? For instance, the GINI coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means everyone has the same amount, and 1 means one person at the top has everything. Depending on how it's measured, the US is somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5. You don't want to be at either extreme, so some level of inequality is desirable. Is there an appropriate amount o…

GINI coefficient should not be used as a target measure at all. It's entirely irrelevant.

If you want a target measure for the economy, let's do it this way. GDP per capita should be as big a number as possible. Wealth distribution should be correlated with productivity. A measure of productivity should be some combination of output, competence, and effort.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#127
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound as though the economic pie is fixed and economics zero-sum. But that's clearly not the case, otherwise we'd still be living with stone age per-capita GDP (i.e., ~0). And it's not just that "those that are better at competing will have more property". Every person is free to make a variety of choices for themselves, including how much they prioritize wealth creation. Since each one of us has only one…

Per capita GDP increased less from the Stone Age to now than you might think. Even if you discount all goods other than food to zero, it’s less than 100x growth in the last ~5-10,000 years. That’s less than 0.1% per year growth over that timeframe. Though valuing ancient goods at equivalent modern prices is debatable, it seems like a reasonable metric.

The core point remains which is - wealth is not static. It is _created_.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because for the foreseeable future there will be resources that are important to people and are limited. If inequality gets so severe that some people are unable to get the resources that are important to them then they tend to get upset. One of the most obvious examples in America right now is a house in a desirable part of the country. Buying a house has always been a major investment; however, housing prices are n…

Let's say that Jeff Bezos gets twice as rich while I stay the same. Inequality increases, but I'm not unhappy. Now, let's say that Jeff Bezos loses half his money on the same day I lose half of mine. Inequality stays the same, but I'm unhappy. Therefore I conclude that inequality doesn't bother me, and its absence is no comfort. (I'm using money as a stand-in for goods and services, of course. If inflation doubled th…

Now add a neighbor who has no wealth and is unhappy. Does that make you unhappy? This isn't just about you, it's about all of us.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#129
post #112
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously wrong. You can have uniformly poor country (theoretically) that has very good GINI. Look at the table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... You have Ukraine which has fantastic GINI of 25%, much better than 41% of US. Other countries that have GINI in neighborhood of US? Senegal, Madagascar, Angola? What kind of measure is that?

People always try to tie income inequality things like standard of living and centralization of power. Why not attempt to measure those things directly? Income inequality may be a useful factor in an attempt to quantify those things (or it may not)- but it certainly isn't a measure in itself.

Centralization of power might still be good for wealth (at least temporarily).

Centralization of power improves (potential) competitiveness through ability to make and implement decisions.

For example, China was able to progress very quickly from a very poor to superpower by implementing unpopular changes, breaking what we think as "human rights", etc.

One could say that "on average" Chinese people are better off having strong central government for the past half century than if they had ineffective democracy.

Again, "on average" Chinese family might not care that their communications are being monitored, that they are being lied to or that they have no rights. What they might care is that they have electricity, food, education and work.

The democracy is not a solution for fast short term progress and wealth. Democracy was meant to maximize freedom and the chance to keep it in a long run. So it all depends on what you value. Freedom seems to always cost and if society is not ready to pay a little bit for it it might just end.

Post reply on HN