Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Inequality Inevitable?

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 628 posts

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#271

Post by noonespecial »

ihm wrote: post #227
SiVal wrote: post #193

There is a popular political perspective that rules on campus these days that treats wealth as something that just magically exists and is simply "redistributed" by one means or another like, say, a phase change in physics where no magnetism/charge/energy/etc. is ever created or consumed. I waited for a point in their model where people actually produced wealth and consumed it, made something or ate it, in addition t…

I don't think your comment is a good faith engagement with leftist understandings of value. This is the starting point of Marx's whole theory of capitalism (it's in the first few chapters of Capital) which is the labor theory of value. Namely, his starting point is that labor is identified with value. Wealth is created when raw materials and the means of production are combined with labor. In the capitalist theory of…

A funny thing happened on the way to the worker's paradise. It turns out that technology allows for capital to be substituted directly for labor. Its starting to look like so much so that labor may become altogether unnecessary (and so without any value at all). That leaves us in a pretty tight spot under the current orthodoxy.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#272

Post by headsoup »

wuliwong wrote: post #230
SiVal wrote: post #193

There is a popular political perspective that rules on campus these days that treats wealth as something that just magically exists and is simply "redistributed" by one means or another like, say, a phase change in physics where no magnetism/charge/energy/etc. is ever created or consumed. I waited for a point in their model where people actually produced wealth and consumed it, made something or ate it, in addition t…

I received a Ph.D. in physics in 2010, throughout my training, my anecdotal experience was that of an echo chamber. I didn't fully realize it until I left academia. Although, it was slowly becoming apparent as the years passed. My experience was of a relatively small and closed group of physicists who reaffirmed each other's assumption that they were at the absolute peak of intellectual thought. Most of the professor…

> the poorer a person is the larger a percentage they are willing to risk

As a percentage, sure, but in real terms the poorer person doesn't have 'much' to lose (to be regained) over someone extremely rich risking the same percentage. The potential rewards are also likely to be immensely larger in percentage for the poor person too.

But this is also relative risk against wealth in context. Comparing poor against poor there will still be comparable poor people with completely different risk profiles (basic example is one with children vs one without).

The model I imagine must primarily establish reasonable/full context before determining any value factors.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#273

Post by billions »

jodrellblank wrote: post #90
billions wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level OF EFFORT. Even a wealthy person can lose their money if they don't make an effort investing it properly. How do people build wealth from the ground up? They work hard each and every day and that effort COMPOUNDS. They get smarter, more opportunities present themselves…

The "Just World" fallacy written into a single comment. It starts with "effort leads to results", and then mixes that with "effort is virtue" and concludes "people who have results, must be virtuous". Then turns it around and says "people who don't have results must not be virtuous, and therefore deserve their lack of results". "Effort leads to results" is based on the Just World idea that if you do what the winners…

Communism is trading WORK without a measuring stick, aka money. People stop working because there is no output measurement. In successful countries, your feelings don't matter- your output does, aka help contributed to others. Talk is cheap. Get to work.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#274

Post by emmelaich »

wuliwong wrote: post #230
SiVal wrote: post #193

There is a popular political perspective that rules on campus these days that treats wealth as something that just magically exists and is simply "redistributed" by one means or another like, say, a phase change in physics where no magnetism/charge/energy/etc. is ever created or consumed. I waited for a point in their model where people actually produced wealth and consumed it, made something or ate it, in addition t…

I received a Ph.D. in physics in 2010, throughout my training, my anecdotal experience was that of an echo chamber. I didn't fully realize it until I left academia. Although, it was slowly becoming apparent as the years passed. My experience was of a relatively small and closed group of physicists who reaffirmed each other's assumption that they were at the absolute peak of intellectual thought. Most of the professor…

It's analogous to weight-loss arguments.

It is true that calories = calories-in - calories-out.

It cannot not be true.

It just isn't helpful.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#275

Post by hector_vasquez »

emmelaich wrote: post #274
wuliwong wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I received a Ph.D. in physics in 2010, throughout my training, my anecdotal experience was that of an echo chamber. I didn't fully realize it until I left academia. Although, it was slowly becoming apparent as the years passed. My experience was of a relatively small and closed group of physicists who reaffirmed each other's assumption that they were at the absolute peak of intellectual thought. Most of the professor…

It's analogous to weight-loss arguments. It is true that calories = calories-in - calories-out. It cannot not be true. It just isn't helpful.

How are you defining a "calorie"? The number printed on the package? Because that number is basically meaningless.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#276

Post by wang_li »

fzeroracer wrote: post #259
wang_li wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most of the wealth from the poor is stolen through increasing rent seeking behaviors from landlords, insurance companies and lobbying. I could speak at length the ways banks organized things as to punish the poor by organizing deposits to occur after transactions so that they can charge overdraft fees or insurance companies deciding not to cover you because of pre-existing conditions. You could go on at length about…

No, I'd be right and if you're going to dismiss me, you should at least prove you're actually educated in the topic. Chase has had to settle class action lawsuits due to the predatory way they handled overdraft fees [1] so don't feed me that bullshit. It was something I personally experienced and saw my parents struggle through due to the way they were paid and Chases scummy behavior. As for pre-existing conditions t…

I don't see why you think I'm not educated on the topic. I, at least, can discern what's relevant to the question of which way wealth is transferred.

I am aware of the complaints about how banks process transactions in and out of customer accounts. It's a moot point for two reasons. First, the complaint boils down to whether a bank making a checking account available is also an agreement to extend small value, short term loans to people. If you don't try to float checks then you will not be hit with overdraft fees. It's as simple as that. Second, it's irrelevant where someone spends their money. If someone doesn't earn more than it costs to maintain their lifestyle their spending habits only impact how much they get from others, not how wealthy they are.

As far as preexisting conditions go, denial of coverage on that basis has been illegal for ten years. The only reason to bring it up is because you want to prompt an emotional response from people who are ignorant.

Profits and productivity are, again, irrelevant. If the question is "Which way does wealth transfer?" The answer is simple to discern and simply requires that we know how much it costs to survive and how much a person earns. We know both of this things on average nationally and wealth is transferred from the top 40% to the bottom 60%. I linked to the government report that demonstrates this.

As far as this unrelated statement goes:

>Your logic also offers zero explanation why wealth is concentrating towards the wealthy because wealth transfer would imply that, you know, it's actually going to the poor people.

Someone can create $1000/year in value, and another person comes up short by $300/year in survival. The first person transfers wealth down to the second person while still becoming wealthier. This is pretty basic stuff.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#277

Post by WilliamEdward »

taneq wrote: post #219
SiVal wrote: post #193

There is a popular political perspective that rules on campus these days that treats wealth as something that just magically exists and is simply "redistributed" by one means or another like, say, a phase change in physics where no magnetism/charge/energy/etc. is ever created or consumed. I waited for a point in their model where people actually produced wealth and consumed it, made something or ate it, in addition t…

> I waited for a point in their model where people actually produced wealth and consumed it, made something or ate it, in addition to redistributing it. Not part of the model. That’s because the people making the models don’t create wealth and don’t really understand where it comes from. It’s like the way you see Marxists saying “seize the means of production” but never “build the means of production”.

Not so sure you understand what means of production are. You cannot build more means of production without having access to means of production in the first place, hence the 'seizing' part.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#278

Post by WilliamEdward »

kjhkhkj wrote: post #254
autoexec wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you advocating for people to not have enough to satisfy their most basic needs?

I'm advocating for not providing it to them.

With organisation and efficiency, providing basic needs to people is way easier than you think. With the wealth of a single rich country, food water and shelter (which are already in excess in rich areas) can be distributed to them. So given how possible it is without any real downside to you, your argument for not helping people essentially boils down to "i don't care about them".

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#279

Post by lmilcin »

tw04 wrote: post #220
cryptonector wrote: post #76

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…

It absolutely IS fixed. We may not have reached its peak, but until we managed to start settling other planets we have a finite amount of: Clean Water Land Natural resources You can take your pick about which one runs out first/be consumed by a small group of ultra-wealthy, but one of them WILL run out first.

You have mixed up "fixed" and "limited". Zero-sum game assumes amount of wealth is fixed. What you describe is world that has limit on total wealth that have not yet been reached. But definitely it is not fixed. By your own definition you can always dig up some new natural resources and this would increase total wealth (so no, not fixed).

It is possible to create wealth. If I can do something that you can't and you can do something that I can not, then if we exchange services we can create wealth from nothing. I have more than at the start, you have more than at the start and nobody else is affected.

The maximum possible wealth I think is also not limited. There is always potential to take something and create something with more worth. Good, pure example is art. Painter takes resources that are relatively cheap and plentiful (paints, canvas, his time) and can create something of huge value to some people. Intel might take a bunch of sand and other resources and create processors from it.

There is also "intellectual property" which is not tied to any natural resources. Anybody can create something new (derive new chemical formula or write a book) that would be an example of creating wealth from nothing.

Post reply on HN