Is Inequality Inevitable? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#321

Post by autoexec » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

kjhkhkj wrote: post #298

autoexec wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can't think of any reasons outside of ethical arguments why it might be a good idea to make sure everyone has their basic needs met? Really? Have you spent very long trying to come up with one? Here's one to get you started: When a very small number of people have everything and a great many people have nothing, not even what they need to survive, those hungry desperate masses will have nothing to lose and ev…

It always comes down to violence and that argument makes me less sympathetic not more. I'm not interested in paying off what amounts to a rabid unproductive population for some hope of safety. Also, I'm not particularly scared of people that can't manage to find some success in the modern US either. So if you argument is that we should increase taxes so another Mao doesn't exist, I'd rather just kill Mao.

Only one of the two reasons I put forward came down to violence and that's just reality. Humanity is the product of 3-4 billion years of evolution and most of that time has been an extremely violent struggle for survival and advancement. That is what we are. We live in a paper-thin veneer of sophistication and civility while we are comfortable and our bellies are full, but every last one of us is still an animal. We're dangerous animals too and all it takes is a tiny bit of hopelessness and fewer than a dozen missed meals for that to become evident.

You might not be sympathetic to your fellow animals, but you can bet that if a bunch of them frightened, angry, and hungry start circling because they see you as all that stands between them and survival they won't be very sympathetic to you either.

We already make a number of concessions to preserve a polite society. Keeping your fellow animals fed and making sure they have a chance to advance (something to work for) is a small price for security and stability because otherwise those things are impossible.

You can think of it as ransom, but I prefer to think of it as an investment in and routine maintenance of society itself and ultimately we all benefit and see returns on that investment.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#322

Post by emmelaich » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:08 AM UTC

viburnum wrote: post #285

lordnacho wrote: post #31

This is a lot more satisfying than just r > g, which although seeming to be well supported in a rather large book somehow is dissatisfying. Specifically, I was looking for some kind of agent model like what this author is presenting here. I've often thought about the "it's expensive to be poor" adage. What's interesting is he takes in this risk preference idea, in which you naturally expect the poor to have to be ced…

Sugarscape is probably what you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarscape

Interesting!

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#323

Post by notJim » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #271

ihm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who created the technology, though?

If people really think Marxism can be dismissed with a simplistic argument like this, I'd encourage them to actually read the first few chapters of Capital. Agree with his world view or not, Marx was not an idiot.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#324

Post by danans » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

kjhkhkj wrote: post #315

danans wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly don't understand why When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society. This is a reason why such crime is strongly correl…

Japan, the safest country in the world has a GINI coefficient of 0.462. I don't think that's particularly good. > We should provide them the tools and resources to do so in a prosocial way. The reason why you default to this instead of simply defaulting to suggesting crushing any dissent (probably what was the default since the dawn of the modern era, and is the default in countries such as China) is because of moral…

You are reasoning about crime in Japan from it's GINI coefficient? Perhaps you should consider access to healthcare, housing, transportation, and education. Japan has a large social welfare state. Also, while low by world standards, Japan has a crime underreporting problem, especially crimes against women and foreigners.

>The reason why you default to this...is because of moral values you have had instilled in you from your surroundings since birth

Yes, like many people, I was priveleged to be raised to believe in justice, empathy, decency, and fairness. But I understand full well that those are not fundamental properties of the universe, but instead very useful fictions some societies have created. Do you not have a moral framework? Or is it perhaps:

> crushing any dissent (probably what was the default since the dawn of the modern era, and is the default in countries such as China)

Also, I've had stuff stolen from me and property damaged by people who probably wouldn't have done so if they had a better alternative.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#325

Post by emmelaich » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:14 AM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #136

My perspective on this might be too naive; but it seems wealth inequality (which is the topic of this article) is inevitable since a significant proportion of the population will spend their entire income and therefore never save. It seems like about 19% of all Americans have zero net worth, and something like 44% of single American retirees are dependent on Social Security for 90% or more of their income, implying t…

In Australia we have a compulsory pension fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia

The pros are obvious but the cons are significant; it can be a very poor investment for some people. It's also criticised for locking up a lot of savings in an unproductive way.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#326

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:16 AM UTC

pasquinelli wrote: post #295

WalterBright wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the effect of steeply progressive income taxes is making it much more difficult for people to move up the economic ladder.

How's that?

You need income to accumulate into wealth. The more of it that is taxed away, the harder it will be.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#327

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:17 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #255

WalterBright wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the effect of steeply progressive income taxes is making it much more difficult for people to move up the economic ladder.

Income taxes are much less progressive than they were half a century ago.

I don't know what the statistic for this was 50 years ago, but today 38% of federal income tax revenues come from the 1%.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#328

Post by deehouie » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:18 AM UTC

0-_-0 wrote: post #253

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…

As John von Neumann said: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

You probably misunderstood what they're doing. They are not fitting data with a model; that's what economists and statisticians do.

They show that a simple mechanism, with very few assumptions about real world behavior could reproduce a remarkably realistic phenomenon.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#329

Post by dang » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:18 AM UTC

beefman wrote: post #261

dang wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to say that, although similar, it doesn't quite ring the same Pavlovian bells. But to judge by the subthread, you're right. I've posted a moderation comment there. That touches on an important principle actually. The value of a comment on HN is the expected value of its subthread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21347871 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Good principle but it let us down in this case as I've posted the most valuable comment here and it has no replies at all! :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21466377

The EV includes the value of the root comment. If that's large enough and there aren't any bad replies adding negative value, you win :)

(Just to be clear, I'm using EV as a pseudo-technical metaphor. But it's a surprisingly good one, and could maybe be turned into a real model.)

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#330

Post by UnpossibleJim » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:21 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #286

wang_li wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First, I can tell that you've never experienced poverty in your life because saying it's 'as simple as that' ignores the times when poor people need to purchase something right away. They deposit a check into their account, then go shopping because that money SHOULD BE IN THEIR ACCOUNT and they desperately need things like food or basic amenities. Then they get pinged with overdraft fees because the bank decided not…

I don't think you can describe a person's life experience just because they don't react emotionally in a single online discussion board. That's horribly unfair and a bit out of line, to be honest.