Is Inequality Inevitable? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#341

Post by sdfin » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:35 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #337

sdfin wrote: post #334

I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a good direction, in spite of inequality, right? Suppose you had one million, and somebody else has one thousand millions, there would be a large gap, but I wouldn't consider it as negative. If there are arguments against what I wrote I would gladly read them and…

> I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. Because outside of extreme poverty that is rare in the West, relative deprivation seems to be a more significant source of experienced disutility and other social dysfunction than absolute deprivation.

What are the trends of relative deprivation? I know it's not a defined and studied concept, but if the relative deprivation is in a decreasing trend, I believe that it would mean we are in a good direction.

Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. I believe it would be more productive to improve things. Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#342

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:36 AM UTC

Domenic_S wrote: post #314

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It's your savings that are forcibly being taken away, at the time you earn the money. Your benefits are (within limits) proportional to your contributions to the system.

GP is correct. Current taxpayers (individuals and their employers) pay tax into the trust fund, which then pays out to current social security recipients. You earn credits on the amount you pay in, which determines your eventual benefit, but make no mistake -- current taxes fund current recipients. This is why some people call social security a pyramid scheme - built into the system is an assumption that the number o…

Disagree in part. There is in fact this giant trust fund out there. The trust fund is taxes from people in the past. So current taxes aren't exactly funding current recipients. Past taxes are...

... but the trust fund is spending more than it's taking in. So current taxes are generating less than current recipients receive. Clearly that is unsustainable. And when the trust fund runs out of money, current taxes will have to equal current benefits, and one side or the other will have to give.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#343

Post by Simon_says » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:36 AM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #43

jlongr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't the coefficient be zero? I'm curious what your reasoning is.

Because one point of view is that the difference between the poorest and the richest is less important than ensuring that the minimum standard of living of the poorest is livable/acceptable. In society A, let's say that the gap between the poor and the rich was high, but the poor had their basic needs being met. In society B, let's say that the gap between the poor and the rich is 0, but the standard of living of eve…

> Obviously we want a society where everyone is equal ...

Oh, this is not obvious at all!

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#344

Post by miguelmota » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #211

miguelmota wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might have phrased it incorrectly but the message I was trying to convey is that those that perform better and produce more results should be rewarded more (as expected) because they put in the effort to achieved better outcomes, rather than giving someone a head start because of their race or economic status (ie affirmative action) which is inequality.

> rather than giving someone a head start so you're saying your children should not inherit any wealth, and must be taken away to a state institution to be raised like everybody else? I think inequality being inevitable isn't bad, as long as the floor is at an acceptable humane level. Why does it matter if 1 person owned 99% of all the world's wealth, if the remaining 1% is enough to give basic human needs?

You're pulling a strawman so not going to dignify your first statement. On the latter, you're right in that who cares how people spend their money but nobody should be obligated to give it away.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#345

Post by abnry » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

dre54673 wrote: post #189

Empact wrote: post #144

It should be self-evident that the accelerating inequality we’re witnessing is not the natural inequality of competition and the power law, easily explained by simple arithmetic. An accelerating and historically high broad societal effect is naturally a product of broad and unique properties of the current regime, rather than fundamentally consistent properties, which would naturally be seen across all time. What is…

I've noticed an increasing trend in people using phrases such as "it is trivial", "it is obvious", "it is self evident" to defend their arguments. I have yet to encounter a case where it made their argument better. This might be off topic but it has become a pet peeve because I've even started to encounter it in real life. It is similar to starting a discussion with "if you disagree with me, you are stupid".

It depends on how the word trivial is used. In mathematics, it is typically meant that the logical inference is a relatively straightforward application of the axioms. I would suppose for academics in other fields they could be using the word in this sense, however, at large, most people associate a strong negative connotation with the word trivial.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#346

Post by SamReidHughes » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:47 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #120

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…

> 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). The "growing of the pie" is also a fairy tale though to mask the realities... For one, the "growing pie" still manages to give some people not just most of the pie, but also to live the majority with smaller (in absolute size) slices…

Basically, everybody is mooching off of prior inventors' work due to patent expiration.

The point about higher rents, education, health costs, etc, is a miscalculation of inflation. There's a difference between two things:

(1) the undesirability of a 1000x/2x split due to increased demand for the fixed supply of land and genius doctors, which means the 1000x/2x didn't properly account for inflation, and

(2) the fact that it'd be way cooler to have a properly-inflation-adjusted 990x/12x income split than 1000x/2x, among 50%/50% of the population.

On the other hand, Haiti and the Dominican Republic have equal populations and a 10x income difference, and I'm not shedding a single tear over it.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#347

Post by Bostonian » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

Empact wrote: post #144

It should be self-evident that the accelerating inequality we’re witnessing is not the natural inequality of competition and the power law, easily explained by simple arithmetic. An accelerating and historically high broad societal effect is naturally a product of broad and unique properties of the current regime, rather than fundamentally consistent properties, which would naturally be seen across all time. What is…

Inflation has been pretty low for the last two decades, so by your logic inequality would be falling.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#348

Post by killjoywashere » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

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…

My first exposure to really opportunity to contemplate economics, in even a qualitative sense, came with Dierdre McClosky's essay in the early days of "post-autistic" economics (1-3). Her observations about the flimsiness of economic modeling, verging on simply serving as a veil naked capitalism, struck me as the sort of informed cynicism I could hold onto. 17 years later, it's her disdain for economic models in comparison to physical models that sticks with me.

(1-3): I honestly forget which of these it was, but the key term I search for is "mind-breakingly"

https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/paradigm.pdf

http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/Article_320.pdf

https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/articles/stats/stats.php

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#349

Post by solveit » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:52 AM UTC

hector_vasquez wrote: post #275

emmelaich wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That number happens to be remarkably accurate. More accurate than required by law in fact. It also happens to accurately predict changes in a person's weight if you know everything they're eating.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#350

Post by defterGoose » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

sdfin wrote: post #334

I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a good direction, in spite of inequality, right? Suppose you had one million, and somebody else has one thousand millions, there would be a large gap, but I wouldn't consider it as negative. If there are arguments against what I wrote I would gladly read them and…

I'll agree with your basic point that reduction of poverty is, in some sense, the correct measure to look at. However, the problem with applying your stated attitude to shaping policy is that society has a limited ability to innovate or grow productivity on a finite timescale. In other words, it makes some sense to think of economic productivity as relatively constant (it's unlikely, e.g., that someone will figure out how to conjure up calories and end world hunger next year).

On the other side, people are suffering right now. If we agree that reducing this suffering is the correct measure, then we must ask ourselves what steps can be taken right now to lessen it.

If we were in an intellectual vacuum, then we could argue all day about the pros and cons of wealth redistribution (and whether or not it is theft to apply such a tool). But what many (including myself) feel to be true, is that now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited.

It is one thing to say that the gatekeepers of society's wealth function as a storehouse of capital for future contingencies, but this largely ignores that our global monetary system is primarily a fiat one, and as such, the integrity of the society itself and peoples' trust in the system is of paramount concern.

TL;DR The productivity of today's capital is being hindered by accumulation because the long-term benefits of more equitable distribution are philosophically real, but hard to understand.