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

Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#21

Post by michaelt »

caseysoftware wrote: post #10

> I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor and those who can’t work. I find "socially valuable contributions" to be a disturbing phrase. First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable." Second, quite often society is wrong in what "it" values or finds po…

> that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable."

Well, we already have a system that rewards “valuable” contributions: Money.

Just a lot of people don’t like that system much, as it turns out that system places little value on childcare, elder care and teaching; and huge value on executives who are fired for sexual harassment. Which doesn’t line up very precisely with a lot of people’s personal values.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#22

Post by refurb »

CJefferson wrote: post #15
roenxi wrote: post #11

It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards. If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increase…

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is growing every year.

That’s clearly not true, at least in the US. Total compensation has outpaced inflation significantly.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#23

Post by underpand »

CJefferson wrote: post #15
roenxi wrote: post #11

It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards. If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increase…

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is growing every year.

Don't the bottom of society all have access to the advancements in technology now e.g. 4g, high speed internet, smart phones, mobile apps, video games

Access to technology is a form of wealth.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#24

Post by lol2143651 »

CJefferson wrote: post #15
roenxi wrote: post #11

It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards. If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increase…

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is growing every year.

This is the the wrong way to look at the data. You should follow individuals over 20 years, not class segments. Individuals who start at the bottom may move up over time even as new individuals join at the bottom.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#25

Post by dmwallin »

roenxi wrote: post #11

It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards. If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increase…

From a purely macro-economic capitalistic viewpoint, there's a lot of evidence that a high level of inequality actually depresses economic growth. This means a very strong argument can be made that addressing inequality is likely to increase both relative AND absolute living standards in the long run.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#26

Post by lordnacho »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #13
caseysoftware wrote: post #10

> I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor and those who can’t work. I find "socially valuable contributions" to be a disturbing phrase. First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable." Second, quite often society is wrong in what "it" values or finds po…

> First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable." Not necessarily. I agree that having values dictated by fiat is a recipe for disaster - such arrangements are bound to get corrupted over time. But on the other end of the spectrum, there is some sense of social value - a sense in which e.g. garbage collectors, firemen and doctors do more socially valuable…

What you are writing is another version of water/diamonds story. Basically WTF happened that diamonds, which nobody needs, are worth a lot, but water, which everyone needs, costs basically nothing?

The answer was something called marginalism. Well worth reading about, and I can't do justice to it in a few sentences.

Of course marginalism itself requires you to think about value in a certain way, often a very technical way (eg von Neuman-Morgenstern) that makes you forget that there are sometimes contradictions in how we think about value.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#27

Post by fnovd »

itiri83njd wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #11

It remains very frustrating watching people organise against inequality as the evil of this era. Inequality isn't worth railing against and the focus of all this attention should be on living standards. If everyone doubles their living standards over 10 years, absolute inequality rises (there is always going to be someone with no wealth/income because they want to live that way, so the absolute gap in wealth increase…

Inequality in living standards is exactly what they’re talking about when they talk about inequality. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the nuanced discourse of groups tackling these problems directly at the political level, instead of taking textbook definitions of words and none of the context of the broader social movements behind the effort. “Wealth” is a measure of relative living standards. You’re ta…

>"Wealth" is a measure of relative living standards.

No, it is not. This is like saying wealth is a measure of how fancy your car is. Correlated, sure, but calling it a measure is inaccurate at best and at worst an attempt to eschew nuance in favor of ideological conformity.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#28

Post by cortesoft »

My feeling has always been that no matter how you decide to allocate resources, some people are going to be 'better' at winning the game we design than others; maybe they have some skill that is highly valued in the system we set up, or they are lucky, or have connections, or have a higher drive succeed, or whatever else might factor into success.

Instead of trying to figure out those factors and mitigate them so everyone has an equal chance, why don't we just say fuck it, and tax the winners more heavily? We don't know why you were able to win in the system so well, but since you did, you get to contribute a lot more to helping the people who don't succeed in the system. Give a universal basic income, tax the winners to fund it, and call it a day.

Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality

#29

Post by lordnacho »

There's a new book out by an econ prof with an Italian sounding name that is very relevant to this. It revisits economic ideas about value and reminds us that the path we're down, completely subjective utility value, is possibly not how we ought to think about it. Of course neither is eg labour theory of value, but it sounds like there's some in-depth discussion of the historical idea of value in there. Totally forgot the lady's name.
Post reply on HN