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

Inequality Without Class

dissentmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#51

Post by cool_dude85 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #49
cool_dude85 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation? If we recognize that broadly the same pile of money would exist absent Zuck, and instead belong to Tom or Joe or Jane, this pr…

No, I'm not seeing the logic behind this at all. If someone invented assembly line production before Ford, that person would accumulate an immense fortune. But said hypothetical person didn't invent assembly line production. Ford did. The lotto ticket is a great analogy. If other people picked the winning numbers, they'd have won a lot of money too! But they didn't. Does that create an obligation for the real winner…

No. But if the tax man came and the winner said that he shouldn't have to pay because he was simply better at picking lotto numbers than all the hungry chumps out there, we'd recognize it to be a farce.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#52

Post by Manuel_D »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #51
Manuel_D wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not seeing the logic behind this at all. If someone invented assembly line production before Ford, that person would accumulate an immense fortune. But said hypothetical person didn't invent assembly line production. Ford did. The lotto ticket is a great analogy. If other people picked the winning numbers, they'd have won a lot of money too! But they didn't. Does that create an obligation for the real winner…

No. But if the tax man came and the winner said that he shouldn't have to pay because he was simply better at picking lotto numbers than all the hungry chumps out there, we'd recognize it to be a farce.

Sure, tax evasion is bad! But even after taxes, they'll still be making a lot of money. Is your allegation that Zuckerberg or Musk has engaged in tax fraud? That's a totally different statement than insisting that by simple virtue of having amassed a lot of wealth, they must have deprived others of wealth.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#53

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #35
refurb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't get to be Musk level without reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people and taking it for yourself. There was no "reaching into others pocket". It's a luxury car, not a fire extinguisher being sold to a guy on fire. People reached into their own pocket and handed him cash. Voluntarily. For something they wanted . Then Elon sold off pieces of his company to people who reached into their pock…

And it created homeless people in San Francisco.

Considering Tesla doesn’t have offices in SF you’re going to have to explain that one.

Can you do it without absolving others, like the city, of their responsibility to make sure housing gets built?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#54

Post by sleepydog »

roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

> I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires.

This seems to imply that a reduction in inequality would not reduce homelessness. I don't follow the reasoning here, and I'm not aware of evidence for this reasoning. I can probably find evidence that affluent countries with stronger social safety nets and less inequality have less homelessness.

If that meaning wasn't intended, then it must be implying that billionaires like Musk are linearly motivated by money -- that is, the more money they can make for themselves, the harder they will work to provide value.

Or maybe you are implying that the potential of unlimited riches will attract the best talent?

> There is no reason to believe that one person being insanely well off makes someone else worse off.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that. Wealthy people don't just sit on their wealth -- they use it. To buy power. To have an outsized influence on government and the lives of other people. To employ financial advisors that let them enjoy the benefits of citizenship while evading or minimizing the taxes they pay. To lobby for tax laws that favor people who live off of wealth (assets, stock, etc) rather than income. To buy citizenship in other countries and evade international sanctions. To destroy, directly or indirectly through their influence, resources that are finite or very difficult to replace, like fossil fuels, rain forests, clean air.

Did Putin make his wealth without harming others?

I'll riff a bit here, too: even if the super-rich don't hurt anyone by becoming super-rich, you have to wonder if they wouldn't be better off just being kinda rich. Having billions seems like a very isolating experience. Would you still find it easy to trust other people? Would you have an outsized opinion of your abilities and importance? And what about your children, would they be valuable, upstanding members of society? Would they even be able to take care of themselves? Would they see themselves as intrinsically better than poor people?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#55

Post by roenxi »

llamaimperative wrote: post #48
roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

There literally is reason to believe that. “Logical” by your assessment or not, inequality is a far stronger contributor to unhappiness than absolute wealth. The premise of your argument is absurd. If we were to accept it, we’d have to expect that people in the 1100s were all just depressed/angry/anxious — including the wealthiest, most powerful people on the planet — to a degree that is literally unfathomable to a m…

I like your comment because it was logically consistent and there is actually an argument in there that I respect.

However, you appear to be saying that the 1100s (where people were, I note, substantially more equal than today in absolute terms) are comparable to 2000s. I disagree - I would be unfathomably depressed/angry/anxious if my living standards reverted to my social equivalent in the 1100s, conditions were basically inhumane. We should be aiming to get society as far from 1100s as possible, both temporally and in terms of absolute living standards.

I don't care if the wealthy are much better off than they were in 1100 if I get functional plumbing, air conditioning, reliable food, an electric car, Amazon and improved medical care out of the bargain. And I get much more than that [0]. Their wealth seems to be to my benefit. The wealthy got wealthy because my life got better along the way.

[0] This is rhetorical, I don't own a car. But since I've already mentioned Musk ...

Re: Inequality Without Class

#56

Post by sleepydog »

Manuel_D wrote: post #30
cool_dude85 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come from his innovations, and otherwise wouldn't exist. But I think it would be hard to argue that all of it is - if he had been hit by a car his first day at Harvard, maybe MySpace Tom or friendster or the Winklevoss guys would be stinking rich. So, the question is,…

If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others". Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly rel…

> If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"?

How do they make the better or cheaper product? Did they do it by, perhaps, exploiting the people or resources of another, poorer country? Or skirting safety regulations? If so, I would say they are "grabbing from others", yes. And they are motivating other companies to follow along to keep up.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#57

Post by Manuel_D »

sleepydog wrote: post #56
Manuel_D wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others". Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly rel…

> If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? How do they make the better or cheaper product? Did they do it by, perhaps, exploiting the people or resources of another, poorer country? Or skirting safety regulations? If so, I would say they are "grabbing from others", yes. And they are motivating other companies to…

Or they may make a cheaper product by applying novel techniques like an assembly line. Or deploy heretofore unused (or under-used) technologies like electric cars. In the the case of SpaceX the big win was the more efficient gas generator cycle in the Merlin rocket engine.

If the allegation is that people made money but skirting regulations or otherwise illegal things, then it's crucial to explain the nefarious practices at play. Not just asserting that someone who is wealth must have acquired that wealth through underhanded means, simply on the basis of being wealthy.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#58

Post by dventimi »

slothtrop wrote: post #39
dventimi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. There are losers and winners. "That's just zero sum thinking" has been the smokescreen for gullible people for at least fifty years.

Wealth is not zero sum. If it were we'd still be quibbling over sticks in caves. It is generated.

That's technology, not wealth.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#59

Post by dventimi »

nox101 wrote: post #46
dventimi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it created homeless people in San Francisco.

More likely things like fentanyl are to blame for homelessness. It’s extremely addictive and cheap to make

There was homelessness in SF in 2000, before fentanyl was available on the street.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#60

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #53
dventimi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it created homeless people in San Francisco.

Considering Tesla doesn’t have offices in SF you’re going to have to explain that one. Can you do it without absolving others, like the city, of their responsibility to make sure housing gets built?

Sure. Plenty of its employees live in SF.
Post reply on HN