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

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#61

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #44
dventimi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future. We live in the present and in the present goods and services are provided by people through labor which is finite at any given time. We're all competing: for housing, healthcare, and the political power to determine our material conditions. If wealth do…

> The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future. What you're describing here is literally the opposite of zero-sum. The total set of goods and services in increasing. It directly contradicts your claim that the accumulation of wealth necessitates the deprivation of others.

At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#62

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #60
refurb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, so your logic is - we create more jobs and pay workers high wages creates housing demand, and that’s bad?

So new jobs and high pay are bad?

That sounds incredibly anti-worker.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#63

Post by MaysonL »

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…

The thing is, of course, that being richer, beyond a certain wealth, does not, in fact, make you better off – it may well make you worse off (people will hate you because of it, your security costs go way up, etc.).

Re: Inequality Without Class

#64

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #61
Manuel_D wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future. What you're describing here is literally the opposite of zero-sum. The total set of goods and services in increasing. It directly contradicts your claim that the accumulation of wealth necessitates the deprivation of others.

At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services?

At one given instant sure, but the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows.

Adam, Bob, and Charlie are all shipwrecked on an island. They divy up the ship's goods equally. One day, Charlie decides to build some furniture. Now he has more goods than Adam and Bob. Did he deprive others, to achieve his comparatively greater wealth? If you just looked at one snapshot of time, you'd see Charlie with more wealth than the others, though.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#65

Post by thwarted »

MaysonL wrote: post #63
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…

The thing is, of course, that being richer, beyond a certain wealth, does not, in fact, make you better off – it may well make you worse off (people will hate you because of it, your security costs go way up, etc.).

"Being richer beyond a certain wealth doesn't make you better off" is a common, and perhaps the standard, argument for aggressively taxing the wealthy. The logic being, which I think is sound, $1 given to a millionaire doesn't improve the millionaire's life at all, while $1 given to someone destitute impacts their life a lot. And related, $1 taken from a millionaire does not impact the millionaire's quality of life at the same way $1 taken from a waged employee. The comparative impact is very different for different levels of wealth.

By that pattern, the more wealthy you are then the more risk, and higher risks, you can take on without impacting your quality of life, your better off-ness. A billionaire can take on more risk than a millionaire, and a millionaire can take on more risk than waged employee.

And further in that pattern, wealth over a certain amount translates into increasing risk tolerance. And leveraging that tolerance to take on risk, and it paying off, leads to more wealth. But the only thing you can use the increased wealth, since it's beyond whatever the threshold for comparative impact is, for is taking on even more risk.

I suppose we need to have an understanding of what "better off" is and how it is measured.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#66

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #58
slothtrop wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you think wealth is? A big part of wealth generation is finding new technologies and applying them to build better things.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#67

Post by defrost »

Manuel_D wrote: post #66
dventimi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's technology, not wealth.

What do you think wealth is? A big part of wealth generation is finding new technologies and applying them to build better things.

Is that how you'd describe the wealth of Bezos?

Better shopping, or is it more about capturing shopping and taking a slice from all transactions?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#68

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #62
dventimi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Plenty of its employees live in SF.

Wait, so your logic is - we create more jobs and pay workers high wages creates housing demand, and that’s bad? So new jobs and high pay are bad? That sounds incredibly anti-worker.

> So new jobs and high pay are bad?

They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".

Re: Inequality Without Class

#69

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #64
dventimi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services?

At one given instant sure, but the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows. Adam, Bob, and Charlie are all shipwrecked on an island. They divy up the ship's goods equally. One day, Charlie decides to build some furniture. Now he has more goods than Adam and Bob. Did he deprive others, to achieve his comparatively greater wealth? If you just looked at one snapshot of time, you'd see Char…

> At one given instant sure [goods and services are finite]

I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite.

> the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows.

That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#70

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #66
dventimi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's technology, not wealth.

What do you think wealth is? A big part of wealth generation is finding new technologies and applying them to build better things.

I think it's abundance in one's material conditions. That's not technology. Technology is knowledge. That's completely different.
Post reply on HN