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

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#81

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #78
refurb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience s…

> Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them . Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who do…

> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them?

Yes

> No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise?

But people do share in them, even if they themselves don't get a new job and higher pay. The most obvious one is taxes - these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society.

Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Or if they switched from a lower paying job to a higher one? That's a societal benefit.

> No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?

You missed my scenario. If a new drug comes out, is it bad that someone benefits when the people who didn't get the new drug (because it wasn't available) don't benefit?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#82

Post by dazilcher »

dventimi wrote: post #59
nox101 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely homelessness also predates Tesla, what is the actual point you are trying to make?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#83

Post by dventimi »

dazilcher wrote: post #82
dventimi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Surely homelessness also predates Tesla, what is the actual point you are trying to make?

That there was homelessness before fentanyl. I believe that was quite clear in my previous comment.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#84

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #72
Manuel_D wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, poverty does not create wealth. The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. This comment is prototypical of a zero-sum mindset.

> The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. How do you think the less-affluent countries became that way? By enriching the affluent countries, that's how.

Incorrect. Most of the world's impoverished countries were even poorer 500+ years ago.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#85

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #81
dventimi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them . Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who do…

> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? Yes > No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? But people do share in them, even if they themselves don't get a new job and higher pay. The most obvious one is taxes - these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spen…

>> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them?

> Yes

This ought to be good. Let's hear it.

> these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society

Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again.

> Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now?

Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't.

> You missed my scenario

No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along

Re: Inequality Without Class

#86

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #84
dventimi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. How do you think the less-affluent countries became that way? By enriching the affluent countries, that's how.

Incorrect. Most of the world's impoverished countries were even poorer 500+ years ago.

The impoverishment has been going on for a long time.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#87

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #76
Manuel_D wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology is the application of knowledge. Often to improve one's material conditions. Even an average person in this day's age has amenities that nobody , not even the wealthiest noble, could have achieved in preindustrial eras. We have air conditioning, electricity, antibiotics, vaccines, antiseptic, and near-instant communication worldwide. Our material conditions have drastically improved. Wealth is not finite,…

I suspect these people do not have ready access to air conditioning, electricity, or even antibiotics, and they're not going to get it simply by appealing to "technology." https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti/overview#1

The entire world lived in those conditions a couple hundred years ago, now it's a handful of countries experiencing that level of deprivation. That's huge progress!

Re: Inequality Without Class

#88

Post by snapplebobapple »

jayd16 wrote: post #42
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…

We have 1x Musk and still have homelessness. Why would 9 more help exactly?

Have you seen what just one did?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#89

Post by roenxi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #71
dventimi wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased. Yes, the amount of wealth at Monday, 03-Jun-24 04:12:33 UTC is going to be finite, because that's a fixed point in time . This is just a pointless tangent, because in our world time is not frozen. In our reality, where time flows, wealth is not finite and is indeed grown in absolute terms. > That's cold…

> Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased

Possibly the word you want to be using is limited; it is slightly harder for people to make pretend that the pie is fixed with that one. Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite, since wealth doesn't have to be physical.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#90

Post by roenxi »

dventimi wrote: post #37
Manuel_D wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, goods and services are not finite. This is just patently false. How many automobiles existed in 1800? How many jey liners existed in 1900? How many smartphones existed in 1950? The pool of goods grows in absolute terms. It's not just goods, services too grow in absolute terms. We invented radio in 1900 (ish) and introduced a wholly novel set of services. Before photography, in order to get one's likeness recorded…

If goods and services aren't finite then they must be infinite. If they're infinite then how can they be increasing?

Because not all wealth exists in the present. It is like counting from 1 to 5 and concluding that the maximum size of an integer is finite because so far the count has only reached 5. It is not so, however. The maximum size of an integer is infinite even though any particular integer is finite.
Post reply on HN