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

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#91

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #85
refurb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Please provide a source.

Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society.

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

So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish?

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

Why would you refuse to give your thoughts?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#92

Post by refurb »

m463 wrote: post #11
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #9

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. All you have to do is look at the propaganda surrounding "PPP loans" versus the money given out to stretch people's paychecks during the pandemic. Most businesses weren't affected in any substantial way, but governments still gave away trillions, and the companies got to keep the money. Meanwhi…

> reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people I think you're right, but not in that way. Tesla charged wealthy people a lot for the original tesla roadster. Then they took what they learned and charged wealthy people a lot for a better car, the original model S. Then the X. He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people for further updates to the model S/X, updating the motor, then motors. Now…

This is a bizarre way to look at a private transaction for a luxury good.

Nobody needs a Tesla.

If a wealthy person pays $100k for a car, it’s because they think it’s worth $100k.

If the price later drops to $80k, that’s not money out of the first persons pocket. They were willing to trade $100k for a car they wanted.

And by this very logic, lowering the price of goods over time is bad. What a insane world we’d live in if that were true.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#93

Post by ProxCoques »

Manuel_D wrote: post #18
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #9

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. All you have to do is look at the propaganda surrounding "PPP loans" versus the money given out to stretch people's paychecks during the pandemic. Most businesses weren't affected in any substantial way, but governments still gave away trillions, and the companies got to keep the money. Meanwhi…

This kind of zero-sum thinking - then notion that accumulation of wealth necessarily means it must have been taken from others - is extremely detrimental to society.

If "wealth" is the value of labour, then there is a limit to the value you yourself can generate with your own. After that, to become more wealthy you must work out a way of taking that value from other people, and making it your own.

There is no other way capitalism can work.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#94

Post by m463 »

refurb wrote: post #92
m463 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people I think you're right, but not in that way. Tesla charged wealthy people a lot for the original tesla roadster. Then they took what they learned and charged wealthy people a lot for a better car, the original model S. Then the X. He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people for further updates to the model S/X, updating the motor, then motors. Now…

This is a bizarre way to look at a private transaction for a luxury good. Nobody needs a Tesla. If a wealthy person pays $100k for a car, it’s because they think it’s worth $100k. If the price later drops to $80k, that’s not money out of the first persons pocket. They were willing to trade $100k for a car they wanted. And by this very logic, lowering the price of goods over time is bad. What a insane world we’d live…

> Nobody needs a Tesla.

But does everybody need another 100 years of gasoline cars?

It probably is a bizarre way to look at things, but the wealthy people are paying to develop EVs, then the not so wealthy to develop even more practical cars and so on until they are practical for normal folks. And they reach price parity with ICE cars.

People have been saying that the economical/low impact car to buy is a used car that was already built. Now you can buy used teslas.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#95

Post by llamaimperative »

roenxi wrote: post #55
llamaimperative wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

You’ve snuck in my own argument though. Correct, you’d be sad if you reverted to those conditions. That is because you will have a comparison point, i.e. you are acknowledging that the entire issue is one of relative wealth and standard of living as compared to some other comparator.

In your just-provided example, the comparison is to your modern life. In a world without time travel, people can and do compare themselves to others living today because that is how brains work.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#96

Post by roenxi »

llamaimperative wrote: post #95
roenxi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

You’ve snuck in my own argument though. Correct, you’d be sad if you reverted to those conditions. That is because you will have a comparison point, i.e. you are acknowledging that the entire issue is one of relative wealth and standard of living as compared to some other comparator. In your just-provided example, the comparison is to your modern life. In a world without time travel, people can and do compare themsel…

If your argument is that we should aim to raise absolute living standards, then I agree with it.

If your argument involves accepting 1100s living standards as acceptable, I disagree with it. The conditions in the 1100s are only acceptable as far as they led to the improvements found in the present. We don't need to compare to them to usefully make judgements about the present. It is a baseline that everyone should have opportunities (and results) far in excess of what 1100s peasants could achieve.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#97

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #91
dventimi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

> 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. Please provide a source. Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society . > Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. So you’re…

> Please provide a source.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-...

> Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society.

Yes. I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant. Think about it. Suppose for the sake of argument 400 people took 99% of the output of the nation (~$23 trillion in 2023), and since we're supposing, let's be generous to your argument and suppose those 400 pay a higher tax rate of say 40%. That's ~$9 trillion in taxes or roughly double what the IRS actually collected. Sounds pretty good, right! Except...that leaves the remaining 300 million with a per capita income of less than $1000 per year. Would you prefer this supposed situation in which the richest 400 pay even more in total taxes (and tax rate) than they actually do in reality?

> So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish?

Wrongo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

"left unemployed" is not the only alternative. There are others. "Employed but with an income the same as mine" is one. Given the choice between my fellow citizens taking home so much more than I do such that I can't afford to live in my city, and my fellow citizens taking home the same as I do such that I can afford to live in my city, I would choose the latter. Would you choose the former?

> Why would you refuse to give your thoughts?

Why did you stop beating your wife? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I haven't refused to give my thoughts on your scenario. I chose not to elaborate on your scenario. I did "give my thoughts", however.

  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?
Do you that first word "No" there? That's me giving my thoughts on the "yes/no" question you'd asked. The rest is me asking for your thoughts on a different scenario, which as far as I'm aware you've not given. Would you say you "refuse" to give your thoughts on this question?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#98

Post by dventimi »

roenxi wrote: post #90
dventimi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not all people on Earth exist in the present, either. At any given time in the past there were fewer of them, and at any given time in the near future at least there probably will be more of them. Does that mean that the number of people on Earth is infinite?

While you're thinking about that, think about this. You and I live in the present. Of what use is it to us in the present if there's more total wealth in some future long after we're gone?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#99

Post by dventimi »

roenxi wrote: post #89
Manuel_D wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite

LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite. Sounds like they might be your opponent!

> since wealth doesn't have to be physical.

Living in the physical world as I do, I require that my needs for physical wealth be met first: goods and services like food, shelter, safety, furnishings, entertainment, and the political power to maintain them. Non-physical wealth--love, feelings of accomplishment, etc.--are important, but they come later.

What about you? Are you satisfied with non-physical wealth alone?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#100

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #87
dventimi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Not for the people living in those conditions, it isn't.
Post reply on HN