Inequality Without Class

This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off.

No, a different mix of workers will move in. If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. San Francisco's economy wasn't always so focused on tech, just as other vibrant cities in the U.S. aren't so focused on tech.

> That restaurant worker may lose their job because there's not as many customers.

The different mix of workers that would move in may go to restaurants just as much, and if they don't then sure, some restaurants will go out of business. So what? Some of the restaurant staff can adapt to other jobs, and they'll have longer to do so because their rent won't be so high.

> This isn't speculation, this is actively happening: https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/san-francisco-budge...

That article doesn't even mention tech. What it says is:

  The snowballing shortfall is primarily caused by formerly reliable streams of revenue — namely, taxes generated by tourism and a once-thriving downtown — sputtering amid the post-pandemic recovery.

> This is one of the more pernicious aspects of zero sum thinking: people engaging in zero sum thinking assume that reducing the wealth of some people means it'll end up redistributed to others. The reality is that it often just results in everyone being worse off.

If reducing the wealth of some people and creating a flatter income distribution "just results in everyone being worse off" then evidently increasing the wealth of some people and creating a skewed income distribution will have the opposite effect. Suppose you lived in a place and a time with a highly-skewed income distribution with severe winners and severe losers and you're the loserest loser of them all. Suppose as luck would have it everyone else makes more money than you do. Evidently that would "just result in everyone being [better] off" even you, right? In that case, you should be thrilled with that arrangement. What do you say? Would you be thrilled to have the lowest income in your city?

That's obviously why distribution matters as well as total production (or aggregate utility), but fixed-sum means that distribution is the only thing subject to change, and that for someone to gain someone else must lose equally. (There's also an argument that things get closer to fixed sum in utility terms if you first lift everyone out of extreme poverty, because relative wealth/deprivation becomes a much more significant source of utility/disutility than absolute wealth is of utility once you are beyond extreme poverty, but even there its much more complex than fixed sum.)

> Moreover, certain material conditions--safety from harm, freedom of expression, and the political power to maintain those things--absolutely do not increase in some global sense the way that economic output does.

They certainly don't increase in lockstep with economic output, either globally or locally, but neither are they fixed-sum, where for someone to have more someone else must have less in the same degree (except maybe "political power").

This, right here, is the crux of your incorrect worldview. No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people with an income of $10,000? The latter is flatter, but even the poorest people were still much, much wealthier in the former than the latter.

> Suppose you lived in a place and a time with a highly-skewed income distribution with severe winners and severe losers and you're the loserest loser of them all. Suppose as luck would have it everyone else makes more money than you do. Evidently that would "just result in everyone being [better] off" even you, right? In that case, you should be thrilled with that arrangement. What do you say? Would you be thrilled to have the lowest income in your city?

Again: I care about my own material conditions. If a genie gave me the choice to double my income doubling (in real terms, as in the actual value of goods and services accessible to me doubles), while everyone else's income increases tenfold of course that's be a good thing. Why would I forego an improvement to my own conditions, just to keep everyone else's conditions from improving proportionally more? The fact that others benefit more doesn't change the fact that I'm left strictly better off. To do otherwise is the epitome of the crab mentality: It's better to harm everyone just to maintain your relative position.

> Want to try again? Not particularly, no. You asked for a source for my claim that the wealthy paid a lower rate in taxes, and I gave you one.

> But that's not what's happening.

I know. It's called a "thought experiment." It's designed to explore the implications of reasoning. This thought experiment illustrates that even if the wealthy pay a higher tax rate and/or higher overall taxes, the benefits to society of those taxes do not compensate for the drawbacks of there being rich people in that society.

> It is in the example I gave. You stated that instead of "losing an apartment" you'd prefer that person never got a job at Tesla.

Well, no I didn't state that, but even if I did, "never getting a job at Tesla" does not logically imply "left unemployed." There are other employers besides Tesla.

> You refused to answer (you literally stated you won't answer), so I asked why. That's not a loaded question.

No, I literally said, "No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along." That's not a refusal. That's simply me choosing not to engage with your scenario at that time. Who knows! Maybe I'll engage with it later (not likely).