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

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#141

Post by dventimi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #136
dventimi wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that exist in the world. 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. Consequently, it's the dist…

> Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that exist in the world. 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…

> for someone to gain someone else must lose equally

Oh, you can gain love, satisfaction, respect, and all the other things that money can't buy and it doesn't cost anyone else a thing, but the minute you gain something that money can buy, you've gained a little bit of trading power within the economy, which everyone else has lost.

> 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").

Safety from harm and freedom of expression, perhaps, don't come at the cost of others, but those examples were meant to illustrate that some things of value--economic value even--truly are "fixed" and do not increase simply because of progress and innovation. But "political power" is the biggie, anyway. That's the most important one. That's what extremely wealthy people are buying. It's not yachts and mansions. It's political power, which has enormous implications for the rest of us.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#142

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #138
dventimi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what happens if tech workers move out, and stop generating revenue for the city? Life would be even worse. 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 worke…

> If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. 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 sti…

> No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better.

I didn't say it's "inherently" better. I said it's better for "the non-tech workers", which is just a stand-in for "anyone below the median." I'm sure flattening the income distribution might not be regarded as better by people above the median. Oh well!

> 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 example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

> 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?

You haven't. You just experienced a loss in your material conditions. Congratulations. Now, everyone else has 5 times as much income as you (assuming everyone started equally). They can easily outbid you for housing, for food, for vacations, for everything. You better think fast and invent something of value that they don't have so you have a little monopoly at least for a little while, otherwise you're screwed.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#143

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #142
Manuel_D wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they flatten the income distribution then life will be better for the non-tech workers who already live here. 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 sti…

> No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. I didn't say it's "inherently" better. I said it's better for "the non-tech workers", which is just a stand-in for "anyone below the median." I'm sure flattening the income distribution might not be regarded as better by people above the median. Oh well! > Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people w…

> The latter example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. Everyone is worse off in the latter scenario.

> You haven't. You just experienced a loss in your material conditions.

No, I just doubled my material conditions. Again, it seems you're just not able to comprehend the notion that material conditions are not zero-sum. The fact that other people gained more does not mean o lost.

Think of this in more concrete terms: I have a 2,000 square foot house and one car. A genie offers me the ability to get a 4,000 sq ft house and a second car, but everyone else gets a 20,000 sq foot mansion and 9 cars. I may become less wealthy relative to everyone else, but I'm still better off than I was initially.

It seems like it's just impossible for you to convince of a scenario where society can collectively experience increases in living conditions. The only way you're able to think about value is in relative terms, not in terms absolute increases. It's pretty a sad, and unfortunately common train of thought.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#144

Post by roenxi »

dventimi wrote: post #118
dventimi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> Not all people on Earth exist in the present Correction: That should be, "Not all people on Earth who have existed in the past or will exist in the future exist in our present."

The number of people is potentially infinite. It depends on unknowns like whether we can grow exponentially, what the progress of science looks like and whether the universe is finite.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#145

Post by dventimi »

roenxi wrote: post #144
dventimi wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not all people on Earth exist in the present Correction: That should be, "Not all people on Earth who have existed in the past or will exist in the future exist in our present."

The number of people is potentially infinite. It depends on unknowns like whether we can grow exponentially, what the progress of science looks like and whether the universe is finite.

It's at this point that you're going to have to explain what you mean by "infinite".

Re: Inequality Without Class

#146

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #143
dventimi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, a flatter income distribution is not inherently better. I didn't say it's "inherently" better. I said it's better for "the non-tech workers", which is just a stand-in for "anyone below the median." I'm sure flattening the income distribution might not be regarded as better by people above the median. Oh well! > Which is better: 90% of people with $60,000 income and the top 10% with $600,000, or 100% of people w…

> The latter example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. Everyone is…

>> 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?

> Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values.

In your example, how exactly do these people receive their income, be it $10,000 or $60,000 or $600,000?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#147

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #146
Manuel_D wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The latter example is better for everyone except for the people who would've been in the top 10% in the former example. The scale of the dollar amounts is just arbitrary, after all. It could be a flat income distribution where everyone makes $10,000, or $100,000, or $100,000,000, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. Everyone is…

>> 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? > Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. In your example, how exactly do these people receive their income, be it $10,000 or $60,000 or $600,000?

As you wrote in your own comment, dollars are imaginary. Maybe they get paid in salary, maybe it's equity. Or benefits in the form of healthcare. The important thing is the value of goods and services they can buy. Before, they could rent 3,000 sq foot house and buy 6 cars, now they can only rent a 500 sq ft apartment and buy one car.

Again, if we achieve a flat income distribution by reducing the value of what everyone can it with their income is that a good thing? Everyone's purchasing power is reduced: the 90% can only buy 1/6th as much as they could before, the top 10% 1/60th as much. But since the income distribution is now flat, this is somehow a good thing even according to you though everyone can buy only a fraction of what they could before.

This is what you're seemingly not able to comprehend: the total sum of value in the world isn't static. If I bulldoze a 2 story apartment building and build a 20 story apartment building I've just created a 10x increase in the residential floorspace on that block. If I develop cheap rocket motors I can put satellites into orbit for much less money, and thus enable things like high speed global internet. If I build a much more efficient factory for building cars and tractors, then foods gets much cheaper and farmers can replace draught animals with machinery. And shipping companies can haul much more cargo with trucks. The total value of goods and services in the world can, and is, increased. And it has more than doubled in the span of a typical lifetime for the last century. It doesn't take ages, it happens fast.

Most people who get enormously wealthy do so by founding or investing in companies that do something novel to increase the sum of value. Let's flip the previous analogy on its head: a genie gives you the ability to increase the real purchasing power of 90% of people by 6x, and the top 10% of people by 60x. Is that a bad thing, because the income distribution is now more unequal even though everyone is left strictly better off?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#148

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #147
dventimi wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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? > Again, as I wrote the comment I'm talking about real value not just dollar values. In your example, how exactly do these people receive their income, be it $10,000 or $60,000 or $600,000?

As you wrote in your own comment, dollars are imaginary. Maybe they get paid in salary, maybe it's equity. Or benefits in the form of healthcare. The important thing is the value of goods and services they can buy. Before, they could rent 3,000 sq foot house and buy 6 cars, now they can only rent a 500 sq ft apartment and buy one car. Again, if we achieve a flat income distribution by reducing the value of what every…

> As you wrote in your own comment, dollars are imaginary. Maybe they get paid in salary, maybe it's equity. Or benefits in the form of healthcare.

Well, no, I didn't write that, but setting that aside, maybe you can pick whichever one strengthens your argument the most.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#149

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

You might think that, but many/most humans care more about relative differences than absolute.

We are social creatures which calibrate our satisfaction to our circumstances. We can be happy with little, and equally happy with plenty.

In the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless, largely because it is not the absolute quantity, but relative amount that matters.

For the most part, people have no measure for the material quality of their lives besides comparing it to others in they see. It doesnt matter if you have wealth and comforts beyond your grandparents wildest dreams, if it seems like you are worse off than 90% of the people on the street.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#150

Post by roenxi »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #149
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…

You might think that, but many/most humans care more about relative differences than absolute. We are social creatures which calibrate our satisfaction to our circumstances. We can be happy with little, and equally happy with plenty. In the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless, largely becau…

I agree with pretty much every word. But what those words are identifying is (1) there is an emotional response at play and (2) it is a heuristic for something else that in the modern age is no longer an reasonable heuristic (ie, your instincts don't understand capitalism and the benefits of having vast amounts of capital on hand, they are calibrated for a hunter-gatherer society with maybe some light farming and a few hundred people).

The emotional response to inequality has led to some of the biggest government-sponsored mass murders in history [0]. It is perhaps the worst-scaling social response that evolution has cursed us with. Focusing on it is stupid, and we'd all be better off if we focused on absolute living standards instead.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anthropogenic_disaster... - Communism was flat out worse than a Mongol invasion. Best case scenario it was the same ballpark. Best attempt ever made at solving inequality though.

Post reply on HN