Live data from Hacker News

Inequality Without Class

dissentmagazine.org

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#151
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I tend to agree with you in principle as an aspirational goal. I'm not sure people are ready from the practical sense. I hope we can navigate through this period of hyperfocus on inequality.

In my opinion, attention on the monetary differences exagerates the difference in experience and comfort. That is to say, Wealth inequality is much less relevant than difference in consumption and utilization, to the degree that either matter.

Musk might have 1,000,000x the net worth of the median American (200B vs 200K), but he is not eating one million times as many hamburgers, living in a house 1 million times larger, ect. People struggle to understand that "net worth" is simply a name on a paper associated with resources someone else is utilizing. It is not proportional to spending or consumption.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#152
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…

A world with high levels of inequality is also a world where power is highly concentrated, which makes the focus of the majority largely irrelevant... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Inequality Without Class

#153
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> Infinity is something which is boundless, endless, or larger than any natural number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Re: Inequality Without Class

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't accept it, I'm not going to run around doing simple searches for you.

"Searches"? Why would you have to search for evidence you already have in your possession, which surely must be the case? I mean, it's not like you would dream up a claim without evidence, is it?

"in my possession" lol. I read things same as you, I don't hoard them. I also have something called a memory.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure evaporating Musk' wealth will fix that.

I'm not. It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help much, either. Evaporate the wealth of about 400 other people, then go after the next level of 4000 and then the next 40000 and then we'd be getting somewhere.

That will do absolutely nothing for those countries.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#156
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Infinity is something which is boundless, endless, or larger than any natural number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

That article describes a variety of different kinds of infinities, in mathematics, physics, logic, and philosophy, so you haven't made any progress in explaining which one you're using.

Let me help you out, because I actually know what you mean when you say the number of people on Earth is "potentially infinite" even if you don't really know what you mean. You mean that that there's no upper bound. But, that can only be true under a set of unlikely conditions:

There is no upper bound to the existence of Earth.

There is no time in the future when Earth becomes uninhabitable.

Given that the most unassailable models in science make it practically certain the Sun won't exist as it does now within 10 billion years, your necessary conditions are unlikely.

Consequently, I rate your claim: False

Re: Inequality Without Class

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Searches"? Why would you have to search for evidence you already have in your possession, which surely must be the case? I mean, it's not like you would dream up a claim without evidence, is it?

"in my possession" lol. I read things same as you, I don't hoard them. I also have something called a memory.

Lame. Clearly, you made a claim because it seemed plausible to you, but you didn't bother to research it.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't help much, either. Evaporate the wealth of about 400 other people, then go after the next level of 4000 and then the next 40000 and then we'd be getting somewhere.

That will do absolutely nothing for those countries.

Nobody can predict the future, not even you. So you have no idea if that would have an effect on the economic output of those countries (which is what you mean by "wealth" even if you don't know it). One thing we do have an idea about and can say with certainty about some of the effects it will have on the people in those countries. We can say with certainty that 400, or 4000, or 40000 people will become less wealthy, and everyone else will become less poor.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#159
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infinity is something which is boundless, endless, or larger than any natural number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

That article describes a variety of different kinds of infinities, in mathematics, physics, logic, and philosophy, so you haven't made any progress in explaining which one you're using. Let me help you out, because I actually know what you mean when you say the number of people on Earth is "potentially infinite" even if you don't really know what you mean. You mean that that there's no upper bound. But, that can only…

> Let me help you out, because I actually know what you mean ... even if you don't really know what you mean.

^_~ You do you, I suppose.

> Given that the most unassailable models in science make it practically certain the Sun won't exist as it does now within 10 billion years, your necessary conditions are unlikely.

Everything that happens is unlikely. There isn't anything in particular stopping either of those conditions being fulfilled if progress keeps up at the rate it has for all of recorded human history and the upper limit is a long way away. We'd have to move the earth at some point in the next few billion years.

It does seem most likely that we bump in to a hard limit somewhere under the same logic as the Fermi paradox - but we don't know what it is yet and until we do it is simply the case that the number of people on the earth is potentially infinite. As is wealth, as far as we know - especially since wealth doesn't have to have mass.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#160
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article describes a variety of different kinds of infinities, in mathematics, physics, logic, and philosophy, so you haven't made any progress in explaining which one you're using. Let me help you out, because I actually know what you mean when you say the number of people on Earth is "potentially infinite" even if you don't really know what you mean. You mean that that there's no upper bound. But, that can only…

> Let me help you out, because I actually know what you mean ... even if you don't really know what you mean. ^_~ You do you, I suppose. > Given that the most unassailable models in science make it practically certain the Sun won't exist as it does now within 10 billion years, your necessary conditions are unlikely. Everything that happens is unlikely. There isn't anything in particular stopping either of those condi…

Gibberish
Post reply on HN