Live data from Hacker News

Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

thesaint.scot

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#201
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, no matter what the actual causes are, self interest bias generally makes it so that nobody can accept that another person worked harder or used better strategy or whatever. For example, in games, it's always lag/bad teammates/etc. that keep them in "Elo hell" and they want to 1v1 you despite it being a team game and they ignore game winning objectives to score meaningless kills or whatever. Never…

> Never mind everyone starts with exactly the same resources every time. In a game sure, but does this seem to reflect lived reality? Edit: in fact, I don't know what game you're refering to, but imagine a game where your opponent was given an order of magnitude more HP or an hour to level up/prepare before you entered the game. Is this a game you would want to play?

I don't want it to be about one specific game because it happens in lots of games. There's always someone who will make horribly bad tactical decisions to ignore game winning objectives and blame that on "lag" or something ridiculous.

And the ones I have in mind are such that people do start with the same resources every time.

Though if you want to discuss P2W games, those where actual skill is involved not infrequently have no-skill whales lose to skilled players. In those it depends on the scale of the P2W and how much skill plays into the actual contest, though.

Finally, to your edit, yes, many people play MMOs and even join ones where other players have already maxed everything before they created their first character. Not everyone feels the need to be #1 or even cares if someone has more than they do, because obsessing about that stuff is a sure way to hurt your own mental health.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow how (1) is an indicator(?) of inequality. Aren't all the students capable of learning more with tutoring? Measuring by percentile seems like a problem if everybody improves. It's a good thing to try and make sure everyone performs to some minimum standard for their age, but are you suggesting equal outcome as a goal? If kids are learning at home, are you suggesting they should receive fewer school reso…

A lot of poorer students don’t get any homework help at home. None. Their parents are working several jobs and don’t have time. Some of the parents might not have the ability. If you had two identically intelligent and capable students and one gets thirty minutes of one-on-one homework help from a parent every day after school and the other didn’t I can definitely imagine there would be a significant difference how m…

But difference shouldn't matter as long as both make sufficient progress and graduate. If that requires help outside of school to do, it's still a "more education" argument.

Performance/success in high school might help get into college, but even with that advantage, it's not an indicator of relative success later in life.

If attention and stability at home are the issue, then that problem needs to be fixed, but its not an economic one. Plenty of poor parents make the time for their kids, and plenty of wealthy parents ignore them.

Parents spending time with kids is tied more to family makeup, with financial security just being a symptom. Having a two-parent home is still the success factor that is in a league of its own, and is an obvious solution to literally doubling parental supply. Presuming a significant number of these poorer students are from single parent/ broken homes, that's the direct solution to "needs parental help at home", not money.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when it fails to do so (and leaves behind a new mountain of skulls in the process), it "wasn't real communism" that time.

That comparison always leaves out the larger mountains of skulls created created under capitalism, the Nazi regime for one, the 900k+ COVID deaths in the US, the intentional famine in Bengal [0], etc. It's a long list that is rarely considered. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church...

I love how tankies seem to think the only economic system apart from communism is capitalism. We have fascism with the Nazis and mercantilism with British colonial territories, but somehow it's all capitalism because it lets them pretend to win arguments without needing to actually learn how different economic systems work.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and where do the renters live? Someone needs to own the houses. Not every renter is on the cusp of buying. If you make houses more expensive for landlords and don’t introduce some other source of housing, at best it’ll be a wash: lower prices for houses but extra taxes meaning landlords charge more or less the same rent. Or maybe prices won’t move much but landlords will charge more rent to cover their higher…

We are not at risk of an abundance of empty housing with nobody to live in it. You lower prices by reducing competition from landlords, then more people who rent will buy. There's a long way to go before you get to the point of people who don't want to buy a house feeling forced to do so because they can't find a rental. I don't know the name of the logical fallacy, but the argument you're making is imaging a far awa…

No, this is just what happens the world over when lawmakers make buy-to-let more expensive. Rents go up...

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was the CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) established in Seattle where they explicitly seceded from the United States. In doing so, they pushed out all the police and set fire to the police station while barricading the doors with the remaining police inside (fortunately, the police escaped). The CHAZ rioters also occupied and vandalized City Hall.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with a full on coupe attempting to end our democracy by capturing the VP and Congress. There has always been civil unrest in the USA since the beginning. However never has a President attempted to overthrow and subvert the will of the people in a Presidential election through a violent mob. The two things only share one thing in common "two groups of people doing violence"

Seceding from the US is, literally, an insurrection.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why did inequality rise while crime fell? Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. > It's an interesting theory It's a question for you. Which would you choose? As for trends, there's been a decades long increasing trend of people leaving their jobs for one reason or another and getting on disability. Disability pays less than their jobs did, but…

> Crime is not the only variable affecting the economy. I gave you another variable - paying people to not work. It sounds like you're saying here that crime doesn't have a strong enough effect on inequality to really practically matter when compared to other factors. Is that what you're saying? That other factors are so much stronger that they're able to actually reverse the trend we would otherwise expect to see? -…

So, you don't think an extra EIGHT MILLION people choosing disability payments over working is a significant factor in inequality?

> so it's really not feasible for me to even consider taking welfare that would be conditional on me not having a job or earning any additional income

You can still be setting yourself up in business. It takes a while before a business generates income. You could also use the time to upgrade your job skills so you could re-enter the job market at a higher pay level.

But I do admire your honesty there. I expect a not insignificant number of people would take the check, and have another source of income off the books.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#207
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't directly redistribute. You set taxes and economic policies to target free-market wealth redistribution. That is, find instances where there is significant distribution of money from the poor to the rich and find ways to add friction to those markets. Like landowners renting out housing. Suck large amounts of money out of the housing market by taxing commercial loans used for residential real estate, doublin…

> Have economists model how these things will actually effect the markets with the goal of turning residential housing into a bad investment and dropping prices. I imagine the costs would still get passed down to the tenants. Ignoring that for a second, rental housing isn’t “an evil thing that needs to go away.” Rental housing is very much a fundamental need for a lot of people. Military members who move every 3 year…

The problem with rental housing today is that most of it is turning being bought up by Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT) run by the likes of Blackrock and Vanguard and not “mom and pop pension fund”. These same investors actually pay >15% above market value effectively inflating prices, and monopolizing entire neighborhoods.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#208

Worth reading Robert Sapolsky on the topic of inequality here[1]. Inequality itself (not poverty, and accounted for the material disadvantages ), causes about half of the difference in health and life expectancy outcomes in developed nations, makes people at a neurological level opportunistic and causes biological stress in populations which results in violence, crime, isolation, mental illness, and so forth. That's…

Who is going to do the redistribution and how? It sounds nice, these people have too much and these have too little, let’s optimise. But redistribution via taxes imho leads to politicians having larger budgets for scoring political goals. And anyway how is it meant to work? If you equalise assets, you’ll find wealth drifting away from it again, as some eat through their assets and some invest/save. It’s a known effec…

You have to treat people equally under the law and I don't think there can be any exceptions to it as nobody can objectively determine fairness in each case. You can revise the law to force compliance on topics like accessibility and participation and it certainly should.

Otherwise I agree. Education is the best remedy. Since logistics of knowledge is very cheap today, it is also a manageable problem. At least in higher education. But you have to look at the whole economy and there might not be opportunities for everyone.

Racial or sex quotas should not be used because they would be more unfair than the former solution to treat people equally, even if the unscientific accusation of bias were true. Governments in Europe are obsessed with it though. There would be an end goal and it is only toxic people that decide what is allegedly fair. A Robin Hood tax would show the same faults.

I believe the Nordics use a progressive tax with individual taxed subjects. I would not call that redistribution. Within the EU we actually have a redistribution towards allegedly poorer countries and it is an extremely toxic and unfair system. The most profitable behavior for a subject is to spend money as quickly as possible and put the externalities of bad behavior on the state.

Plus, the inequality in nordic countries is very high, so they also do not have a solution against that. They have a solution for the people that have nothing and that is a strong welfare state (which is accused to foster inequality, but that is not based on sane arguments).

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#209
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in this discourse is that certain people like to call everything "inequality" whether they're talking about "some people can't pay bills" or "some people make more money than others". We might want to tolerate the latter but reduce the former. But if we call them all the same thing, we can't think clearly or formulate such nuanced policy, as Orwell noted.

That's a false dichotomy, because there is literally no country on Earth where inequality would only mean the latter. Inequal system, if free enough, always devolves into something which drowns at least someone.

By that standard, no nation is equal "enough", and we should go back to being hunter gatherer tribes where the guy who killed the mammoth gets murdered if he gets too big for his britches.

(And FWIW, that isn't what "false dichotomy" means.)

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#210

Having some experience with studies of polarization, maybe I can help clear up where this paper comes from. Basically, there are at least four distinct types of polarization that are commonly studied: * affective polarization (used in this study) measures hatred towards the outgroup. It is commonly measured with the feeling thermometer, alternatively with the gallup question "would you agree if your kid marries someo…

Best way to increase animosity between two groups is unequal treatment. That this basic concept is not discussed in sociology even if its effect is pretty clearly observable doesn't speak for the field in my opinion.

What happens with group A if you constantly prefer group B. Especially if there are no substantial differences, you should see animosity rise quickly.

> would you agree if your kid marries someone from X

Quite frankly I believe this is trailing society by at least 30+ years. In the US and other countries. Perhaps there is a divide between older and newer generations somewhere, but the topic certainly does not warrant state intervention.

Post reply on HN