Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#41

Post by bmmayer1 » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:29 AM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #25

awptimus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because...

Well, one possible reason is that we may have an inbuilt sense of "fairness" - capachin monkeys have been demonstrated in experiments to get angry if they get unfairly rewarded. So might not people feel angry in the same circumstances? A valid criticism of socialism for running societies (rather than institutions) is that it doesn't align well with "human nature" - but it might also be the case where the "winner take…

It's key that monkeys, like humans, object to unfairness--not 'inequality.' Turns out that relative contribution matters a lot to how monkeys/people judge rewards.[1]

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#42

Post by golergka » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:29 AM UTC

ngrilly wrote: post #30

golergka wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you want to do, sterilise the poor? Reversible sterilization for everyone by default, temporary reversal for a fee. Make people pay for externalities.

Are you serious?

Absolutely. Why not? Having children is a very expensive thing for the family and the society, but people can easily make this decision foolishly and then offload costs onto everyone else.

Having children is a luxury, we only need to start treating it like one.

RESPONSES

(THANKS FOR THE ANTI-SPAM, HN! IT MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO HAVE MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS)

> Why are you focusing only on the financial aspect and ignoring the parents education, general behavior and mental health, and living conditions, safety and so on?

All these qualities (1) heavily correlate to their wealth and (2) much harder to have any objective measure of.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#43

Post by blowski » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:29 AM UTC

DarkKomunalec wrote: post #29

trentnix wrote: post #5

I've never understood using income inequality as a measure of the health of a society. As Milton Friedman said, the only place where people are equal is in a prison and in the grave. Milton Friedman on greed and income inequality: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

That is a strawman - total equality (prison, grave) is not being advocated, merely reducing the current extreme inequality. And inequality is a good measure because the benefit of an extra N dollars is greater, the less money one already has. So, all else being equal, smaller inequality leads to greater average quality of life. Inequality is also a measure of for whose benefit a society is working - the benefit of th…

I agree with you. Equality of wealth is symbolic.

When one person has 10 Ferraris in their garage while someone just a few miles away can't afford to feed their children, it's unfair and unsustainable. You don't need to advocate absolute equality to see how that situation could be improved.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#44

Post by blr246 » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:30 AM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #5

I've never understood using income inequality as a measure of the health of a society. As Milton Friedman said, the only place where people are equal is in a prison and in the grave. Milton Friedman on greed and income inequality: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

There is no such thing as a measure of the health of a society. Inequality is one of many indicators that can help you predict the social stability and quality of life achievable in a particular society.

Inequality is important because of the studied link between peace and prosperity. Individual participants of a civilization give their social system power by buying into a social contract that their (mostly) nonviolent participation secures them the necessities of life.

When we have natural disasters, we sometimes see the rupture of the social contract. Now, imagine that there's a continuum of levels of nonviolent participation depending on individual cost-benefit analyses occurring all of the time around you.

When inequality shifts so dramatically over just a generation or two, there's reason to be concerned that people's buy-in on the social contract might shift, too.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#45

Post by wolfgke » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:31 AM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #38

wolfgke wrote: post #3

To me the worse problem is: While I can understand that it is an inconvenient situation to be poor (and I have some kind of compassion for them), I really cannot understand how one could even come to the idea to give rise to children if one is not in a high quantile of earning. If people applied this reproduction strategy consequently, poverty would simply die out.

One could say the same for being in a high quintile of leisure time, but that doesn't stop all stressed-out rich people from having kids. Most of humanity was born to parents with no monetary income at all, and volatile access to resources and shelter. Imagine that!

> One could say the same for being in a high quintile of leisure time, but that doesn't stop all stressed-out rich people from having kids.

Which I consider independently from my main argument as a stupid idea.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#46

Post by oblio » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:31 AM UTC

awptimus wrote: post #10

geoka9 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context matters. If we're talking about a first world country, income inequality is a meaningful metric.

Because...

It's in the article. In the 60's the CEO-worker pay ratio was 20:1. Now it's 354:1.

Do you think that this kind of disproportion doesn't affect the way the whole system works? I expect the voice of a CEO to be heard more than that of a ordinary worker, and at 20:1 maybe I can sort of keep up. But at 354:1, how will I ever keep up? That's stopping the CEOs of the world from banding up in a gang that distorts how democracy works up to a point where I don't matter at all?

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#47

Post by eeZah7Ux » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:31 AM UTC

delerio wrote: post #12

wolfgke wrote: post #3

To me the worse problem is: While I can understand that it is an inconvenient situation to be poor (and I have some kind of compassion for them), I really cannot understand how one could even come to the idea to give rise to children if one is not in a high quantile of earning. If people applied this reproduction strategy consequently, poverty would simply die out.

So only rich people deserve to have a family? Only the rich deserve to find joy in nurturing and raising others? A lot of people, even though they don't have much, they find fulfillment in their family. If you think they shouldn't have children, that means taking away the only joy in some people's lives. Weird sentiment you have there.

Nothing in life is due to us. There is no "deserve".

Also, you are painting a false dichotomy between "rich" and "poor". A lot of middle and lower class people can raise healthy and happy children unless they have problems with mental health / violence / substance abuse & so on.

> taking away the only joy in some people's lives

Looking at children as a source of joy instead of a recipient of unconditional care and effort sounds very narcissistic.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#48

Post by aninhumer » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:31 AM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #5

I've never understood using income inequality as a measure of the health of a society. As Milton Friedman said, the only place where people are equal is in a prison and in the grave. Milton Friedman on greed and income inequality: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation.

However, we also suppose that some level of inequality can lead to greater productivity, and thus greater utility overall. The question is then what level produces the best outcome?

Personally, I don't think the current levels of inequality are remotely optimal. We could drastically improve thousands of people's lives for amounts of money that some rich individuals wouldn't get out of bed for, so I'm not convinced that reallocating that wealth would be harmful overall.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#49

Post by oblio » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:32 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #33

oblio wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing some arbitrary part of the population from having children is basically eradicating that population, long term. I just used "kill", for simplicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I find that equation of terms troubling. If I take that argument to its logical conclusion, we are all killers because we don't get as much children as previous generations. We're effectively killing our unborn offspring by refusing to procreate.

Ummmm.. false equivalence.

You're choosing not to have children. In wolfgke's description, he's choosing for you.

Big difference.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#50

Post by bmmayer1 » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 11:32 AM UTC

pharrlax wrote: post #20

awptimus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because...

Because we generally recognize that feudalism is bad, and therefore society becoming more feudalismesque is also bad?

How is society becoming more feudal? I've heard this from so many people and the evidence doesn't seem to support it. For example, ~64% of Americans own a home. What % of feudal peasants owned a shovel, let alone a home?