Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#61

Post by Jabanga »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #40
Jabanga wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not a justification. That's just telling me we do this a lot.

Look, if you want to drag out the old "taxation is theft" chestnut, I'm going to drag out the "property is theft" chestnut, and everyone else can drag out their old chestnuts, and we can totally derail the thread. Do you want to derail the thread just to vomit out slogans we've all heard a thousand times and found wanting?

I don't think that's very constructive. The parent comment said [X] should be the rallying cry. I said in my opinion it shouldn't, and I gave my rationale. By all means bring out your chestnuts. I welcome a rigorous discussion, instead of blind conformity to mainstream political mores.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#62

Post by psyc »

eric_b wrote: post #6

Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately…

I also know a lot of poor people, and none that work hard or work on themselves. The only poor person I know who works hard is me, but that's because every time I have money I use it to attempt a business. I don't consider that unfair at all, just the definition of 'risk'

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#64

Post by Jabanga »

Goronmon wrote: post #38
Jabanga wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're not punishing them. We're simply not taking, by force, money from one person, to spend it raising the children of another. If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society.

If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society. You have it reversed. Not providing, say, an education to all children, regardless of parental investment, will leave us with a large number of uneducated citizens languishing to fend for themselves. That sounds prett…

Historically that's not what has happened. Before the era of government education, education was improving rapidly, with literacy rates rising.

As government involvement in education has increased, education outcomes have stopped improving:

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839...

I'm making the case that forcing people to pay for the costs of raising poor children will create an incentive for people to produce poor children.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#65

Post by Rapzid »

openasocket wrote: post #32
Jabanga wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're not punishing them. We're simply not taking, by force, money from one person, to spend it raising the children of another. If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society.

You're talking like we don't do these things already. We've have public schools for over a century, we have various forms of welfare, all kinds of special grant programs to help the poor pay for college, etc. And society hasn't collapsed, the poor aren't popping out a dozen kids because they know they get free primary education. All people are proposing is that we improve these programs. It's not an ideological argum…

And has more than just not collapsed. Public education is an advancement just as important as any other I can think of. "The public school is the greatest discovery made by man." - Horace Mann. Possibly an exaggeration, but I'm not convinced the importance of public education to our society can be overstated. Everyone alive today is benefiting from a society rooted in public education.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#66

Post by eastWestMath »

boona wrote: post #45
ikeyany wrote: post #5

Obama used a few phrases that not only sounded pleasing, but accurately addressed what's happening to Americans: "Everyone, including the rich, need to pay their share." "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." He tapped into equality of opportunity, while acknowledging that some will be more successful than others. Th…

> "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." While the rich pay more than their fair share and then some ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KENaWXPmBr0 ), I would think that quality education is something we could all get behind. It's unfortunate though that the left in large part seem to be opposed to school choice. That…

>That means that if you live in a more impoverished neighborhood, you're stuck with whatever school you're assigned to instead of being able to shop around, and for a lot of impoverished neighborhoods, that means schools with bad teachers and administrators, and there is no way out of it. This is a huge problem in black communities, and one area where the right legislation could make a significant impact.

Fuck us for wanting to fix those impoverished schools, right?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#67

Post by taeric »

eric_b wrote: post #6

Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately…

It is all anecdotal, and completely misses a couple of things.

Firstly, that the direction of causality is not established. Nor is it likely to be an arrow, but rather merely a connection that has a feedback loop.

What I mean by feedback is that poor decisions often beget other poor decisions. Consider in a completely deterministic world such as chess. A poor move often leaves you only with other poor moves to make. The later into the game where you have played poorly, the more amazing you have to be playing at the end to still have a shot. (Any other sport shows this, too. You can always win with time on the clock. But it is harder the more you are behind.)

Secondly, don't neglect that your attitude and interactions will also lead to some of the outcomes you are seeing in discussions. You may think "they mostly realize this." It could just as likely be that they dont' get fired up about it with you.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#68

Post by eastWestMath »

djrogers wrote: post #43
radicalbyte wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and any child with "bad" parents has to work ten times as hard because they've spent their entire life swimming against the current. There's a reason why certain communities have radically different outcomes. The more motivated kind set their offspring up so that the default outcome is, on average, success. They have to try hard to not succeed.

> They have to try hard to not succeed. That is utter crap. They do have to make some bad decisions, but it's not like success is guaranteed for everyone who grows up in a white middle class neighborhood.

And being tall doesn't mean you'll be a great basketball player, but it makes it way fucking easier.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#69

Post by eric_b »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #50
eric_b wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's how nature works? Because it's naive to think we've evolved so far that we are no longer subject to natural forces and evolutionary history?

So farmers have spent thousands of years of civilization valiantly striving to out-ubermensch each-other, and the rest of us just never heard about it? Shepherds? Priests? Scientists? Artists and writers? Shit, how have I missed the evolutionary war of all against all going on all around me? There are so many gene-rivals I could have stabbed in back-alleys! Or does evolution maybe allow for successful strategies towa…

Oh please, you're propping up a strawman. You don't need to be an "ubermensch" to survive, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't expect to be lazy and make bad choices and also expect to have as much as someone who works hard and makes smart choices. That was my point regarding evolutionary history and nature.

Farmers that worked hard and planned ahead did better than those who did nothing. Those that bought crop insurance or fastidiously watched the weather were in a better position to succeed than those who didn't. Similar scenarios abound for your other examples.

No matter how much you wish otherwise, nature (and our society) is set up for certain kind of animals/people to succeed - and if you wilfully choose to ignore the system that's fine, but don't be mad when it doesn't work out great for you.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#70

Post by Frondo »

eric_b wrote: post #42
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fire, tenacity, and willpower for... what, exactly? Towards what end? Why should everyone have to play ubermensch just to survive?

Because that's how nature works? Because it's naive to think we've evolved so far that we are no longer subject to natural forces and evolutionary history?

The minute we collectively stopped stronger folks than you and me from beating us up and taking our stuff, we left the realm of "how nature works".

In the west, we're all living in rich enough countries that no one should need superhuman will or fire or tenacity simply to live a decent life. No one willing to work 40 hours a week should be denied access to the medical care system, face food or housing insecurity, etc.

The fact that that is the situation for many speaks to problems in the way we've arranged society (which is about as far from "how nature works" as possible), not some innate rightness in the world.

Post reply on HN