81–90 of 368 posts
Someone else on HN commented that the poor need to stop reproducing in order to improve equality. At first I found the comment kind of troubling, but the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense. Watching this video kind of backs up the point to a degree, even though the topic is immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Can someone come back with a decent counterargument? I haven't been a…
Someone else on HN commented that the poor need to stop reproducing in order to improve equality. At first I found the comment kind of troubling, but the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense. Watching this video kind of backs up the point to a degree, even though the topic is immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Can someone come back with a decent counterargument? I haven't been a…
There's a subreddit for what you're looking for: https://reddit.com/r/changemyview Lots of interesting debate happens there.
So when do we get trickled down on exactly?
If you are reading this site in a Western country you are almost certainly in the global 1%. Household income of $30k if I remember correctly.
It's ~$30k after tax (net income). So the actual salary number is going to be higher.
It's also misleading because most rich people are rich because of wealth, not income. You need ~$770k in assets to be in the global 1%.
Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…
> The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions.
This is whataboutism and justifying means to ends and it makes no sense to me. How could this be? Many of the top 1% in our world are murderers and killers and so greedy they are set out to hurt the poor as much as possible. This matters. It does matter who they are. Their character matters. Their actions matter. Their words matter. Due in part to their wealth, the world listens to them for better or worse, and they hold a responsibility that the current 1% batch (and perhaps none in history, I don't know) are not holding up.
Yes, overall the poor are seeing vastly improved living conditions. This does not mean that it should not be better. It is offensive to a population to tell them that they have it better than before and to basically not worry about it or complain that the inequality is so intense, because their parents or even ancestors had it worse.
No, the attitude should be that it is still really bad for a lot of people, and that state of affairs should be unacceptable. That much human suffering is unnecessary. It should not be happening in a world of surplus like today's.
The top 1% matter immensely - who they are, what they do, how they act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism where people are forced by others and not the laws of nature?
Is there really, though? If I can't do X, then I can't do X: whether that's from an oppressive government or my own lack of wealth as the result of a rigged economic system is a distinction without a difference.
Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…
Capitalism is so ingrained now, nobody can even imagine that alternative system could exist. In the minds of most, communism is a synonym of authoritarianism. Communist governments tended to be authoritarian, but it's not clear to me if it's a natural consequence of communism. It's more likely that authoritarianism is a consequence of violent revolutions. Is it possible to combine communism with democracy?
Planned economy and lack of personal liberties cannot coexist in what we would call a democracy unless your definition of democracy is a slightly less violent conflict resolution method.
Overall democracy works because it respects the wishes of the individual essentially it gives everyone the right to express their wants communism has no room for any form of individualism.
Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…
It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.
Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…
Communism and socialism were disliked primarily because they reduce freedom. Every additional unit of socialism, is one less unit of freedom. Full communism dictates almost every part of your life. I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force.
'Full communism dictates almost every part of your life'.
No it doesn't.
Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…
It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communism and socialism were disliked primarily because they reduce freedom. Every additional unit of socialism, is one less unit of freedom. Full communism dictates almost every part of your life. I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force.
Freedom is also a problematic word. I guess you could say that Europe has "more units of communism" than the US. But if you ask where a poor person is more free, you'd get quite different answers from different people.