If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything?
It could be positive sum in the long run but if you consider life to be a series of snapshots I’m not convinced that equalizing measures don’t hurt those who are, fairly or unfairly, advantaged at least momentarily.
> How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything?
Go all the way down to the "materials and methods" section. The questions they used are mostly about loans and bonuses, so they aren't even just harming the relative standing, they're harming the absolute standing.
Speaking from a northern European perspective, there are a lot of systems in place that guarantee healthcare, housing and affordable or even free study opportunities. Those systems, funded by taxes, enjoy broad support, and to some extent set a (low) base level of equality and opportunity. Of course if the debate shifts into a narrative of being allowed to take from a "privileged party" – to empty their fridge sort of speak – you touch upon something visceral in people's self-preservation psyche and risk jeopardising that social net. Tolerance is generally low to provide more to those who are perceived to have failed to take advantage of those benefits and opportunities already bestowed upon them.
The economy is not a zero sum game. With a different distribution of resources people can have greater access to education, to work, better health, and a more efficient economy overall.
Are you familiar with the brainteaser use to illustrate the velocity of money? "A rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter..."
Thankfully, no one living today exists in systems of two individuals. We all live in complex societies with multiple systems that can, and do, move beyond just zero sum addition.
Only if you have perfect information. And for the people for whom equality of opportunity really matters the standing of those near the top is, at least at the start, unassailable.
It has nothing to do with information, it's simply logic. You have a line of 5 people waiting for a cashier. There's no magic. Moving someone else to the front will result in someone else having to wait. Zero sum.
> If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything?
This assumes zero-sum. Many issues are not zero-sum issues.
social standing is even less zero sum than capital. if I choose to respect you, that doesn't mean I have to kick the next person I see in the groin.
edit: sorry, now I see. how can you lord your wealth over the peasants if they are as rich as you? why should we as a society care how much you get you put yourself above others for no good reason?
The classic terms are sufficient. Upper, middle and lower class are all inherently relative terms. Everyone cannot be "upper class," or middle, or lower.
> All issues are zero sum in a moment imo. What’s an example of a positive sum short term situation like the one I described?
Nice move adding “short term” in there.
The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95).
A classic example of this is growing (or shrinking) the middle class. The US did a fairly good job of this in the 20th century. The pie got bigger and the rich got richer on an absolute level.
A counter example is Japan in the recent “lost decades”. The haves basically stuck it to the youth and the have nots, and they have created quite a predicament for themselves. A once vibrant economy with a high velocity of money is a shadow of its former self. So many groups turtles down and said “I got mine”, and basically was content letting the pie shrink.
> The examples that I have seen that stand out to me are when the “have almost everything” group shares with the two “have less” groups, and that lets the have everything group have more of everything. Their relative score may be less (they have 90% of the total score versus 95%), but they have a higher absolute score (e.g., 180 points versus 95).
Sure, but we're talking about the study linked, which is about perception and consequently relative status.
Not only that, but I’ve done research on this topic.
You started off with a broad question that I thought was worth answering.
In general, many (most?) people fairly actively do not try to make the pie bigger via their actions, even if their words say otherwise. In my opinion, encouraging people to make the pie bigger via their actions is a task worth taking, and this expands beyond the specific topic of social standing.
I addressed your abstract question that applies to many contexts with an answer that also applies to many contexts (but with a concrete contextual example… as examples often are).
I try not to engage in the HN game of moving the target and/or whataboutism, but sometimes the topic warrants making statements for others to read. This thread is one of those times.
if I take some of your money and you have to starting buying low-end $40 dollar bottles of wine to have with your dinner I've certainly harmed you. but every night I do that 10 starving people get to eat. yes, I have harmed you. and no, maybe we don't really want to live in a place where people can take your things because they think its a good idea.
but lets not pretend that its an even trade - not even close to zero sum.
Are all investments then zero sum? I lose $100, the other person gets $100. At that moment in time it’s win/lose but clearly if that were actually the case all game theory would be useless for anything involving time between action and reward/penalty.
> Nevertheless, the situation like the stock market etc. is not a zero-sum game because investors could gain profit or loss from share price influences by profit forecasts or economic outlooks rather than gain profit from other investors' losses.
If you have three people, one who has almost everything, one who has almost nothing and another who has nothing. How can you make things more equal without harming the relative standing of the person who has almost everything?
It could be positive sum in the long run but if you consider life to be a series of snapshots I’m not convinced that equalizing measures don’t hurt those who are, fairly or unfairly, advantaged at least momentarily.