The discourse around inequality in this article and elsewhere is frustrating to me, because it advances the idea that inequality is fundamentally unjust, using the lives of the poor as the example.
To me this misses the point. The problem is not inequality, the problem is poverty. If everyone had enough that their basic needs were met and they were not struggling to survive, the fact that some people can afford Lamborghinis and some cannot would not be unjust in my opinion.
Without inequality, there are no Elon Musks. Bootstrapping SpaceX and Tesla required more than 1/6,000,000,000'th of the world's resources. Big results require investment, and it's not practical to crowdfund a multi-million dollar investment. So who should we entrust to make big bets? Doesn't it only make sense that the people who have already been the most successful in creating wealth should have the freedom to take that wealth to try out new ideas?
Inequality is not the problem. Poverty is the problem. Lack of access to education is the problem. We should strive to see that everyone can focus on improving their life and doing interesting things without struggling to survive. And if the most successful people take their spoils and build a 150-foot yacht, or take a ride into space, or invest in the next big company, more power to them.
Yep yep. The John Rawls's theory of justice should be a required topic in school.
What matters is how well the poorest in society are doing, not the income distribution. If a system creates a mega rich class but ends up with the poorest in society being better off - then that's a better system.
I'd also qualify that "poverty" is flexible and always changing. I live on 10K/yr in college (2 years ago). I had to share a room with a roommate, ate a lot of rice and beans. I was a pain in the ass - though not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. However not being able to afford a cellphone or a car, having an ancient computer and not being able to afford a lot of social activities (movies, restaurants, etc.) had a noticeable negative affect on my life. If I had grown up my whole life on 10K/yr it probably would have had a major impact.
20 years ago, a car and a phone and internet were a luxury, in Africa or South America it's still a luxury. In modern america, it's poverty.
Inequality not being fundamentally unjust does not imply it isn't a huge problem for society.
First of all, it makes it easy for the wealthy to lock the poor (and the rich) into their locations on the income graphs. The systems the wealthy can set in place are an impediment to a meritocracy by ensuring the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, whether that is through boarding schools and trust funds or the Drug War and a toothless minimum wage. If the resulting massive disparity in wages implies one thing, it's that our civilization is wasting a lot of untapped human productivity on the low end of the wealth graph.
Secondly, it creates social resentment, fragmentation, and stratification. These are just emotions and Sociology Major words, yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. If the people at the bottom of the ladder feel like they don't have the power to climb, a society can end very badly as its political process becomes more polarized and communities are segregated.
Finally, it creates large gaps not just in material wealth, but political. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, you think either the Koch Brothers or George Soros are destroying America. Either way, it can be agreed that democracies are undermined by a few unelected individuals wielding huge amounts of power. Less income inequality means less political inequality.
Nothing you said is wrong, but it's unhelpful. It distracts from how important dealing with growing income inequality will be in the future by saying "The discourse... is frustrating to me, because it's not pedantically right." It might be necessary if sama was arguing against large wealth disparities in a post-poverty civilization, but that is not what we have. Like you said: Poverty is the problem. And while we have poverty, poverty and inequality are closely linked.
> It might be necessary if sama was arguing against large wealth disparities in a post-poverty civilization, but that is not what we have. Like you said: Poverty is the problem. And while we have poverty, poverty and inequality are closely linked.
This is where you lose me. Solving the problem of poverty is a matter of making sure that the poorest people have enough. Solving the "problem" of inequality is a matter of making sure that nobody has "too much."
As long as resources are finite, there is an upper bound on how much one individual can have without depriving others. I'm not convinced we're near it, though...
Resources are not fixed. Our planet, our solar system, and our universe are awash in resources. The question is, how much does it cost to extract them, compared to their value once extracted? As technology advances and human ingenuity finds new ways to do things, more and more resources become available at a cost less than their value. That's been happening all through human history, and continues to happen now. Even if particular resources (e.g., oil) turn out to be finite, we find substitutes (e.g., nuclear, solar, or even oil from algae), so that in a practical sense we never run out.
There are finite resources in our light cone. Resources are fixed. I said that I didn't expect we were nearing those limits. Quite obviously we aren't nearing that limit, but I don't rule out the possibility that there may be other, more relevant ones.
Actually, if the universe is spatially infinite (which it is according to our best current models), this is not true even if we equate "resources" with "quantity of matter", which is what you are implicitly assuming.
However, this implicit assumption is false: what counts as a "resource", i.e., how much of what kind of matter it takes to accomplish a particular goal, is not fixed. It changes as technology and human knowledge changes. In principle there is no lower bound to how much of what kind of matter it can take to accomplish a particular goal, which means that in principle there is no upper bound to the amount of wealth that can be created with a fixed quantity of matter.
Quantity of matter, quantity of energy, necessary structure... What of it we can access is limited by our light cone.
"In principle there is no lower bound to how much of what kind of matter it can take to accomplish a particular goal, which means that in principle there is no upper bound to the amount of wealth that can be created with a fixed quantity of matter."
On the contrary, in principle such a bound exists, for any specific task (and accompanying present configuration of the universe). We are similarly not likely to be near the theoretical limits imposed by physics and the well-ordering principle, but again practical constraints may bind much tighter - particularly in the short term.
What of it we can access is limited by our light cone.
What of it we can access, and what use we can make of it (I notice that you have left out this point completely), at this point in time is limited by our past light cone and our current knowledge and technology, obviously. But what of it we can access, and what use we can make of it, indefinitely into the future is not; it is only limited by the entire universe and our future knowledge and technology.
On the contrary, in principle such a bound exists, for any specific task
For any specific task undertaken at a specific point in time, in a specific, fixed state of knowledge and technology, yes, there is such a bound in principle; but you made a much stronger claim than that.
Also, whether or not that in principle limit has practical significance even over "short" time scales such as a human lifetime depends on how fast our technology and knowledge changes, not just on what they are at a given instant.
"(I notice that you have left out this point completely)"
No, I didn't. I addressed it in the other half of my post, which you obviously saw since you responded to it. If every sentence must address all parts of the argument, we're all guilty of flagrant violations up and down this thread (and every other) and will need to be writing some awfully convoluted sentences.
"What of it we can access, and what use we can make of it [...] at this point in time is limited by our past light cone and our current knowledge and technology, obviously. But what of it we can access, and what use we can make of it, indefinitely into the future is not; it is only limited by the entire universe and our future knowledge and technology."
Per my understanding of relativity and the present state of physics (significantly received from others but I think that I followed it at the time) this is simply not the case (in particular, if time is finite then "everything our light cone will encompass before the end of time" is finite - and I think an expansionary universe makes things worse). I think we're going to need to bust out some math or expert testimony instead of simply making assertions at each other if we're going to get anywhere.
"For any specific task undertaken at a specific point in time, in a specific, fixed state of knowledge and technology, yes, there is such a bound in principle; but you made a much stronger claim than that."
There is a set of possible futures from any present. You hold that, for any task in any situation, with sufficient knowledge, the resources it can take can approach arbitrarily close to zero?
'Also, whether or not that in principle limit has practical significance even over "short" time scales such as a human lifetime depends on how fast our technology and knowledge changes, not just on what they are at a given instant.'
I don't think the bounds given by physics have any impact yet. I'm not convinced they ever will - my point was there is a theoretical bound, and there may be more practical bounds that matter at any time-scale.
Let's try to get this back closer to useful.
My original point, which I think too much was read into, was simply that there are situations in which some having more can lead to others having less, and that paying attention to whether we're in such a situation is worthwhile. I stated right there in that first comment that I didn't think we presently were, in most respects.
That was followed by a levelling of a charge of "zero-sum thinking" in an explicitly hypothesized zero-sum situation, which (again) I said I thought unlikely to be relevant. I found this amusing.
I see that you did say "for any specific task", but, as I noted in my response to that, it seemed inconsistent with the much stronger nature of the claim that seemed to me to be either implicit or explicit in the other things you said. So I was confused about exactly what position you were taking. I'm clearer about it in view of this post; see below.
Per my understanding of relativity and the present state of physics (significantly received from others but I think that I followed it at the time) this is simply not the case (in particular, if time is finite then "everything our light cone will encompass before the end of time" is finite - and I think an expansionary universe makes things worse).
If you think this, then your understanding of relativity is wrong. As I responded to your other post upthread, "time is finite" only if space is finite, per the Einstein Field Equation. And the expansion of the universe does not "make things worse" in any sense that I can see, because the only reasonable solutions for the universe as a whole are dynamic (the only static solution, Einstein's static universe with a nonzero cosmological constant, is unstable, like a pencil balanced on its point, so it's not really reasonable as a real-world solution).
You hold that, for any task in any situation, with sufficient knowledge, the resources it can take can approach arbitrarily close to zero?
Yes (with an appropriate definition of "any task in any situation"). Julian Simon, AFAIK, was the first to defend this claim in detail, in a series of economics papers in (IIRC) the 1980's. It was in this same time period that he made his famous bet with Paul Ehrlich (of "Population Bomb" fame) about whether the price of 5 common resources would fall (Simon's bet) or rise (Ehrlich's bet) over a period of some years. Simon won the bet for all 5.
I don't think the bounds given by physics have any impact yet. I'm not convinced they ever will
Then what's the point of talking about them? If you think there are more practical bounds, what are they?
My original point, which I think too much was read into, was simply that there are situations in which some having more can lead to others having less, and that paying attention to whether we're in such a situation is worthwhile.
But this is a different statement from "resources are finite". Some having more can lead to others having less even if there is plenty to go around (for example, consider investment banks and the economy tanking in 2008). I would say that skewed incentives, and our failure as a society to properly punish people who undermine basic institutions, are far more pressing problems than resource limits.
This seems a bizarre claim. If there is an end to time then even in flat space-time, if the region we can access starts out finite and grows at a finite rate, then when time ends it will have a finite maximum volume.
Which, according to the Einstein Field Equation, there can only be if the universe is closed, i.e., finite in size. I wasn't talking about what's conceivable logically; I was talking about what's actually possible, physically, given our best current theories.
In any event, "resources we can access before time T" unequivocally finite, and some needs must be met before time T for any T far enough out that it dramatically changes the resources we have available. Which means that in terms of considering distribution and making sure needs are met, there is a theoretical upper bound on the resources available, and zero-sum thinking would be appropriate once we have allocated enough to some individuals that there is literally not enough for others and have reached limits on improvements in efficiency. As I've said, I'm not at all convinced that we are near either.
the only important finite resources in the information age are smart people's time and energy. And even energy will be infinite given enough smart people's time.
You haven't made the case, just an assertion. It's certainly a case that can be made. I did not say that I believed us pushing any limits - I said I expected we were not. In the hypothetical where there is a zero-sum game, zero-sum thinking is appropriate - I meant no more than I said.
> whether that is through boarding schools and trust funds or the Drug War and a toothless minimum wage.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that the Drug War comes as much from conservatives in the middle class as from rich people (in a "think of the children" way, they want to keep their communities clean and healthy). (Not saying I agree with the Drug War, it's been a disaster so far).
Rich people in general don't have one unified opinion on the topic. Certain rich people are rich because of the Drug War, so they're strongly in favor of it.
I think you are taking these arguments too literally. The issue isn't inequality in itself, it is the degree to which inequality exists. Wealth inequality in the US is at all time highs. Part of this is due to globalization and technology, but a good part of it is also attributable to record low tax rates and business friendly government policy. Meanwhile, tuition at the public university I attended has increased by 400% in the past 10 years.
I don't think anyone cares about rich people driving fancy cars. They can spend their money how they like. Additionally, I don't think we will ever get rid of poverty entirely. The implicit agreement that we have reached as a society is that as long as the government ensures equal opportunity and social mobility, we will tolerate a certain degree of wealth inequality. Unfortunately, that inequality is so extreme that it is negatively impacting opportunity and mobility.
Your comment does exactly what I am describing. Your advocacy assumes all of the following are true without actually offering any evidence for them:
- "too much" wealth inequality is an a priori problem
- "extreme" inequality negatively impacts opportunity and mobility
- the increase in school tuition is somehow a symptom of this
You also said I'm taking things too literally, but is Elon Musk not an example of the "extreme" wealth inequality you are describing?
When people talk about extreme wealth inequality, they aren't talking about the existence of individual outliers from the mean, they are talking about the overall characteristics of the distribution function as shown in measures like the Gini coefficient.
A coherent community smaller than the whole universe of interest that demonstrates the same distributional features can be an example of extreme wealth inequality, an individual cannot -- this is important, because you can have extreme outliers with a relatively flat overall distribution, so its an error to try to say that being against extreme wealth inequality (in the sense that people are usually speaking when complaining about it) means being against any individual extremely wealthy person.
I expect the above was at least partly a joke - inequality is a relation between multiple parties, so not a property of one individual. Obviously, points of reference were implicit.
> Inequality is not the problem. Poverty is the problem.
Not necessarily. The article doesn't develop the argument, but hints at the fact that if the perception of unfairness (due to observed wealth inequality irrespective of the poverty rate) in a society becomes sufficiently widespread, there could be negative consequences. The most extreme example is probably a violent revolution of the less wealth against the extremely wealthy.
Arguable. Being hungry, homeless or sick is an actual problem that causes people great suffering. Driving a Honda while one's neighbor drives a Ferrari shouldn't cause anyone any suffering (if it does, it's self-inflicted). The former is poverty, the latter is inequality.
So are you arguing that having less luxury than others (but still luxury) causes people psychological pain, so society should give everyone everything they want? I don't think even the most hardcore communists ever asked for that.
> So are you arguing that having less luxury than others (but still luxury) causes people psychological pain, so society should give everyone everything they want?
No. You can tell that, because I didn't:
1) Assert the premise you propose, or
2) Assert the conclusion you propose.
> I don't think even the most hardcore communists ever asked for that.
Probably not. It's a ridiculous strawman you just invented.
To me this misses the point. The problem is not inequality, the problem is poverty. If everyone had enough that their basic needs were met and they were not struggling to survive, the fact that some people can afford Lamborghinis and some cannot would not be unjust in my opinion.
Without inequality, there are no Elon Musks. Bootstrapping SpaceX and Tesla required more than 1/6,000,000,000'th of the world's resources. Big results require investment, and it's not practical to crowdfund a multi-million dollar investment. So who should we entrust to make big bets? Doesn't it only make sense that the people who have already been the most successful in creating wealth should have the freedom to take that wealth to try out new ideas?
Inequality is not the problem. Poverty is the problem. Lack of access to education is the problem. We should strive to see that everyone can focus on improving their life and doing interesting things without struggling to survive. And if the most successful people take their spoils and build a 150-foot yacht, or take a ride into space, or invest in the next big company, more power to them.