I’m not a one-percenter and my life is great. I don’t even understand why anyone cares about equality. The point is a rising standard of life. Equality isn’t anywhere near my top objectives. Pareto-optimal trades are good. Adding an implicit objective to minimize abs(w_i - w_j) makes many win-win things impossible.

The coordination win that came from “thou shalt not covet” is substantial and we forget it at our own peril.

▲

kaon_2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You should care about equality because inequality tends to make places worse for everybody. Yes that includes those rich people. You can't go to the beach because it's all built full with private resorts. Those rich people can't walk the street and have to live in walled villa's for fear of crime. They also can't easily get married to who they want because they have to hold their assets. Vietnam is poorer than South Africa per capita, but significantly safer and more pleasurable to live. Would you rather be top 10% in South Africa or Vietnam?

What is interesting is that this was true centuries ago too. Life as a noble in the middle ages was stressful as hell and you couldn't even decide on your own lovelife. Read Seneca and the first thing he writes is that Augustus (whom he knew personally) was constantly complaining about his busy life and dreaming of a retirement that never arrived.

	▲	arjie an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Rank order of income inequality (and coincidentally wealth inequality): South Africa > US > Vietnam Rank order of preference to be top 10% in for me: US > Vietnam > South Africa So your method does not disabuse me of my belief. It’s quite clear that equality has not made Vietnam more desirable than the US. In fact, there are some 400k foreign born in Vietnam (<1%) vs the US having 15% foreign born (a stark enough difference made worse by forcing foreign-born to be from non-neighbors). So I must reasonably conclude that my rank order is likely shared by others and that others too are not, in fact, lured by equality. There is an old immortal tweet: cars have windows and go; houses have windows and don’t go; so it’s not the windows that make things go. If inequality were as critical we’d expect a perfect rank ordering of distant migrant population attempts matching it. The numbers are so vastly different that one cannot conclude equality is of great importance to most.
	▲	Armic an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Inequality by itself doesn't cause bad safety. the following countries have a higher share of wealth controlled by the top 10% than vietnam and also a lower homicide rate: singapore, uae, switzerland, sweden, qatar. that's just off a very quick search i'm sure there are more. Certainly in none of those countries are people hunkering down in private fortified castles for fear of stepping out in public.

▲

modo_mario 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>The point is a rising standard of life.

You or the farmer you buy food from competes for farmland with Bil Gates. You or the one providing your house builder with wood competes for lumber forest with Alex Karp.

The list goes on and on.

It appears trough technological innovation the standards of life rise in many ways but trough innequality it can affect the standards/ affordability of our basic needs.

▲

arjie an hour ago | parent | next [-]

EMA food prices in number of hours of work required to sustain oneself and they have fallen for half a century. Bill Gates has not only been alive for the entirety of that period but he has been leading Microsoft for the majority of it. If this is how the list is (and I’m simply going to judge it by its first element) then it seems to provide stronger evidence against equality being a prime goal, considering wealth equality has dropped during that period.

	▲	modo_mario 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes and yields have gone up, etc. I'm not going to point at bill gates buying and leasing out loads farmland and attribute to it new corn strains, better pesticides and higher feed conversion chicken breeds. You may as well be calling for soviet style state controll the way consolidation, top down ownership is and competition mechanics are dismissed or praised depending on the standpoint.

▲

dukeyukey an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If Bill Gates offers megamoney for farmland, and Alex Karp offers megamoney for lumber, then it encourages the creation of more farmland and lumber.

	▲	haizhung an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You got it backwards. Bill Gates and Alex Karp don’t pay megamoney for lumber or farm land. They consume a bit more than the average person, but not by the same %age as they are richer. But everyone else can’t afford basic necessities or furniture anymore. And so being a farmer or a woodworker or whatever becomes a less attractive job, less people will do it, and you will have a harder time finding someone fixing your plumbing. Or pay a premium. Instead, the ultra-wealthy are demanding extreme luxury, and so a would-be farmer is now a hotel page boy carrying around some rich dudes’ luggage, hoping for a tip.
	▲	modo_mario 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Just to be sure. Are you being sarcastic?

▲

eastbound an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Bill Gates buys huge amounts of land precisely for ecology: Beef meat causes global warming in a disproportionate way compared to chicken or even disproportionate per euros or per gram of protein compared to lentils. All ecologists agree that beef/red meat should disappear from our plates if we want to overcrowd the Earth with more equal people, and along with erradicating a hugely deathly disease that is malaria during his lifetime, Bill Gates will also have accomplished that dream too.

I find a lot of consistency of his audience in hating him for the very reason that he implements his audience's wishes. To this audience, there is no redeeming oneself.

	▲	modo_mario 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>Bill Gates buys huge amounts of land precisely for ecology Yes and he was gonna give a vast share of his wealth away for the good of the many over 5 years and then tripled it. woops. Let us not pretend farmland has not been a good investment in those parts. Let us be honest. Almost every such good thing he does is a tax credit which polishes his image and legacy. He was a pretty cutroath businessman and there's no reason for me to now paint him with some saintly image. >Beef meat causes global warming in a disproportionate way compared to chicken or even disproportionate per euros or per gram of protein compared to lentils. I can get behind the idea that beef has a bigger carbon footprint due to the fossil fuel fertilisers used to grow their feed as compared to the conversion ratio freaks that modern meat chicken breeds are. The fact that the methane from their farts is somehow the long term issue I however reject. And I'd like to point out that without much of both that excrement and fossil fuel based fertiliser we have a famine on our hands so 'overcrowd the Earth with more equal people' doesn't seem like such a fine goal. >I find a lot of consistency of his audience in hating him for the very reason that he implements his audience's wishes. To this audience, there is no redeeming oneself Explain to me why do you presume I am "his audience".

▲

rf15 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is about wealth inequality, i.e. how far the scale is leaning. This has, as the website explains, some funny effects: looking from the top, you are effectively starving the people that pay you and your descendands. That might work for a few years, but if everyone's hungry it's gonna be heads on pikes no matter how many bunkers you build and how much you pay for personal protection.

▲

t-3 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wealth imbalances are bad largely because many assets have upper limits on available quantity, ie. the amount of land in most countries is relatively stable. If those assets are hoarded by a relatively small number of people, it's much harder for less wealthy people to become more wealthy. Our entire socioeconomic system is based on the premise that one can work hard and change their lot, so making sure that's actually possible is important for societal stability even if you don't have any religous/moral/ethical qualms about hoarding wealth.

	▲	arjie 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		First the premise of our socioeconomic system. I disagree entirely. Our system is premised on the thesis that if you are useful to others, they are willing to reward you for the utility you bring them; and that it is advantageous for us collectively to preserve a rule of law whereby people might interact safely in this way. One might work hard and fail or one might work lightly and succeed. Bulletball guy certainly worked a lot harder than many product managers I know. Now the question of assets of limited supply. That’s sound. But that’s a distribution of assets of limited supply problem. It is entirely possible to have great wealth inequality with low land ownership concentration - in the US 67% of people live in owner-occupied housing. Scotland has much higher land ownership concentration - but lower wealth inequality. So fixed supply asset concentration can exist without wealth inequality - which, to be clear, is the form of inequality I was talking about considering the original post is about it.

▲

quelsolaar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are trying to buy some place to live, it doesn't just matter how much money you have, it also matters if there are lots of people many times wealthier than you bidding for the same realestate.

More money doesn't create more things to buy or more people making things, its just means more money competing for the same things to buy. Other people having more does diminish your share, of the cake. Yes, we can make the cake larger, but the best way to do that is for more people to get more opportunity to fulfil their potential, by getting a reasonable share to do so.

▲

estearum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Three good reasons to care about inequality itself:

1. Outsized political influence (in theory can be mitigated by laws controlling corporate spending, but obviously those laws themselves are subject to manipulation by the rich and powerful)

2. Distortion in who the economy serves. The beauty of capitalism is that it's a problem-detection and problem-solving system. If a narrow set of people have a huge portion of money, the economy becomes unduly optimized toward satisfying their wants and needs.

3. Despite best efforts, we ultimately must share a lot of the same commons. Even being a billionaire in NYC or San Francisco can't really give you a walk to work or your child's school that feels as safe as it does in a more equal society that takes better care of its unwell and poor.

▲

dennis_jeeves2 an hour ago | parent [-]

All 3 points can be blamed on primarily on your govt, not on someone being rich. Even when the rich influence the govt, it's the govt to blame. Aren't they supposed to protect you? Govt, for the people, by the people etc...

	▲	estearum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The conversation about "why should I care about this" is a conversation about "should anything be done about this." The mechanism by which one would "do anything" about this is called government. So sure. Thank you for sharing your insight.

▲

potatototoo99 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People care about equality because the absence of it is inequality, and that leads to political control. Even if you live a good life today, it is not guaranteed. Democracy, human rights, all can be eroded if everyone ignores politics and the economy.

▲

podgorniy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> my life is great. I don’t even understand why anyone cares about equality

Who do you want to educate from that position? You or others?

▲

altcognito 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re probably not one paycheck away from homelessness, and probably have the protection of the legal system provided you don’t upset the wrong people.

But you’re probably one health scare away from it, you just don’t realize it.

▲

wedoctor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you care about concentration of power in a single person or single family? What happens when you have conflict with someone who has orders of magnitude more purchasing power than you? Do you think it's good or bad for the social order or democracy if one individual is able to exert more power than an entire city or state just based on inherited wealth?

▲

tclancy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Volunteer at a soup kitchen or a food bank near you.

▲

LtWorf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Quality of life is going down my friend.

Retirement age keeps increasing, public healthcare keep getting defunded. My tax money is getting used to enrich war mongers and my cost of life keeps increasing as a result of all of that.

Also my constitutional rights are ignored daily.

You understand why I might not be feeling very happy that YOU are doing great?

▲

dennis_jeeves2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I don’t even understand why anyone cares about equality.

Because most people are (IMO wrongfully) jealous of the rich. They have a problem with the rich even if it's legitimately earned wealth.

▲

anticorporate an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure why people push this false narrative around jealousy. Well, I could speculate, but that likely wouldn't be helpful.

I have no desire to be rich, certainly not as rich as the far right 1% column. I find that level of wealth nauseating and embarrassing. But regardless, "legitimately earned wealth" is doing a lot of work in that last sentence. Perhaps (doubtful) it's possible to earn that much while being legally legitimate, although that speaks more to how fucked up our system is than anything else, but certainly not possible to do so in a morally legitimate way.

▲

Armic an hour ago | parent [-]

What counts as morally legitimate?

▲

anticorporate 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's for each person to decide on their own.

I'd much rather everyone think deeply about this question than merely hope we all come to the same conclusion.

	▲	Armic 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You said it's "certainly not possible to do so" so I'm curious as to what counts by your view. The way you said it implies that other people must necessarily reach a conclusion that largely agrees with you.

▲

ungovernableCat an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

All I want is that a rich person can't strongly direct the government to do things like idk start wars because they happen to own an intelligence/arms manufacturing company or control how food is regulated so their pocketbook grows bigger at the expense of the health of the country and the taxpayer.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

gadders an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah. Wealth Inequality is a trojan horse for socialism.

The point should be to raise the floor, not put in place a ceiling.

▲

reticulates an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They’re inextricably linked. The ceiling is being raised by people at the top pillaging from people at the bottom. Sure, in a vacuum, raising the floor without regard for the ceiling might work but in the real world it does not. Capitalists choose to believe that the floor today is better than the floor 20 years ago because even poor people have iPhones but when you look at the actual life people lead, it is getting worse.

If anything, “raising the floor” is the Trojan horse.

	▲	gadders 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Your perspective though depends on thinking the economy/money/whatever is a zero sum game, and if a person's wealth goes up, they must have taken it from somewhere else. In general, wealth is generated by growing the economy. This isn't to say I don't think some companies/individuals/shareholders have absolutely taken the piss compared to wage earners.

▲

dennis_jeeves2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Nice way to put it.