Politics Thread

[XU 87]

The poor do

So you're saying given the choice of 1) the poor can be 5% better off if the rich are 0% better off or 2) the poor can be 15% better off but the rich will be 25% better off, the poor will choose option 1. Nicolas Maduro loves that logic.

[GoMuskies]

Are those the only options? What about having the poor improve at a faster rate than the rich so that the wealth gap gets smaller and returns to a level more like much of our experience in the US over the last 100 years?

That's okay with me, too. I think it would be great. But a fixation with a "wealth gap" is strange to me. So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

[Xville]

Are those the only options? What about having the poor improve at a faster rate than the rich so that the wealth gap gets smaller and returns to a level more like much of our experience in the US over the last 100 years?

That's cool but in reality I think if we actually try to fix the problem rather than putting a bandaid on it, it's going to take a little while. There needs to be a severe cultural change in the "poor" communities and that may take a generation or two. Just redistributing money is not the answer.

[Caf]

So do you think the poor would rather (a) their lot improve but at a slower rate than the rich, or (b) their lot stay steady but the rich become less well off?

I'm a big believer in Piketty's view of inequality. It's all about the proportion. The poor don't necessarily want the rich to fall, they just want the growth of wealth/capital to be proportional to the growth of economic output or income from labor. So it's not about identical income like Venezuela, it's about proportional income growth.

[Caf]

That's okay with me, too. I think it would be great. But a fixation with a "wealth gap" is strange to me. So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

I honestly don't look at the gap as a goal to be achieved, just more of an indicator. If it's really high there's an indication that the system is not equitable and it will fracture as discontent grows.

[GoMuskies]

And I think as long as poor people can eat, get medical care, have shelter, and afford iPhones and Netflix, we're all going to be just fine. Access to Season 2 of Ozark really is a universal human right these days.

[X-man]

That's okay with me, too. I think it would be great. But a fixation with a "wealth gap" is strange to me. So long as I am better off, why do I give a fuck if someone else is getting better off at a faster rate? Envy is ugly.

There is a whole lot of research that demonstrates that the wealth gap does in fact matter to all kinds of people. in fact even among the wealthier among us, evidence suggests that we are less satisfied with our situation when there are others doing better (and living better) than we do. See Robert Frank's work at Cornell, for example: Link to his work: https://www.johnson.cornell.edu/peop...rhf3_vitae.pdf.

[GoMuskies]

Yes, I get that people are generally irrational and stupid. I'd prefer not to have irrational, stupid policy to cater to that.

[Caf]

So you're saying given the choice of 1) the poor can be 5% better off if the rich are 0% better off or 2) the poor can be 15% better off but the rich will be 25% better off, the poor will choose option 1. Nicolas Maduro loves that logic.

Of course he does. It's exactly how people like him come to power and it's exactly the danger of inequality I'm talking about.

[Caf]

Yes, I get that people are generally irrational and stupid. I'd prefer not to have irrational, stupid policy to cater to that.

Haha I think we're all saying the same things differently. The inequality gap matters as much as the population says it does.