Hacker News

points by arjie 1 day ago | 0 comments

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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.

[–] kaon_2 16 hours ago

Yes but now you forget to take GDP per Capita into account. It is not fair to compare Vietnam or South Africa to the US. If you want to compare the US, you should do so with the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland or Norway. Happiness ratings are certainly higher in all of them.

[–] Armic 1 day ago

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.

[–] rf15 1 day ago

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.

[–] potatototoo99 1 day ago

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.

[–] quelsolaar 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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.

[–] modo_mario 1 day ago

>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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

Just to be sure. Are you being sarcastic?

[–] eastbound 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

>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 coherent 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".

[–] senordevnyc 1 day ago

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.

Bill Gates has had a major role in more than 120 million extremely poor children not dying of horrible diseases in some of the most destitute places on earth.

But he bundled a browser with his OS thirty years ago, so fuck all that, right?

[–] modo_mario 1 day ago

Then I guess billionaires really should pay less taxes unlike us plebs since they're so much better at picking out and solving the wrongs of the world. It is good that Microsoft was bribing some african governments because clearly they could use the money so much better saving them from themselves by redirecting that income to the global fund (and tax credits) Perhaps we should incentivise his veiled land purchases for the common good since on thing obviously absolves of another.

BTW just since you use it for the rethoric. Can I also point out how that major role in 120 million children (by their own estimation and 40mil since 2000 on some other own estimation) includes the work of everyone else donating to, remotely involved with or working in line with his organisation. You know including my tax money going to the the vaccination drives of Gavi, the WHO, UNICEF, etc It seems to miss the bit where bill himself attributed the vast majority of such global health and development funding to donor nations.

You think we could get a tax credit for our major role in that?

[–] senordevnyc 1 day ago

Where did I suggest that he should pay less taxes? I just think the sneering at him because of MS’s business practices decades ago is pathetic.

[–] modo_mario 19 hours ago

>Where did I suggest that he should pay less taxes?

You went on about his saintly works disregarding that for those billionaires it's quite relevant that they're structured as tax deductions and quite in tune with their wealth gain contrary to stated aims.

>I just think the sneering at him because of MS’s business practices decades ago is pathetic.

Oh the business practices are consistent and present. People just pay less attention or get a more clear view looking back. That said he has a 0.9% to 1.4% stake now.

What i consider pathetic is attributing some grand benevolence to his veiled purchase of farmland trough loads of shell companies. Are we also to take it Alex Karp just really really cares about forest preservation? You know it's somewhere in the sidelines of Cladonia Skog AB's aims.

[–] t-3 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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.

[–] altcognito 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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

[–] podgorniy 1 day ago

> 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?

[–] LtWorf 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

>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.

[–] ungovernableCat 1 day ago

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.

[–] anticorporate 1 day ago

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.

[–] dennis_jeeves2 16 hours ago

>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.

So you automatically assume that: Too much wealth = ill gotten gains?

[–] Armic 1 day ago

What counts as morally legitimate?

[–] anticorporate 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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.

[–] LtWorf 1 day ago

> They have a problem with the rich

Would you be ok to live in a democracy where your vote goes into the garbage bin instead of the voting box? Because that's where it goes if you aren't rich.