Hacker News

points by azan_ 1 day ago | 0 comments

Would you rather have richer (in real terms) society (including richer lowest decile) with larger wealth inequality or poorer society with smaller inequalities? You might argue that these are not really the only two options and that's fair, but let's assume they are. Surprisingly many people would still opt for second option. Musk was trillionaire, now he no longer is (so inequality decreased) but did it really change anything that we no longer have any trillionaire?

[–] mahogany 1 day ago

As an example, what if your richer society was only 1% richer in the lowest decile but had massively more inequality compared to the poorer society, leading to a society where the rich controlled everything including land, and where the lowest decile had virtually a nonexistent chance to rise to a higher class? I’d take the poorer society if I’m not rich. Maybe I’d at least have a shot at property ownership.

It is not hard to think of how quickly nuance enters this picture. Much of the discussion here is about what exactly the inequality curve should look like. Shaving it down a bit is not the same as saying we should all be equal or whatever.

[–] therealdrag0 1 day ago

That’s not the prompt. He’s not talking about average wealth skewed by mega rich, but middle and lower deciles also being richer is what a richer society means.

[–] mahogany 19 hours ago

I’m not talking about average wealth. I’m talking about every decile being richer in absolute terms.

Wealth by decile in poor society

100, 101, …, 109

Wealth by decile in rich society

101, 102, …, 1000000000000

This is what I was describing. Maybe I’m confused. What am I missing from the prompt?

[–] therealdrag0 14 hours ago

Good point. Thanks for clarifying.

[–] azan_ 1 day ago

Exactly, thanks!

[–] tikimcfee 1 day ago

You don't get it.

It's not "poorer society with fewer inequalities." That's what they always say. It's never that. A society is not "richer" because the amount of financially backed power is one concentrated set of hands.

That's it. That's the tweet.

[–] azan_ 1 day ago

> You don't get it. [...] A society is not "richer" because the amount of financially backed power is one concentrated set of hands.

No, you don't get it. Read again my post - I've explicately said that EVERY decile is richer.

[–] tikimcfee 1 day ago

I'll assume I'm missing something then.

> Would you rather have richer (in real terms) society (including richer lowest decile) with larger wealth inequality or poorer society with smaller inequalities?

My point is that those are not the only options. You don't make some more people richer such that there's more inequality. That doesn't make sense. You raise everyone up simultaneously by distributing in a rational measured way. I think maybe you're saying "bigger middle class"? If so, then no, I'd rather say, "no classes, what's the point. We know how to distribute and logistically solve these problems."

[–] azan_ 1 day ago

> You raise everyone up simultaneously by distributing in a rational measured way.

No, see, that doesn't make sense. If you "distribute in a rational measured way" you have central planning. And central planning indeed reduces inequality but also makes everyone much poorer. Inequalities are natural consequences of free market and meritocracy. Free market and meritocracy is what's best for economic growth. And with economic growth EVERY decile gets richer.

[–] IAmBroom 1 day ago

Your hypothetical "but if unicorns were real, would they win the Derby?" is a distraction.

[–] azan_ 1 day ago

It’s not though because even though inequality is increasing, everyone is getting richer including bottom decile.