• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

sailordeac said:
Yeah, I didn't think that bird watching was the best application, but OK. By the way birdman, is it true?
Click to expand...

I have not idea how accurate the 80:20 ratio is, but it doesn't surprise me that observation rate is correlated with overall abundance. The Pareto Principle is not describing any sort of rule about nature or society, it is describing a pattern that is derived from some other process. So wrt to bird watching observation rates are a function of abundance of the bird, proximity to human populations, and bird behaviors. Same holds true for all the other contexts listed, Pareto was simply describing patterns that tend to happen.
 
Deacon923 said:
There are a wide range of policy responses that could be leveled at improving the lives of the working poor, but first some significant part of the population of this country would have to agree that it's even a problem. Seems like most Americans who are not poor either don't realize or won't admit that millions of their fellow Americans have to cobble together several crappy part time jobs without benefits to make ends meet, and even then need government assistance to eke above the poverty line.
Click to expand...

But they have cell phones and refrigerators so they are just faking it to be lazy and shiftless
 
birdman said:
I have not idea how accurate the 80:20 ratio is, but it doesn't surprise me that observation rate is correlated with overall abundance. The Pareto Principle is not describing any sort of rule about nature or society, it is describing a pattern that is derived from some other process. So wrt to bird watching observation rates are a function of abundance of the bird, proximity to human populations, and bird behaviors. Same holds true for all the other contexts listed, Pareto was simply describing patterns that tend to happen.
Click to expand...

What do you think is the difference between a "rule" and "patterns that tend to happen"?
 
sailordeac said:
What do you think is the difference between a "rule" and "patterns that tend to happen"?
Click to expand...

Admittedly something was left out of my post. Processes lead to patterns in data. In human constructed systems, like economies or religions or governments, the underlying processes that generate the patterns can be changed. In my view, a rule is something that always holds true and is unchangeable. In natural systems, the processes are generally unchangeable, so the descriptions of patterns in the data could be considered rules. Like Newton's laws of motion describe the unchanging (and unchangeable) way in which objects move and interact. List of examples in the linked Pareto Principle article (or blog or whatever it was) are from changeable human systems, so it's just a description of a prevalent pattern that emerges from human behavior and human constructed systems, not a description of natural rules that underpin the universe.
 
the trend or pattern seems pretty persistent

nor is there much evidence that trying to change it will necessarily produce better results, especially if your original diagnosis of the causes of the problem is flawed
 
sailordeac said:
the trend or pattern seems pretty persistent

nor is there much evidence that trying to change it will necessarily produce better results, especially if your original diagnosis of the causes of the problem is flawed
Click to expand...

Is you diagnosis that income inequality is an inherent property of any economic system? Are you suggesting that no matter what we do the Pareto ratio will emerge on wealth distribution?
 
I only read the digest of it in the NYT morning email, but the Amazon warehouse article seems to be worth a read

the high turnover rate of employees being a feature and not a bug was noteworthy to me
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
I only read the digest of it in the NYT morning email, but the Amazon warehouse article seems to be worth a read

the high turnover rate of employees being a feature and not a bug was noteworthy to me
Click to expand...

Yeah, the fact that it came directly from Bezos as a strategy to limit upward mobility and prevent workers from getting any power is really fucking gross.
 
I thought this was a good essay about the mindset of very wealthy people and how they manage their fortunes. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/abigail-disney-rich-protect-dynastic-wealth-propublica-tax/619212/ Written by Abigail Disney (yes, that Disney).

When you come into money as I did—young, scared, and not very savvy about the world—you are taught certain precepts as though they are gospel: Never spend the “corpus” (also known as the capital) you were left. Steward your assets to leave even more to your children, and then teach them to do the same. And finally, use every tool at your disposal within the law, especially through estate planning, to keep as much of that money as possible out of the hands of government bureaucrats who will only misuse it.

If you are raised in a deeply conservative family like my own, you are taught some extra bits of doctrine: Philanthropy is good, but too much of it is unseemly and performative. Marry people “of your own class” to save yourself from the complexity and conflict that comes with a broad gulf in income, assets, and, therefore, power. And, as one of my uncles said to me during the Reagan administration, it’s best to leave the important decision making to people who are “successful,” rather than in the pitiable hands of those who aren't.
Click to expand...

If your comfort requires that society be structured so that a decent percentage of your fellow citizens live in a constant state of terror about whether they’ll get health care in an emergency, or whether they can keep a roof over their family’s heads, or whether they will simply have enough to eat, perhaps the problem does not rest with those people, but with you and what you think of as necessary, proper, and acceptable.
Click to expand...
 
Good read. I’m convinced that one of the biggest problems in our society is that so much intergenerational wealth is hoarded by people who didn’t earn it in the first place. The relationship between hard work, skill, and wealth gets weaker and weaker.
 
PhDeac said:
Good read. I’m convinced that one of the biggest problems in our society is that so much intergenerational wealth is hoarded by people who didn’t earn it in the first place. The relationship between hard work, skill, and wealth gets weaker and weaker.
Click to expand...

https://www.cato.org/commentary/real-1-percent

Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn’t inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance.

Roughly a third were entrepreneurs or managers of nonfinancial businesses. Nearly 16 percent were doctors or other medical professionals.

Lawyers made up slightly more than 8 percent, and engineers, scientists and computer professionals another 6.6 percent.

Sports and entertainment figures — the folks flying in on their private jets to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street — composed almost 2 percent.

By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money. NYU sociologist Dalton Conley says that “higher‐​income folks work more hours than lower‐​wage earners do.”
 
PhDeac said:
Good read. I’m convinced that one of the biggest problems in our society is that so much intergenerational wealth is hoarded by people who didn’t earn it in the first place. The relationship between hard work, skill, and wealth gets weaker and weaker.
Click to expand...

Wait... I thought the Tunnels scholars established that "hard work" is racist and sexist on the CRT thread??

PhDeac said:
On the surface, this says you can't say hard work is racist or sexist. In practice, this makes it illegal to critique the Protestant work ethic or how societal definitions of "hard work" are racialized and gendered.
Click to expand...

You guys really need to work on the talking points.
 
That link from 2011 is outdated when we talk about rising inequality. Either way, at least 20% of millionaires who didn’t work for it is a lot. And there’s no analysis in that opinion column showing what the definition of “rich” is.

I’m not even talking about run of the mill people worth $1 or $2 million anyway. I’m talking the Uber wealthy with super fuck you wealth who have their foot on the scale of this country.

But nice attempt at a dodge. I’m upset about A and you’re like “well FGH aren’t that bad so your argument is bad.”
 
20 percent of millionaires being so by reason of inherited wealth is still a lot.

I think Ms. Disney's points about "wealth addiction" and the common attitude that a dollar taxed is a dollar wasted are valid for most wealthy people no matter how they came by their money. Certainly was true for almost all the wealthy people I dealt with when I practiced law.

The Cato article (which notably is quite old, it's from 2011 and so is probably using numbers from 2009 or so) states that 16% of the top 1% of earners in this country are doctors. Top execs of "nonprofit" hospitals regularly receive compensation in the high six figures to several million dollars annually. Meanwhile, millions of Americans have no meaningful access to healthcare, and many doctors refuse to treat Medicaid patients because they say Medicaid doesn't pay enough. I'd say that's a good example of troubling income inequality. I'm sure Cato doesn't see it that way, because those doctors "worked hard" for their money... but somehow working 2 or 3 so-called "essential" jobs with no benefits is not hard enough "work" to allow an American to afford basic healthcare.
 
two things can be true:

- many (most, even) people of a certain wealth have worked hard

- the system as exists is incredibly unequal and should be different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top