Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Mark Zuckerberg would in fact need to have 8 billion times better healthcare than me for your argument to matter

I don't know anyone who really thinks that absolute inequality is the problem. people need a high floor - there is no inherent reason to want to lower the ceiling of wealth/benefits. but since there's no such thing as free lunch, we need to calculate by how much each % of ceiling that is lowered raises the floor. If we can reduce the ceiling by 10% and raise the floor by 100%, then that's worthwhile.

The hard part is calculating the benefits. There are non-linear effects when you try to predict the benefits of having a healthy and educated population, although the benefit should be enormous.

On the other hand it is very easy to calculate the downside of people not being wage-slaves: not needing to accept bottom wages, having time to understand what's actually going on in the world, organizing for or against particular causes, etc..



I'm saying that we need to be careful that our obsession to obstruct the rich doesn't leave the masses worse off.

> If we can reduce the ceiling by 10% and raise the floor by 100%, then that's worthwhile.

I'm afraid that lowering the ceiling by 10% might lower the floor by 10%, too.


> the absolute living standards of all members of society, including the least well off, have never been better

that is completely wrong. purchasing power is at an all time low in real dollar terms

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R

> we need to be careful that our obsession to obstruct the rich doesn't leave the masses worse off

we need to be careful that the obsession with being mega rich doesn't leave the masses worse off

you're not proposing anything. you don't even seem to think there's a problem. let me guess, the best thing to do is just keep things the way they are? what are you talking about?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: