
Why I Don’t Celebrate Income Inequality - bvanvugt
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2016/01/02/income-inequality/
======
WalterBright
> I have libertarian biases [...] But I also have a social conscious

Being a libertarian does not in any way imply having no social conscience.
Nothing whatsoever about libertarianism implies you should not be helping
those less fortunate than you - only that you shouldn't be forced to. For
example, Bill Gates' philanthropic activities are entirely congruent with
libertarian ideas (although I don't know Gates' political leanings).

~~~
edent
> Nothing whatsoever about libertarianism implies you should not be helping
> those less fortunate than you - only that you shouldn't be forced to.

Think of it as an ROI. The state invested heavily in you - schools, roads,
doctors, police, fire brigades, clean air, etc. etc.

We expect repayment from all members of society in order to continue providing
those benefits to them and those around them.

If, when you reach the age of maturity, you don't feel that you want to be
part of the social contract, you have a few choices available.

1\. Leave. Go off to Somalia or some other place where the state won't _force_
you to contribute taxes.

2\. Lobby your elected officials (or become elected) to explain why we should
stop supporting society. Remember, all those libraries were erected because
people in your society saw the value in collectivising to enhance public
education.

3\. Opt out of society as far as possible. Generate your own electricity and
grow your own crops. Just don't impinge on our rights to live in a safe(r)
environment.

But, by and large, the Libertarians I've encountered don't think like that.
They have the misguided idea that all their successes are down to personal
endeavour and that they shouldn't be responsible for contributing at all. They
see tax as theft of their hard work, not as a investor extracting their fair
share.

Of course, you're right that Libertarianism itself doesn't imply having no
social conscience - but many of its adherents simply don't.

~~~
WalterBright
Andrew Carnegie's philanthropy was a major force behind the library system in
America.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library)

> but many of its adherents simply don't.

To the extent that is true is irrelevant in complaining about libertarianism -
it's a variation of the ad hominem logical fallacy. It's also true that many
self-described libertarians have only a hazy idea of what it is.

~~~
sbarre
One could say that many self-described "libertarians" are really just "selfish
and greedy", but that doesn't sound as nice.

~~~
WalterBright
Selfish and greedy applies to many (if not most) of the adherents to each
political philosophy. It's hardly a coincidence they pick one they believe
would benefit themselves the most, and politicians sell them to voters that
way.

I.e. the canonical "chicken in every pot".

------
striking
Another opinion piece about social consciousness and privilege. Of course,
there's no suggested resolution.

Nobody celebrates income inequality in and of itself. I agree that we
shouldn't write puff pieces about founders that speak solely about their
determination when there are other factors at play. But even then, that's not
really a celebration of income inequality. (it's also a really small issue,
compared to income inequality itself)

It reads like a critique of capitalism, but with several acknowledgements as
to the fact that getting rid of capitalism wouldn't help anyway.

And I abhor the acknowledgement of privilege (which I understand is not a
popular opinion) because it reads like an acknowledgement of some kind of
insoluble Original Sin. Why do you feel the need to mention that you were
never physically abused? How does that make you privileged? It seems to be
completely unrelated to the rest of your piece.

Some people are dealt a really crappy hand by life. We don't live in a just
world. And I agree that we should give people an equal opportunity to succeed.
But without a resolution, this piece is probably no more meaningful than the
latest startup puff piece. It's fairly obvious that the poor have a
disadvantage. So how are we going to fix it?

~~~
narag
Haven't you read Paul Graham's essay yesterday? This seems a direct answer.
The abuse thing is, among other cited circumstances, what could make a person
not develop natural talents. In other words: some people are set in the bad
part of the deal since their childhood. So there's a lot in the inequality
problem that's not caused by relative merits.

~~~
striking
(Haven't read the essay.)

That's true. So what can we do to fix that? And is fixing this particular
cause (child abuse) the best possible investment to guarantee equal
opportunity/ undo the unfairness of economic inequality?

~~~
narag
Some days or weeks ago a report about inequality was released showing it's
growing. I guess there has been a lot of concerned opinions in the media. So
pg's essays (there were a couple of them) have tried to present a contrarian
opinion: inequality is not good in itself but it's kind of a natural state or
a good sign or something... I couldn't finish reading the essay. As much as I
like most of his writings, this one seems terribly wrong to me.

------
WalterBright
> But I have also seen close up situations where tech executives (although
> it’s not specific to tech) have laid off large amounts of people to try and
> move a company close to profitability in order to quickly sell the company
> reaping the executive team with a large payout – again in lower taxes –
> while junior employees are made unemployed.

This only works if you manage to trick the people buying the company that that
is not what you did. Buyers do "due diligence" when they buy a company,
meaning they carefully look over the books. A recent large layoff is a huge
red flag that the company's situation may be misrepresented.

------
WalterBright
An issue not mentioned is that capital gains taxes apply to illusory "gains"
resulting from inflation.

~~~
msandford
Holy cow man, I never even realized! But that's definitely a real thing. I
know the tax code will never get amended this way, but it seems like you
should only have to pay capital gains on profits in real terms, not notional.
It'd really just push the fight of "what is the real inflation rate" into
something that has substantial reasons every year for _everyone_ to want to
get right, not just those with a lot of capital. And it'd give the government
even more incentive to understate it.

------
ArkyBeagle
It's much ( and I mean very much ) more difficult to actually prove that money
corrupts the political process in any significant way. And it may be even
_more_ difficult to show that this is expressed as (or causes then) an
increase in inequality.

I could easily be quite wrong, but most articles I read of income inequality
are simply descriptions of (perceived) social ills caused by systems which
follow a Pareto distribution.

Pareto distributions have exactly one parameter - the "alpha". US income is
distributed by two Pareto distributions added together - a bimodal Pareto
distribution. One has a sort of offset such that its median is around $100K.

If inequality is increasing, it is because the distribution representing the
higher income scale is growing - its alpha is increasing.

Nothing else need change except that, to change inequality.

I understand "the map is not the territory" but I write this just as a
description of the process in a shorthand form, not to imbue the distributions
with powers of anything more than description. The underlying process need be
no more than increasing numbers of people in a "higher energy state" of the
economy. Those in the lower energy state could probably not even "feel" this
except through reports, and possibly changes in the prices of certain things.

------
alain94040
Mark is a great straight-talker. He says very simply and clearly some great
truths.

------
vadym909
I believe this is how a majority of tech people feel and Mark just said it
very succinctly. Surprised that PG who I respect as a great writer opted to go
'extremist' with his opinion instead of highlighting the nuance.

------
jkot
Socialism and communism has even greater income inequality than capitalism.

~~~
collyw
Scandinavia being proof of that?

In fact looking at this, they all seem pretty capitalist in nature:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/most-unequal-countries-in-
the...](http://www.businessinsider.com/most-unequal-countries-in-the-
world-2011-10?op=1)

~~~
jkot
Scandinavia is a democracy, not socialism

~~~
ionised
Democracy can be socialist in nature and theirs qualifies.

