
Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World [video] - espeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
======
40acres
This is not just a problem among "elites", every class in society down to the
bottom rung shows the shame characteristics of the elite that Giridharadas
lays out.

The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal
leaning cities. These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have
generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the
wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. Take a look at
your local school board meeting or a city council session where some new
development is on the docket.

~~~
mshenfield
> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally
> progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to
> defend their interests

A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay
increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the
suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines
and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased
density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has
already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire
city by 2 years. [0]

[0] [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-
ann...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-anne-group-
again-challenges-plan-to-ease-restrictions-on-backyard-cottages-in-seattle/)

~~~
isoskeles
I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the
character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having
more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't
understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't
count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper
rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people
talk about NIMBY.

As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of
life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have
to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local
stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and
that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less
tolerable to most people.)

~~~
britch
You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods.
But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people
in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at.

I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing
and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked
to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these
problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight
against it.

"I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same
neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."

~~~
illegalsmile
Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My
initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.

~~~
Silfen
Increasing the supply of housing should lower prices, yes. In nearly every
neighborhood, single family, detached homes are the most expensive form of
housing.

There is an effect where improving the consumption benefits of the city may
draw new migration from other parts of the country, but it is generally
accepted that this effect is much smaller than the effect of increased
competition between landlords and developers.

If you think that housing somehow operates differently from a normal market -
increasing supply will not change the price - it is incumbent on you to
explain why you think this might be true.

~~~
kspaans
Possibly what the grandparent was thinking of is land values. If a
neighbourhood is rezoned to allow more density, one would be able to build a
duplex or low-rise condo/apartment building where there used to be a single
family home. This makes the underlying land more valuable, while probably also
making the per-square-foot cost of housing go down. I also suspect as more
SFHs get turned into more dense housing, the scarcity of SFHs would make their
value jump up as well. One thing that could counteract this would be if
property value assessments rose enough such that it became very expensive to
own a SFH on land zoned for density, which would encourage most owners to turn
them into more dense housing. Though possible one house in a 'hood of low-rise
buildings would be less desirable and would only be sold as a teardown. Either
way I figure more density would overall be a windfall for landowners (read:
homeowners) even as housing prices drop.

------
mistersquid
Giridharadas talk is explosive in terms of its ideas. From what I can tell,
he's not pulling any punches even though he's been invited to speak on a
Google campus (Boston).

At 29:03 Giridharadas challenges his audience to demand that Google (and other
Silicon Valley companies) generate an annual political disclosure to its
employees, the very people in his audience. [0]

As a side note, Giridharadas is very clear and measured in his articulation,
and I found that speeding the video to 1.5 times normal rate to be a good
delivery speed (YMMV).

What Giridharadas says prior to the timecode I referenced is also provocative
and politically risky. I can't yet comment on his entire talk, but the quality
of the first half the video is superb.

[0] [https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=1743](https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=1743)

~~~
pjc50
> generate an annual political disclosure to its employees

Even disclosing to their employees who they're giving money to as campaign
contributions would be a start. At the moment they have to find this out from
@pinboard:
[https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256](https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256)

It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but
donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in
terms of making the world worse for trans people.

~~~
marknutter
They donate to Democratic candidates at roughly the same rate. Does that
counterbalance the harm done to trans people?

~~~
pjc50
That raises more questions than it answers; are they donating to both sides of
the same race, or just candidates in different locations? For what purpose? Is
this kind of "guilt offset" valid, can you just buy off harm while continuing
to do it?

~~~
dvtrn
Simpler possibility: they're donating to whatever candidate supports a piece
of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise regardless of party
affiliation because that's how rent seeking and regulatory capture works?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Right - they're donating to help _Google_ , not to help or harm trans people.
They're a business, not an activist non-profit.

But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports
a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more
like "donating _so that_ the candidate will support legislation (not just one
piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more
proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google _before_
they're deciding which legislation to support.

~~~
dvtrn
_That is, I think it 's more proactive than reactive._

I'm definitely willing to concede that in many cases it's a little bit of
column A, and a little bit of column B. Probably.

------
edraferi
Ezra Kline interviewed Anand Giridharadas for the Ezra Kline Show podcast back
in September[0]. Very interesting.

Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for
ways to help the global impoverished, but fails to make an impact because they
never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.

[0] [https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17821522/anand-giridharadas-
win...](https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17821522/anand-giridharadas-winner-take-
all-ezra-klein-podcast)

~~~
JacobJans
Progress is real.

[https://www.gatesnotes.com/2017-Annual-
Letter?WT.mc_id=02_14...](https://www.gatesnotes.com/2017-Annual-
Letter?WT.mc_id=02_14_2017_02_AL2017GFO_GF-GFO_&WT.tsrc=GFGFO)

> the number of childhood deaths per year has been cut in half since 1990.

> Extreme poverty has been cut in half over the last 25 years.

> In 1988, when the global campaign was launched to end polio, there were
> 350,000 new cases each year.

> Last year, there were 37.

~~~
CPLX
Meanwhile suicides and death by opiates have skyrocketed across the actual
country Gates lives in, exacerbated by the incredible increase in inequality
that Gates actively helped create.

Things don’t happen in a vacuum. Some things are much better, some are much
worse.

But Gates doesn’t have stats on the concentration of ownership of global
resources in that post because it’s not a KPI for him.

~~~
mkirklions
Starvation and disease is not chosen.

Suicides and opiates are. (and if you are a maslow hierarchy fan, you will
notice that life has gotten extremely good for these problems to exist)

Things are much much better, equating these is irresponsible.

EDIT: Lets not overthink the very obvious intention and meaning behind my
comment.

~~~
Retric
It's not that simple.

Oopiates where prescribed in huge numbers knowing that many people would
become addicted to them.

Disease vectors are often under peoples control. Do you hike in the woods and
risk lime disease?

Poverty is often a little of everything. It's far easier to become poor than
stop being poor, but it's not some inescapable prison.

~~~
yourbandsucks
Depends on if we're talking about US poverty or 3rd world poverty.

~~~
Retric
Many people have escaped 3rd world poverty. It generally means starting young
and walking somewhere else, but poor at 16 is a different situation than poor
at 60.

Further, there are huge differences between poor and extreme poverty. Reaching
say 20$/day is a vast step up for many people.

~~~
Retric
Little late to edit. But...

Millions of people have escaped 3rd world poverty. It’s vastly easier for you
people who can often relocate to more prosperous areas and or gain more
valuable skills. Further when you talk about poverty it’s critical to
understand the vast difference in living on ~2$ a day and 20$ a day in the
same areas. 20$ a day can mean the ability to invest in their and their
child’s future. That jump in many ways is the first rung on the ladder of
prosperity, but it it a very meaningful step up.

That said, it’s very easy for people to fall into poverty. War, famine,
disease, accident, etc all push people down.

~~~
yourbandsucks
I heard you the first time, don't worry about the crowd :)

------
Jedi72
"We do giving in ways that protect the opportunity to keep taking."

Although he meant it in terms of philathropy, this is the Google business
model in one sentence.

~~~
titzer
s/Google/Tech/

ftfy

~~~
platz
What 'giving' exactly?

------
ctchocula
I heard this guy on "Your Call" which is produced by NPR yesterday. One of the
things he said that really got my attention is that he said to get a seat at a
TED talk, you need to pay $5000, which really limits the attendance at TED
talks to the wealthy. Another thing was, the speaker is censored--he or she
cannot use the word "inequality", but can only use the word "poverty". That
just blows my mind. Inequality is one of the ways economics is changing with
Thomas Piketty who points out how inequality has increased way more in United
States than in Europe since the 1970s. To not be able to point to that as one
of the problems facing the world and to claim you want to change the world is
madness.

~~~
dllthomas
[https://www.ted.com/topics/inequality](https://www.ted.com/topics/inequality)

I'm not saying there's no valid criticisms of TED, or even really endorsing
it, but the claim you report clearly can't be strictly true - there are TED
talks with "inequality" in the title.

~~~
ctchocula
I haven't watched the video myself, but he could be referencing Nick Hanauer,
a venture capitalist from Seattle, whose speech at the TED University
conference titled "Rich people don't create jobs" was deemed "too politically
controversial" to post on their web site.

I clicked your link. Even though there is an article at the bottom with
"inequality" in the title, I tried doing a search but couldn't find a single
talk with "inequality" in the title. It is a possible tag, but cannot be found
in the title.

Edit: Snopes says the story of "censorship" was disseminated by Nick Hanauer's
PR team after TED decided not to promote the story:
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/banned-ted-talk-nick-
hanau...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/banned-ted-talk-nick-hanauer/)

~~~
tomasdore
On finding talks with "inequality" in the title: they do not show on the first
page, but I found two by clicking 'See all 114 talks on Inequality' and then
clicking on through the results pages; ie "A visual history of inequality in
industrial America", and "How economic inequality harms societies", so two of
that 114 search results.

------
frafart
Here's a podcast interview to the author of Winners Take All Anand
Giridharadas about the damage philanthropists do to public education
[https://soundcloud.com/haveyouheardpodcast/win-
win](https://soundcloud.com/haveyouheardpodcast/win-win)

------
ada1981
The current game being played is a race to acquire as many resources as
nessesssry to live forever and escape planet earth.

This is will be a small subset of the species.

The planet is fruiting.

------
pl0x
What about hiring minorities in the US from HBCU's? I came here on an HB1
myself but they are so many talented diverse candidates that could be hired in
the US.

------
eriken
Is posing guilt on an audience a good way to make them agree with you? I
honestly want to go the other way in situations like these.

~~~
woogiewonka
I don't think he was trying to make them feel guilty, rather just pointing to
the awkward fact that the situations and people he is talking about are the
ones like those in the audience. I haven't read the book but I reckon he talks
a lot about Google based on how many times he mentioned monopolies and
anticompetitiveness.

------
Jesus3000
I like the concept! Kudos!

