
Inequality in nature and society - wallflower
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/50/13154.full
======
joe_the_user
"Most societies" is a meaningless term. Measuring "most" is impossible and any
metric is more or less going to come out of a value judgment to begin with.
Some human societies have a lot of equality and some have a lot inequality.

The only useful point is that inequality can easily arise by chance but appear
as "meritocracy" after the fact, being self justifying.

Anyway, the main question is "what level of inequality or equality do we
want?" That is, for some value of "we" able to make it's choice come to
fruition. Maybe that "we" is the elite, that small number of people at the top
already. Indeed, at points in America's history, the elite actually saw
considerable value in some level of equality but that seems well in the past.
Maybe that we is a larger group (the voters, "the working class", "angry
people", who knows). That larger group would need to be able to do something
more than be unhappy, of course.

~~~
adamsea
> "Most societies" is a meaningless term. Measuring "most" is impossible and
> any metric is more or less going to come out of a value judgment to begin
> with. Some human societies have a lot of equality and some have a lot
> inequality.

I would bet there are true (though perhaps simple or obvious) claims which can
be made in sociology and/or anthropology about "most societies." Such, as,
perhaps, burying the dead.

Are you a sociologist or anthropologist? Or, do you have some other claim to
expertise in this domain? If so, forgive my critique.

~~~
joe_the_user
Fine, I should perhaps say "in this context, 'most societies' is a meaningless
term." \- though I would hope that contextualizing is obvious.

As far as expertise goes, I think all one needs is moderate acquaintance with
statistics to learn the "most" is a slippery generalization whenever one gets
to get complex phenomena in wide-ranging contexts. And human societies and
their interrelations are some of the most complex and slippery of them.

------
dvt
(This is a slightly modified but highly relevant excerpt from a piece I wrote
last year: Confusing Math with Morality[1].)

In What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources[2], Ronald Dworkin makes a
distinction between _justified inequality of resources_ and _unjustified
inequality of resources_. Dworkin borrows from Rawls, but the gist of his
sentiment is summarized by SEP[3]: “Unequal distribution of resources is
considered fair only when it results from the decisions and intentional
actions of those concerned.” Conversely, provisions, gifts, bribes, and pure
luck are conducive to an unfair (or unjust) inequality of resources.

For example, a state lottery is unequal — and creates an unjust inequality of
resources — because it’s random. It’s trivial to come up with a social policy
that always converges wealth to a uniform distribution[4], but the problem is
that unless this convergence is driven by what Dworkin calls ‘ambition-
sensitive’ forces, this social policy is profoundly unfair — even though it
might _seem_ to be fair.

[1] [https://dvt.name/2017/07/10/confusing-math-with-
morality/](https://dvt.name/2017/07/10/confusing-math-with-morality/)

[2]
[http://homepage.univie.ac.at/herbert.preiss/files/Dworkin_Wh...](http://homepage.univie.ac.at/herbert.preiss/files/Dworkin_What%20is%20Equality_Part2_Equality%20of%20Resources.pdf)

[3]
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#EquofRes](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#EquofRes)

[4] [https://www.gaussianwaves.com/gaussianwaves/wp-
content/uploa...](https://www.gaussianwaves.com/gaussianwaves/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/Histogram-of-Uniform-Distribution.jpg)

~~~
crdoconnor
You can divide the world's wealth into wealth that was created by human hands
and wealth which was 'created' by the planet (land, mineral/ore/oil deposits,
etc.).

I don't see why it isn't fair to people keep the wealth they create and just
divide up the wealth created by the planet equally.

~~~
gozur88
Say everybody has ten acres of land, because we've taken all the land and
divided it out among the world's population. Let's leave aside, for a moment,
that's pretty much impossible, since everybody will want beachfront property
in Hawaii, say, and not a patch of desert in BFE.

Now say I have fifteen children, and you have one. In the next reallocation,
do we really divide out the land such that my family ends up with fifteen
times the land your family has? Think about the incentives that kind of scheme
creates.

Furthermore, there's a tragedy of the commons problem. If we all own the land,
or it gets re-divided every generation, I have no reason to improve it. I'll
get rich turning my land into a toxic wasted dump, because I don't have any
interest in maintaining its value.

In the end, that's why we have property ownership. People don't take care of
things they don't own.

~~~
Can_Not
But you wouldn't literally divide natural asserts evenly, you would structure
society arround not having rent seekers be a parasite on your right to a good,
water, and shelter.

~~~
gozur88
That's a noble goal albeit completely unattainable in practice.

~~~
Can_Not
That claim is closer to an urban legend than to a fact.

------
dwaltrip
There are fundamental causes for inequality that can't be fixed once-and-for-
all. The Pareto principle and other similar dynamics provide a glimpse into
this. We see this everywhere in nature (distribution of mass in a star system,
distribution of energy in an ecosystem, etc).

That being said, there are significant anachronistic, unjust human causes for
inequality. Corruption, cultural/racial bias, skewed market incentives,
externalities, etc.

That is where we should focus our energy. There is much good that can and
should be done there.

And we can work to broadly lift the floor of human experience for all, even if
such endeavors don't eliminate all relative inequality.

A perfectly equal system would be static, unchanging, fixed in place. There
would be no vibrance or life. Dynamic processes that bring about change do not
provide the same result to all pieces of a system, and require non-uniformity
to continue occurring. Think of the heat death of the universe -- everything
everywhere is the same temperature, and no interesting changes can ever happen
again.

But this is certainly no excuse to not make the valuable and necessary
improvements that we are capable of doing.

Lastly, it is certainly possible that the "natural" dynamics driving
inequality are not at ideal levels right now, and that we should enact policy
changes or other measures that counteract such dynamics and increase equality
(higher taxes, social programs, etc). I think this is likely the case, and
support such efforts.

Edit: Getting some downvotes. I hope no one think I'm implying regressive
action, as I have no desire for that. I'd love to hear people's take on
things. My main reason for posting is that I often see discussions that don't
recognize what seem to me certain fundamental dynamics. If my understanding is
off, please share how. Thanks.

~~~
adrianratnapala
> That being said, there are significant anachronistic, unjust human causes
> for inequality.... That is where we should focus our energy.

Yep (and sorry for snipping so heavily). I would add "political capital" to
"energy" here.

Ever since the 2008 financial crisis made everyone angry, there's been head-
scratching at why the voters more often (but not always!) turned right than
left in response. Part of the reason is that voters, to their credit, are more
angry about the unjust things people have done to get entrench their wealth
than about the wealth itself.

It's always tempting for the left to equate the mere existence of rich people
with injustice. But most people don't buy that, and if the right provides some
more concrete story of injustice -- even a dodgy Trumpist story -- then that
will sway people more.

~~~
Terr_
> It's always tempting for the left to equate the mere existence of rich
> people with injustice. But most people don't buy that

Right, the Just World Hypothesis seems to be pretty instinctual. (Though that
may be because folks who don't believe it might not survive their attempts to
"fix" things...)

------
Strudelnoggin
The inequality that the "wealth equalizing" institutions are intended to
prevent end up becoming another cause of inequality. One only look as far as
the former Soviet Union. They had "wealth equalizing" institutions as well
which created a new privileged class of elites. Those elites were those who
owned and operated the "wealth equalizing" institutions.

The article's assertion "extreme wealth inequality is inevitable in a
globalizing world unless effective wealth-equalizing institutions are
installed on a global scale" is wrong. These institutions would end up
creating a new layer of inequality.

The article's premise, therefore, should have been: "wealth inequality is
inevitable", full stop.

~~~
mempko
it's inevitably with assets that are multiplicative. Multiplicative is the
important detail.

------
stanfordkid
IMO, The comparison between Nature and Billionaires/wealth is just mind-
bogglingly inane.

For starters, the evolution and convergence of the species distributions
within an eco-system is a multi-generational game versus a single-generation
(or at least single-digit) game for wealth accumulation in most societies.

Secondly, the strategy used within the games are almost completely different
(in the case of wealth distribution there is a high degree of
choice/variability by individual actors) while in the case of species
dominance there is only pseudo-random variability based on genetic code. The
variability also does not change within the course of a single generation.

A more fair comparison might be to compare the amount of territory controlled
by the average pack of lions versus the most dominant pack of lions. In this
case, the games are at least somewhat similar. I would _actually_ be really
interested to see this type of analysis, and I think it could be done very
well, for many different species.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> A more fair comparison might be to compare the amount of territory
controlled by the average pack of lions versus the most dominant pack of
lions.

The article addresses this and notes there is no great difference in this
respect:

    
    
      Although the surprising similarity between inequality of species   
      abundances and wealth may have the same roots on an abstract level, this 
      does not imply that wealth inequality is “natural.” Indeed, in nature, 
      the amount of resources held by individuals (e.g., territory size) is 
      typically quite equal within a species.

------
irickt
This can be read as a theoretical analysis of a basic income guarantee.

>>> Equalizing Mechanisms. There are essentially two classes of mechanisms
that can reduce inequality: suppression of dominance ... or lifting the
majority out of the sticky state close to zero .... Starting with the latter,
a small additive influx is a powerful antidote to the stickiness effect. ...
In society, savings from income represent an additive contribution to wealth.
Adding such a flux to our minimal model of wealth allows more households to
gain wealth, thus populating the middle class and regularly breaking episodes
of dominance by the previously dominant households

Also, full pdf with methods and details:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/114/50/13154.full.pdf?with-
ds=ye...](http://www.pnas.org/content/114/50/13154.full.pdf?with-ds=yes)

~~~
anigbrowl
Also worth looking at section 7 in the supplementary information, and figure
S5.

------
solidsnack9000
It seems that, without some way to rebalance every few generations, things
become anti-competitive very quickly.

But without some way to hold onto one’s gains, what’s the point of winning?
Hmmm...

------
IIAOPSW
This is so weird. I was literally thinking about this exact thing last night.
I was tempted to prove/simulate that even a mild interest generating mechanism
(say 5% per anum) is enough to distort the wealth distribution far beyond what
hard work and merit would suggest.

I was just going to do a blog post but I guess these people went ahead and
published. Dang.

------
lerie82
I believe this paper is very full of one-sided ideals of what people think
nature and society is.

------
blagswod
Free men are not equal; equal men are not free.

~~~
Strudelnoggin
Not a meme at all sir. I think it is a good, thoughtful insight that conforms
to the Hacker News community standards for what constitutes a "good post"
however brief and, according to others, trite it might appear to be.

------
cutcss
> extreme wealth inequality is inevitable in a globalizing world unless
> effective wealth-equalizing institutions are installed on a global scale.

Yeah, and water is wet; since ever is known that the best tool to make money
is... money; so the resource tends to get unevenly distributed and pile up in
the hands of a few. And what's worse is that the punishment for not having
enough money is... to lose money, obviously overdraft fees are the best
example of this, but there are a million ways more.

~~~
nugget
To expand on humanity's historical experience, the best known method of
reducing wealth inequality seems to be revolutions and world wars - the more
devastating and catastrophic, the better.

~~~
cutcss
...sure but, well, we have internet and other advancements since then, there
may be a chance of less murderous solutions to work.

------
thalesofmiletus
obviously this does not apply to the modern day "serfs". seeing as none of us
will take most of the things we hold dear off the planet anytime soon. we
inherently share all things. the reason why our current reality does not
follow suit is because people have been conditioned for generations to believe
and not do anything about the following "the one who has will even take from
the one who has not" whether you want to describe business, cutting in line,
capitalism, any exchange. they have also been conditioned to believe that they
have some right to have things that others do not have rights too. which is a
corrosive idea just like the previous one. mix these two ideas with the
competitive environment that we are indoctrinated into and then you will have
your answer as to why there is inequality. the other part of the puzzle is
that they have also been lied to and told that for some reason all the
resources on earth cannot be shared and they have to have be exchanged for an
intermediary currency which you get by working. if we are all living on one
ball in space how can you say we do not own everything that is on it. each one
of us. there is absolutely no reason why everyone on earth cannot have equal
access to everything. if there is not enough of something then it is not
shareable. not one individual can own it. that is where the discussion ends.
in the future there will be a time where wanting so much of something that it
disrupts the balance of society will be a punishable offense. people will go
to rehab centers for it. kinda like modern day hoarding. we are just not there
now. we will get there though once the repercussions of someone having a house
made out of diamonds contrasts with millions living in tents. i still don't
understand how you can justify one person having a yearly salary of hundreds
of millions of dollars. you can't, that person is no different than you and
me. it just happens to sit at the top of a pyramid supported by many of others
who believe its koolaid.

