>I’m suspicious that this particular lack of situational grease has a not-insignificant negative effect on the upwards mobility of the lower class. It wouldn’t be a huge effect, since with some planning you can still figure out how to transition with a minimal gap, but it’s definitely a bit riskier to abandon a low-paying but secure position for a position with better prospects but less known stability.
The triple negative is incredibly tedious here.
I will translate "I’m suspicious" as "I believe" even though it could equally be translated as "I don't believe", nice vague sentence here.
second negative here: "that this particular lack of situational grease"
third negative "has a not-insignificant" -> "significant"
fourth negative "negative effect on the upwards mobility of the lower class"
Final translation: "I believe lack of situational grease has a significant negative effect on upwards mobility of the lower class".
Why am I bothering with this sentence? Why am I complaining so much? Because I want to make my own opinion clear. I will now rephrase the sentence in my own words.
Liquidity preference is the cause of unequal wealth distribution.
Let's use a very benign example. Students need a certain book from the library. There are 10 students but only 5 copies. Students can easily finish the book in 2 weeks and then bring it back to the library. However, if a student hasn't read the book, his chance of passing drops by 50% requiring him to study harder with worse material. Students have learned this lesson the hard way in previous courses and will want to get the book at all costs. So now they try to go the library as early as possible and get as many books as possible. Since students have 5 courses almost everyone is missing at least one book and only a handful of students actually have all of them. Some are missing more than two. There is one student without any books.
The downside of being late or never getting a book is huge but there is also no downside to just never returning the book even once you have finished it, leaving some students stranded. Suddenly those early birds get a positive reputation and everyone believes being an early bird is a good personality trait that brings you on the path to success. The competition over books gets more and more aggressive. Instead of putting their energy into studying, students are spending their energy on elaborate ways to getting the books. One student has started working in the library and is guaranteed to obtain all books that way. This is clearly a case of corruption. Students with books live an easier life.
All of this is a waste. If people cooperated and agreed that those who borrow a book must return it within two weeks then everyone would have equal access to the books. This gives everyone an incentive to finish the books sooner and thus free up more books for everyone. Students end up with better scores because they get access to the books they need and can have part time jobs outside the library.
There are multiple ways to interpret this story. For example. The quantization of jobs into a 40 hour work week, when there are people who would rather work more or less, leads to a concentration of jobs on less than 100% of the working population that is seeking a job i.e. unemployment. In this case, it's jobs that are being hoarded, not books, because being without a job is absolutely awful, but working 10 hours more than you need has no significant downside.
This also applies to land and money. Having too much books, work, land, money carries no downside. Having no books, work, land or money carries huge downsides despite the fact that there are enough books, enough work, enough land and enough money for everyone if all of them were fairly distributed. It's a local minima that humanity should get out of.
The triple negative is incredibly tedious here.
I will translate "I’m suspicious" as "I believe" even though it could equally be translated as "I don't believe", nice vague sentence here.
second negative here: "that this particular lack of situational grease"
third negative "has a not-insignificant" -> "significant"
fourth negative "negative effect on the upwards mobility of the lower class"
Final translation: "I believe lack of situational grease has a significant negative effect on upwards mobility of the lower class".
Why am I bothering with this sentence? Why am I complaining so much? Because I want to make my own opinion clear. I will now rephrase the sentence in my own words.
Liquidity preference is the cause of unequal wealth distribution.
Let's use a very benign example. Students need a certain book from the library. There are 10 students but only 5 copies. Students can easily finish the book in 2 weeks and then bring it back to the library. However, if a student hasn't read the book, his chance of passing drops by 50% requiring him to study harder with worse material. Students have learned this lesson the hard way in previous courses and will want to get the book at all costs. So now they try to go the library as early as possible and get as many books as possible. Since students have 5 courses almost everyone is missing at least one book and only a handful of students actually have all of them. Some are missing more than two. There is one student without any books.
The downside of being late or never getting a book is huge but there is also no downside to just never returning the book even once you have finished it, leaving some students stranded. Suddenly those early birds get a positive reputation and everyone believes being an early bird is a good personality trait that brings you on the path to success. The competition over books gets more and more aggressive. Instead of putting their energy into studying, students are spending their energy on elaborate ways to getting the books. One student has started working in the library and is guaranteed to obtain all books that way. This is clearly a case of corruption. Students with books live an easier life.
All of this is a waste. If people cooperated and agreed that those who borrow a book must return it within two weeks then everyone would have equal access to the books. This gives everyone an incentive to finish the books sooner and thus free up more books for everyone. Students end up with better scores because they get access to the books they need and can have part time jobs outside the library.
There are multiple ways to interpret this story. For example. The quantization of jobs into a 40 hour work week, when there are people who would rather work more or less, leads to a concentration of jobs on less than 100% of the working population that is seeking a job i.e. unemployment. In this case, it's jobs that are being hoarded, not books, because being without a job is absolutely awful, but working 10 hours more than you need has no significant downside.
This also applies to land and money. Having too much books, work, land, money carries no downside. Having no books, work, land or money carries huge downsides despite the fact that there are enough books, enough work, enough land and enough money for everyone if all of them were fairly distributed. It's a local minima that humanity should get out of.