Wealth is Relative

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The explanation is that as the average income increased, the amount of stuff people need to be average increased as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Capt Obvious. Again... what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that the distribution of wealth in society matters, and the fact that a janitor today is better off than a king in 1492, does not matter.

A janitor compares his station in life to the lives of people who are alive today, not to people who've been dead 500 years or more.

His sense of satisfaction with his station depends not on whether he has stuff, but on how much stuff he has in relation to others.

Wealth is a relative, not an absolute measure.

Of course, you can argue that it's stupid to base your sense of self-worth or happiness on how much stuff you have... but that's another argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logical implications of this are abhorrent. They include: We shouldn't work to erradicate diseases like AIDS, cancer, heart disease, because since they affect everyone equally, no one will be better off without these diseases as they won't be getting one-up on their neighbors.

If everyone woke up tomorrow with no left hand, no eyesight, they would not be worse off since everyone else was similarly crippled.

Moorobot made a post on the point you should be making (relative inequality matters) about how if you can't afford a microwave, it sucks when all the store sells are TV dinners, or when most everyone could afford cars, public transportation suffered. But the point you ARE making (ONLY relative inequality matters, absolute wealth does not) is patently absurd, illogical, and ruinous.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The gap by itself is not a huge problem.
The problem is the trend. It appears that the rich are getting richer faster and faster, and the share of total wealth that the top x% controls gets bigger
As long as wealth equals power, the top x% are getting more and more power over the rest. It is this power concetration that bothers many. When more wealth in your neighbors hands translates into more control over you, you fear becoming a slave as the end stage of this trend. This is what drives the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Consider that the modern state is the biggest concentration of power ever seen. And that it is growing.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right-wingers like to make the argument that the concentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people doesn't matter, as long as the poor have at least as much stuff as people did hundreds of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anyone say this in my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1

It's a common argument, though. You hear it on AM talk radio, for example, all the time.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Linus: I think I know what you are getting at, but you might want to craft your argument around subject wellbeing and happiness being a relatively fixed quantity that wealth distribution has an effect on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good way of stating it. Thank you.

It's not a particularly easy point to get across, either because it's subtle, or because I'm not particularly articulate. But it is an important one.

Another way of saying it is to say that one's satisfaction from being rich depends on other people being poorer than you.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Linus: I think I know what you are getting at, but you might want to craft your argument around subject wellbeing and happiness being a relatively fixed quantity that wealth distribution has an effect on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good way of stating it. Thank you.

It's not a particularly easy point to get across, either because it's subtle, or because I'm not particularly articulate. But it is an important one.

Another way of saying it is to say that one's satisfaction from being rich depends on other people being poorer than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I like arguing with you on the internet. It makes me feel even smarter.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I like arguing with you on the internet. It makes me feel even smarter.

[/ QUOTE ]

it shouldn't

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Linus: I think I know what you are getting at, but you might want to craft your argument around subject wellbeing and happiness being a relatively fixed quantity that wealth distribution has an effect on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good way of stating it. Thank you.

It's not a particularly easy point to get across, either because it's subtle, or because I'm not particularly articulate. But it is an important one.

Another way of saying it is to say that one's satisfaction from being rich depends on other people being poorer than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it depends on that for YOU but it doesn't for me. I'm 99%+ interested in how good my own life is - not how it compares to the lives of others. I must also say I'm pretty much baffled by anyone who derives more sastisfaction from being "above" others than by merely seeing a substantial improvement in their own life.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right-wingers like to make the argument that the concentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people doesn't matter, as long as the poor have at least as much stuff as people did hundreds of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anyone say this in my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1

It's a common argument, though. You hear it on AM talk radio, for example, all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've both read that thread and often listen to AM talk radio (well, not so much anymore, but I used to), listening to Neal Boortz a lot, Sean Hannity some and Rush a little, and I've NEVER HEARD ANYONE MAKE THAT CLAIM. You are reading stuff between the lines that simply isn't being said.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right-wingers like to make the argument that the concentration of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people doesn't matter, as long as the poor have at least as much stuff as people did hundreds of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anyone say this in my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1

It's a common argument, though. You hear it on AM talk radio, for example, all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've both read that thread and often listen to AM talk radio (well, not so much anymore, but I used to), listening to Neal Boortz a lot, Sean Hannity some and Rush a little, and I've NEVER HEARD ANYONE MAKE THAT CLAIM. You are reading stuff between the lines that simply isn't being said.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that like you are shocked and scandalized, as if he had never done such a thing before. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for reading and I hope this made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense, but when you compare a farmer with good soil to one whose soil is poor, you're still comparing one farmer to another, and calling one wealthy and one poor only makes sense within that context.

If a farmer has no animals, and acquires a cow, he's better off -- but the comparison is between his former status and his current one. It's still a relative measure.