Centuries of advancements have made things like food and shelter widely attainable.
Why do you define wealth by their yardstick? Your income is higher than mine, should I hate you and why?
income inequality
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Them is the publisher of the graphs and literature you keep focusing on, insisting there is a problem.
Societal trend is everyone is fat and happy. Is this not clear? Where are the starving hordes? Technology can feed America 10x over. Will you ever be satisfied, or must this egalitarian witch hunt be a fact of life, forever?
Societal trend is everyone is fat and happy. Is this not clear? Where are the starving hordes? Technology can feed America 10x over. Will you ever be satisfied, or must this egalitarian witch hunt be a fact of life, forever?
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Fat, yes. Happy? Not so sure about that.
"Starving hoards", "Witch hunt"...it's this kind of emotionally charged anger I don't understand. You may disagree with Felix and others for what you perceive to be misplaced sympathy for the poor, but why are you so angry (or appear to be so angry) about it?
"Starving hoards", "Witch hunt"...it's this kind of emotionally charged anger I don't understand. You may disagree with Felix and others for what you perceive to be misplaced sympathy for the poor, but why are you so angry (or appear to be so angry) about it?
Isn't fat enough? At what point does personal responsibility kick in?... You're well fed, you have a roof, an infinite possibility of ways and means to enrich and better your life.
What's the problem? <bold>,
Life is fantastic! Free will; grab the apple in front of your face.
Why more people don't become outliers? This might be the key question(?).
What's the problem? <bold>,
Life is fantastic! Free will; grab the apple in front of your face.
Why more people don't become outliers? This might be the key question(?).
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
"What's the problem?"
The problem is that the majority of people in a society want their society to be X. Society is not X, it is Y. Therefore, those people want society to change from Y to X.
You might not want society to be X--you might be happy with society being Y. You might even have a good point and found ideological foundations for your position (I don't think you do, but my opinion doesn't matter). However, in a democracy, majority rules, and the majority clearly opposes this skewed income inequality. That's it.
The problem is that the majority of people in a society want their society to be X. Society is not X, it is Y. Therefore, those people want society to change from Y to X.
You might not want society to be X--you might be happy with society being Y. You might even have a good point and found ideological foundations for your position (I don't think you do, but my opinion doesn't matter). However, in a democracy, majority rules, and the majority clearly opposes this skewed income inequality. That's it.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
RealPerson
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:33 pm
I had an enlightening course given by a 30 year veteran lobbyist in DC. He came to explain to us how to influence the political decision making. He was very matter of fact, not cynical, but trying to help us understand how to get things done in a legislature.
To make a long story short, an elected representative is interested primarily in 1 thing: reelection. To this end, they need people who will get them reelected. Yes, some of these are volunteers and good people working a campaign out of conviction. However, the real power lies with bundlers. These are people who give money and volunteering time to a candidate, but more importantly they influence many others to do the same. It is the bundlers who make or break a candidate. The candidate's "convictions" generally have little to do with how they vote, or the bills they introduce. They try to keep the bundlers happy by voting how these people want them to vote. For a member of the House especially, that is the reality of the 2 year election cycle. The idea of doing "what is right for America" does not even enter into their heads. Getting the bundlers to bundle even more next time is the name of the game, and the Congressmen's voting records will reflect that.
Now, if that is the game is played, why would you as a voter even care? Your time is better spent advancing your own personal interest than to try and figure out the "honest opinions" of the people on the ballot. That is not apathy, that is responding to the realities of the political system in a rational manner.
To make a long story short, an elected representative is interested primarily in 1 thing: reelection. To this end, they need people who will get them reelected. Yes, some of these are volunteers and good people working a campaign out of conviction. However, the real power lies with bundlers. These are people who give money and volunteering time to a candidate, but more importantly they influence many others to do the same. It is the bundlers who make or break a candidate. The candidate's "convictions" generally have little to do with how they vote, or the bills they introduce. They try to keep the bundlers happy by voting how these people want them to vote. For a member of the House especially, that is the reality of the 2 year election cycle. The idea of doing "what is right for America" does not even enter into their heads. Getting the bundlers to bundle even more next time is the name of the game, and the Congressmen's voting records will reflect that.
Now, if that is the game is played, why would you as a voter even care? Your time is better spent advancing your own personal interest than to try and figure out the "honest opinions" of the people on the ballot. That is not apathy, that is responding to the realities of the political system in a rational manner.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17120
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
In no particular order:
1) One of the reasons that I think the Nordic model works well is
because these countries are some of the least corrupt on the planet. Also the public institutions work. There are no $600 toilet seats and government managers don't use the term "funny money" when talking about their budgets. People don't mind spending a lot on taxes when they actually get a working government system, etc. That is, they're getting their money's worth.
2) Social cohesion is high in the nordic countries. This leads to this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante ... or maybe that "law" leads to high social cohesion. Being average is considered a valuable social attribute, perhaps one of the most valuable. If you think average is great, then those countries are a great fit because there's a drive to be average on all levels. If you stand out on the low side, you're helped---at least as long as you don't stand out (e.g. you must look and behave like native). If you stand out on the high side, you're the one helping while not getting any credits (how dare you be so smart, now hand over your money). A result of this is a significant brain drain. Out of my freshman math/physics class I know that at least 1/3 subsequently left the country, maybe more ...
3) "What disturbs me is that such an intelligent, self-actualized group can insist that either there is no problem, or that it's beyond solving."
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.
First, if you solve this problem (income inequality), you create another problem (brain drain, where people either leave physically or mentally). Various people will therefore take a stand depending on which of the two problems they consider more serious. You can tell from the stamps in my passport which one I think is the worse problem.
Also, the problem might have "hidden variables". It could be that the real problem in the US is not income inequality but actually corruption or institutional inefficiency. That people would be fine paying more in taxes if they didn't feel like their money was wasted (see 1).
Second, there are always solutions. For example, I advocate personal solutions rather than political solutions. I believe change starts locally and with oneself. I, therefore, think that solutions that tell me "how _I_ can solve _my_ problems" are vastly more useful than solutions that tell me "how a majority of voters can solve the entire country's problems if they only could agree to vote the same way". This is why the ERE blog is the way it is rather than being a policy wonk blog.
However, I recognize that the reason I prefer personal solutions is that I'm "intelligent and self-actualized". I've tried suggesting personal solutions to intelligent but non-actualized people. They don't like that. They don't like that at all!! People who see the problem but would rather complain and demand that "they do something about it" than start fixing it themselves.
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/99-pe ... laves.html <-- this is what I think the underlying reality is. If you agree on this, how does you solution account for this?
4) I think I indirectly contribute far more to the political process through my lifestyle (a local change) than publicly stating my position on a bunch of national issues whether that's on the street holding a sign or in an internet forum stating the same position over and over again. Or by voting for that matter. I've personally deprived industries I don't care for from hundreds of thousands of dollars that I would personally have spent... by not spending it. Given that I've shared my solutions with who knows how many ... let's just fudge it and say somewhere between 1000 and 10000 people based on book sales, we're talking a $0.1-1.0 billion dollar impact from those solutions.
So if you think income inequality is a problem, tell me what I can do personally to fix it? Tell me how can I make more income as a low income person and how can I transact in ways that give less money to high income people? Or how I can make low income less of an issue in my life? I think ERE actually contributes to reducing this inequality(!)
Because I don't think voting is going to do much ... my one well-informed vote will immediately be canceled out by Durley Dubya who gets his political insights from facebook memes. In particular, if I get 20% more informed, my vote is still going to be canceled out by Durley's.
5) If the goal is to be happy, psychological research shows that above a minimum level (which has been reached in the developed world), happiness depends on your relative position to others. That is, it depends on status-envy.
Thus a small number of very rich people make the large majority in the middle unhappy.
While the small number of poor people is not enough for the middle class to think "at least we don't have it as bad as them".
When happiness indeed depends on relative numbers, the mathematical solution is to even out the curve. That is, make crab mentality a policy goal.
That way the middle class don't have a visible source of unhappiness. This is why Denmark is the happiest nation ON AVERAGE. Because the small number of talented people who are unhappy under these circumstances don't contribute much to the overall level of happiness. So the few are sacrificed for the many. The focus is on society, not individuals.
However, since Denmark has open borders, some individuals prefer to leave.
The maximizing solution is probably to allow talented individuals to earn just about 20% more than average. In this case they can strive for happiness and lift the public good without earning so much that they make the majority sad. This, in fact, is pretty much how the post-tax income distribution looks like in Denmark.
(The reason I probably wont return has nothing to do with income ... but with how this attitude spills over into all other aspects of life. You know, aside from income equality, there's also intelligence-equality, fitness-equality, how nice your yard looks-equality, haircut equality, clothes-equality, etc. Woe unto you if you somehow piss off the majority by being better than them ... in fact just as high earners in the US spend a significant amount of time reducing their taxes, people in Denmark must spend a significant amount of time hiding whatever makes them stand out. Is this a country I'd like to live in? Not really.)
1) One of the reasons that I think the Nordic model works well is
because these countries are some of the least corrupt on the planet. Also the public institutions work. There are no $600 toilet seats and government managers don't use the term "funny money" when talking about their budgets. People don't mind spending a lot on taxes when they actually get a working government system, etc. That is, they're getting their money's worth.
2) Social cohesion is high in the nordic countries. This leads to this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante ... or maybe that "law" leads to high social cohesion. Being average is considered a valuable social attribute, perhaps one of the most valuable. If you think average is great, then those countries are a great fit because there's a drive to be average on all levels. If you stand out on the low side, you're helped---at least as long as you don't stand out (e.g. you must look and behave like native). If you stand out on the high side, you're the one helping while not getting any credits (how dare you be so smart, now hand over your money). A result of this is a significant brain drain. Out of my freshman math/physics class I know that at least 1/3 subsequently left the country, maybe more ...
3) "What disturbs me is that such an intelligent, self-actualized group can insist that either there is no problem, or that it's beyond solving."
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.
First, if you solve this problem (income inequality), you create another problem (brain drain, where people either leave physically or mentally). Various people will therefore take a stand depending on which of the two problems they consider more serious. You can tell from the stamps in my passport which one I think is the worse problem.
Also, the problem might have "hidden variables". It could be that the real problem in the US is not income inequality but actually corruption or institutional inefficiency. That people would be fine paying more in taxes if they didn't feel like their money was wasted (see 1).
Second, there are always solutions. For example, I advocate personal solutions rather than political solutions. I believe change starts locally and with oneself. I, therefore, think that solutions that tell me "how _I_ can solve _my_ problems" are vastly more useful than solutions that tell me "how a majority of voters can solve the entire country's problems if they only could agree to vote the same way". This is why the ERE blog is the way it is rather than being a policy wonk blog.
However, I recognize that the reason I prefer personal solutions is that I'm "intelligent and self-actualized". I've tried suggesting personal solutions to intelligent but non-actualized people. They don't like that. They don't like that at all!! People who see the problem but would rather complain and demand that "they do something about it" than start fixing it themselves.
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/99-pe ... laves.html <-- this is what I think the underlying reality is. If you agree on this, how does you solution account for this?
4) I think I indirectly contribute far more to the political process through my lifestyle (a local change) than publicly stating my position on a bunch of national issues whether that's on the street holding a sign or in an internet forum stating the same position over and over again. Or by voting for that matter. I've personally deprived industries I don't care for from hundreds of thousands of dollars that I would personally have spent... by not spending it. Given that I've shared my solutions with who knows how many ... let's just fudge it and say somewhere between 1000 and 10000 people based on book sales, we're talking a $0.1-1.0 billion dollar impact from those solutions.
So if you think income inequality is a problem, tell me what I can do personally to fix it? Tell me how can I make more income as a low income person and how can I transact in ways that give less money to high income people? Or how I can make low income less of an issue in my life? I think ERE actually contributes to reducing this inequality(!)
Because I don't think voting is going to do much ... my one well-informed vote will immediately be canceled out by Durley Dubya who gets his political insights from facebook memes. In particular, if I get 20% more informed, my vote is still going to be canceled out by Durley's.
5) If the goal is to be happy, psychological research shows that above a minimum level (which has been reached in the developed world), happiness depends on your relative position to others. That is, it depends on status-envy.
Thus a small number of very rich people make the large majority in the middle unhappy.
While the small number of poor people is not enough for the middle class to think "at least we don't have it as bad as them".
When happiness indeed depends on relative numbers, the mathematical solution is to even out the curve. That is, make crab mentality a policy goal.
That way the middle class don't have a visible source of unhappiness. This is why Denmark is the happiest nation ON AVERAGE. Because the small number of talented people who are unhappy under these circumstances don't contribute much to the overall level of happiness. So the few are sacrificed for the many. The focus is on society, not individuals.
However, since Denmark has open borders, some individuals prefer to leave.
The maximizing solution is probably to allow talented individuals to earn just about 20% more than average. In this case they can strive for happiness and lift the public good without earning so much that they make the majority sad. This, in fact, is pretty much how the post-tax income distribution looks like in Denmark.
(The reason I probably wont return has nothing to do with income ... but with how this attitude spills over into all other aspects of life. You know, aside from income equality, there's also intelligence-equality, fitness-equality, how nice your yard looks-equality, haircut equality, clothes-equality, etc. Woe unto you if you somehow piss off the majority by being better than them ... in fact just as high earners in the US spend a significant amount of time reducing their taxes, people in Denmark must spend a significant amount of time hiding whatever makes them stand out. Is this a country I'd like to live in? Not really.)
Thank you for giving the background for your stand on equality/inequality. The last part (within parentheses) I recognize in the Netherlands, where I partially live, too. Alas.
In former discussions I could not well relate your point, as I tried to spur you to bring the ere-principals from personal level to a more general/political level, but now I understand that.
So I endorse your point of bringing the ere-message by doing/living it, and if asked, tell others about why it is such a pleasant way of life, and possible for many ranges of income!
In former discussions I could not well relate your point, as I tried to spur you to bring the ere-principals from personal level to a more general/political level, but now I understand that.
So I endorse your point of bringing the ere-message by doing/living it, and if asked, tell others about why it is such a pleasant way of life, and possible for many ranges of income!
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
Knock out post Jacob.
I gathered this (and more) from your book, and from reading your reference book list, most of which I had also read.
This is why I signed up for the only forum I have ever joined after reading a finance/lifestyle/investing book. I was hoping to chat with people who hail from this POV, a group that is hard to find.
Frugality books/forums in particular tend to have a very centralized government slant (ie YMOYL rails about the US not having socialized medicine), which just ignores too many incentive based realities, along with creating dependencies I think would be best avoided.
To my way of thinking, I'm not FI if the government has to provide services to maintain my lifestyle. Because I think the ultimate goal of a republic should be more free men, not more average men, I just can't come around to the conclusions so many reach when they start talking about wealth inequality.
I gathered this (and more) from your book, and from reading your reference book list, most of which I had also read.
This is why I signed up for the only forum I have ever joined after reading a finance/lifestyle/investing book. I was hoping to chat with people who hail from this POV, a group that is hard to find.
Frugality books/forums in particular tend to have a very centralized government slant (ie YMOYL rails about the US not having socialized medicine), which just ignores too many incentive based realities, along with creating dependencies I think would be best avoided.
To my way of thinking, I'm not FI if the government has to provide services to maintain my lifestyle. Because I think the ultimate goal of a republic should be more free men, not more average men, I just can't come around to the conclusions so many reach when they start talking about wealth inequality.
@jacob: "People don't mind spending a lot on taxes when they actually get a working government system, etc. That is, they're getting their money's worth."
YES. This.
If I had a reasonable degree of certainty that the tax dollars I surrender would be put to uses that I approve of, and would not be abused or reappropriated for purposes I would never endorse**, I would immediately consider a model with higher taxation and higher redistribution. It would certainly be easier to just let the government take care of everyone/everything, after all. But I believe that's a pipe dream in our current environment.
The #1 reason am strongly Libertarian is that I am 100% confident that I make better financial decisions - both on my own behalf and charitably on behalf of others - than my government is capable of making.
** making allowances for normal human mistakes and occasional institutional incompetence
YES. This.
If I had a reasonable degree of certainty that the tax dollars I surrender would be put to uses that I approve of, and would not be abused or reappropriated for purposes I would never endorse**, I would immediately consider a model with higher taxation and higher redistribution. It would certainly be easier to just let the government take care of everyone/everything, after all. But I believe that's a pipe dream in our current environment.
The #1 reason am strongly Libertarian is that I am 100% confident that I make better financial decisions - both on my own behalf and charitably on behalf of others - than my government is capable of making.
** making allowances for normal human mistakes and occasional institutional incompetence