f

[rkbabang]

I think the concept generally makes sense both before and after birth.  I don't think argument is metaphysical argument, but rather just trying to create a basis for deciding what's a "good structure of society" and what's a "bad structure for society".

 

Hmmm, I was thinking more about this last night and now I'm pretty convinced that the genetic lottery argument doesn't make sense. The idea of 'luck' and 'probability' arise from the fact that there are contingent events in reality. So, for example it doesn't make sense to say, 'how unlucky it is that gravity exists' or to contemplate the probability that pine trees are green. These are simply facts of reality. They don't belong to the same category as a coin flip. That's what I meant by "metaphysically given". Probability doesn't pertain to them because they are just inherent to reality. Similarly, the body and time you're 'born into' is metaphysically given. A person (the consciousness and body) is the result of two specific parents. If you're white, there's no such thing as a probability of you being born black. There was no probability that Buffett was born in prehistoric times. He comes from Howard and Leila Buffett and they lived in the 20th century. He was necessarily a product of them.

 

Does that make sense? Anyways, it doesn't say anything about luck after birth or how we should treat people in different circumstances.

 

True, as far as it goes. Coming from Howard and Leila Buffett he wouldn't have been black or Asian and certainly couldn't have been born a caveman, but he still won the greatest lottery in the universe by being born at all (we all have).  The amount of possible genetic variation that could have come from Howard and Leila Buffett is astronomical.  To get Warren it *HAD* to be that particular sperm and that particular egg.  If his mom had a headache that night he never would have been born.  If they had delayed even 1min or maybe even 5sec it likely would  have been a different sperm that fertilized that egg.  A particular genome being born at all is much much less likely than picking a perfect bracket in the NCAA basketball contest.  It isn't even close.  The odds against you or me or Warren Buffett ever being born are so astronomical they aren't even calculable.  If you were to hold a contest where you had to create an artificial genetic human code and predict when that particular person would be born naturally it would be impossible, because you could try a trillion combinations and none of those people will likely ever exist.  I know this isn't what he means about "genetic lottery", he means that he was lucky not to be born someone else, in some other place, or in some other time, but as you said, none of those things are even possible.

 

[APG12]

True, as far as it goes. Coming from Howard and Leila Buffett he wouldn't have been black or Asian and certainly couldn't have been born a caveman, but he still won the greatest lottery in the universe by being born at all (we all have).

 

Ugh, I don't know about this. There's just something goofy going on here. If I say I'm lucky to have been born doesn't that imply that the unborn weren't lucky? The unborn don't exist so that doesn't make sense. It's like we're starting at the wrong place in our contemplation of luck. I need to think about this more.  :-[

[rkbabang]

True, as far as it goes. Coming from Howard and Leila Buffett he wouldn't have been black or Asian and certainly couldn't have been born a caveman, but he still won the greatest lottery in the universe by being born at all (we all have).

 

Ugh, I don't know about this. There's just something goofy going on here. If I say I'm lucky to have been born doesn't that imply that the unborn weren't lucky? The unborn don't exist so that doesn't make sense. It's like we're starting at the wrong place in our contemplation of luck. I need to think about this more.  :-[

 

I don't say that I am unlucky because I didn't win Powerball, because the odds were against me ever winning anyway.  The person who wins is certainly lucky, but that doesn't mean everyone else is unlucky.  So this means that you can be lucky without the potential people who never existed and never will being unlucky.  :)

 

[Guest]

While not income based, here is some data for wealth inequality. According o the data, we're at all time highs.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/top-tenth-of-1-percenters-reaps-all-the-riches

[jay21]

Related to inequality and the minimum wage: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/06/a-report-from-the-bakken-oil-fields-where-the-jobless-rate-is-0-9-and-walmart-is-paying-2-4-times-the-minimum-wage/

 

"In total, nearly one billion barrels of oil have now been produced in the Bakken oil fields, and all of that oil production and related activities have brought the unemployment rate in the Williston area down to below 1% in most months over the last three years."

 

"1. Walmart pays wages that reflect the economic conditions in a local market based on the supply and demand realities of the local labor market. In other words, Walmart can’t really set wages independent of market forces and it’s really at the mercy of the market in every local community. If Walmart offered the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour in the Bakken area, it wouldn’t be able to staff its stores.

 

2. The fact that Walmart is paying almost 2.5 times the minimum wage in Williston, ND is evidence that a single, national minimum wage for every city, county, labor market in the country can’t possibly make sense. Even proponents of the minimum wage have to agree that a single national minimum can’t be optimal for every labor market in the country. In that case, they would logically have to support thousands of minimum wages tailored to thousands of local communities, or maybe even more logically agree that minimum wages are unworkable.

 

3. You probably won’t be hearing anybody calling for a $15 per hour “living wage” in North Dakota, since the entry level wages at Walmarts there are already above that.

 

4. The energy sector is the strongest sector of the US economy, and is bringing wealth, prosperity, and high-paying jobs to places like western North Dakota and south-central and western Texas."

[randomep]

 

 

Cool, I didn't realize this thread existed. Minimum wage at $15 is a sign of how prosperous our society is. Can you imagine how much a fast food worker makes in 1960, in real terms? That person probably is living in a shack with no remote chance of getting decent health care.

 

In the 1960's a week would have 100 deaths in a far off war in southeast asia. Can you imagine if we have 100 deaths in a month? This is a bit of a tangant but our society values its people much much more than two generations ago.

 

And I scanned through this thread and noticed something said there will be unrest? How so? The US has not had a major riot since LA 20yrs ago. Where will the next riot happen? (well we had a big problem in New Orleans a decade ago but that was just bad planning and could have happened in any generation)

 

The only unrest are in the poorest countries that are left behind, say africa, or burma. Even china has not had destablizing unrest like tinnamen. The world is getting better and people in turn are happier.  The poorest in america are not left behind, they are better educated than two generations ago, it is progress.

[writser]

2. The fact that Walmart is paying almost 2.5 times the minimum wage in Williston, ND is evidence that a single, national minimum wage for every city, county, labor market in the country can’t possibly make sense.

 

How does A lead to B? I'm trying to understand it but I haven't succeeded so far.

[RichardGibbons]

And I scanned through this thread and noticed something said there will be unrest? How so? The US has not had a major riot since LA 20yrs ago. Where will the next riot happen? (well we had a big problem in New Orleans a decade ago but that was just bad planning and could have happened in any generation)

 

There are lots of places from which it could arise.  Something like the 1% rallies could turn violent.  A galvanizing case of injustice could result in violence (e.g. maybe the death of someone in police custody).  Or something like the tea party could escalate violently.

 

I see it as akin to excessive leverage in the financial system.  The system become inherently unstable, jeopardizing its ability to recover from shocks. So a shock can cause disproportionately large effects.  Similarly, I think the wealth inequality reduces the stability of the system.  (On the other hand, things like religion, the American dream, and the propaganda TV channels would tend to increase the stability, I think.  So, maybe the system is stable enough that the distribution can become quite skewed before there are problems.)

 

Your comment also makes me wonder whether it was that easy to identify the unrest in Egypt, Syria, and Libya before it arose.  I don't know enough to know if that was a long-term thing with frequent riots that we just never heard about, but I suspect it wasn't.  Eventually, poor people just get sick of being screwed by the system.

[APG12]

Cool, I didn't realize this thread existed. Minimum wage at $15 is a sign of how prosperous our society is. Can you imagine how much a fast food worker makes in 1960, in real terms? That person probably is living in a shack with no remote chance of getting decent health care.

 

It really is a testament to the productive power of capitalism. Would you rather be wealthy 50 years ago or middle class today?

[PatientCheetah]

Cool, I didn't realize this thread existed. Minimum wage at $15 is a sign of how prosperous our society is. Can you imagine how much a fast food worker makes in 1960, in real terms? That person probably is living in a shack with no remote chance of getting decent health care.

 

It really is a testament to the productive power of capitalism. Would you rather be wealthy 50 years ago or middle class today?

 

Psychologically, I rather be wealthy 50 years ago. I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs make sense from both my experience and my parents' experience.

[APG12]

Psychologically, I rather be wealthy 50 years ago.

 

There's always someone  ;)

 

But me, I'll take modern technology.

[Guest longinvestor]

This video's pretty illuminating:

 

 

+1, it is a well articulated video.

 

The real issue with the growing, extreme concentration of wealth is the inheritance of it. Much of the roughly $50 Trillion that will pass on to the next generation will almost certainly destroy the rest of their lives and future generations.  "Give them enough so that they will do something, give them so much and they will do nothing at all" - Warren Buffett, as he announced his pledge to the Gates foundation. The Giving pledge organized by Gates and Buffett is a huge first step in addressing the inheritance problem. There are 126 Billionaires who have stepped forward. That is $63B to a few trillion that will not pass along to the womb lottery winners. 

[rkbabang]

Cool, I didn't realize this thread existed. Minimum wage at $15 is a sign of how prosperous our society is. Can you imagine how much a fast food worker makes in 1960, in real terms? That person probably is living in a shack with no remote chance of getting decent health care.

 

It really is a testament to the productive power of capitalism. Would you rather be wealthy 50 years ago or middle class today?

 

Psychologically, I rather be wealthy 50 years ago. I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs make sense from both my experience and my parents' experience.

 

Even though I'd rather be middle class today than wealthy then, I can see why you would say that. Even though life is easier for all now than 50 years ago, back then even the middle class had all of their basic needs met.  I think 50 years is right on the boundary where some will give one answer and some the other. But would you rather be wealthy 100 years ago or middle class today?  How about 150 or 500?  Rich or poor we are living in the safest, healthiest, wealthiest time humanity has ever known, yet so many have zero gratitude and appreciation of this fact.  As I've said before envy is one of humanity's uglier traits.

 

Not to mention some of the statistics many are using to push this "we need the government to save us from the growing income inequality problem" theory fail to take into account changes in demographics.

http://www.economics21.org/research/myth-increasing-income-inequality

 

 

[randomep]

Psychologically, I rather be wealthy 50 years ago.

 

There's always someone  ;)

 

But me, I'll take modern technology.

 

 

That is really subjective when you make a statement like that. For example, I am not saying you... suppose someone failed in college, is bitter about not graduating, is white, and think well his life 50 yrs ago he has much higher relative socio-economic standing. However, as a typical person he has a lower life expectancy, has no access to computers, cell phone, etc. Heck he can probably beat up his wife and get away with it and his wife will put up with it... nowadays she'll dump him cos she can very well support herself on her own.

 

But for the masses, for example a black person, or a chinese person, America today is better hands down, for the chinese person, 50yrs ago he couldn't have gotten in because they were just a few years past the chinese exclusion laws.

 

I am going off in a tangent probably, but one last thing. Something really interesting I saw on TV, it was a doc on a escapee from a N Korea prison who is now in S Korea, and he said in some sense his life was easier back in the prison, out in S Korea everything is about money. So in some sense, he was happier in prison.....

 

 

[APG12]

Psychologically, I rather be wealthy 50 years ago.

 

There's always someone  ;)

 

But me, I'll take modern technology.

 

 

That is really subjective when you make a statement like that. For example, I am not saying you... suppose someone failed in college, is bitter about not graduating, is white, and think well his life 50 yrs ago he has much higher relative socio-economic standing. However, as a typical person he has a lower life expectancy, has no access to computers, cell phone, etc. Heck he can probably beat up his wife and get away with it and his wife will put up with it... nowadays she'll dump him cos she can very well support herself on her own.

 

But for the masses, for example a black person, or a chinese person, America today is better hands down, for the chinese person, 50yrs ago he couldn't have gotten in because they were just a few years past the chinese exclusion laws.

 

I am going off in a tangent probably, but one last thing. Something really interesting I saw on TV, it was a doc on a escapee from a N Korea prison who is now in S Korea, and he said in some sense his life was easier back in the prison, out in S Korea everything is about money. So in some sense, he was happier in prison.....

 

You guys might be over thinking my point, which was simply that material quality of life has improved dramatically over the last 50 years.

[randomep]

Psychologically, I rather be wealthy 50 years ago.

 

There's always someone  ;)

 

But me, I'll take modern technology.

 

 

That is really subjective when you make a statement like that. For example, I am not saying you... suppose someone failed in college, is bitter about not graduating, is white, and think well his life 50 yrs ago he has much higher relative socio-economic standing. However, as a typical person he has a lower life expectancy, has no access to computers, cell phone, etc. Heck he can probably beat up his wife and get away with it and his wife will put up with it... nowadays she'll dump him cos she can very well support herself on her own.

 

But for the masses, for example a black person, or a chinese person, America today is better hands down, for the chinese person, 50yrs ago he couldn't have gotten in because they were just a few years past the chinese exclusion laws.

 

I am going off in a tangent probably, but one last thing. Something really interesting I saw on TV, it was a doc on a escapee from a N Korea prison who is now in S Korea, and he said in some sense his life was easier back in the prison, out in S Korea everything is about money. So in some sense, he was happier in prison.....

 

You guys might be over thinking my point, which was simply that material quality of life has improved dramatically over the last 50 years.

 

You probably didn't read my entire post, I am agreeing with you buddy.

[APG12]

Ah, I did read it but the fact itself is not subjective- although which era you would choose to live in is subjective. So I thought I'd clarify. But I'm glad we're all in agreement.  :)

[PatientCheetah]

For laughs, think in evolutionary terms - having high status usually entails be very well off or having high positions in society, the two usually highly correlate, having a heavily skewed income distribution, smaller proportion of the society will have larger than usual access to mates

[randomep]

For laughs, think in evolutionary terms - having high status usually entails be very well off or having high positions in society, the two usually highly correlate, having a heavily skewed income distribution, smaller proportion of the society will have larger than usual access to mates

 

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society.

 

 

[bizaro86]

I've heard arguments that assortive mating leads to higher income inequality, as a lawyer who 3 generations ago married his secretary or hairdresser marries another lawyer. There could be an evolutionary argument there as well, that 2 high income people marrying might pass on a genetic predisposition to higher income.

[rkbabang]

For laughs, think in evolutionary terms - having high status usually entails be very well off or having high positions in society, the two usually highly correlate, having a heavily skewed income distribution, smaller proportion of the society will have larger than usual access to mates

 

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society.

 

There have been massive changes in our environment that evolution hasn't caught up to yet, but you shouldn't discount evolutionary explanations for our behaviors.  We have evolved certain behaviors for a reason, and understanding those reasons can help you understand human behaviors.  For example why do women like shopping and men don't?  Could it be that shopping is more like gathering and nothing like hunting?  Just because there were no shopping malls 40K years ago doesn't mean that it isn't evolution which explains the behaviors.  Maybe searching for stocks to invest in is more like hunting (how many women are on this board?).  Because our environment is so different from the environment we evolved in, finding evolutionary explanations can be a little like determining how a fish will act out of water, but it can still be quite useful and many times it is the only way to understand the otherwise inexplicable things people do.

 

 

[PatientCheetah]

For laughs, think in evolutionary terms - having high status usually entails be very well off or having high positions in society, the two usually highly correlate, having a heavily skewed income distribution, smaller proportion of the society will have larger than usual access to mates

 

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society.

 

I agree that it's less true in this country. I read a few articles on foreign brides. In China, Taiwan, and Korea, if you don't have a good education or own properties, you are very likely to be out of running in the domestic marriage market. Many poor farmers have to go to Vietnam and other even poorer countries to find wives.

[randomep]

For laughs, think in evolutionary terms - having high status usually entails be very well off or having high positions in society, the two usually highly correlate, having a heavily skewed income distribution, smaller proportion of the society will have larger than usual access to mates

 

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society.

 

There have been massive changes in our environment that evolution hasn't caught up to yet, but you shouldn't discount evolutionary explanations for our behaviors.  We have evolved certain behaviors for a reason, and understanding those reasons can help you understand human behaviors.  For example why do women like shopping and men don't?  Could it be that shopping is more like gathering and nothing like hunting?  Just because there were no shopping malls 40K years ago doesn't mean that it isn't evolution which explains the behaviors.  Maybe searching for stocks to invest in is more like hunting (how many women are on this board?).  Because our environment is so different from the environment we evolved in, finding evolutionary explanations can be a little like determining how a fish will act out of water, but it can still be quite useful and many times it is the only way to understand the otherwise inexplicable things people do.

 

ABSOLUTELY!! I think in those terms all the time. What I mean is we shouldn't talk about our own success now and in the future in evolutionary terms. We are creating an artificial system where the evolution of prehistoric days do not apply.

 

I mean.... am I a failure if I have no children, is someone with 5 children more successful than someone with 1?

 

 

[randomep]

For laughs, think in evolutionary terms - having high status usually entails be very well off or having high positions in society, the two usually highly correlate, having a heavily skewed income distribution, smaller proportion of the society will have larger than usual access to mates

 

I don't think we should think in evolutionary terms, once modern man comes into the picture evolution goes out the window. Otherwise, the most successful people one can argue are those who are the dumbest as they tend to be poor and have more children in any society.

 

I agree that it's less true in this country. I read a few articles on foreign brides. In China, Taiwan, and Korea, if you don't have a good education or own properties, you are very likely to be out of running in the domestic marriage market. Many poor farmers have to go to Vietnam and other even poorer countries to find wives.

 

I am not sure what you mean? What is less true in this country?

 

If you want to discuss the gene pool the actions of a few lawyers or some rich person with a house is a not as great as some uneducated and dumb (I mean genetically dumb) person in Zaire who has 12 children. That person is much more successful than a prof who finds a doctor who has 2 children, even if the children are geniuses. Because that person has spread his genes by 12x whereas the prof is only 2x.

 

BTW sub sahara africa has the highest growth rate in the world.

 

I mean we are at 6 billion (or 7) and we will go to 10billion, when we reach 10billion where are those extra 4+ billion going to come from? mostly from poor countries and mostly from poor people in those poor countries.....

 

 

 

[DTEJD1997]

I've heard arguments that assortive mating leads to higher income inequality, as a lawyer who 3 generations ago married his secretary or hairdresser marries another lawyer. There could be an evolutionary argument there as well, that 2 high income people marrying might pass on a genetic predisposition to higher income.

 

Two lawyers getting married?  How are they going to afford to have ANY children?

 

Most attorneys do not make very much money at all...

 

In Boston, the lowest paid person in the courthouse are the new PD's.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/21/indefensible/23OMcEGsJe1151YT0Q43PJ/story.html

 

This is not an isolated example or story.

 

Most newly minted attorneys are unemployed OR underemployed.  They also typically have $100k+ in student loan debt which makes things tricky.

 

Perhaps a better example would be doctors OR portfolio managers of people being able to afford to have children.