Comment by helen___keller | Hacker News Reader

Comment by helen___keller | Hacker News Reader

This entire post is based on a strawman argument. AoC said that a system that allows billionaires to emerge alongside extreme poverty is immoral - with reference to hookworm(which she incorrectly referred to as ringworm) in Alabama. It's hard to disagree with that, and it's a VERY different point than claiming billionaires should not exist (which OP argues against).

By the way, the point AoC was trying to make when put in context is exactly the argument that the OP was making, which is that people getting rich is OK but it's immoral that people are getting rich and also people are living in extreme poverty, so we should improve the system so people aren't living in extreme poverty.

Where OP differs from AoC is (of course) in his assessment of how we eliminate extreme poverty - AoC is famously advocating a 70% marginal tax rate, while OP suggested some unspecified mix of "technological improvement" and "re-imagining of government" to achieve elimination of poverty. Frankly I think OP is just naive. Maybe he thinks government is literally in the stone age with an army of clerks shuffling paperwork, but I just don't see how eliminating some unnecessary jobs (useful, yes) in government can achieve "medical care for all, affordable education for all, and some amount of income for all" (OP's listed aims).

On top of that, ANY change to government is inherently political. The kind of revolutionary upgrades in government efficiency that OP wants would need to be a major party initiative - which would be opposed by the opposite party, watered down during negotiations, and subjected to compromise by the political process. This is simply a fact about how the world works. We're not an autocracy which means we don't get a visionary Steve Jobs figure who can dictate what the government will do for the next 10 years, and we have to accept both the good and the bad that comes with that.

To think that technology will magically save us from real world problems plaguing real people by "reimagining government" and "cutting unnecessary jobs" is literally wishful thinking. It belongs in a bygone era where tech enthusiasts were sure facebook and google would revolutionize the world by spreading democratic and free speech ideals to every corner of the earth. There aren't easy solutions to every hard problem and OP doesn't seem to appreciate this fact.

Well written comment. As someone close to the NHS and UK school system, Fred's type of mentality has hit these hard and contributed to Brexit. Both are constantly bringing in "change" type consultants. If only we can cut employees/use this software package/run it more like a business/get better leaders/have more digital strategies. No Fred, they just need money. They need money to pay doctors, they need money to fund beds, the need to pay teachers. Government doesn't run like business. A hospital can't just go bust, a council can't just shut up shop, this isn't how it should work either. His solution is roughly saying "well I like the status quo and if you come up with anything I'll take a look but will probably shoot it down". Sorry Fred, you're on "the let them eat cake" side whether you recognize it or not. Roll on March 29th.

It seems Brexit will do horrific damage to the NHS though.

I mean turning back the clock on half a century of economic integration to become some Juche state probably isn't going to work out so well.

What is "extreme poverty" and what is the character of the life of someone who lives in "extreme poverty"?

One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric: Extreme is a relative descriptor. If the most poor of us made 100k/yr, then they would be on the "extreme" end of the income scale.

I fear that it's too easy to forget that making 15k/year today makes you dramatically better off than median income earners from 100 years ago.

I don't disagree that descriptors like "extreme poverty" are inherently vague, but I think that's kind of the point - that regardless for where the exact line is, we can all agree there's some point where people are unambiguously in the world of "extreme poverty". For people in that world, we can easily pick out the hugest pain points in their struggle - lack of healthcare, lack of housing, and so on. And then, we can structurally change how these resources are distributed by society in a way such nobody will have to live without them.

That's really all the progressive agenda is, right? We recognize that having no healthcare at all (and the associated problems with that level of poverty) is immoral, so we want healthcare for all, even if we have to raise the marginal tax rate at the top level to do so (and so on).

I don't think there needs to be a formula for what constitutes "extreme poverty" to make poverty less painful for America.

Edit: or to put it another way, since most everyone agrees that going full communism is categorically a bad idea, partially socializing resources that can be considered a common good is a good alternative. We already do this with plenty of things, like the military, we're just looking to take it a step further where appropriate.

A rising tide lifts all boats... Or at least it should.

What do you think the world looks like for the poorest in the world in the next 100 years? 300 years? Possibly/probably better than you or I have it now.

As long as where they live isn't flooded by rising sea levels, or their farms aren't desiccated by drought....

Buy cheap land in Canada or Russia if you think arable land distribution will be affected by climate change :3

My own definition: While we have people who are incapable of paying for food, shelter, healthcare and basic education, we have people living in extreme poverty.

It's good that less of us are extremely poor today than 100 years ago, but the fact that you can watch Netflix in comfort while your teeth rot inside your mouth unattended does not mean change to the system isn't needed.

Do you add any context to that? For example, lets say I go out and I spend my paycheck on a new gaming computer, the next day technically I can't afford food. Is it societies job to step in? What if I am able bodied but refuse to work? What if I could afford to live with roommates, but I prefer not to? As for healthcare is everyone entitled to cutting edge experimental therapies from the mayo clinic, or would access to their local hospital and free clinic be sufficient to meet your requirement?

Depending on those definitions it may be that the vast majority of Americans already have those things or very few do. So clearly defining them is important.

I think you know the answer. That in your hypothetical example you had a choice it’s clearly not what people in extreme poverty have.

That’s what sufficient (not impoverished) money allows - the freedom to choose.

> Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."[2] In 2018, extreme poverty widely refers to making below the international poverty line of $1.90/day (in 2011 prices, equivalent to $2.12 in 2018), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to making $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day".[3] The vast majority of those in extreme poverty – 96% – reside in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, The West Indies, East Asia and the Pacific; nearly half live in India and China alone.[4] As of 25 June 2018, Nigeria became the poverty capital of the world with more than 86 million of its citizens living in extreme poverty despite abundant resources.[5][1][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

P.S.: In case anyone here hasn't read Factfulness and doesn't think that the world really is getting better in very measurable ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...

One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric: Extreme is a relative descriptor.

From the blog post:

I am not for the emerging progressive Robin Hood narrative. I am certainly not for the entrenched conservative Let Them Eat Cake narrative. I am for a new narrative that understands that everything must change if we are to find ways to support everyone in our society.

As far as I can tell, all societies have some form of redistribution as well as some form of Pareto distribution. This is because the Pareto distribution just appears everywhere in the same way the Normal distribution appears everywhere. However, the social instincts of Homo sapiens operate on a relative basis. Social unrest can well be brought about from relative poverty. Evidence indicates that crime is strongly correlated with relative poverty, not absolute poverty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE

Calling Pareto outcomes "immoral" is insanity. It's ideology denying historical and scientific facts. However, denying the social effects of relative poverty is also ideology denying historical and scientific facts. We do need a new narrative, or perhaps an old narrative updated for today. (We need to stop the squeezing of "everyone" pastimes for luxury profits.) Great wealth is only stable in a society where people feel the rising tide lifting all boats. In any case, a narrative that vilifies entire groups of people is the last thing we need in 2019.

See that's kind of the schtick. There's strong incontrovertible evidence that capitalism is the hitherto only discovered thing that causes the tide to actually lift all boats in reality. The contention is how equally it should lift (and if that's even possible and even desirable, if possible)

There's strong incontrovertible evidence that capitalism is the hitherto only discovered thing that causes the tide to actually lift all boats in reality. The contention is how equally it should lift (and if that's even possible and even desirable, if possible)

Everyone should be able to take their family to the park, the museum, the movies, or the ballgame. Doing so shouldn't make you choose between feeling lesser/2nd rate or paying some big fraction of your entire paycheck. "Everywoman" and "everyman" should have their own nobility and feel they belong. That's how you know if a society works.

The wealthy should rightly fear the unrest of the masses. That's simply how Homo sapiens have worked throughout all cultures and all of history. There should be virtuous works for the public which include the entire community. Basically, either they fill the populist role, or someone else will step in and do it for them. The 1st option is not only the best for them, it's the best for society as a whole.

I don't understand. It's difficult to not read the straw man "all seats should be equidistant from the baseball diamond"

I hear you saying a lot of shoulds which need justification by themselves, but even if I accept them, there's nothing we know of that can provide that.

A core contention between us is likely to be "how much of our current lives are we willing to risk to speculate toward the feel-good shoulds?" My answer is "all steps should be dramatically small and take a long time to make sure we can back out if we misstep." That's the core of what it means to be conservative, to me.

In other words, Hell is a long way down, we, all of us, have it too good to speculate dramatically in large ways or in fast ways.

Completely unrelated to the content of your post, but I find it interesting that you lowercase the o in AOC as if it's a technology like IoT.

Haha yea wow I didn't even realize I was doing that.

> would need to be a major party initiative - which would be opposed by the opposite party, watered down during negotiations, and subjected to compromise by the political process.

The current parties? Never. They would simply talk about the wall or destroying another country. Or saction this and that.

In the last 6 weeks, the Yellow Vest Movement has achieved so much already. The power is in the hands of the people, if only they realize it. The good news is that this movement is spreading everywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com