> To look at it in a nice, emotive context, which society do you suppose is happier: the one where the cure for all cancers exists, but is so labour intensive that only the rich can afford it, or the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat? I'd caution you not to underestimate the pain of knowing that your loved one could be saved, if only you had a bit more money.

Spare me the sanctimony.

Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow.

You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little?

> I just find the assertion that it doesn't matter if the rich have an ever-increasing share of the pie as long as the pie keeps growing a touch disingenuous.

Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis?

It's not that the pie keeps growing. It's that the amount of pie that the poor get keeps growing.

> Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow.

And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can.

> You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little?

No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly), but has lesser income disparity will probably be happier than one with massive income disparity and faster overall progress. I'm not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong', but I am saying that this is a fact. Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it?

> Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis?

Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem.

> And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can.

Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle?

> No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly).

Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there.

Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers.

> I am saying that this is a fact.

Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences.

> Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it?

Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.)

>> Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis?

> Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem.

Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence.

As far as "caring" goes, you've conceded that my way results in faster delivery of essential goods to poor people. That leaves us with I'm evil and your way kills people.

> Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle?

To an extent, yes - we've gone over this already. As mentioned, the very fact of this imbalance can cause a society that is overall less happy.

> Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there.

Whew, way to quote out of context. Yes, I stated that the society where such a cure was unknown is likely to be happier. This is not the same as advocating zero advancement. There is a suffering generated by partial availability of such a cure, and a suffering generated by the total unavailability of such a thing - and my point is that in the US and UK the latter is neglected.

quoth me: "No, I am not a commie, and I am in full favour of some income disparity as a motivator towards useful output".

You've set up a straw man. I could do the same to you - I could imply that you favour a society where the richest 1% have 99% of the wealth, can afford genetic manipulations that make them vastly physically and intellectually superior to the rest of society, while the rest have little more than they do now. Really, though, in the end we're talking about a matter of degree, not absolutes.

> Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers.

Poor analogy, implies that there's some kind of cost/downside to the rich in this role.

> Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences.

So the fact that people know they're massively less well off than another segment of society (despite working 63 jobs and getting hardly any time off) makes them unhappy? Sounds, well, kind of like what I've been saying.

> Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.)

You're right, the lives of western european nations are happy, brutish, and short, thanks to their smaller income disparity. Have you ever visited? They tend to be happier, have longer lives, and experience less suffering. Class mobility is vastly higher than in the US. It would probably be a stretch to call them brutish, although those who spend much time driving in Paris may disagree ;).

> Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence.

shrugs I have none. After all, I can't see inside your head. That's why I said 'I think'. It's not so much of a stretch, though - it's in the interest of the wealthy to advance justifications to support their position, whether they're reasonable or not.

> Yes, I stated that the society where such a cure was unknown is likely to be happier. This is not the same as advocating zero advancement.

It is if you think that happy is the only relevant criteria, which you've written above.

> I could do the same to you - I could imply that you favour

Yes, you could attribute something to me that has no actual basis, again. It's unclear why you think that refraining from doing so is some sort of virtue.

> Poor analogy, implies that there's some kind of cost/downside to the rich in this role.

There is a downside. They pay 90% of the NRE. If they're not 90% of the relevant population, they've paid much of the NRE for the rest of us. Yes, they get a benefit, early access, but denying them won't speed up our access.

Yes, they clearly think that the benefit that they receive is greater than the cost that they pay, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a cost or that they're not subsidizing the rest of us.

>> Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences.

> So the fact that people know they're massively less well off than another segment of society (despite working 63 jobs and getting hardly any time off) makes them unhappy? Sounds, well, kind of like what I've been saying.

Reread what I actually wrote. Telling them that it's bad that that someone else has it better has consequences.

> Have you ever visited? They tend to be happier, have longer lives, and experience less suffering.

Smug much? Yes, I have. I've also lived outside the US, in US ghettos, and done "poor people" work. You're comparing different populations and the difference that you're fixated on isn't particularly relevant to that difference between the populations. If you look at comparable populations, the difference that you're fixated on disappears.

Or, in stat-speak - averages can be deceptive.

> it's in the interest of the wealthy to advance justifications to support their position, whether they're reasonable or not.

And what's my interest?

Note that everyone has "interest", yet only interests attributed to the wealthy rate a mention. And, you're assuming that the fact that they have "interest" means that they're wrong.

> It is if you think that happy is the only relevant criteria, which you've written above

Overly simplistic. You ignored the rest of this paragraph, which explained my position. Please have the decency to debate fairly - this is HN, not Digg.

> Yes, you could attribute something to me that has no actual basis, again. It's unclear why you think that refraining from doing so is some sort of virtue.

My point being that you've attributed something to me with no actual basis. If you read my posts it's quite clear that I don't favour a society with zero advancement - merely that I think the balance we have struck between advancement and relative prosperity is out of whack, yet you insist that this is my position.

> There is a downside. They pay 90% of the NRE. If they're not 90% of the relevant population, they've paid much of the NRE for the rest of us. Yes, they get a benefit, early access, but denying them won't speed up our access. > Yes, they clearly think that the benefit that they receive is greater than the cost that they pay, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a cost or that they're not subsidizing the rest of us.

The rich benefit vastly more from society than the rest of us - they benefit for every worker they have that society has educated, for every worker that can drive to work thanks to good roads, etc etc. Looking at taxation purely in terms of direct benefits like Medicare or social security is simplistic.

> Telling them that it's bad that that someone else has it better has consequences.

You don't think it's bad position to be in, to be in the poorest segments of society? To be unable to finance care for your chronic illness if you lose your job? Frankly, I think I'd loathe that situation.

> Smug much?

Not really. I live in the UK, where we have a pretty similar issue to the US, if slightly less pronounced. I simply admire the basic civility of the economic situation in these other countries.

> You're comparing different populations and the difference that you're fixated on isn't particularly relevant to that difference between the populations. If you look at comparable populations, the difference that you're fixated on disappears.

Care to elaborate?

Please don't mistake my distaste for severe income inequality as jealousy. I live comfortably, and I can honestly say that I have little use for a great deal more cash than I have now. Honestly, though, I think we're going round in circles here. If you have something new to say I'll be more than happy to continue the debate, but I don't think we're going anywhere.

> My point being that you've attributed something to me with no actual basis.

An accurate quote is an actual basis.

> The rich benefit vastly more from society than the rest of us - they benefit for every worker they have that society has educated, for every worker that can drive to work thanks to good roads, etc etc.

Rubbish. The educated worker benefits more from the education than the employer, absent some actual coercion. (Read "threatened or actual force", not "Google refused to hire me.")

> You don't think it's bad position to be in, to be in the poorest segments of society?

No.

The goodness/badness of my position does not depend on whether someone else can jet to Aruba. The goodness/badness of my position depends only on my position. Telling people otherwise is both wrong and harmful.

For example, I'd much rather be poor in much of the US than middle class in Mexico. I'd much rather be poor in the US than upper class in some of the post-colonial countries in modern Africa. I'd much rather be middle class in Mexico than upper-class/rich in the middle ages.

Do you really think that I'm not choosing better even though in each case I'm picking relative poverty?

Now, you could argue that rich and poor used to have it bad but now we've advanced so that only poor have it bad....

> To be unable to finance care for your chronic illness if you lose your job? Frankly, I think I'd loathe that situation.

That's irrelevant to this discussion unless you'd be happy if you were rich and had some incurable illness. (Hint: the real problem is your situation, not that someone else has it better.)

> I simply admire the basic civility

I like civility too, but given a choice between progress and civility, I'll take progress every time because progress makes people's lives better.

> Care to elaborate?

Not much beyond you don't know much about the US or you don't understand what averages obscure.