This is an interesting comment. But let me point to Tyler Cowen, who I found more insightful. He takes the same sentiment expressed by Scalzi, pushes it to it's logical conclusion and finds it lacking:
"Let's say you live in a country which has some rich people, some people in the lower middle class, and some very very poor people...In such societies, do the "lower middle class but not very poor people" have cause to complain? After all, some large group of others has it much, much tougher. ...At what percentile of wealth does your claim to complain go away or diminish? ... Can't a rich person point out that he has a higher MU of money than a non-rich person might think? Or must that necessarily offend others? What kind of genuflections must he package along with that information, so as to avoid being considered offensive?
...
Beware of moral arguments which do not address "At which margin?" I see a lot of attempts to lower the status of Todd Henderson, but not much real moral engagement."
In that post, Prof. Cowen alludes to the strength of the argument being related to the complainer's marginal utility, relative to that of, say, a poor person. The complaints about the Henderson piece by the poor (or by others claiming to defend the poor) implicitly assume that the marginal utility of a rich person must necessarily be lower than that of a poor person, for the very reason that the former has more money.
However, Mr. Scalzi's other piece featured in HN today, about being poor, illustrates that one might be so deep into a hole that a little extra [1] might not be enough to make any difference. To the degree that's true, the marginal utility for the poor person would be very low. Perhaps low enough that more good would be done for him by whatever contribution to society that Mr. Henderson makes.
Or maybe not. But the answer is not a foregone conclusion; one can't simply assume that the answer is obvious.
[1] that little extra being what's taken from Mr. Henderson and his ilk and divided up amongst the poor.
Todd's lamentation is basically "but I'm not rich, if you have a look at my peers". After all, Todd's on a fixed salary, and there is little thrill left in his work if he's tenured, there's little bluesky left in his investments.
Sounds like he's going through a bit of a personal crisis.
Leave him alone. When he gets over this episode, he'll be fine.
"Let's say you live in a country which has some rich people, some people in the lower middle class, and some very very poor people...In such societies, do the "lower middle class but not very poor people" have cause to complain? After all, some large group of others has it much, much tougher. ...At what percentile of wealth does your claim to complain go away or diminish? ... Can't a rich person point out that he has a higher MU of money than a non-rich person might think? Or must that necessarily offend others? What kind of genuflections must he package along with that information, so as to avoid being considered offensive? ... Beware of moral arguments which do not address "At which margin?" I see a lot of attempts to lower the status of Todd Henderson, but not much real moral engagement."
I recommend reading the whole thing.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09...