> 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.
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.