Hacker News Reader

Comment by c1u | Hacker News Reader

Not sure what you mean by "wealth per person", but pretty much everything is significantly better than it was in 1970.

The average North American is significantly wealthier today than they were in 1970. Compare an average car from 1970 and an average car today. Today's econo-boxes are Space Shuttles compared the caveman-cars of 1970 (Ford Pinto?). Both cost approx the same in inflation-adjusted work-hours.

Think about the TV that your average family was watching in 1970, and the average TV today. 60" 3D flat panel TVs for <$1000 in 2013 compared to ~$2200 (inflation adjusted) in 1970 for a 16" Motorola color TV.

View on HN

He meant inequity.

Which is an argument I don't understand.

Imagine, instead, that compared to the 1970s, everyone today was twice as healthy as they were back then.

But, some people are 10,000x healthier than they were in the 70s.

I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier.

It's such a strange position to me to desire everyone to be worse off, just so that a few people aren't much, much, MUCH better off. Does it really matter that a few super rich, or super healthy, people exist? Heck, even the super rich we're talking about end up giving it to charity anyway (what else is there to do with it, really?).

Anyway, /rant off.

"I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier."

Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.

I think a better analogy would be something like that (stupid) movie In Time, where people are given a certain amount of time to live when they turn 25. They can freely trade that time with others. Some wind up with millions of years of time, while the majority are cheated, exploited, and misled by the wealthy ("time is money") and face the risk of death at any moment as they scramble over what little time they have left.

As weak and flawed as the movie is, they're right about one thing: it doesn't have to be that way.

> Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.

Yes an in order to become wealthier you do not have to take someone else's wealth away. A brief look at history will show this to be true

Yes, it matters.

Gross inequity is undemocratic. I cite Kevin Phillips' book Wealth and Democracy http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame... but it's been researched and detailed ad nauseum.

More equitable societies are happier.

More equitable societies have better public health.

Just in case you need cites: https://www.google.com/searchq=More+equitable+societies+are+...

Lastly, I believe, but cannot prove, that more equitable societies are safer. Both domestically and internationally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com