[FRIAM] Income Equality

Mon Apr 1 18:31:11 EDT 2019

Hey Nick, what species of hominid do you think would go for that? I'm
thinking maybe bonobos, but Homo sapiens' certainly doesn't seem to be
headed that way. It would be nice in a utopian sort of way, but doesn't
seem too likely.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:03 PM Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> All,
>
> Look.  Let's assume that competing is what we humans do.  So, we have to
> afford ways for them to compete.  But, if we are humanists, it is obvious
> that those domains of competition should not include essentials to human
> life.  Those should be equal.  Relentlessly equal, to the point that nobody
> can compute on them no matter how hard they try.  We need excess income
> police patrolling the streets, day and night.  So, I got my basic income,
> my basic healthcare, how I do compete?  By doing better with that basic
> resource than you do.  We both have a basic housing allowance.  My house
> has a cupula on it.  So THERE!   Since we cannot increase our consumption
> by earning more income, the only way to show off is by conserving resources
> in all domains other than the Domain of Display.  Huge benefit for the
> environment.  Uh-oh!  What if the Domain of Display becomes Passenger
> Pigeon feathers.  Hmmm! Back to the old drawing board.
>
> N
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 12:01 PM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Income Equality
>
> Steve points to a pragmatic way to find the answer to a permutation of the
> question. But it's interesting to me to try to answer the question as
> written: Why ... should NOT ...?  If I reformulate it, we may lose the
> original intent, but arrive at a clearer question:
>
> Why _should_ everyone's annual income be different?  ... or at least
> independent?
>
> I think the answer boils down to identity, selfhood, and membership.  As
> long as we define ourselves in terms of money, jobs, careers, hobbies,
> family, ... what type of bicycle we ride, etc., then our incomes should, as
> a moral imperative, be commensurately unique as those other attributes.  As
> such categories fuzzify and disappear, then we'll be closer to homogenous
> incomes.  Artificially homogenized incomes, in the presence of fully
> diverse things like assets or hobbies, will only lead to dissonance.
>
> Putting the question back in context, is homogenized annual income "one
> reaction step away" from our current state?  No way.
>
> On 4/1/19 8:17 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> >
> > On 3/31/19 11:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> "Why exactly is it that everybody shouldn't have the same annual
> income?"
> >>
> > Try it and you will get a very quick and probably series of blunt
> answers.
> >
> > I've had my version of that fantasy and the next step in it is to find
> > the person in the room with the lowest income (the shabby homeless
> person lurking in the back is a good start) (or just arbitrarily pick some
> one standing next to you) and offer to "average incomes" with them.
> Repeat.   Not everyone will participate, maybe only those with "similar"
> incomes will share, but the exercise would be useful, even with Monopoly
> Money.
> >
> > Ultimately this can become a "sorting exercise".   It would be much
> easier to "share" what you have with someone just a little less well off
> than you.    As a bottom up exercise, (least wealthy shares with next
> least, repeat) it might work well until you hit the big disparity gaps...
> The billionaires won't want to share with the millionaires nor they with
> the upper-middle-class but there might be a trickle-up effect that relieved
> a LOT in the meantime.   Just sayin'.
> >
> > I am in the midst (literally today) of a complex of "pay it forward"
> exercises with friends, organizations and acquaintances who either are, or
> support folks living in or near homelessness.   A little bit of $$, Time,
> Attention goes a *LONG* way with these folks.   I'm not averaging my income
> with them, but in the spirit of religious tithing, I probably do give order
> 10% of my income and time to these kinds of exercises and *I* believe that
> provides a several X leverage factor for what I do give.   It can be
> tedious, it can feel risky, it can be disappointing sometimes, but it feels
> a lot more connected than writing a check to one of the big charities.  I
> AM a fan of some of those (many not), so don't want to dissuade that kind
> of giving, just encourage more personal, local, engaged "sharing".
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190401/9bab2ffb/attachment.html>