Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition  (Read 1738 times)

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2015, 02:17:13 pm »

Scenario one, unquestioningly. It shows everything wrong with society.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Scenario A is so very much worse; it exists in a world with 3 story mansions, wine, steak, and caviar, but also cardboard boxes used as "housing." Somehow, some way, that 3 story mansion got built, the wine, cavair, and steak got made. We're not told how or if Adam inherited or earned that mansion or how Bob ended up in that damn box, or what actions or circumstances might happen to lead to these outcomes. Somehow, Adam ended up in a mansion and Bob in a box, but the question is, what can we do now, and the answer appears to be nothing. Everyone's disadvantaged in this scenario, Adam can't utilize trading to bob for labor, Bob can't get paid for his, and even Alex has to look at it without being able to do jack.

Assumptions are being made, but that was inevitable in these scenario examples. Adam can't reasonably hire Bob to do something he wouldn't like to do himself or that Bob is better at doing? We don't know if Bob is mentally ill, or on drugs, or who knows what. Bob, even if he has no problems of a catastrophic nature, probably can't get hired (why he is in the box). Assuming Mansions don't just appear out of nowhere and require no maintenance, Adam could hypothetically hire and pay bob to do some of that maintenance, but doing so would be very risky (as most people would never hire bob). Thus, Adam and Bob have no way to use economics, society and trade to benefit each other, they're so close, yet so separate. Neither of them can use what's around them to improve their lives (each other/society).

The downsides are obvious, Adam's mansion has a property value which is brought down by poor bob living in a freaking cardboard box across the street. Poor Bob is obviously getting screwed by having to live in a box and eat from the garbage (and if it's Adam's garbage, he could at least separate out the food knowing Bob will be eating it/making it easier and better for him to find it). Adam may be able to move away from Bob or have Bob moved away from him, but at some point, Adam still lives in a society that leaves Bob screwed and that will eventually come back to bite him somehow (materially, mentally, etc). It's a fundamental breakdown of society when you get into unequal tiers like this, and the problem is, there's little if any reasonable, low risk, practical solution.

In a perfect world (which somehow started on this horrid inequality) resources and labor could be split and everyone would benefit from the products of that greater labor. All sorts of things could theoretically be done. Adam could somehow profit from Bob's labor even after paying him. Someone could help Bob become more self sufficient by helping him with employment, or housing, or food procurement/production, but the grim realities are that, nobody practically can. As said above, Bob may have mental or drug problems, or other things holding him back that would be risky to anyone trying to help him. Likewise, Adam may have similar problems and could exploit Bob (not pay him) for any labor done, and we're not told what if anything Bob could to do force Adam to pay him for any work he may hypothetically end up doing. Nobody can trust anybody, and nothing can be done to improve things.

Yes, assumptions are being made, but that's because the example itself is inherently flawed and incomplete. We've got a universe consisting of 3 people (all male), a dog, a street, a mansion, a cardboard box, wine, steak, caviar, a trashcan and presumably trash. Unless all of these things exist in a vacuum and spontaneously sprung into existence from nothing, the universe is incomplete and basically requires some other assumptions. If not, and all of these things magically come into existence with no outside or prior factors, then that's far worse, because Adam mystically ended up with basically everything and Bob got screwed, while Alex presumably got screwed over worse, because he doesn't even seem to have anything and is just walking. Scenario B requires no assumptions if left in this vacuum, because at least that's equal, but with scenario A one wonders where the mansion came from. Unless these three people or some magical outside force created this all from thin air, you practically have to assume something, and perhaps this exercise was meant to see what assumptions would be presented by any potential participants.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 02:22:04 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2015, 02:19:58 pm »

EDIT:
Write your answer before you read how other people responded. Feel free to reflect afterwards.


Scenario one:

Adam and Bob are neighbors who live across the street from one another. Adam lives in a beautiful 3 story mansion and Bob lives in a cardboard box.

One day while out for a walk, Alex sees Bob rummaging through a trashcan for food. He says nothing, and continues walking.

That night, Alex eats wine and caviar, and feeds filet mignon to his dog. Bob goes to bed hungry.


Scenario two:

Adam and Bob are neighbors who live across the street from one another. Both Adam and Bob live in cardboard boxes.

One day while out for a walk, Alex sees Bob rummaging through a trashcan for food. He says nothing, and continues walking.

That night, both Alex and Bob go to bed hungry.



Which scenario bothers you more?

Why?


What relation is Alex to Adam?
Adam is Bob's neighbour, but Alex's affiliation with the pair is not given.  Is he a random pedestrian walking through?


In scenario 1, Alex is apparently obscenely affluent, with copious resources to spare.  Again however, the relation of Alex to Adam, Bob's neighbour is not established.  Is Alex visiting Adam's house, and thus being served dinner?  Did he bring his dog with him, and this being the reason why the dog is being served fillet mignon?   I try to analyze situations I see from as many angles as possible to reach a less "reactionary" emotional response.   

Here's a hypothetical way scenario 1 may have come about.

Adam is absurdly wealthy, but bound by an obtuse trustfund's Byzantine requirements. He might not be legally permitted to donate wealth to others, for instance. (Maybe he is the inheritor of a vast fortune from an excentric rich uncle or something, who was a total jerk, and wanted his fortune to continue hurting people after his death.)  He invites his architect friend, Alex, and his dog, over for dinner. Per the requirements of the trust, Adam has to live in accordance with the will and testament of his crooked uncle, which involves maintaining a conspicuous level of consumption and opulence. (Perhaps the uncle built the mansion in a slum, purposefully to rub in his wealth, and part of the inheritance is for the nephew, Adam, to be required to live there. This is why Bob is neighbours with Adam, when normally a homeless person would not be "tolerated" in an affluent neighbourhood.  The police tend to enforce vagrancy laws more aggressively when rich people are around for some reason.)  The dinner consists of caviar with fine gourmet crackers, then white wine and hors d'eouvres, followed by an exotic salad of out-of-season garden cress and baby spring greens, followed by  red wine and fillet mignon, with herb roasted potatoes and green beans.  By the time the main course is served, Alex, being a NewYork stereotypical architect, used to living in a cramped apartment and eating on the run, (and who's major life excess is actually his dog, which he has difficulty keeping due to tennant restrictions in the big city) simply cant hack down the rest of his dinner, and feeds the liflet mignon to the dog.

Should I be mad at Alex for this? Or should I be mad at the deceased eccentric uncle? ;)

There is great danger in getting emotional without knowing more.  Without knowing the relationship between Alex and Adam, and their association with Bob, I can't make a moral judgement.
Logged

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2015, 02:27:38 pm »

I thought Alex and Adam were the same person.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2015, 02:46:48 pm »

I thought Alex and Adam were the same person.
Exactly. The scenario makes much more sense comparatively if they are supposed to (and follows Lord Bucket's usual A,B,C,... naming convention in these questions).
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2015, 04:17:52 pm »

I've fixed the Adam/Alex typo. Let's please not spend the next two pages talking about it.



It is a "leading choice" so to speak. Two options where one is made overwhelmingly preferable to the other.

And yet notice that not everyone agrees which choice is "overwhelmingly preferable" to the other.

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2015, 04:31:23 pm »

Going off of the edited thing I'd say that neither scenario really bothers me that much. If I had to pick a scenario which I would say was "preferred" one I'd have to say scenario 1, since scenario 1 not only has less overall suffering, but contains the tools needed for the situation to improve. If both of them are dirt broke there isn't anything that can be done to improve either of their situations, but in scenario 1 the wealth is there, it's totally possible for Adam to extend out a helping hand to Bob, or to employ others and help them, or to use his wealth to provide political pressure to help address the problems of unemployment and homelessness.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 05:42:36 pm by i2amroy »
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

Tawa

  • Bay Watcher
  • the first mankind all over the world
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2015, 04:42:08 pm »

Scenario 1, because Adam's being a dick.

I mean, sure, Scenario 2 sucks, but Scenario 1 features the follies of man rather than misfortune.
Logged
I don't use Bay12 much anymore. PM me if you need to get in touch with me and I'll send you my Discord handle.

SirQuiamus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Keine Experimente!
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2015, 05:13:29 pm »

If Adam and Bob represented the entire population of the world, I would definitely say scenario one -- because  w e a l t h   i s   r e l a t i v e. Neither one would be rich or poor in scenario two.
Logged

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2015, 05:22:23 pm »

One.

There are several different things at play here.

Obviously from certain perspectives the first scenario is "better" because half of the people present are living relatively well off, as opposed to all of those in the second living in abject poverty. However, the specific nature and degree of the inequality in the first makes it worse. Adam has material wealth above and beyond what he needs to live comfortably, to the point where he can functionally waste expensive luxuries on animals while his neighbor starves.

That's not to say that Adam is "evil" or "wrong" (the philanthropic spirit is, while admirable, not something which can or should be expected of everyone with more material wealth than they need to live well -- that is, after all, the role of government, social contract, &c., care for the less fortunate is a task for society as a whole rather than individuals). But the excess he displays gives us an indication within the confines of the scenario that the system in which the two live does have sufficient material wealth to allow both Adam and Bob to live comfortably, but that that wealth is so poorly distributed that one half of the population starves despite the system containing enough wealth to allow him to at least possess the basic necessities of life.


It could be argued that the system implied by the second scenario is in fact worse (as 100% of the population is starving and functionally homeless, rather than 50%), but I would dispute that.

The second scenario, solely based off of the information given, is better because each individual living in poverty is doing so because of a lack of resources (the system does not contain enough wealth for anyone to prosper) rather than a misallocation of them. And, fundamentally, it is easier to overcome the former problem than the latter -- lack of resources can be overcome with time and effort, but a society which perpetuates a system in which resources are so vastly slanted in their distribution that half the population is living in poverty for no reason requires change which is philosophical and social rather than purely material, and thus more difficult to effect.

The gist of it:
If Scenario 2's system gains resources, it may be assumed that they will be distributed equally, following the given pattern -- 50% will go to Adam, and 50% to Bob. Both will enjoy a measurable improvement in their quality of life, even if it is minor -- they might dine upon stale bread and water rather than nothing, or sleep in abandoned sheds rather than cardboard boxes. If Scenario 1's system gains resources, it can likewise be assumed that they will be distributed according to the extant pattern, giving all potential gains to Adam and none to Bob. In that scenario, neither individual experiences a measurable improvement in their quality of life -- Adam already has so much that additional wealth is functionally irrelevant to how he lives, while Bob will gain nothing at all.

Extrapolated from there, so long as each system continues to accrue resources, the first will never experience meaningful improvement in the lives of either Adam or Bob, while the second will continue to improve the lives of both. Ergo, the first scenario is worse, because its poverty is tied to the fundamental nature of the society rather than to the current economic and material resources of that society.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

SirQuiamus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Keine Experimente!
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2015, 05:27:47 pm »

Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2015, 05:56:17 pm »

This comparison is bad because it relies entirely on ambiguous phrasing.

I'll simplify it to show the problem: Which of the following bothers you more?

- Adam murders Bob
- Adam and Bob both die from natural causes

More bad things are happening in the second case, but the first one includes a moral wrong.  Therefore it depends entirely on how you're interpreting the phrase "what bothers you more": is it based on the amount of bad things happening or how offensive the situation is morally?
Logged

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2015, 06:19:07 pm »

I'd say that if it was forced to be one of those two (as in black/white, no "take a third option choices")  I'd rather have the murder situation, (though I might not want to be around Adam after that). Personally I see survival as top priority in my moral system, and it trumps anything else automatically. I'm not ashamed to say that if it came down to my survival vs. killing all of you without any option for a third choice, I would unashamedly kill all of you. :P
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Which bothers you more: inequality and poverty edition
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2015, 06:24:25 pm »

Scenario 1.
A's a dick.
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑
Pages: 1 [2]