That's not fair...

Children go through a period of acute awareness of a type of justice as they discover that the world is unfair. They first discover that there are rules and that sometimes these can be used to their advantage. A complaint of “jimmy has two trucks and I have none” will likely motivate an adult to take one truck of jimmy for my benefit. Mostly we grow out of this childishness as we realise that trucks are earned not given.

So chalked on the sidewalk today as I went for a lunchtime stroll was, “10% of NZers have 60% of the wealth, while 40% have just 3%”. This is a statistic from a recent Statistics NZ survey on wealth distribution in NZ as at 2015 and is an accurate reporting of at least what part of the report says.

I don’t know the motivation of the sidewalk chalk messenger but I suspect they wrote it because they felt it was wrong in a childlike response to a supposed injustice. Because in itself the quote tells us nothing about the situation or even if it is a good or a bad idea. It needed at a minimum a qualifier such as “large wealth inequality can lead to rebellion” (think French revolution if you want a famous example, let them eat cake and all that)

But is wealth inequality a bad thing, accepting that excess inequality is, but is this split particularly bad and why. I don’t pretend to know but some thoughts occur.

One household is a group of students and another is a couple just about to retire. No one would expect equal wealth between these groups now would they. Likely as not the students have no wealth and the retiring couple might own a house at the very least. But this is just a run of life variance, kids have no money adults have more money, wow who knew.

How about one person purchased a house in Auckland 10 years ago for $300k and one purchased one in Invercargill for the same amount, both equal at that stage, but now the Auckland house is worth $1M and Invercargill house is worth $350k. Again so what?  A big wealth disparity but both have one house each to live in, neither is really any better off unless Ms Auckland sells up and moves to Invercargill.

One couple decide not to have kids and another couple has three kids. Pretty sure the no kids group will have more money but perhaps a less fulfilled life depending on your value set. Would the couple with the kids feel worse off, even though they will be less wealthy?

Choices can make a big difference for example the South Islands richest man (at one stage) never left home and eventually took possession of his parents’ house, purchased only one car that he used rarely, would walk to the library to read the paper and never left the country and seldom left his home town. No kids, no pets, no hobbies (except making money), no life, but he died really wealthy but so what. I have met a lot of poor people who were much wealthier than him.

But I hear you say, there are really poor people who have nothing and really rich who have everything. Well the poverty is relative is my first comment, better to be poor in NZ than India or China and they have really rich people too.

Those really wealthy people also pay a lot of tax (yep even with their loopholes and fancy accountants) As we have also heard this week that 40% of households pay no net direct tax. The wealthy also invest in business etc which provide jobs and having a lot of gold bars or fancy cars does not make you healthier or necessarily happier.

Sure wealth inequality might not be a good thing but we need to get past the sandpit stage and provide better arguments than a bald quote designed to elicit whining “that’s not fair…” type response. 

Training to be a fighter pilot

There is one of those urban legends that suggests the US air force used to go to video arcades and look for future fighter pilots.
Personally I have my doubts that this ever occurred but I am sure it made the kids wasting their time and quarters feel better that rather than skipping school they were training to be fighter pilots.

When I was at university I did a fair few hours training to be a fighter pilot myself. Specifically on a game called Defender the premise was you were defending 10 people on a planet by flying your fighter ship against the alien invaders. A pretty generic set up.

The mechanics of the game involved a landscape that stretched past one screen full meaning you couldn't see what was going on across the entire battlefield only the bit you were currently in. There was a radar screen where you could get an idea of the remainder of the battlefield activity.
You had control of your ship for up, down thrust forward and reverse direction and of course shoot with a couple of less important bomb etc options thrown in.
The aliens were varied in their speeds and abilities and all attacked simultaneously across the battlefield. In a nutshell it was pretty complex and fast paced.

I was reminded of all of this the other day when driving which in some regards is just like the game without the shooting bit, I have control of left, right, thrust, brake etc and there are any number of aliens on the roads of varying speed and ability trying to get me. Well perhaps not trying to get me but it can seem that way.

And I tend to treat it just like the game, I watch all the variables and estimate collision points and track a safe path through the obstacles. Compared with the speed of the defender game, driving has less variables and is much slower paced so not that difficult.

My wife is not always comfortable with my decision making and tends to wish I braked or slowed down earlier, or at all, as sometimes I have calculated the car will be gone before I reach that point and don't brake at all. She worries that the driver will not act as I anticipate and so I should be more cautions by braking earlier. To a point she is correct, sometimes people don't act as I have predicted and I have to adjust sometimes quickly and it is very annoying. If I suffer from road rage at all it is this "stupid" choice that a driver makes that annoy or the other trait I notice is slow decision making or incomplete data decisions, such as arriving at a give way sign, coming to almost a complete halt and then looking for any traffic, why not look while approaching?

So I have now realised that the apparent lack of driving decision making skill exhibited on the roads is actually a lack of time playing video games during your younger years when your brain was still developing.
Did playing video games enhance my ability (such as it is) to handle a variable data set and make decisions, I would certainly love to see some research on the topic, or is this just a case of personal bias after all we know from surveys that just about everyone thinks they are better than average when driving. So potentially I am an undiscovered Top Gun candidate or deluded about my driving ability.....

Me Vs We

Jeremy Bentham is most associated with utilitarianism a philosophy which can be boiled down to "the greatest good for the greatest number"

It is the basis for any number of rationing systems with Pharmac and drug buying being a good example in this country.
Some drugs don't get purchased and some people go without treatment because the drugs are really expensive and would therefore use up the budget which could be better spent helping a larger number of people with less expensive drugs. Until the day that you need the expensive drugs people generally accept this as a reasonable basis for decision making, the greatest number of people are assisted within the budget available.

The rights of the individual have an even longer history which from an english law perspective can trace their origins back to the Magna Carta signed in 1215 which established the rights of the subjects vs the powers of the king.

But which is supreme, the rights of the individual or the rights of the society, or group. How you answer this question may well tell me which side of the political spectrum you are likely to fall on.

Those to the right of the spectrum tend to champion individual, you know individual responsibility, reward for effort, my money not the states taxes, small government, big market (a collection of individuals effectively)

Those to the left tend to champion collective goods or groups, increased taxes to assist... (insert group of choice) Protection of the enviroment, gay rights, womens rights etc.

Of course these domains are not clear cut and plenty of "right wingers" can be concerned about gay rights etc but if you listen to the way the ideas are discussed it is effectively group (we) vs the individual (me).

The possible reason why left wingers seem more virtuous as they care about "others" or groups, right wingers appear to care only for themselves "individuals"

This is a bit simplistic though isn't it, both groups seek to advance all, it is where the emphasis goes that counts.