zlacker

>>helsin+(OP)
This a article cites an N=2 anecdote, conflates a couple of trends at random, then draws a conclusion that we live in an age of moral decay (ie, a perennial no-signal communication favourite).

We should consider the likely alternative - Americans are actually pretty nice to each other, all things considered. It is really quite impressive what American grass roots organisations can do if people let them. Trust in institutions is low because the institutions are being exposed to the harsh light of Very Good Communication and it turns out that bodies that rule by decree are kinda corrupt. That should shock people, but it doesn't represent a radical change in the status quo.

There are serious economic headwinds that someone needs to do something about.

>>roenxi+Y3
It's an article putting forward an opinion, not a scientific paper. Though they do cite plenty of interesting statistics. I enjoyed reading it and it provides an alternative view to the other hypotheses for the stats, which they list.

I assume you're coming from the direction that economy first fixes the social issues. That's a valid view but I'm not sure it tackles inequality. No point in a bigger economy if only a few at the top benefit.

>>jemmyw+W9
> That's a valid view but I'm not sure it tackles inequality.

"Tackling inequality" comes from reading too many say-nothing articles by Mr. Brooks and not enough time spent reflecting on what we should be trying to do to get the best result for people.

We should not care how much money a neighbour has. In fact, the more the better. I don't want to have to offer them charity if there is an option for them to stand on their own. They could be billionaires next door for all I care and that doesn't harm me or anyone else in the city.

Inequality is one of a number of fake issues that are major unhelpful distractions. The focus should be on median and low living standards.

>>roenxi+Ac
> They could be billionaires next door for all I care and that doesn't harm me or anyone else in the city.

Unless, of course, they buy up a bunch of properties, making it unaffordable for the average income folk to own a home on a reasonable timescale.

When is HN going to learn that simplistic views like "rising tide lifts all boats" and "iTs NoT a ZeRO SuM GAme" are not helpful at all and blatantly false in most cases.?

>>antist+rt
If you can't afford your own home, that is a living standards problem. It can be improved while still having rising inequality. Indeed, the focus on inequality is a distraction from the large number of relatively normal people who own houses and want policies that push the price up.

Which is a problem, but the problem isn't the inequality. The problem is stupid housing policies that overemphasise debt and restrict construction.

> ... "rising tide lifts all boats" and "iTs NoT a ZeRO SuM GAme" ...

Using erratic camel case does not make an argument. It is obviously not a zero sum game or we'd all have Roman Empire era living standards.

>>roenxi+sw
I don’t see an answer to the example. How can less restrict construction policy solve the problem that a minority is able to buy all real estates? Unequally is a problem as the word says since power is distributed unequally.