Raise the minimum or the sum?

[GGT]

Assuming a static population, anything that increases the sum increases the average and vice versa...

Who has a static population?

[Loki]

In mathemetics, yes. But in reality there are situations where a few can have almost everything and most have almost nothing.

These kinds of inequalities are often balanced out in an open, dynamic economy. But in a closed society it's certainly possible that one person gaining more doesn't improve the lot of everyone else.

But you said average, not median. A few people making loads of money has the same effect on the average as it does on the sum.

[GGT]

Would I be off base by suggesting that none of that is what Wraith wanted us to discuss?

[Dreadnaught]

This isn't explicitly about math, that's the whole point...

[Loki]

This isn't explicitly about math, that's the whole point...

I still don't follow. How can the government increase the average without increasing the sum or vice versa (other than through population growth I suppose)?

[GGT]

I was thinking more of society as a whole rather than actions by individuals. When I first started typing this, I used the word 'government' but I didn't want this turning into a discussion about what the government should or should not be doing.

I still don't follow. How can the government increase the average without increasing the sum or vice versa (other than through population growth I suppose)?

*cough*

[Loki]

Are you going to do anything but try to move the discussion to irrelevant tangents? It doesn't matter who it is that's doing the increasing.

[Wraith]

Would I be off base by suggesting that none of that is what Wraith wanted us to discuss?

I think I've mostly given up.

*cough*

You misunderstood my intent with that. The government is a valid agency to effect the types of changes I wanted to discuss; I just wanted to avoid discussing whether it was the right/only one. But it's not as if I can stop this kind of thread drift anyways...

[GGT]

I think I've mostly given up.

You misunderstood my intent with that. The government is a valid agency to effect the types of changes I wanted to discuss; I just wanted to avoid discussing whether it was the right/only one. But it's not as if I can stop this kind of thread drift anyways...

I saw this as an open-ended Philosophical type of discussion. Did I misunderstand?





LOKI, stop following me around in threads just to bait me like that. What's up your ass, anyway?

[Loki]

I was responding to Dread; you're the one who responded to me...

[RandBlade]

I still don't follow. How can the government increase the average without increasing the sum or vice versa (other than through population growth I suppose)?

There's an old joke: "Why do so many Kiwi's move to Australia?" "Because it raises the average IQ in both nations."

If a poor Mexian moves to the US, it lowers the average while increasing the sum.

This is a completely silly diversion centered on word games. Yeah, sure, you're technically correct when you say it's an individual is hands out the welfare checks, or individuals go to war, or individuals who write and other individuals who enforce the laws, but what value does it bring to the discussion to ignore the whole for the parts? Thatcher points out that society is an abstraction representing the sum of all the individuals and the relationships and various social mechanisms that exist, but so what? That doesn't mean you can't look at more than one person at a time.

One can say that the government (which is collectively an individual organisation) does all that but you said you didn't want to discuss the government. Or did you, but just not call it that? If you're not referring to the government then please show where society acts as an individual collective, rather than a collection of individuals.

Its the concept of quantifying the lifeline of an ipod as "exponentially"
Especially given the fact that Apple is famous for delaying features so that ideas roll out at a trickle, and (specifically for the ipod) how Apple would borrow concepts and trends from the diluted mp3 market into their own designs.

Thats totally ignoring the idea that the ipod is dead, both within and outside Apple circles.

That's a purely technical discussion but I would argue that looking from the invention of the Walkman to today iPod's and their equivalents have improved exponentially.

It disturbs me that Randy has chosen to go with the money can by you happiNess route.

I don't know why, I should have seen it coming.

Where did I say that?

[Loki]

There's an old joke: "Why do so many Kiwi's move to Australia?" "Because it raises the average IQ in both nations."

If a poor Mexian moves to the US, it lowers the average while increasing the sum.

Yes, I mentioned that changes in population would provide the only difference, but I don't think that's what you or Dread were referring to.

[RandBlade]

We live in a developed world where people can and do move nations (and capital) easily.

[Ominous Gamer]

iPod's have been improving exponentially and everybody seems to enjoy them now

≠

from the invention of the Walkman to today iPod's and their equivalents have improved exponentially.

even then, no.

[Dreadnaught]

I still don't follow. How can the government increase the average without increasing the sum or vice versa (other than through population growth I suppose)?

Because this is merely using very vague math vocabulary to illustrate a very human dilemma. In the world of mathematics, you mostly have finite numbers that impact each other when taken as a set. In reality, Og the Cave Man can find a berry patch but keep it a secret from everyone and deny the benefits to the whole group.

[littlelolligagged]

Okay, I said I'd think about it and I did.

Finally, I think raising the minimum does more good than anything else. For many people, getting over the first big obstacle (to happiness, financial security, literacy, sobriety, whatever) is the really big hurdle. Once you're headed in the right direction, it's much easier to improve your <insert variable here>.

[Loki]

Because this is merely using very vague math vocabulary to illustrate a very human dilemma. In the world of mathematics, you mostly have finite numbers that impact each other when taken as a set. In reality, Og the Cave Man can find a berry patch but keep it a secret from everyone and deny the benefits to the whole group.

Sure, but if one person becomes richer (and everything else stays constant), the sum and the average both increase. Utilitarianism can be expressed as either maximizing the average or the sum. Coincidentally, that's why it ultimately falls short. It allows the utility of a country to arise as a function of a handful of individuals becoming better off.

[Loki]

Okay, I said I'd think about it and I did.

Finally, I think raising the minimum does more good than anything else. For many people, getting over the first big obstacle (to happiness, financial security, literacy, sobriety, whatever) is the really big hurdle. Once you're headed in the right direction, it's much easier to improve your <insert variable here>.

The problem with that is the idea of a "minimum" changes as society becomes more prosperous. For example, some people were satisfied with no economic growth starting from 1900 as long as no one was in poverty. In real terms, that means everyone had perhaps $3,000. Would that have been a good choice at the time?

[Wraith]

Okay, I said I'd think about it and I did.

Finally, I think raising the minimum does more good than anything else. For many people, getting over the first big obstacle (to happiness, financial security, literacy, sobriety, whatever) is the really big hurdle. Once you're headed in the right direction, it's much easier to improve your <insert variable here>.

The reason I asked about this question is that it seems like this may be one of the fundamental disagreements between people on these boards. For myself, I have to chose the average; the greatest total gain. Choosing otherwise is to make an implicit judgement that the happiness of some is more important than the happiness of others, and I can't really do that. The larger impact choices are far too tempting to turn away from.

[Being]

For myself, I have to chose the average; the greatest total gain.

As in one equals the other?

[Wraith]

Assuming a static population size, how would it not?

[Being]

Assuming a static population size, how would it not?

What determines gain?

[Loki]

The reason I asked about this question is that it seems like this may be one of the fundamental disagreements between people on these boards. For myself, I have to chose the average; the greatest total gain. Choosing otherwise is to make an implicit judgement that the happiness of some is more important than the happiness of others, and I can't really do that. The larger impact choices are far too tempting to turn away from.

Nozick made a pretty good argument about a utility monster. Let's say a person gains utility as a function of someone else losing it, and he gains more than they lose. If you try to maximize utility, then you end up hurting everyone just to benefit this one person.

[GGT]

The reason I asked about this question is that it seems like this may be one of the fundamental disagreements between people on these boards. For myself, I have to chose the average; the greatest total gain. Choosing otherwise is to make an implicit judgement that the happiness of some is more important than the happiness of others, and I can't really do that. The larger impact choices are far too tempting to turn away from.

It still depends on the society, doesn't it? Sweden has a large 'average' of contented people, with smaller numbers of 'destitute' or desperate. It wouldn't make sense to keep building up the already happy majority, while overlooking the needy minority.

Looking at Egypt with ~40% of their population under age 30, and the unemployment rate in that group is over 10% (I've seen numbers from 15-20%), would it be best to help everyone under 30, or just the unemployed sub-sub-group?

Looking back into US history, blacks used to be a relatively unhappy and poor minority because of racial segregation. Decades ago, the happiness of the average greater majority would have meant keeping segregation in place. Today, it's the same thing for GLBT minorities....their happiness doesn't matter as much as the straight majority, so we should just keep the status quo about marriage, equal employment and housing, and adoption? Nah. That doesn't sound right.

[Wraith]

Nozick made a pretty good argument about a utility monster. Let's say a person gains utility as a function of someone else losing it, and he gains more than they lose. If you try to maximize utility, then you end up hurting everyone just to benefit this one person.

The question of hurting one person to benefit another is a further complication, I was thinking specifically of scenarios where nobody is outright harmed by the new whatever policy.

[Loki]

The question of hurting one person to benefit another is a further complication, I was thinking specifically of scenarios where nobody is outright harmed by the new whatever policy.

Wouldn't talking about the median make more sense in that context? Just think about one society with a handful of oligarchs and another with a large middle class. The average might be the same in both countries, but the former isn't particularly good for economic growth or political stability.

[RandBlade]

It still depends on the society, doesn't it? Sweden has a large 'average' of contented people, with smaller numbers of 'destitute' or desperate. It wouldn't make sense to keep building up the already happy majority, while overlooking the needy minority.

Looking at Egypt with ~40% of their population under age 30, and the unemployment rate in that group is over 10% (I've seen numbers from 15-20%), would it be best to help everyone under 30, or just the unemployed sub-sub-group?

Looking back into US history, blacks used to be a relatively unhappy and poor minority because of racial segregation. Decades ago, the happiness of the average greater majority would have meant keeping segregation in place. Today, it's the same thing for GLBT minorities....their happiness doesn't matter as much as the straight majority, so we should just keep the status quo about marriage, equal employment and housing, and adoption? Nah. That doesn't sound right.

I like how no matter which example you gave you chose the minimum, while claiming at the start it depends.

In your examples I'd say: average, average, minimum.

[Illusions]

Choosing otherwise is to make an implicit judgement that the happiness of some is more important than the happiness of others, and I can't really do that.

I think I can make a case against this quite easily...

The happiness of those who attain happiness by means which are detrimental to society and the average happiness of everyone else, for instance murderers, rapists, despots, trolls, etc. versus the people who don't do these things.

Anyway, to answer your question, it would likely be average happiness.