You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

almondguy comments on Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: NancyLebovitz 27 April 2014 08:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (200)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 30 April 2014 07:26:00PM *  2 points [-]

We might include the three types of economically left (e.g. socialism), economically neutral (e.g. abortion) and economically right (e.g. abolish estate taxes).

That the effects of abortion are economically neutral seems like an extraordinary claim. What kind of evidence did you have in mind? If those anti-abortion people that hang out on campus are right, then roughly 50 million abortions have taken place in America since Roe v. Wade. How could an extra 50 million people have a neutral effect on the economy?

Comment author: [deleted] 02 May 2014 04:07:33AM *  0 points [-]

I suggested this division of causes because, first, people who earn to give may join the upper or at least upper middle class. It seems harder to advocate for things like socialism when your peer group is rich. Your opinions aren't going to earn you praise or friends and friends and connections are really important for making money. It's also hard to devote time and energy to maintaining odd views when you're focused on a career that isn't directly involved with acting on those opinions. You're losing some potential synergy. It also possible that, second, the usefulness of cash donations varies with whether the cause has support among the rich or poor, although this might work the other way in that I would expect causes that favor the poor to need money more.

But with a topic like abortion this all seems unclear--although opinions on abortion do correlate some with income, I don't think that correlation is a strong as with outright economic redistribution. What do you think?

If you want to suggest a more clearly neutral topic than abortion I would be interested to hear it.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 May 2014 04:24:19AM 1 point [-]

It seems harder to advocate for things like socialism when your peer group is rich.

Um, there a lot of rich people who at least profess socialist views, the common somewhat dismissive term for them is champagne socialist.

Comment author: ChristianKl 02 May 2014 08:15:41PM 1 point [-]

What do you mean exactly when you say socialism?

As far as the numbers on abortion go, for <25k income 65% support restriction of abortion while only 46% for >75k