Trigger words: zero-sum (3)
Indicator sentences: No it isn't. It doesn't even remotely resemble it. Zero-sum means that for someone to gain, someone else has to lose.
Negotiation parts: And in this case, it's a zero sum argument because they said that because the wealthy are gaining more, there's nothing left for the others to make. Except that that bears no resemblance to their actual statement, i.e. that a large part of the population is effectively shut out of the opportunity to hold lucrative jobs. Poor people make a little more money if they work hard than if they don't, and rich people make a lot more money if poor people work hard than if they don't. That's not zero-sum, but it is unjust. [STA-CITE]> i.e. that a large part of the population is effectively shut out of the opportunity to hold lucrative jobs. [END-CITE]The actual statement was that because one person holds a lucrative job that means that someone else can't. Or because one person makes lots of money, there's less for someone else to earn. That's a zero sum argument plain and simple. From the original comment being responded to: [STA-CITE]>When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is *less* wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]I added the less in italics because it's clear that the original author inadvertantly left it out. But that's a zero sum argument in almost it's purest form. > From the original comment being responded to: > [STA-CITE]>>When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is less wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]As I said below, one out of three. The statement "part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen" can just as readily be interpreted as saying that the main problem with wealth inequality isn't the inequality per se, but the lack of lucrative jobs for most people. You don't have to believe in a complete zero-sum economy to recognize that some aspects of the economy are rivalrous. Of course, it's not just jobs. Given the stock of real wealth that exists at any moment, it really is zero-sum that whatever someone owns, everyone else doesn't. And people make lots of money by already owning stuff, not only by directly receiving interest and dividends but also by having collateral to borrow when they want to start a business, and by being able to make speculative financial investments if they have any information that's of value to the financial markets. You can have an inflated view of how much income comes from already owning stuff, without believing in a complete zero-sum economy. [STA-CITE]> The statement "part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen" [END-CITE]That statement by itself I would agree means what you say it does. But in context with the one I quoted, really seems more to be zero sum thinking. That every dollar that a rich person has is less that's available for other people. [STA-CITE]>You can have an inflated view of how much income comes from already owning stuff, without believing in a complete zero-sum economy. [END-CITE]But that income that comes from already owning stuff has zero negative impact on anyone else's ability to make money. In fact, given that we're talking about investments, it actually helps in that it's providing capital for businesses to expand or start. STA-CITE]> because part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen [END-CITE]This is zero-sum. [STA-CITE]> When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]Thats zero-sum. [STA-CITE]> This is especially bad when the wealthy horde that money in bank accounts and don't spend it (put it back into the economy). [END-CITE]This is also zero-sum. Ok, this one actually is, sort of. [STA-CITE]>When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]Still, one out of three ain't good.