Economic Inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Economic Inequality

#61

Post by kuschku » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #38

braythwayt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. Before the woodworker builds the chair, they have some wood. The value of the wood is less than the value of the chair. So building the chair increases the total value of the economy. The actual sale of the chair to someone else is a NOOP, it’s just shuffling assets around.

This is the problem that I and many others seem to see. The people getting the richest in our current society are the ones doing the asset shuffling and not those who create the wealth. (BTW,what is NOOP?)

No-Operation. It’s something from assembly programming, an instruction that does nothing (but is sometimes necessary for alignment purposes)

And yes, that’s the issue. The rich are purely asset-shuffling.

Most of the speculatant markets is just that. It doesn’t create any wealth for society, but just takes from people.

Re: Economic Inequality

#62

Post by foldr » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #55

asift wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing economic inequality is merely a lesser form of eliminating it. I think the tough question people should consider here is whether relative inequality or absolute standard of living is the more important metric. If absolute standard of living rises faster as economic inequality increases, why should we try and limit economic inequality?

The ironic thing is that the wealthiest now try to live a rather stoic, normal life with a focus on whole, local foods and simple agrarian pleasures. Sure, they don't fly coach, but honestly, they don't exactly live extraordinary lives when compared to that of the middle class in America. Reminds me of a Warhol quote: > What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers…

>The ironic thing is that the wealthiest now try to live a rather stoic, normal life w

Erm, maybe some of them. I don't think extravagant displays of wealth have gone extinct just yet.

Re: Economic Inequality

#63

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #8

Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”. The most extreme proposals I’ve seen in America are ones like, “institute an unconditional basic income as an alternative to means-tested welfare programs,” or “allow every citizen/resident into a single-payer healthcare system,” or “go back to the tax structure of the 195…

The most extreme proposals I’ve seen in America are ones like...

The most extreme proposals I've seen in America are a federal job guarantee and a permanent incomes policy similar to the Nixon wage and price controls of the early 70s. Post-Keynesians and MMT proponents are very enthusiastic about them, and they reject the idea of the basic income FWIW.

Re: Economic Inequality

#64

Post by stuaxo » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

jrlocke wrote: post #13

rst wrote: post #4

Central thesis (hidden a bit): "ending economic inequality would mean ending startups". So, who is the straw man who advocates completely ending economic inequality? Even left wingers in Europe (far to the left of anyone mainstream in the US) talk mainly of reducing it. So, if economic inequality were substantially reduced, would there still be startups? I believe another piece of common advice in this field is that…

Exactly. There would still be sufficient economic motivations for startups and startup founders in a world where startup founders were taxed at a 75% rate.

That is so far away from anything that is likely to happen in even the medium term, it's worth filing under "cross that bridge when we come to it".

In the meantime, making things just a little fairer could help a vast amount of people.

Re: Economic Inequality

#65

Post by wtbob » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

kelukelugames wrote: post #20

hobs wrote: post #14

The problem with income inequality is not related to a startup founder getting rich, its about the deck being stacked against people before they are even born, and then the super rich continually stacking the deck against anyone coming up and challenging their supremacy.

I like the term social mobility. A person's station in life should not be tied to their parents' income level.

> A person's station in life should not be tied to their parents' income level.

Why not? One's genes are rather intimately tied to one's parents' genes, and those genes completely determine one's physical self. One's upbringing is the direct result of one's parents' choices (and one's own reaction to them, which is itself a product of genes and upbringing).

It seems patently obvious that one's parents' lot in life (itself a product of their own genes and upbringing) must determine one's own lot in life to a very great degree. To think otherwise would be to assume that we are more than the product of our genes and our upbringing, which seems an unsupportable supposition.

Re: Economic Inequality

#66

Post by pandaman » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

jrlocke wrote: post #13

rst wrote: post #4

Central thesis (hidden a bit): "ending economic inequality would mean ending startups". So, who is the straw man who advocates completely ending economic inequality? Even left wingers in Europe (far to the left of anyone mainstream in the US) talk mainly of reducing it. So, if economic inequality were substantially reduced, would there still be startups? I believe another piece of common advice in this field is that…

Exactly. There would still be sufficient economic motivations for startups and startup founders in a world where startup founders were taxed at a 75% rate.

I hear this from liberals all the time, often in more extreme form of "even if only a cent of a million is left there will be motivation to make that million!". But wtf are you so sure? I for one am not looking for a smaller bump in salary at 50% tax already as I don't see how additional effort would pay for itself. I imagine a lot of people don't consider an effort to found startups at this rate too.

Re: Economic Inequality

#67

Post by mtgx » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #41

To me, income inequality means: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But that is not the situation. In reality, the situation is: A rising tide raises all boats. The global pie is getting bigger because GDP is growing faster than the population: - GDP Growth since 1999 ~2.5% annually [0] - Population growth since 1999 ~1.3% annually [1] - % of world population living in extreme poverty has more than halved since…

> To me, income inequality means: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But that is not the situation. In reality, the situation is: A rising tide raises all boats.

If that was the case, then most people's incomes (adjusted for inflation) would be higher than they were 40 years ago. But that's not true.

However, it can be argued that low-income people can now buy "stuff" cheaper than they ever could. Whether that positely counter-balances the fact that real incomes have been dropping for decades for most people, it remains to be discovered, but with rents and homes being pretty expensive and with college tuition putting many people into a lifetime of debt, I'd say we're in the negative there, as there's not much left from one's salary at the end of the month to buy all of that "cheaper stuff" (mainly electronics and food somewhat).

Re: Economic Inequality

#68

Post by RobertoG » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #17

rst wrote: post #4

Central thesis (hidden a bit): "ending economic inequality would mean ending startups". So, who is the straw man who advocates completely ending economic inequality? Even left wingers in Europe (far to the left of anyone mainstream in the US) talk mainly of reducing it. So, if economic inequality were substantially reduced, would there still be startups? I believe another piece of common advice in this field is that…

[deleted]

It is a straw man.

In general when people worry about inequality, except the most radical commentators, they worry about a trend, not about differences in net worth.

Maybe unconsciously, PG try to sell the idea that this a binary thing, you have 0 inequality or you should leave the market do its thing. This is not true. There is a balance and we have a lot examples that show that.

The pie thing don't pass the smell test, neither.

Is PG denying that the pie is now bigger than in the 70? I don't think he does, actually he is arguing the opposite.

Then why low and medium income people is increasingly in debt and have to worry if tomorrow will have enough money to pay the rent?

When you have a bigger pie, and inequality is the same, you get the rich more rich and the poor more rich. This is hardly what we observe even if we know that the pie is bigger.

So, the pie is bigger but people should to work more hours and should retire latter, and, of course, we can't afford healthcare for everybody.

He says "let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process."

I totally agree there, good luck with that.

Re: Economic Inequality

#69

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #63

jacobolus wrote: post #8

Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”. The most extreme proposals I’ve seen in America are ones like, “institute an unconditional basic income as an alternative to means-tested welfare programs,” or “allow every citizen/resident into a single-payer healthcare system,” or “go back to the tax structure of the 195…

The most extreme proposals I’ve seen in America are ones like... The most extreme proposals I've seen in America are a federal job guarantee and a permanent incomes policy similar to the Nixon wage and price controls of the early 70s. Post-Keynesians and MMT proponents are very enthusiastic about them, and they reject the idea of the basic income FWIW.

The Nixon wage-price controls were a disaster. They also precipitated the oil crisis, which persisted until Reagan finally cancelled the oil price controls.

Re: Economic Inequality

#70

Post by enraged_camel » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #59

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #41

To me, income inequality means: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But that is not the situation. In reality, the situation is: A rising tide raises all boats. The global pie is getting bigger because GDP is growing faster than the population: - GDP Growth since 1999 ~2.5% annually [0] - Population growth since 1999 ~1.3% annually [1] - % of world population living in extreme poverty has more than halved since…

The problem with this line of argument is that relative poverty is a problem as well as absolute poverty. To pick the most obvious example, huge inequalities in wealth inevitably give rise to huge inequalities in power and influence, which can subvert democratic government. Also, what rising tide? In the US at least, real incomes are stagnating or falling for most people.

Yep, exactly. Wealthy people rarely keep to themselves. They usually try to shape the world around them, and in our society the best way to do that is to influence politicians to pass policies that they agree with and are favorable to them. And these policies come almost always at the expense of the have-nots.