Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic Inequality

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 580 posts

Re: Economic Inequality

#71

Post by harryh »

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.

Everyone says this until they become parents. Then they work as hard as they can to give their own kids every advantage they can.

Re: Economic Inequality

#72

Post by WalterBright »

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…

On paper, the tax rates were higher in the 50s. What isn't mentioned is that was the age of the tax shelter, the 3 martini lunch, etc. It is doubtful anyone actually paid those rates. Reagan's deal to lower the tax rates included repealing all those deductions and tax shelters.

Re: Economic Inequality

#73

Post by pekk »

"They don't even seem clear whether they want to kill me or not."

When someone very influential broadcasts the idea that people who don't like economic inequality (let's arbitrarily call them "liberals") are waiting around to kill the rich for being rich, on the surface that is deniably close to expression of a fear. But it is also preparing a public case for supposedly "pre-emptive" suppression. Which would logically come in the form of violence, given how violent these people supposedly are.

Notice how no evidence was ever presented that those who differ with pg's politics actually are presenting a violent threat, yet we are somehow discussing it as a truth anyway. This is skilled manipulation.

I never had any axe to grind with pg's work encouraging certain startups, but when he suggests that I must be deciding whether to murder rich people merely because I am not happy with the degree of economic inequality in my country, I can't help remembering the blood libel.

Re: Economic Inequality

#74

Post by baddox »

wildmusings wrote: post #51
GavinMcG wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On that note: the most offensive economic inequality isn't the 1% vs. the 99%, which successful startup founders would find themselves on the wrong side of. It's more about the 80 individuals with more wealth than half the world's population [1] – which, yes, does include "startup founders" such as Gates, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page & Brin, etc. But the vast majority of successful startup founders aren't in this…

> "More wealth than half the world's population" That's such a disingenuous statistic. A huge number of people, including a huge number of very well off people, have a negative net worth due to debt. I don't have a car payment or a mortgage, so I have more wealth than at least 30% of America, over 100 million people, combined! It's disappointing to see that FiveThirtyEight has now become just another outfit twisting…

Are we talking about net worth, or income? I thought we were talking about income initially.

Re: Economic Inequality

#75

Post by mtgx »

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…

I agree, Paul Graham sounds like the solution to fixing extreme inequality must be communism (the Marxist type). I'm a little surprised he is making this argument.

Re: Economic Inequality

#76

Post by jack9 »

mtgx wrote: post #67
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…

> 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.

It is true, just not in the USA and other select nations.

Re: Economic Inequality

#77

Post by AndrewDucker »

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…

Look at the quintiles in the second graph here, which adjusts for inflation: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-...

It's very clear that the bottom 60% of the USA hasn't risen even slightly in the last 50 years. And the 20% above that has only risen slightly. While the top 20% has approximately doubled.

(I suspect that if you broke it down further the rises would mostly acccumulate to the top few percent)

Re: Economic Inequality

#78

Post by wildmusings »

baddox wrote: post #74
wildmusings wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "More wealth than half the world's population" That's such a disingenuous statistic. A huge number of people, including a huge number of very well off people, have a negative net worth due to debt. I don't have a car payment or a mortgage, so I have more wealth than at least 30% of America, over 100 million people, combined! It's disappointing to see that FiveThirtyEight has now become just another outfit twisting…

Are we talking about net worth, or income? I thought we were talking about income initially.

I'm just talking about the statistics that GavinMcG was citing. We were talking about income inequality, but the sensationalist statistic he cited is not.

Re: Economic Inequality

#79

Post by [deleted] »

pekk wrote: post #73

"They don't even seem clear whether they want to kill me or not." When someone very influential broadcasts the idea that people who don't like economic inequality (let's arbitrarily call them "liberals") are waiting around to kill the rich for being rich, on the surface that is deniably close to expression of a fear. But it is also preparing a public case for supposedly "pre-emptive" suppression. Which would logicall…

[deleted]

Re: Economic Inequality

#80

Post by rdtsc »

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…

He is defending what he is doing and what Y-combinator has been doing. One of the most important roles of a leader is to create vision -- build a story that explains and interprets reality based on it.

In general, startup world lives on hopes and ideals. More so than other industries. Founders have to have a "burning desire to change the world". It could be building a better future, moving the technology forward, making people happier, more productive, healthier, etc. Early employees are sold on hopes of changing those 10000 options into billions of dollars during the exit or the IPO in exchange of a decent salary etc. There is talk of getting paid less but "you are compressing you career of 30 years into 5", so working nights makes sense. Investors hope the company will grow a horn and hooves and become a unicorn. Etc, etc.

So it is important to have a story that interprets how startups are related to inequality. Whether we agree or not with that is a different story.

Post reply on HN