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

A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

cryoshon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 249 posts

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#21

Post by jgord »

paulddraper wrote: post #19
jgord wrote: post #9

PGs articles aren't wrong - but they are second order, when we need a first order response to a current evil [ before it leads to bloody revolution ] If you look at income distribution its a hockey stick - you really have to slap yourself on the face and realise there is no middle class - what you thought of as professional-middle-class-contributor is actually college-debt-burdened-lower-class - no matter how many ye…

"lower class are basically slaves" You're going to compare working graveyards at 7-Eleven to slavery ? You should read a little bit about slavery and human trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery I suspect most slaves would not agree with you.

yes - in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. You'd be right to call me on it, and I'd have it no other way.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#22

Post by PaulHoule »

enraged_camel wrote: post #12

This is spot on. I think it is important to evaluate PG's essay within context. He, like most people in Silicon Valley, is stuck in a bubble and views the rest of the world through a very distorted lens. That's where much of his rhetoric about wealth creation comes from: he's surrounded by people (founders) who create value in the form of software. When a portion of those founders become rich, he looks at himself as…

PG is in a bubble and has a distorted view, but unlike a lot of rich people, he's a real producer. Y Combinator has made the world a better place in terms of new businesses, wealth created, people trained, etc.

Also PG and Sam Altman are very responsive to critics, they understand that they live in a bubble and that other people have a valid point of view. Compare that to the essays written by the people at Andressen Horowitz which vary from "let them eat cake" to the kind of rich people complaining that people criticizing them are ruining the economy for the rest of us as Paul Krugman has recently pointed out.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#23

Post by PaulHoule »

jgord wrote: post #21
paulddraper wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"lower class are basically slaves" You're going to compare working graveyards at 7-Eleven to slavery ? You should read a little bit about slavery and human trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery I suspect most slaves would not agree with you.

yes - in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. You'd be right to call me on it, and I'd have it no other way.

Back in the days of slavery you were expected to provide some care when they got old. If you're an employee you can be cast away to go die in the street.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#25

Post by nickbauman »

paulddraper wrote: post #19
jgord wrote: post #9

PGs articles aren't wrong - but they are second order, when we need a first order response to a current evil [ before it leads to bloody revolution ] If you look at income distribution its a hockey stick - you really have to slap yourself on the face and realise there is no middle class - what you thought of as professional-middle-class-contributor is actually college-debt-burdened-lower-class - no matter how many ye…

"lower class are basically slaves" You're going to compare working graveyards at 7-Eleven to slavery ? You should read a little bit about slavery and human trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery I suspect most slaves would not agree with you.

Masters actually bought slaves. They weren't cheap. So they had to, you know, feed them and care for them somewhat. Now when you aren't needed at the 7/11 you can almost just go die in a fire: have you seen was homelessness is like in the US? I have.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#26

Post by [deleted] »

cryoshon wrote: post #6

I hope I didn't go too overboard by dissecting PG's essay like this, but I felt it was necessary to correct many of the items that I read. It may seem spurious now, but economic inequality is relevant for the tech industry, too. The massively increased productivity that information technology provides is very infrequently distributed proportionally to the people who actually forged it-- exactly the same condition as…

[deleted]

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#27

Post by guelo »

jgord wrote: post #9

PGs articles aren't wrong - but they are second order, when we need a first order response to a current evil [ before it leads to bloody revolution ] If you look at income distribution its a hockey stick - you really have to slap yourself on the face and realise there is no middle class - what you thought of as professional-middle-class-contributor is actually college-debt-burdened-lower-class - no matter how many ye…

What's interesting about this election is that so much of the anger, especially from lower class whites, is being channeled into the Republican party. It's not a cry for wealth distribution, it's a cry against immigrants supposedly taking our jobs. And that's a big failing by the Democrats to tap into that anger.

But I think this is going to be typical of elections going forward, red hot anger being directed at the system. It's not healthy for society and I don't see it ending up anywhere good.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#28

Post by davesque »

dang wrote: post #15
enraged_camel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, content like this is better served in an article format, rather than a comment to an existing (and already very crowded) discussion. We have had many submissions in the past that were responses to another submission. In my opinion, this submission was wrongfully flagged, and should be unflagged so that it can go back to the top where it belongs.

The limited space of the front page is the defining constraint of HN. We often treat follow-up articles as duplicates for that reason, so the flags are acting in a moderation capacity here. Some users would like to see two heated discussions about income inequality on the front page, but I can assure you that many others would not.

That's great. But those of us who don't agree feel as though our opinions are being squelched by those who are in control of the system (ironic, no?). Consider that before you enforce your policies and potentially alienate a large part of your community.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#29

Post by CPLX »

phaus wrote: post #17
enraged_camel wrote: post #12

This is spot on. I think it is important to evaluate PG's essay within context. He, like most people in Silicon Valley, is stuck in a bubble and views the rest of the world through a very distorted lens. That's where much of his rhetoric about wealth creation comes from: he's surrounded by people (founders) who create value in the form of software. When a portion of those founders become rich, he looks at himself as…

>I think the question PG needs to address is this: what is the justification for non-founder executives getting paid tens of millions of dollars at the expense of other employees? What is the justification for those top-level salaries to exist even when the company is doing badly and regular employees don't see a dime in raises or bonuses that year? I definitely agree that its a shitty situation. However, as far as I…

That's the convenient dodge.

The source of the problem whereby the trustees of publically owned companies both determine and benefit from high salaries is plainly obvious as a principal-agent problem.

Post reply on HN