Economic Inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Economic Inequality

#321

Post by x0x0 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #317

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…

"Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”." FWIW, I've met tons of people who suggested this. Eg., at Google, I had a co-worker who was probably the best programmer on our team. He loudly and repeatedly argued for socialism (he literally used the word "socialism"), and for government seizure of all private property over some low-ish threshold per person. He very…

Yeah, that one dude's argument totally characterizes the entire progressive wing of the Democratic party...

Re: Economic Inequality

#322

Post by wtvanhest » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

tomasien wrote: post #292

wtvanhest wrote: post #140

PG is an amazing writer and the wood worker analogy is very smart, but I am just amazed at how biased he is against finance. I do not know a single person who gets in to finance because 'they want to be rich'. Most people go in to finance because it is viewed as a meritocracy where all your coworkers are really smart. I'm disappointed that someone as smart and experienced as PG has not taken the time to understand su…

You don't know a SINGLE person who got into finance because they wanted to be rich? I find that shocking. I work in finance (fintech, but but serving mostly traditional finance) and outside of those working for financial inclusion/wellness, getting or "doing well" seems to pretty much be the universal goal.

First, I will admit that it is extremely hard to know who wants to do something to get rich, but I can tell you that during the 3 years I spent at a buy-side finance company, no one ever talked about their personal wealth or making money at work. It was always fund performance, risk mitigation, etc. Maybe that was just the culture, but I met many people at different firms and I feel like it was pretty much universal.

People that work in finance can "Do well" in many industries. Most people who work for big companies in any management / technology capacity "Do well". There is a massive difference between "Get Rich" and "Do Well"

Re: Economic Inequality

#323

Post by Apocryphon » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #317

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…

"Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”." FWIW, I've met tons of people who suggested this. Eg., at Google, I had a co-worker who was probably the best programmer on our team. He loudly and repeatedly argued for socialism (he literally used the word "socialism"), and for government seizure of all private property over some low-ish threshold per person. He very…

How about "no politician in the mainstream with any sort of influence or power" is suggesting that? How about "not even Bernie Sanders" is suggesting that?

Re: Economic Inequality

#324

Post by js8 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

There is a common argument that by increasing taxes or redistribution, economic activity of entrepreneurs would go down. But I think this argument is false and can be empirically falsified.

If you think about taxation, ultimately it reduces the pie of money that the entrepreneurs compete over. For instance, 50% taxes reduce the pie to half. The pie is roughly given by the size of the economy (market for the thing). However, in the real world, we don't see economic activity depend too much on the market size. In particular, we don't see small countries to have less economic activity (per capita) than big countries.

That means size of the pie doesn't actually matter very much as an incentive for entrepreneurship. So you can have almost any level of taxation and people will still do it.

Re: Economic Inequality

#325

Post by DrNuke » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

Good old Karl Marx from Germany had more history to ponder and got it right: rich and poor are regulated enemies, more or less depending on where you do live. The rich can buy resources and people, the poor need to act together to survive. PAul Graham in 2016 teaches both moneymaking (for the rich and the poor, that's also why HN exists) and new pies creation (for the rich to become richer thanks to their competitive advantage). The basic outcome for the poor as a whole is that they will never make more money than the rich but can still make enough to live better.

Re: Economic Inequality

#326

Post by pandaman » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

nhaehnle wrote: post #242

pandaman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trying to put in the effort to get a bump in salary is very different from the kind of creation that is the main benefit of startups to society. To counter your anecdote with another one, if only half of the characterization of Steve Jobs is true, do you really believe the exact amount of potential financial upside was ever really a question for him? Sure, if the economic environment had been so extremely bad as to m…

>Trying to put in the effort to get a bump in salary is very different from the kind of creation that is the main benefit of startups to society.

Exactly my point. It's a very small effort comparing to running your business. Even by itself it's not much - reply to a recruiter, have some interviews, change direct deposit, insurance, 401k etc.

>To counter your anecdote with another one, if only half of the characterization of Steve Jobs is true, do you really believe the exact amount of potential financial upside was ever really a question for him?

I am not familiar with Mr. Jobs but seeing how he has been extremely well compensated all his life I see no reason to believe he was not financially motivated.

Re: Economic Inequality

#327

Post by karlheinz » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

The wealth that PG and his friends accumulate through app startups does not come from nowhere. The millions of dollars that make a handful of men rich depends on extracting value out of:

1) Government funding. GPS, the Internet, touch screens and the CPU. All funded by government research where the tax dollars contributed by each and every citizen is the investment capital.

2) Global cheap labour. Miners in Africa (mining litium for batteries for example) and factory workers in china provides the infrastructrue for YC startups to make enormous profits.

3) Open source software. Unpaid labour provides the free tools that a startup need to "grow fast" without much investments.

Most people involved in 1-3 don't see any return on their investments. Something to think about.

Re: Economic Inequality

#328

Post by Apocryphon » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #297

ubernostrum wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They built something that people wanted. Most startups today aren't really creating brand-new "value" (which is a horribly nebulous term, hence I'll leave it in quotes), but rather taking part in a shifting of existing "value" from place to place, and the VCs who fund them glean some profit out of the process. And some of the most controversial startups are doing this not by offering genuinely better products or serv…

>but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by. You're right, in a lot of cases (Taxis vs Uber comes to mind) the government has created these sub-optimal local maximums with its unnecessary regulations and industry protectionism. Technology is the big energy input needed to break free and move to a new maximum. When I use Uber, I get much more value th…

It certainly is possible to recognize that disruptive startup businesses provide value and quality over preexisting services, and criticize them for flouting laws that are supposed to protect their workers, and/or customers.

It also is certainly possible to recognize that government overregulation has enabled rent-seekers to do great harm in staunching competition and establishing a low level of quality for consumers, but also that government has the power to protect the customer and the worker from exploitative businesses.

A thing can do both good and bad. We must all recognize that.

Re: Economic Inequality

#329

Post by Futurebot » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #321

apsec112 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”." FWIW, I've met tons of people who suggested this. Eg., at Google, I had a co-worker who was probably the best programmer on our team. He loudly and repeatedly argued for socialism (he literally used the word "socialism"), and for government seizure of all private property over some low-ish threshold per person. He very…

Yeah, that one dude's argument totally characterizes the entire progressive wing of the Democratic party...

I agree with your sentiment but I don't think sarcasm is going to get you anything but downvotes. The person you're responding might be underinformed and/or hasty generalizing, but probably deserves a more constructive reply.

Re: Economic Inequality

#330

Post by throwupper247 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

civilian wrote: post #254

cko wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it wrong for a rich person to hoard wealth, or to spend only on luxuries for themselves? Why do they have to "contribute to society"? I'm by no means wealthy, and at my age of 29 I've donated more money than many of my coworkers. And I'm all for a portion of tax dollars supporting the underprivileged. But when I read about Larry Ellison's yacht-racing hobby, I think to myself, "good for him." He can spend his…

> Why do they have to "contribute to society"? This gets to the core of the question! How did a rich startup person get wealthy anyway? They built something that people wanted. People said: "hey, that thing you built, I value it at $20 and you're giving it away at $10, so I'm happy to buy it!" Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market. To the people who…

Selling something that people want isn't equal to providing value. Let me be pessimistic: coffee doesn't provide a positive value, because it's a drug that get's people addicted however little and subliminal. Maybe that is a value to society in general, but it isn't to the individual. The car definitely is an economic nessecity in some parts. I don't know what refridgerator oligarchy you are refering to and it specifically doesn't matter. I'm sure the term oligarchy relates negatively to democratic societies.