A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by dang » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

davesque wrote: post #28

dang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Those who are in control of the system" in this case are simply your fellow users. The community is often in disagreement about what should be on the front page. To the extent that we intervene as moderators, it's often to try to balance the competing concerns. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to do that perfectly.

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

#52

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

thenerdfiles wrote: post #33

"I am a manufacturer of income inequality." Bullshit.

Agreed. PG is in the business of helping people move up the wealth ladder, which is laudable and pretty much the opposite of preventing other people from moving up the income ladder, which is what rent seekers, wage thieves and tax dodgers do. Putting himself under the same umbrella as the oligarch class seems disingenuous and non-productive.

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

#53

Post by catwell » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

An HFT isn't entirely useless. You might want to sell 66 shares of Apple stock and somebody else wants to buy 145 and for you both to get a timely fill, there has to be some kind of middleman. If you think HFTs are bad, just take a look at floor traders -- the kind of people who will front run you if they see you coming and they know what you want, or will take a bathroom break if they don't want to trade with you. R…

This. For more details, read "Flash Boys: Not So Fast" by Peter Kovac (http://www.amazon.fr/Flash-Boys-Insiders-Perspective-High-Fr...).

Alternatively, Chris Stucchio's blog posts (starting with https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html and https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology2.html) work.

We have been told so much that HFT were the bad guys by the media that we ended up believing it, but it is more of a scapegoat for the rest of the financial world.

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

#54

Post by chimeracoder » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

jgord wrote: post #48

md224 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. What does this mean?

I use the term 'slavery' because its descriptive, not because its literally true. I do understand that 711 shift workers don't have their feet cut off if they leave. When I say things like "we need a bit of Socialism right about now" .. I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about.

> I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about.

It's taboo to point this out, especially on HN, but I'm feeling bold today:

You can't discuss the socialist policies of Western European countries without addressing their wealth. And you can't discuss the current wealth of Western European countries without acknowledging the process by which they acquired that wealth.

The "nice socialism that Sanders has been raving about" is the kind that is practiced in countries with a long history of colonization and slavery[0]. During this timeframe, they "earned" a massive amount of money by extracting resources from people that they literally enslaved. This started before the 17th century and continued into the 20th century.

Those people who were colonized and enslaved (and their countries) are still feeling the effects of that today, and they would not be so quick to describe that kind of socialism as "nice".

[0] Denmark and Sweden are the two that Sanders has called out specifically by name.

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

#55

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #44

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…

> So, just as "All Lives Matter" is not a good response to the "Black Lives Matter" movement, It's tangential, but can you please explain this part? It seems to me that "All Lives Matter" really is the more apt phrase, because it shifts the focus from an us-versus-them conflict to actual justice. Edit: Got it. I'll stop being part of the problem. The only remaining question is this: What's the most effective way to b…

Canonical answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3du1qm/e...

http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-al...

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

#56

Post by Pyxl101 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #43

As a response to PG's article, I posted this: >PG is wrong that he is a creator of economic inequality. Technology development usually brings prices down. This is deflationary; the 'big picture' way that deflation happens: that prices are discovered more efficiently, or resources are used more efficiently, or that idle labor capacity is recruited to fulfill a want or need that was not known before (esp: think uber/ly…

> The nominal wage has increased since the early 70s, but the purchasing power of that nominal wage has gone down faster than the increase. This is policy, not capitalism.

Which option would you prefer? (1) You have a 70s real wage, but can only purchase goods and services that were available in the 70s, or (2) You have a 2016 real wage and you can purchase all goods and services available today. Keep in mind that real wages have stayed roughly constant since 1970.

Most people I know will pick option (2), which suggests that purchasing power has in fact increased rather than decreased. Technology is improving and everything is becoming cheaper, bringing up our standard of living.

Here are some facts about Americans living in poverty, according to the Census Bureau [1]: 80% of households below the poverty level have cell phones. 96% have a television and 83% have a DVR. 97% have refrigerators, 96% have stoves, 93% microwaves, and more than 83% have air conditioning. 58% have computers. If you had to choose, would you prefer to live in poverty today in 2016, or would you prefer to live in poverty in 1970? How about 1900 or 1800? How does the standard of living in poverty compare to any other time in history? An American living in poverty today probably has a better standard of living than a typical king did in centuries past.

[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/well-being/publications/extended-...

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

#57

Post by jgord » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

mwcampbell wrote: post #44

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…

> So, just as "All Lives Matter" is not a good response to the "Black Lives Matter" movement, It's tangential, but can you please explain this part? It seems to me that "All Lives Matter" really is the more apt phrase, because it shifts the focus from an us-versus-them conflict to actual justice. Edit: Got it. I'll stop being part of the problem. The only remaining question is this: What's the most effective way to b…

The cost of saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" is that you are seen to be ignoring the main issue.

Its not that its wrong, its that its perhaps insensitive - a certain amount of empathy and solidarity could be a start in acknowledging the problem.

So while "All Lives Matter" is truer, its less useful at the current moment in time when Black people are experiencing real pain, and we have a huge problem that needs to be addressed urgently.

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

#58

Post by calibraxis » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:46 PM UTC

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.

Both have in common the order-giver and order-obeyer.

Of course, I agree wage slavery is better than chattel slavery. Better to have some choice of master than one imposed on you. (Though slaveowners made the interesting argument that they must take care of their workers because they own them, unlike the capitalist who merely rents them.)

In the US, the prison system replaced slavery as the mechanism to control the black population. So the US has not improved much in that regard, with even children killed in broad daylight by the state.

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

#59

Post by gph » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

natural219 wrote: post #41

I'll give a short explanation as to why I flagged this: This piece irrationally pisses me off, for purely petty social dynamics reasons. 1) There's a first-mover advantage to thinkpiece responses. Everyone obviously is going to read the first response, many people are probably writing responses of their own. This seems like a quick way to jump into a discussion and say "hey, look at me!" You better have something use…

I'll give a short explanation as to why I downvoted this:

This is about as obnoxious of a comment that could ever exist.

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

#60

Post by bad_user » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

This article is being buried, dropping from second place to tenth in an instant. Interestingly it's being surpassed by articles that are both older and with less points.