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

141–150 of 249 posts

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

#141

Post by relkor »

DrScump wrote: post #133
relkor wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This buying the government is terrifyingly real. In university I once went to a dinner/seminar hosted by one of the top three law firms in DC, where we were instructed on how exactly to bribe congressmen. It turns out to buy a vote, a Representative is 10k and a Senator is 20k. They walked us through how we could give bonuses to employees with the understanding that part of that money would be written as maximum indi…

We were assured that it was not illegal as long as these bonuses and donations to not match in space and time. It's absolutely illegal. What he was apparently trying to convey is that it you are less likely to be caught if the contributions are spread out.

Yes that is true, bribery is illegal and this kind of conspiracy is bad. But if you spread it out and do not put anything in writing, it will be hell for the IRS to prove this. And if you are the type of person who attended this, you have a personal lawyer that you got when you turned 16. It will be very difficult to ever press this to a conviction. And remember, the various departments of the executive branch are in on this, they are the ones laundering the money and further removing it from the original bill that released the funds from the treasury.

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

#142

Post by tie_ »

I disagree with most of the post, but here is one point that I'm particularly at odds with:

> We have no obligation to stop someone from “becoming rich”– but we have a strong obligation to stop someone from becoming poor.

I don't see a way to stop people from becoming poor. The most common way of becoming poor is not to produce wealth. How could we fulfill our "strong obligation" and force people to produce wealth?

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

#143

Post by gremlinsinc »

THANKYOU for this, Paul Graham is a genius in many things, but you really hit the nail on the head with this article. -- AS a self-trained developer trying to get my first job and never earning over 40k (yet) between myself AND my wife's income -- it's hard to move up, when you feel so much pressure to stay where you are if not move down. I learned coding to start my own startup, it's the only way I'd ever be able to afford a prototype..

But I think Bernie said it best: "NOBODY working 40 hours per week should be living in poverty" -- there is no reason for this, in fact it makes that person a slave to whoever is paying them sub-par wages, they have to work whether they want to or not, it's not a choice, it's enslavement, they stop and they lose their apartment, and food. If the lowest 40 hour/weekers earned enough to put money away, and not worry about living paycheck to paycheck, then it wouldn't be such a problem. Also the fact is -- the poor spend the most money per dollar - meaning the more money the have to spend, the more money goes directly back into the local economies.

This along with increased tech advances that wipe away the need for some employees and 40% of the workforce(estimated) by 2040, a guaranteed basic income isn't just a good idea - it is crucial to our economy, and if it doesn't happen there WILL come a day when American's demand it, and pick up a gun to fight for it, I'm not sure when or what the tipping point will be, but it's coming someday.

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

#144

Post by jbhatab »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #143

THANKYOU for this, Paul Graham is a genius in many things, but you really hit the nail on the head with this article. -- AS a self-trained developer trying to get my first job and never earning over 40k (yet) between myself AND my wife's income -- it's hard to move up, when you feel so much pressure to stay where you are if not move down. I learned coding to start my own startup, it's the only way I'd ever be able to…

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you haven't made over 40k between both you and your wifes income? That seems extremely unlikely with any coding skills. I don't know any juniors that are making less than 50k from php to javascript.

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

#145

Post by laarc »

jbhatab wrote: post #144
gremlinsinc wrote: post #143

THANKYOU for this, Paul Graham is a genius in many things, but you really hit the nail on the head with this article. -- AS a self-trained developer trying to get my first job and never earning over 40k (yet) between myself AND my wife's income -- it's hard to move up, when you feel so much pressure to stay where you are if not move down. I learned coding to start my own startup, it's the only way I'd ever be able to…

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you haven't made over 40k between both you and your wifes income? That seems extremely unlikely with any coding skills. I don't know any juniors that are making less than 50k from php to javascript.

It's true. My first role was to work an unpaid intern for a year. Then my first salary was $20k, followed by $35k only after working there for a couple years. It was going to be $30k but I was able to negotiate.

I think pg is correct, however.

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

#146

Post by Estragon »

eropple wrote: post #129
jazzyk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When a person uses "All Lives Matter", what they really >mean is "cop's lives matter more" No, I understand it to be "police can sometimes use force unjustifiably towards anyone, of any race." If a cop murders someone, s/he should be held responsible (sadly, they are not). The reason that more black people get murdered by police is that they (blacks) get in trouble more often (which is NOT a justification to kill th…

> No, I understand it to be "police can sometimes use force unjustifiably towards anyone, of any race." This would be true if this is what the people saying it demonstrated beliefs that were congruent with their actions. However , the overwhelming majority (to the point where the counterparty is anecdotal and, frankly, possibly mythical) use it to establish a fundamentally conservative defense of the status quo. I me…

  > the overwhelming majority (to the point where the 
  > counterparty is anecdotal and, frankly, possibly 
  > mythical) use it to establish a fundamentally 
  > conservative defense of the status quo
While "All lives matter" is an inappropriate response, it is a natural one which well-meaning people come up with all the time. Honestly, when heard out of context "Black lives matter" is more than a little cryptic, and the first time I heard it my initial thought was "Are they claiming their lives matter more than most??"

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417112... http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/bernie-sanders-netroo...

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

#147

Post by makomk »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #91
dnautics wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're presenting a false choice. You could have a 1970 real wage and buy the stuff of today? My point is exactly the fact that we don't have that is a result of inflation. Please explain, mechanistically, why you believe that there are only two options here.

I'm simply presenting a thought experiment, not an actual choice. The thought experiment demonstrates that purchasing power has increased from 1970 to 2016 (at least, if you prefer 2016 wages and products to 1970 wages and products). If you'd like to argue that "purchasing power should have increased more if it wasn't for XYZ..." then that's fine, but it's separate from the point that I was debunking: > but the purch…

Sure, purchasing power has increased massively for fancy new 2016 products like cellphones, TVs and gadgets. Unfortunately it's also plummeted for old-fashioned 1970s-esque products like food, fuel to go to work, and a roof over your head and even though it's 2016 people still need those products. Having a 42" television for a price that would have seemed astonishing a few years ago is little help if you can't feed your family and can barely pay the rent.

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

#149

Post by owyn »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #135
Mikeb85 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which investment vehicles are those? Hedge funds and the like. > leads to their valuation, which leads to the return on our hypothetical investment. 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. The way markets are supposed to work is you invest in an IPO, then you get a dividend sometime in the future, and then maybe the company buys back your shares. The way it generally works…

> 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. Completely false. Let's talk about how investment money is used, and how that impacts valuation. Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment. He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't afford himself. So I make the investment and th…

Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment.

That's really not a good example of what we're talking about here. A single family farm is not a profitable business at all. There was an HN story about it just a couple of days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10823747

He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't afford himself. So I make the investment and the farm buys the equipment, which enables the farm to grow substantially more crops.

No you don't. He might get a bank loan, in which case he is actually paying a fee in order to borrow that money. Now, if you were talking about the profitability of people paying you to borrow money, now you're in the right ballpark. I hear it's quite a profitable business.

Look I'm not talking about hypothetical small business hand wavy stuff, I'm talking about the trillions of dollars floating around at the top end. Most of which is currently flowing into real estate, powering various bubbles around the world.

I'll give you an example: from what I understand, Larry Ellison doesn't actually sell his stock in order to buy islands. He uses it as collateral to secure a loan. Those loans (something like 10 billion dollars worth at this point) can be spent/invested/leveraged, but it's not directly taxable because it's a loan. That's the kind of thing that you can do when you have a few billion. You don't even have to spend your own money. The net increase in the value of his real estate holdings is more than enough to pay the interest. Now, try playing that game if you have zero billions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-25/larry-elli...

No, they invest it in companies which use the cash to create wealth.

Apple isn't a good example either. Companies do get cash from IPO's. After that, having a valuable stock is certainly nice. Apple doesn't fund operations by selling their stock. If the stock doubles, Apple doesn't get that money. Indirectly, of course Apple does issue stock as bonuses to employees, and buys back stock to return cash to investors. If Apple was privately held they'd make just as much money. They don't need the stock at all, it's just a side benefit that they can take advantage of when they make compensation packages.

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

#150

Post by Estragon »

guelo wrote: post #27
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 s…

  >  It's not healthy for society and I don't see it ending
  >  up anywhere good.
It's a symptom. The disease is the dysfunctional system.
Post reply on HN