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

451–460 of 580 posts

Re: Economic Inequality

#451

Post by fweespeech »

rdtsc wrote: post #449
fweespeech wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Defending against a strawman isn't really defending against anything but rather perpetuating the delusion that the strawman is real. It isn't helpful or productive.

> Defending against a strawman That is what I was saying too. I wasn't being direct though. Yes he is defending against a strawman to bolster his position and to justify and bring context to a certain narrative that revoles around startups. It makes sense to create these PR stories so to speak, masked as simple blog posts, to provide conext and interpretation for those who follow him.

Yeah but perpetuating a clear delusion isn't healthy for any group of people.

Re: Economic Inequality

#452

Post by gotchange »

cko wrote: post #214
xiler wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with someone getting rich provided they contribute a proportional amount of value to society. Problem is that since the post-WII period (also called the Golden Age of Capitalism) such rewards have been happening less and less [1,2]. In fact, I think reducing inequality is essential for promoting productivity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econ... [2] https://upload.…

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…

> 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"?

Well, in a non altruistic and Ayn Rand inspired world, rich folks don't owe us anything but MORE IMPORTANTLY we don't owe them anything either.

I mean no bailouts, no tax breaks, no "Job Creators" incentives in public policy, no privileges or special treatment whatsoever. We're all equals and we all should be treated as such!

It was a gigantic public policy catastrophe all the 2008 bailouts extended from the US taxpayer to Wall St. that they used to preserve their wealth and then denigrate the general public for not being as successful as them when it was the general public that saved their asses in the first place.

Re: Economic Inequality

#453

Post by Turing_Machine »

callil wrote: post #409
Turing_Machine wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So empirically the most significant factor is now something else." That "something else" would be the 40%(!) of the EU budget that is spent on agricultural subsidies.

Yes exactly, instead of being wrapped up in the John Deer corp. the money is being used to lower prices for society and do a better job of making food accessible to the people.

I'm sorry, do you actually believe that the John Deere corporation keeps all its money in a big money bin, like Scrooge McDuck or something?

That is not actually the case.

And there is plenty of "food accessible to the people". Too much of it is far more common than too little nowadays.

Re: Economic Inequality

#454

Post by Turing_Machine »

wstrange wrote: post #391
Turing_Machine wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think the premise that automation will just shift work to other industries will be severely tested in the age of the self driving car" Look: we've gone from 90% agricultural workers to about 1% agricultural workers. Hand-weavers and spinners: gone (other than specialized or artsy-craftsy stuff). Neighborhood bakeries: gone (likewise). The list could go on forever. People have been predicting massive unemployment s…

Imagine a machine that has all of your intelligence, dexterity and creativity. What work will you do that said machine will not do better? Perhaps we can all become artists - but then again, machines will be able to compose songs, write stories and create abstract art. This is going to be very different than previous waves of automation that largely augmented human muscle. Bringing it back to the original thread, I t…

Or perhaps we'll all just sit around watching porn and playing video games. Who cares? Why not let people do what they want?

"I think the concern is that rising income inequality will accelerate as the wealthy will increasingly own the means of automation."

Machines can make hamburgers, but they can't buy them. "Income inequality" is not the problem you think it is, or pretend to think it is.

Since when did "income inequality" become the worst possible thing in the entire world? Given the track record of previous regimes that sought to produce "income equality" (> 100 million killed in the 20th century), I think calls for "income equality" need to be looked at with a very harsh and critical eye.

Re: Economic Inequality

#455

Post by Futurebot »

patrickaljord wrote: post #442
Futurebot wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welfare discouraging work has largely been refuted: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfa... Where it does discourage work, the effects are extremely minor. Your contention that their wealth was before the welfare state is completely incorrect and ahistorical. Even the crudest measures show that to be wrong. Examples: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/s…

I know for a fact that here in France we have both substantial unemployment and at the same time many job offers available that people refuse to accept because they can afford to live on welfare instead. By definition, if they could not live on welfare they would accept these job offers. As for these countries building their wealth before the welfare state: - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html - http://www.forb…

Your first link is a known biased source.

Your second one doesn't undermine the case; it mainly discusses that tweaks are needed, not that the social democratic system doesn't work as you've implied. No one is arguing that the numbers never need to change; the entire discussion about the US is that the numbers need to change (in the other direction.)

As far as whether those people would accept the offers, it's possible at the margin, which are the minor effects I've mentioned. The numbers matter, though. France is a particularly bad example to use considering its job performance:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/cheese-eating-jo...

Re: Economic Inequality

#456

Post by patrickaljord »

Futurebot wrote: post #455
patrickaljord wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know for a fact that here in France we have both substantial unemployment and at the same time many job offers available that people refuse to accept because they can afford to live on welfare instead. By definition, if they could not live on welfare they would accept these job offers. As for these countries building their wealth before the welfare state: - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html - http://www.forb…

Your first link is a known biased source. Your second one doesn't undermine the case; it mainly discusses that tweaks are needed, not that the social democratic system doesn't work as you've implied. No one is arguing that the numbers never need to change; the entire discussion about the US is that the numbers need to change (in the other direction.) As far as whether those people would accept the offers, it's possib…

Sorry but if you are just going to dismiss my sources because they are too biased then there is no point in continuing this conversation. Not to mention the irony of following that with a Krugman article which as biased as can be.

Re: Economic Inequality

#457

Post by kzhahou »

> Almost by definition, if a startup succeeds its founders become rich. And while getting rich is not the only goal of most startup founders, few would do it if one couldn't.

As usual, the investors and founders are teamed up, with employees in the background. In contrast with founders, there is no certainty that employees will get any life-changing financial gain from working at a successful startup. The only certainty is that whatever the founders make, the employees will make several orders of magnitude less. In fact, all employee wealth put together won't usually add up to the founders' share.

I understand why founders are OK with this and have a long list of justifications including "personal risk" and vision. But why do non-founders continually sell themselves short?

I find it ironic that's there such a blatant economic inequality even among those who create the wealth.

Re: Economic Inequality

#458

Post by rdtsc »

fweespeech wrote: post #451
rdtsc wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Defending against a strawman That is what I was saying too. I wasn't being direct though. Yes he is defending against a strawman to bolster his position and to justify and bring context to a certain narrative that revoles around startups. It makes sense to create these PR stories so to speak, masked as simple blog posts, to provide conext and interpretation for those who follow him.

Yeah but perpetuating a clear delusion isn't healthy for any group of people.

Yeah it is a delusion. In general startup environment thrives on and needs delusions to operate. They are part of the deal so speak.

I think in this case there was a need to have an explanation of how start world relates to income inequality. At some point someone is going to confront some YC company founders after they talked about they want to save the world and make it a better palce etc etc, about "so what do you think about income inequality" and the idea is they'll pull the the gosspel -- pg essay ;-) and quote from the book of Econ chapter 2 verse 15.

Re: Economic Inequality

#459

Post by Futurebot »

patrickaljord wrote: post #456
Futurebot wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first link is a known biased source. Your second one doesn't undermine the case; it mainly discusses that tweaks are needed, not that the social democratic system doesn't work as you've implied. No one is arguing that the numbers never need to change; the entire discussion about the US is that the numbers need to change (in the other direction.) As far as whether those people would accept the offers, it's possib…

Sorry but if you are just going to dismiss my sources because they are too biased then there is no point in continuing this conversation. Not to mention the irony of following that with a Krugman article which as biased as can be.

There's little irony. Krugman has publicly changed his opinion on several items over the years, and isn't an advocacy organization or a think tank. Cato's raison d'etre is the promotion of "negative liberty" to the exclusion of virtually everything else. I regularly read Cato, and I even agree with some of their work (things like replacing the welfare state with a GBI, free speech absolutism, etc.), but I still consider them a biased source even if their views sometimes dovetail with my own.

It'd be different if you cited credible right-wing (economic) sources, but there are few left since the intellectual foundations of much of what passes for economics on that side of the divide (a chaotic Reagan-Thatcherism, a right-of-center Neoliberalism (older FT/Economist-style), or a wild-eyed goldbuggery) have fallen apart in the modern world. It's not symmetric at this juncture.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/economics-t...

We can stop the discussion, sure. Let's do that.

Re: Economic Inequality

#460

Post by pdonis »

jshen wrote: post #397
pdonis wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. This is a very hard case to make when Graham's money quote, at the start of the essay, is from a Nobel-Prize-winning economist saying, pretty much in so many words, that rich people get rich by taking stuff from poor people--which is exactly the claim Graham is arguing against. > Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic ine…

"Graham's point is that if one person makes more than another because they're more productive, you don't want to "fix" that, because it's not a problem, it's what fuels economic growth." I do not believe he said this, and it's a non sequitur

> I do not believe he said this

How many of his essays have you read? It's a fairly common theme in them.

> it's a non sequitur

The argument is pretty simple: people who are more productive are capable of creating more wealth; the best and most straightforward way (and the only one that's been shown to work consistently) to motivate them to exercise that capability is to allow them to get richer by creating more wealth; wealth creation is economic growth.

Post reply on HN