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

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

#221

Post by sangnoir » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

tie_ wrote: post #217

sangnoir wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most common way of becoming poor is not to produce wealth. How could we fulfill our "strong obligation" and force people to produce wealt There is a break in your logic: your conclusion would only make sense if not producing wealth is the only way of becoming poor, which is not the case (think bankrupting medical bills that can make you poor even as you 'produce wealth'). To answer your question directly: you c…

> There is a break in your logic: your conclusion would only make sense if not producing wealth is the only way of becoming poor. I read the strong obligation of stopping people becoming poor as stopping any people from becoming poor, rather than stopping some people from becoming poor. If there is a single feasible way to become poor, then some people would go that way, and we have failed that obligation. The flaw i…

> At the lowest level of income in a society, you're poor, as everyone else is making more than you do.

That doesn't sound like the correct definition of being poor. To me - poverty isn't relative but absolute: if you live on less than $X amount a day, you're poor. The amount may vary, depending on who you ask (and where), and this amount depends on the cost of living rather than income percentiles.

If most people makes more than you, you are poorer than them - but not necessarily in poverty (or poor). I can safely say there are no poor Apple engineers, regardless of the existance of someone being the least paid Apple engineer.

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

#222

Post by Fjolsvith » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

owyn wrote: post #149

Pyxl101 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> '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…

> 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.

Right, but if he converts money into land, the land does get taxed. Additionally, he pays a sales tax when he purchases the land.

> 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.

False. He is spending his own money, because he still pays back the loan. He borrows money, buys some land, then pays the loan back.

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

#223

Post by meagain20000 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 2:54 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #214

meagain20000 wrote: post #201

Meh. Your feelings are hurt boohoo. If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it instead of whining about it and saying how we are all hurting your feelings. Sure, there are cases where you need outside help to get out of your current situation. Yes people should help if they can. But if I provide you help and you waste it like it is tipically the case than it is on you. It is not my responsibil…

> If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it Because the deck is so fundamentally and incontrovertibly stacked against them that they can't ? I'd say that this would be obvious except that that itself would be too obvious given your posting history here; I've seen a lot of shitty posts around here, but yours is in the top five of most overtly antisocial and unempathic, ever, full stop.

I stand by everything I said. You should really read my comment again and you will notice that I mention that there are situations where you should provide help. There are people that really do need help And it should be provided.

Being poor myself as a you a young kid, parents that only had elementary education and working their asses off in minimum wage I didn't actually consider myself incapable of doing what I wanted. Like going to college and obtaining a carrer. So I did. Coming from a poor background has given me the insight that that many people in the USA chose a poor lifestile. They may this choice when they were young, in their teens. They wanted to hang out instead of studying. I stiil see it today. Lots of kids in NYC that rather spend all their times with their friends rather than hitting the books are destined for minimum age. And it is not necessarily the parents fault in many cases. I've seen parents yelling at their kids for not taking school seriously so many do care.

Unfortunately, my life experience has made me cynical and so I come out like an asshole for being frank. I will not spend anytime worrying about people that will not help themselves.

Please note that I'm referring about the USA. I cannot speak for other countries but it is probably the same in some cases.

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

#224

Post by ryandamm » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 3:02 PM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #109

ubernostrum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to say "raise taxes". It's hard to say where the new revenue should be invested, by whom, and how. It's also easy, when someone proposes solving one problem, to say "well, you're not allowed to solve that one until you've solved every other problem in the world first". It's hard to say "OK, you seem to be prioritizing this problem, let's both make our arguments and because we live in a democracy whoever swa…

I'm not saying OP should not be allowed to think about or solve this problem - rather, I am pushing him to think harder and deeper about his solution and its possible consequences. It's easy to provide a possible step 1 of the solution to a complex problem. Brilliance and wisdom lies in explaining why your proposed step 1 is the best way to get to steps 2,3, and 4.

Don't push _me_. Read Piketty; the explicit goal (and solutions) are aimed at leveling wealth inequality.

Yes, good governance is better than bad governance. But problems of inequality -- and reduced social mobility, and the role of human labor vs capital -- are real, and require real solutions.

That said, Piketty's proposed solutions aren't currently practical. Did you see the recent estimate that 8% of global wealth is parked in tax havens?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/01/14/parking-the-big-m...

Yes, the problem is large, and does involve good governance. I was only sharing one proposed solution. The sad fact is, the best solution looks intractable. I'm open to suggestions.

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

#225

Post by TimJYoung » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

Pyxl101 wrote: post #36

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…

> People aren't asking for "income equality" they are asking for some level of humanity and democracy to be restored to our version of Capitalism, to strengthen that capitalism. That phrase could mean anything in practice that anyone wants it to mean. If we're going to discuss these things, we should be specific. What specific policy is desired, and how is it going to help? "Humanity" and "democracy" are not economic…

"Almost all middle class people in America today still have really nice TVs, mobile phones, Internet, etc., which suggests that their standard of living is quite good in absolute terms. We should be looking at absolute terms, not relative terms."

Absolute terms are meaningless in this context. It's like comparing a poor person living in Appalachia to an indigenous person living on a remote island. Does the Appalachian resident have a better standard of living ? Absolutely. Does it matter in the context of the US ? Absolutely not.

Also, you conveniently leave out some of the largest symptoms of wealth inequality. It's not consumer goods that define our standard of living, it's things like:

- Being able to pay for college without going into significant amounts of debt

- Not living paycheck to paycheck and being able to save money each month

- Eating well and not being forced to live on substandard food products that are extremely unhealthy

- Being able to afford quality health insurance, and being able to afford the deductibles and co-pays associated with it

- Being able to save up for a down-payment on a home, and then being able to afford to both pay the mortgage and keep the home in decent shape (new roof, water heater, furnace, etc.)

- Being able to afford transportation that doesn't constantly break down and result in more unplanned expenses that one cannot afford

- Being able to retire (if one wants to)

- And, most importantly, not having to work 2 or 3 jobs and have quality free time that can be used to explore hobbies and/or better oneself

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

#226

Post by thenerdfiles » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #113

dang wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you would prefer it not to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. We're happy to unban accounts if there is reason to believe they will follow the site rules in the future.

As a fan of Thomas Sowell, it is unfortunate to have to say "whoa, this person is not with me" in polite company. If this person is reading, please cut it out. Swearing and insulting people won't lead to anything good.

"Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption."

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

#227

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #219

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The thing that bothers me most: All of those fancy technologies that PG emphasizes, those that some commentors here are happy to trade 45 years of real wage growth for, had their direct roots in that brief period of weird equality. What happens next? What happens after AirBnB puts all the hotels out of business and we're all staying in each other's spare bedrooms on trips? What happens after Uber has killed off all…

They think they are Vernor Vinge characters, but in reality they are end up as Sleep Dealers [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW8oSRSzS7M

Oh hey, I remember that movie! I always wondered why the cyberpunk dystopia revolved around Mexican labor, but hey.

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

#228

Post by projektir » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

puredemo wrote: post #198

sangnoir wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people out there working harder than you, but are stuck in poverty. They were born at the wrong time, or in the wrong family, or didn't go to the right schools. You ought to be self-aware enough to know that blind luck plays a huge part in your employability.

I don't agree with that framing. I don't just work hard, I work smart, and I come from generations who did the same. Capability is substantially more genetic than environmental anyway, equivocating and hand-waving everything away as "just luck" is extremely facile. Some people are oozing with talent and potential, most people are not, that's the reality -- it's science and breeding, not luck.

I'm not sure how genetics are anything other than luck?

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

#229

Post by gelasio » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #214

meagain20000 wrote: post #201

Meh. Your feelings are hurt boohoo. If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it instead of whining about it and saying how we are all hurting your feelings. Sure, there are cases where you need outside help to get out of your current situation. Yes people should help if they can. But if I provide you help and you waste it like it is tipically the case than it is on you. It is not my responsibil…

> If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it Because the deck is so fundamentally and incontrovertibly stacked against them that they can't ? I'd say that this would be obvious except that that itself would be too obvious given your posting history here; I've seen a lot of shitty posts around here, but yours is in the top five of most overtly antisocial and unempathic, ever, full stop.

I've been reading through your own comment history and I can honestly say that your posts are among the shittiest simply due to the fact that it's really obvious how hard you are always trying to appear intelligent, but you don't quite hit the mark so it ends up just being a bunch of bothersome noise.

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

#230

Post by dang » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

meagain20000 wrote: post #201

Meh. Your feelings are hurt boohoo. If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it instead of whining about it and saying how we are all hurting your feelings. Sure, there are cases where you need outside help to get out of your current situation. Yes people should help if they can. But if I provide you help and you waste it like it is tipically the case than it is on you. It is not my responsibil…

This breaks the HN guidelines. Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10828763 and marked it off-topic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html