Live data from Hacker News

Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

paulgraham.com

41–50 of 118 posts

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#41

Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.) Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys). Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tec…

Then they should stop saying they are concerned about "inequality" and start saying they are concerned with "dynastic wealth". This sloppy rhetoric makes it easy for opponents to attack. See, e.g.,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

And she is absolutely right. Because if "inequality" is the problem then a solution is to shape society so that everyone has $1 rather than the rich having $3 and the poor having $2. If that's not a desirable solution then "inequality" is not the problem.

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#42
Economic inequality is bad because it has a profound negative effect on most people's self-esteem and ability to enjoy life.

With high inequality, money becomes more valuable and people start to think of everything in terms of money. Even romantic relationships become money-oriented. It's not uncommon for marriages to break up because of financial reasons. Wealth inequality causes more human suffering than moderate poverty.

People who lived in communist Russia will often tell you that people were happier under communism, even though they didn't have much - Often, they had to farm vegetables from their own gardens to supplement their diets. But they were happy because they knew that they had the same as everyone else. Also, people had no ulterior motives to do anything - When people liked you, they liked you because of who you were. When people did something nice, they did it because of purely altruistic reasons.

In capitalist society, money underlies the behaviour of everything done by everyone. You can never know if a person is good or bad because you never know their true intentions.

I think the media coverage of wealthy people is itself a bigger problem than inequality itself.

The media motivates people to work harder and acquire more wealth. Without media, only innately passionate people would launch startups. Today, most people who start a company do it because they want financial rewards.

It is human nature to want equality. It reminds me of a Russian joke about a man who finds a genie in a bottle. The genie tells the man that he can get anything he wishes but that his neighbour will get twice as much of whatever he gets. The man pauses to think for a moment and then says: "Take out one of my eyes."

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#43
> But economic inequality per se is not bad.

Both essays feel like they are built on a strawman argument. Nobody serious said inequality was bad or good, not even Piketty. The discussion is about degrees, and PG adds nothing to it by arguing categorically.

That we are talking degrees of inequality is also the reason why economists argue with statistics and do not differentiate much between specific causes or mechanisms on the micro level. Sorry to burst that bubble but PG is not a "creator of inequality" on the level that is interesting. Shifting a few hundred people around means nothing given that we are talking about income and wealth distributions over millions of households in the US alone (and increasing inequality is a global phenomenon). Clearly, tax policy, financial (de)regulation, labor market policies, even the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. are more relevant than petty arguments over whether this startup or that high freq trader made a few mega- or even gigabucks in a nice or not so nice way.

On a sidenote, the relative impacts of the trader vs the startupper on aggregate welfare is not as clearcut as intimated by PG at all, once you take second- and higher-order effects into account. Furthermore, creating wealth for some individuals may also decrease overall inequality; it depends on the starting and end positions of said individuals in the wealth distribution and the other ongoing processes in the economy.

Lastly, economic systems have a lot of feedback mechanisms, both positive (ie destabilizing) and negative (stabilizing). We should at least consider the possibility that past a certain degree of inequality, wealth becomes self-perpetuating. This is especially pertinent for US Americans, given the degenerate nature of their "democracy".

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#45

>But economic inequality per se is not bad. It has multiple causes. Many are bad, but some are good. This shows the confusion of the original essay, and this response. There is the thesis, "economic equality is not bad", and then the support for the thesis, "some drivers of inequality are bad, some are good" that doesn't actually support it. Saying that some things that concentrate wealth are not bad overall does not…

It's wonderful when simplifying an argument exposes its problems more clearly. I now wish more writers would do this. Omit needless words, indeed!

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#46
The reason that economic inequality has become such a talking point is that economic inequality has far reaching ramifications for our society. Many see a return to higher levels of inequality as a reason for slower growth and social problems.

The reason why inequality is the problem and not simply poverty is because when the 'target' is poverty, all we do is basically put a band-aid on the problem. We look at the poor with pity, segregate them, throw a minimal amount of money at them, maybe a social program or two, and forget about them.

However when you study inequality as a whole, you begin to see a bigger picture - one where the erosion of the middle class, the widening gap between those with capital and those without, and how that relates to poverty levels, economic growth, living conditions across society, etc...

As PG and others have said, back in the day you could be a factory worker, or any sort of blue-collar labourer and afford to have a stay at home wife, 4 children, a house and a car. Now that lifestyle is a luxury only the rich can afford. What's the difference? We know it's inequality, yet for some reason people make up all sorts of excuses and reasons for why this inequality is somehow 'better'.

Anyhow, economics is hard enough without trying to come up with overly simple explanations like "inequality is good because start-ups". There are start-ups in socialist countries (France, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, etc...), in less socialist ones (US, Canada), even in countries that barely have functional governments. Not to mention, all the research that shows a safety net actually contributes to entrepreneurship (in the US, that means upper-class family).

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#48

Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.) Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys). Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tec…

Then they should stop saying they are concerned about "inequality" and start saying they are concerned with "dynastic wealth". This sloppy rhetoric makes it easy for opponents to attack. See, e.g., https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw And she is absolutely right. Because if "inequality" is the problem then a solution is to shape society so that everyone has $1 rather than the rich having $3 and the poor having $…

People are concerned about egregious opulence while others are barely middling along or are impoverished; there is currently no other configuration in which income inequality exists.

The other stuff is a distraction until that isn't the case.

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#49
How about fixing dating/sexual inequality? You know, one guy sleeping with 15 girls is not fair to all the losers/ugly_guys like me who can't get a date. We have to redistribute partners and make sure that even the unattractive guys can get a date. We'll have to kidnap women who are into attractive/successful guys and then take them to losers like me. You think this is rape? It's not, just like taxes on goods are not theft, because the only reason attractive people can get partners is because a lot of unattractive people like me contribute by building roads, bridges, apps, infrastructure, schools, which enables attractive people to arrange dates and then use roads to get there. We are also in the friend zone all the time, while the attractive guys are getting deep inside our female friend. They have to give something back. I am proposing a 'sexual tax'.

ALSO, since pretty people inherited good genes and didn't work for it, I also propose taxing physical beauty by making pretty people look uglier by 30-40%(call it 'inheritance sexual tax'). That way, already ugly people will look great in comparison.

Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version

#50

Economic inequality is bad because it has a profound negative effect on most people's self-esteem and ability to enjoy life. With high inequality, money becomes more valuable and people start to think of everything in terms of money. Even romantic relationships become money-oriented. It's not uncommon for marriages to break up because of financial reasons. Wealth inequality causes more human suffering than moderate p…

this is essentially how i feel as well- do you know of any good longer form essays on this?
Post reply on HN