Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 262 posts

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#121

Post by kwhitefoot »

audunw wrote: post #91
PaulRobinson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is really interesting, especially as how it has played out in recent years - right up to the last few months - in the UK. I used to know a guy who worked for a trade union who was bemoaning its demise. In 1997 when Labour came to power in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years, they strengthened employment laws so well, the need for trade union was perceived as lesser by much of the membership. Thi…

> In 1997 when Labour came to power in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years, they strengthened employment laws so well, the need for trade union was perceived as lesser by much of the membership. It's very interesting you point this out. Does the UK have minimum wage now? I've always pointed this out in discussion with americans about minimum wage. Here in Norway, we don't have it, yet income equality is stil…

I think that there is an additional reason for the strength of unions here (although I am not a union member) and that is the general attitude that cooperation and negotiation are better than conflict and that solidarity matters.

In Norway David Cameron's "we're all in this together" phrase makes sense in a way that it plainly doesn't in my 'home' country, the UK. Home in quotes because I have now been in Norway for 31 years, slightly more than half my life.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#122

Post by gmarx »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #37
perrick wrote: post #6

Louis Chauvel, a french sociology professor, made a similar argument using a Prey-Predatory model with trade union membership and income inequality over the last 100 years : "This article shows empirically how trade union membership and income inequality are mutually related in twelve countries over more than 100 years. While past research has shown that high income inequality occurs alongside low trade union members…

I think this is really interesting, especially as how it has played out in recent years - right up to the last few months - in the UK. I used to know a guy who worked for a trade union who was bemoaning its demise. In 1997 when Labour came to power in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years, they strengthened employment laws so well, the need for trade union was perceived as lesser by much of the membership. Thi…

". The perception by many is that immigration was causing a drag down on wages, but all the data suggests in fact immigration is net benefit to a population". That statement is the old switcheroo. In summary, the perception of many is correct and they care less about the fact that immigrants tend to, e.g., raise GDP, than the fact that they are depressing wages for people like them.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#123

Post by RobertoG »

leereeves wrote: post #66
empath75 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no amount of work a human being could do that justifies the wealth that is in the hands of people like Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet. They seem like decent enough people, but they have an obscene amount of wealth and power.

Great wealth is rewarded for placing winning bets, not for hard work. For example, gambling on investments, as with Buffet, or on a new idea, as with Zuckerberg. Sometimes just for gambling on Powerball. The great rewards are balanced by great risks, and many of these gambles are valuable to society. Where would we be without new businesses and new ideas?

It seems to me that we all recognize the need for incentives and disincentives in order to promote behaviours valuable for society.

But, the idea that a person deserve the financial power of a country in order to be motivate is a little ridiculous. Are we saying that Zuckerberg would not be creating Facebook if he though that it's going to get only 100 million dollars? or that Buffet would not invest if he is only to be the 5th in the Forbes list?

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#124

Post by snappyTertle »

croon wrote: post #116
snappyTertle wrote: post #46

Inequality is not inherently a bad thing. People should be compensated for the value they produce. Profits are a signal of how much people value what is produced. For example, people love iPhones, it no surprise that Apple is the most valuable company in the world. What causes resentment between classes is lack of mobility. This, IMO, is caused by government regulations and a banking system that hurts the middle clas…

> Regulations like minimum wage and higher taxes on larger income make it hard to hire the next marginal employee. Minimum wage prices out low skilled workers, who would like to work and obtain on the job experience needed to climb the ladder. High taxes makes it more expensive for business owners to hire someone. I'm not talking about large businesses like Walmart (they actually support minimum wage). Small business…

Higher wages drive prices up, and price out less productive workers. Sure, the people who remain employed are better off. But what about everyone who has to pay higher prices, and workers who are now unable to find a job?

Why is it ok to tax profitable businesses/people for the sake of equality? I get it if they don't earn their profits fairly. Why should we steal from top producers and redistribute? Taxes should not be a means to redistribute wealth. It should be directly tied to whatever they are funding. More importantly, people should be free to chose what to spend their earnings on. Does the government own the people it governs? Does it have a claim in what people chose to produce? Having income tax forces everyone to pay for things they might not want (like a wall).

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#125

Post by lightbyte »

donatj wrote: post #26
golemotron wrote: post #4

In the past few weeks the idea of 'legitimatizing violence' has been circulating heavily. On my Facebook feed most of it has centered on the idea that it is "okay" to punch neo-nazis now. The people saying this are people I'd never expect to. Twitter is similar. I wish I had stats on whether the legitimatization meme is really rising. To me, it looks like the fake news meme. Suddenly it's everywhere.

The remarkably sad part is the violence does nothing but legitimize the attacked parties hate. Hate begets hate.

Violence has historically been the only way for racial change to occur.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#126

Post by throwaway_374 »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #80

I love reading the comments on stories like this and consider these comments to be a bellwether as to the current state of inequality in our society. Unfortunately I tend to consider myself one who exists on the lower part of the wealth distribution logarithm within the western world, globally it's a different story. Just as anyone tweeting on their smart phone or tablet claiming to be part of the 99% might want to r…

The rise in terror is not caused by radical religious zealots. It's caused by bombs raining down everyday on your life from foreign occupation.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#127

Post by ZeroGravitas »

gmarx wrote: post #122
PaulRobinson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is really interesting, especially as how it has played out in recent years - right up to the last few months - in the UK. I used to know a guy who worked for a trade union who was bemoaning its demise. In 1997 when Labour came to power in the UK for the first time in nearly 20 years, they strengthened employment laws so well, the need for trade union was perceived as lesser by much of the membership. Thi…

". The perception by many is that immigration was causing a drag down on wages, but all the data suggests in fact immigration is net benefit to a population". That statement is the old switcheroo. In summary, the perception of many is correct and they care less about the fact that immigrants tend to, e.g., raise GDP, than the fact that they are depressing wages for people like them.

So in summary, people would rather vote to make their country poorer, than vote for their fair share of its wealth.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#128

Post by mason240 »

jellicle wrote: post #17
gm-conspiracy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War does not seem to destroy wealth, but redistribute it?

When a bomb destroys a building, to whom is the value of the building redistributed to?

It's troubling that this has to actually be explained.

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#129

Post by Dirlewanger »

lightbyte wrote: post #125
donatj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The remarkably sad part is the violence does nothing but legitimize the attacked parties hate. Hate begets hate.

Violence has historically been the only way for racial change to occur.

Because Martin Luther King Jr. was such a large proponent of violence...

Re: Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality

#130

Post by leereeves »

RobertoG wrote: post #123
leereeves wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great wealth is rewarded for placing winning bets, not for hard work. For example, gambling on investments, as with Buffet, or on a new idea, as with Zuckerberg. Sometimes just for gambling on Powerball. The great rewards are balanced by great risks, and many of these gambles are valuable to society. Where would we be without new businesses and new ideas?

It seems to me that we all recognize the need for incentives and disincentives in order to promote behaviours valuable for society. But, the idea that a person deserve the financial power of a country in order to be motivate is a little ridiculous. Are we saying that Zuckerberg would not be creating Facebook if he though that it's going to get only 100 million dollars? or that Buffet would not invest if he is only to…

I suspect most of Zuckerberg's wealth is in Facebook stock. Are you proposing the government should take control of Facebook? Or force him to sell the majority of Facebook to someone else to pay taxes?

I do think it would be demotivating to know that if you start a really successful company, the government will take it away.

Post reply on HN