Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between violence and inequality • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by njharman » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

> People should be compensated for the value they produce.

Why? That is an opinion, not a fact.

My opinion is that people unconditionally deserve shelter, food, healthcare, education, and liberty.

As efficiency increased we could have made everyone work less. Instead those gains were funneled to owners, to capitalists. Who actually don't produce anything and live off of the labor of others.

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

#152

Post by germinalphrase » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

legodt wrote: post #75

germinalphrase wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm recognizing that dangerous thoughts are not illegal in the United States of America and perpetuating violence is dangerous and ineffective. My wife and I both chose careers of service that are directly antithetical to the words and thoughts of this man. I sympathize with the desire to punch him - he is eminently punchable - but I believe that directing violence on him will serve to draw support to his cause,…

So what is the line? Neo-nazis don't respond to debate or rationality. What line do they have to cross for violence to become acceptable for you? Because, clearly, actively calling for and organizing a group centered around my death and the death of my community isn't enough

It is not illegal to talk of, and organize around, hateful and morally reprehensible beliefs. If they act on these beliefs or create credible plans to act then that would be the line.

We also have civil authorities - like the police - that we bestow with the power of violence to protect these lines. Additionally, we have civil rights and hate crime laws that bestow additional punishments for groups like this acting on their beliefs.

I think we will be better served reinforcing our shared beliefs in these civil authorities rather than acting as vigilantes and undermine our moral stance and possibly reinforce/embolden the support for our enemies.

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

#153

Post by colanderman » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

husgfdsr3y wrote: post #43

Singapore has one of the highest income inequalities in the world. It has one of the lowest violence rates in the world. You can say the same about China too and many other countries in Asia.

I think that supports the article's thesis? My understanding of TFA is that inequality remains until a violent event. If Singapore has had no such violent events, then by TFA's thesis, inequality has been free to increase.

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

#154

Post by colefichter » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

snappyTertle wrote: post #124

croon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Taxes should not be a means to redistribute wealth.

Isn't that more or less impossible? The whole point of a tax is that you take money from the broader population and spend it on something (a war, a road, libraries, public transit, food stamps, etc) that benefits only a subset of that population.

Taxation is, by definition, wealth redistribution.

Furthermore,

> Why is it ok to tax profitable businesses/people for the sake of equality?

This is a common misconception. Businesses don't pay taxes, people do. I don't mean " Apple doesn't pay it's fair share". I mean that the burden of the tax falls on the shareholders/owners of a business, even if the business is remitting the money. So, at the end of the day the question is not do we tax business versus individuals but rather a class issue: do we tax shareholders (who earn income from capital) versus labour (that is, people who earn their income through wages/salary).

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

#155

Post by sitkack » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #139

daemin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well technically running separate businesses for each salary tier would still get around it. The CEO's pay would be the combination of all of the individual CEO salaries that they would be doing. Also cleaning and administration services wouldn't be contractors, but services bought from another company. So that wouldn't count either.

Point of interest: sometimes technical people forget that the law doesn't work the way that computers do. If you close all reasonable loopholes and make your intent clear when you write the law, a judge (at least here in the US, I know the UK has a slightly different system) is not going to say "Oh, that's undefined behavior, you get a free pass." He or she is going to say "That's undefined behavior, but you're tryin…

Asperger's is useful in programming, not so much in Law.

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

#156

Post by Periodic » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

snappyTertle wrote: post #124

croon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why is it stealing?

Didn't they earn their riches by taking advantage of a system that was put in place by everyone? When someone makes a fortune in a society they are benefiting from the society's trade laws, justice systems, military protection, financial systems, education systems, workforce laws, available workforce, etc.

If the society helps you earn a fortune, shouldn't you proportionally pay back the society for all the help they've given you? Even if you only get to directly enjoy 50% of the value you produce, you still have an incentive for more marginal gains and you will indirectly benefit from the other 50% because you will reinvest it in the society that helped you produce it in the first place.

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

#157

Post by philh » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

RobertoG wrote: post #117

jellicle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To the owners of the other buildings, I suppose, they own a more scarce good now. Also, capital destruction give a chance for building again, and it's building again that you can extract value and make a profit.

At most a portion of the value of the building has been redistributed. Some of it has just plain been destroyed.

Also, capital in its undestroyed form can typically be used to extract value and make a profit. If that weren't true, there'd be little value and profit in building it in the first place.

For example, a building can be used to provide people warmth and shelter in exchange for money. That's why the owner desires to own it, and that's why the owner (or someone down the chain) is willing to pay other people to build it.

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

#158

Post by theptip » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

Sounds like the other half of the thesis presented in "Forged Through Fire" [1][2], in that case arguing that wars are directly responsible for democracy, by virtue of reducing inequality. (Note, I've not read that text yet, just the WSJ book review, so please correct me if I'm off-target with that summary).

The obvious follow-on question is whether inequality is actually bad in itself, and is what produces the war. Or is inequality usually associated with societies where the upper classes keep the lion's share of the growth, and that is what triggers these wars?

[1]: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B016APOCZM/ref=kinw_myk_... [2]: http://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-is-dependent-on-war-14...

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

#159

Post by 208Gi » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

jasim wrote: post #32

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…

Here's another reason for unions to become defunct over time, as explained by Steve Bruce in his book Sociology: A Very Short Introduction. "Any kind of group activity requires organization. But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The latter quickly acquire knowledge and expertise that set them a…

"But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it."

There have always been unions that organized in a manner that avoids this situation. (The CNT, the IWW, the Zapatistas (1990s) and, more.) In fact, this act of holding on to power has always been one of the major Anarchist critiques of Marxism. And, Anarchists were very present in the unions of the early 1900s.

One of Capitalism's and Authoritative Communism's finest achievements has been burying the history of unions. They've done it so well that many current unions are unaware of alternative power structures.

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

#160

Post by SpaceDingus9000 » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 6:05 PM UTC

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…

So this is a good example of how the 99% vs 1% meme falls short. It's a description of wealth inequality, which is a symptom of the larger conflict between workers and business owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie). The central issue isn't that we have wealth inequality, it's about power. Capitalists get to control our economic planning, have a closer ear of our governments, and have an advantageous negotiating position compared to workers allowing them to pay us little while they receive huge profits (leading to inequality).

Often times it is in the interest of certain capitalists to get our government to engage in imperialism, or destabilize certain regions, which helps lead to the awful conditions for some people in the Middle East, and I think this helps pave the way to religious extremism. They rightfully recognize nations like the U.S. are partially to blame for their conditions, and unfortunately lash out at the everyday citizens who often had no part in the matter.