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

'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#111

Post by kefka »

Jabanga wrote: post #77
kefka wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know right? Those poor people's kids don't deserve: Clean water, electricity, a home, education, or any of those "rich people" things. If they did deserve it, they'd have them. Since they dont, they deserve a life of misery, suffering, and edging to destitution. ^^^ If you can understand the above, its the reason why youre on the wrong side of history here. You can couch the discussion as "stealing from the r…

They don't deserve to take someone else's money by force, in order to pay for those things. I don't think opposing forced income redistribution puts me on the side of history.

And you're internalizing "take someone else's money by force". This really goes back to Americans being temporarily embarrassed capitalists, regardless their real financial livelihood. And working-class thinks that we're talking about them when it comes to "We're gonna take their money" - We are, some. But we're also going to provide a baseline for everyone no matter what.

> I don't think opposing forced income redistribution puts me on the side of history.

And here we go again. This is a matter of "How does the government serve the citizenry". And right now, not very well. Government's current modus operandi is to privatize the gains and socialize the losses. In other words, their gains is on the backs of our losses. And from that, we have a legitimate claim on those gains, as they should be socialized as well.

Why? Because people who are rich did not do so themselves in a little bubble. Their successes rest in part on all of us. And it is easy to say, and act, that they need to pay their fair share. And that fair share would be sufficient in providing basic necessities to everyone, regardless of financial need.

People can still make profit, and thrive. I'm not advocating traditional communism. I'm advocating a blend, where the minimums are taken care of. People can still thrive and profit - they just won't be able to stand on our backs for them to get ahead.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#112

Post by drabiega »

Zak wrote: post #73

I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Rather than inequality, I think people are more concerned about some combination of: * Poverty - that some people don't have enough r…

> The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea.

Yeah, pretty much everyone of the left would reject that extreme. The progressive viewpoint here is simply that the economic system is tilted too far in favor of money accumulating upwards and needs to be pushed back somewhat. Other than that, there is a lot of variety in how far and what the method of doing so should look like.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#113

Post by EthanHeilman »

cmdrfred wrote: post #104
EthanHeilman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. >The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners wou…

>Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? Or would you tax the already low wages these people have earned at a rate sufficient to give those groups a similar standard of…

>Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve?

This makes no sense. I pointed out you were comparing income statistics incorrectly (which was also noted by another poster) and in response you:

1. made up a political program which is entirely missing from my post,

2. ascribed it to me out of the blue,

3. and then wrote two paragraphs attacking me for this fantastical program.

I'd hate to be your math teacher:

Math teacher: "cmdrfred, you got this problem wrong 2 + 3 is not 6"

cmdrfred: "Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve?".

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#114

Post by Zak »

drabiega wrote: post #112
Zak wrote: post #73

I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Rather than inequality, I think people are more concerned about some combination of: * Poverty - that some people don't have enough r…

> The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Yeah, pretty much everyone of the left would reject that extreme. The progressive viewpoint here is simply that the economic system is tilted too far in favor of money accumulating upwards and needs to be push…

The author of the article makes a passing reference to "radical egalitarianism", which Wikipedia doesn't say much about, but associates with equality of outcome and communism. It's possible that something along those lines is, in fact the author's position.

I'd be interested in seeing if there are a significant number of people who are fundamentally concerned with wealth inequality per se rather than poverty, lack of opportunity, corruption and unjust rewards.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#115

Post by gph »

djrogers wrote: post #34
gph wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a bit of a squeeze area where people who work hard at jobs that pay between 30k and 50k (or even higher depending on the area) can find themselves basically paycheck to paycheck. And it's not all down to making bad decisions. On top of that it's hard to hold every to a standard of making perfect decisions all the time. For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst…

> For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst in '08. And? Unless they lost their jobs in the mean time, or made some very very bad decisions with their mortgages, they are in all likelihood no longer upside down. A drop in the value of your home doesn't take money out of your pocket - you're still making the same payments, you just feel worse about it.

>they are in all likelihood no longer upside down.

You clearly don't live in a non-metro area.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#116

Post by openasocket »

Jabanga wrote: post #108
openasocket wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, your link explicitly blames teacher's unions, not government involvement, for the lack of increase in education outcomes. You think there are poor people out there thinking: "hey I can have a bunch of kids and they'll all get free educations, let's do it!" Why would they? So that the kid will grow up and get a great job and support them? That's not so much a get-rich-quick scheme as it is a get-rich-in-twe…

Centralising spending in the hands of a monopoly inevitably leads to rent-seeking behavior, like the rise of teachers unions and legislation like collective bargaining acts. I think the net level of support people can expect their children to receive from redistributive programs plays a role in their decision to have children when they have low income. It's also important to note that it won't just be schooling if th…

> As for education and fertility rates, this is not guaranteed to last

That is not a valid retort. You can't just take a bunch of data points and discard all of them because "evolution has a way". I'm not extrapolating based on this data: these studies show that improving access to education in a wide variety of regions and cultures decreases fertility. These are completely valid statistics and research demonstrating that education is correlated with reduced fertility, you can't discard them with idle speculation. If you have evidence demonstrating your position, we can talk.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#117

Post by theandrewbailey »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #86
eric_b wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please, you're propping up a strawman. You don't need to be an "ubermensch" to survive, and that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't expect to be lazy and make bad choices and also expect to have as much as someone who works hard and makes smart choices. That was my point regarding evolutionary history and nature. Farmers that worked hard and planned ahead did better than those who did nothing. Thos…

I don't wish. I put my efforts into overthrowing your so-called "natural" order. Nature, after all, is merely everything compatible with the laws of physics. If we create a universal basic income, or pass living-wage laws, those are natural!

While UBI and living wage laws are compatible with physics, they are not part of nature. UBI and living wage laws are human rules, and nature will do whatever it wants.

Humans have nature, too, and no amount of laws or rules will stop human nature. Until human beings become something else, always bet on it. Giving them more resources (e.g. money) tends to make things worse for them.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#118

Post by Jabanga »

Rapzid wrote: post #107
Jabanga wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal department of education was only created in 1980. All government spending on education, as a percentage of GDP, was a tiny fraction of what it is today. And the revenue for the education spending was weighted far more towards local sources, making it less redistributive.

Which superseded the Office of Education, established in 1867. I don't believe the solid historical foundations supporting your point of view(or adopted point of view for playing devils advocate) exist. Even if it did exist I doubt many people are in a hurry to revert our society and education system along with it back to 1789. I think you would have a hard time finding any credible sources that indicate public educa…

From a quick reading, it seems like the Office of Education was a small statistics gathering department with a very limited budget and role. The redistributive aspect of government education spending has increased substantially over the last century and a half. This goes back to the debate over whether society benefits if it guarantees equality of opportunity, and whether history vindicates the claim. Education outcomes have been stagnant for the past 40 years, during the era with the greatest amount of government spending and redistributive spending.

Whether it's a small community, with high levels of income homogeneity, funding the public education, or the federal government, is not orthogonal to the debate on guaranteeing equality of opportunity. The massive increase in government spending (at all levels, federal, state and local) on education is also not orthogonal to the debate.

Several economists have looked at the history of education and concluded that we would have been better off if we never transitioned from nongovernment to government education. The trends in place before public education was created were toward greater literacy and education.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#119

Post by cmdrfred »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #113
cmdrfred wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? Or would you tax the already low wages these people have earned at a rate sufficient to give those groups a similar standard of…

>Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? This makes no sense. I pointed out you were comparing income statistics incorrectly (which was also noted by another poster) and in response you: 1. made up a political program which is entirely missing from my post, 2. ascribed it to me out of the blue, 3. and then wrote two paragraphs attacking me fo…

I merely mentioned the median income in passing to highlight how low many will fall. (US GDP per capita is 53k if you are really concerned about apples to apples) and you fixated on it for some reason ignoring the rest of the argument.

"The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system."

The fact is if you had income equality globally you would either have to allow the sick and elderly to starve as well as essentially suspend every governmental function or even the lowest paid workers in the US would be much worse off as the economy would shrink to 1/5 of its original size.

My point stands, "Fight for $15" and making income "fair" are mutually exclusive goals unless you are a nationalist whom is really saying "hey, give me more money!"

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#120

Post by Jabanga »

openasocket wrote: post #116
Jabanga wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centralising spending in the hands of a monopoly inevitably leads to rent-seeking behavior, like the rise of teachers unions and legislation like collective bargaining acts. I think the net level of support people can expect their children to receive from redistributive programs plays a role in their decision to have children when they have low income. It's also important to note that it won't just be schooling if th…

> As for education and fertility rates, this is not guaranteed to last That is not a valid retort. You can't just take a bunch of data points and discard all of them because "evolution has a way". I'm not extrapolating based on this data: these studies show that improving access to education in a wide variety of regions and cultures decreases fertility. These are completely valid statistics and research demonstrating…

Evolution is a well understood phenomenon. It's reasonable to extrapolate its long term effect, especially when very high levels of government spending on education is such a recent phenomenon.
Post reply on HN