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

To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#281

Post by eli_gottlieb »

X86BSD wrote: post #146
winstonewert wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, so I submit the underlying cause cannot have been a policy change in 1986.

Interesting that you noted it started in 1970. Can you think of anything that happened in 1970 that would have started this death spiral of our purchasing power? Perhaps say the severing of our money from gold maybe? Look it's rather simple. You can wax and wane about tax policy until you are blue in the face. The answer lies in the currency, not taxation. I give this example every single time these stories surface.…

A deflating currency is bad for the working class and for economic growth. It is good for the upper-middle classes, who can afford savings but not major capital investment after having paid off a house, but they're surrounded on both sides by a majority whose interests run in favor of moderate inflation (devaluation of debts) and heavy rates of reinvestment.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#282

Post by AdrianB1 »

21 wrote: post #261
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe he is referring to the fact that the Soviet bloc also gave you a job and a flat to live in.

Exactly: they give you stuff, only to have the impression you have something and someone cares. Actually, nobody does not, the citizen is just a milk cow.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#283

Post by eli_gottlieb »

dingaling wrote: post #218
aninhumer wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And every year prices go up it's your currency losing more value, more purchasing power. This is only true if wages don't go up to match it, and if they don't, then we should be asking why not. People should be insisting on raises at least in line with inflation, and if they're not able to get even that, then it suggests a power imbalance. And besides, currency devaluation isn't some secret conspiracy, or even an in…

> People should be insisting on raises at least in line with inflation To be blunt, that really is SV cuckoo-land thinking. In 22 years of employment, 18 in IT with Fortune 100s, I have never had a job in which that was possible. Why would a company voluntarily increase its personnel costs by the rate of inflation?

Because you unionized, because you pressured the state to maintain full-employment policies, because the welfare state helped you bargain harder against your exploiters...

You know, because you actually fought for your interests instead of accepting your lot as a constantly-devalued cost center.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#284

Post by fapjacks »

dingaling wrote: post #218
aninhumer wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And every year prices go up it's your currency losing more value, more purchasing power. This is only true if wages don't go up to match it, and if they don't, then we should be asking why not. People should be insisting on raises at least in line with inflation, and if they're not able to get even that, then it suggests a power imbalance. And besides, currency devaluation isn't some secret conspiracy, or even an in…

> People should be insisting on raises at least in line with inflation To be blunt, that really is SV cuckoo-land thinking. In 22 years of employment, 18 in IT with Fortune 100s, I have never had a job in which that was possible. Why would a company voluntarily increase its personnel costs by the rate of inflation?

Hey, dingaling, you really should bring that up to your employer. In about the same number of years in the same industry, I've gotten salary bumps to cover inflation in most years I've asked for one.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#285

Post by eli_gottlieb »

scarface74 wrote: post #64
mathiasben wrote: post #36

The underlying cause of this whole issue is the changes in tax policy instated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, previously income was taxed at higher rates unless deductions were utilized which forced those earnings back into the economy creating jobs funding research, etc.. As it's become easier to retain more earnings there's little incentive not to optimize an entire corporation solely with the purpose of generating…

What incentive would anyone have in making more then 400K a year if you were going to be taxed at 90%?

Why should people be incentivized to take home more than 400k/year? Why not reinvest that money in the business and have the executives take home only $150k/year?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#286

Post by erentz »

conanbatt wrote: post #240
JamesBarney wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation is both effective, and far less invasive to markets than many other solutions.(like minimum wages, enforced labor unions, changing the way companies pick or compensate CEOs). So that's why it's brought up so often. What are some solutions you're aware of that are equally effective and less invasive?

> Taxation is both effective, and far less invasive to markets than many other solutions. I don't really agree with this. Taxes are distortive and doesn't necesarily help inequality. It might even make it worse. But also, there is taxation as a progressive system of government funding, as there is taxation as in "You will never own more than X, because the government will seize it". In terms of solutions, I'm not a p…

They don't have to be. A "death tax" for example that takes 100% of a persons estate at death would be both simple, non distortive, and in terms of equality level the playing field every generation.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#287

Post by eli_gottlieb »

RyanHamilton wrote: post #204
chrisco255 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Are you sure? The earth has finite resources. Wealth is a zero sum game. Even if you want to look at things like entertainment that can be reporduced cheaply, musicians and directors need fed, food is limited, therefore even films/music are limited.

The only non-finite resource is knowledge, and even that runs into asymptotes of diminishing marginal utility.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#288

Post by dlp211 »

microcolonel wrote: post #237
JamesBarney wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation is both effective, and far less invasive to markets than many other solutions.(like minimum wages, enforced labor unions, changing the way companies pick or compensate CEOs). So that's why it's brought up so often. What are some solutions you're aware of that are equally effective and less invasive?

> Taxation ... minimum wages, enforced labor unions, changing the way companies pick or compensate CEOs None of these are solutions to inequality. Tax-backed redistribution efforts (think new deal) have had no measurable positive impact on absolute or relative poverty; nor have minimum wage laws. The idea of corrupting the CEO compensation and hiring practice at the national level is about as boneheaded as they come.…

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you claiming that SS has had no impact on poverty rates?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#289

Post by fapjacks »

foepys wrote: post #273
JSONwebtoken wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie Sanders has three big houses, a boat, several cars, and multi-million dollar book deals. What does he need half that stuff for?

I don't know. I'm German and how Americans continue to almost exclusively elect millionaires into federal positions amazes me.

It's because our system is heavily skewed to reward the biggest campaign spenders.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#290

Post by esarbe »

erentz wrote: post #286
conanbatt wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxation is both effective, and far less invasive to markets than many other solutions. I don't really agree with this. Taxes are distortive and doesn't necesarily help inequality. It might even make it worse. But also, there is taxation as a progressive system of government funding, as there is taxation as in "You will never own more than X, because the government will seize it". In terms of solutions, I'm not a p…

They don't have to be. A "death tax" for example that takes 100% of a persons estate at death would be both simple, non distortive, and in terms of equality level the playing field every generation.

Why does this get down voted? Even if you don't agree with the idea; it has been proposed in a calm and reasonable manner.

Care to explain?

Post reply on HN