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

411–420 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#411

Post by dredmorbius »

Joe-Z wrote: post #134
Taek wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes aren't the core issue. It's more fundamental than that. Imagine taxing bill gates at 95%. He's still thousands of times more wealthy than your average individual. That's not going to change much, other than that America is going to become highly avoided because of the tax pressures. The real issue is that the fundamental structure of our economy aggregates wealth towards the top. Employees who add millions of d…

You have to start somewhere though. Changing the "fundamental structure of our economy" takes nothing short of a revolution.

Depressions have also worked.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#412

Post by dredmorbius »

surfmike wrote: post #175
Taek wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes aren't the core issue. It's more fundamental than that. Imagine taxing bill gates at 95%. He's still thousands of times more wealthy than your average individual. That's not going to change much, other than that America is going to become highly avoided because of the tax pressures. The real issue is that the fundamental structure of our economy aggregates wealth towards the top. Employees who add millions of d…

How would you change it short of overthrowing capitalism? Capitalism, almost by definition, "allows the rich to increase their wealth without actually working" (although of course less wealthy people can do the same). Parent poster proposed a way to help workers by changing the incentives in the system to reinvest more into productivity/research, without throwing out the system that has made our society propsperous.

Taxing capital itself, rent-generating assets, and inheritance.

Providing for a living working wage. Providing for labour unionisation or equivalent functions. Curtailing the capability of the wealthy to seek self-serving concessions from legislatures. Supporting a vibrant programme of public schools and works.

Pretty much Adam Smith's prescription in 1776.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#413

Post by philjohn »

barrkel wrote: post #391
jaggederest wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even those 'non-striver' people would prefer to have growth over time, in their position, wage, and skills. Humans are not static - we like to learn and we get very frustrated when we can't improve over time.

Do you think everybody finds growth and meaning in their job? Many people find it in their family, in sport, in clubs, and work is just a wage.

And yet, the Janitor in this piece can't afford to take a holiday, so is it a stretch to assume she doesn't have much free time either?!?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#414

Post by conanbatt »

esarbe wrote: post #321

What strikes me the most when looking at many of the comments here is the blatant disregard for human suffering that extreme inequality and the resulting poverty cause. The current economical status quo is accepted as a given and all the harm it causes is dismissed with the shrug of a shoulder. "It can't be helped, the poor sods should have made better life choices to avoid ending up as janitor" is the attitude by wh…

The current status quo did amazing in attacking extreme poverty. Don't get deluded into thinking the world has growing poverty and that everything is going into the can, because it isn't.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#415

Post by dredmorbius »

conanbatt wrote: post #331
pcrh wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct in that it's foolish to institute an uncollectable tax, but I don't think inheritance tax necessarily falls into that category any more than, say, capital gains taxes.

Is paying for your kids education inheritance? Are pre-paid company contracts for a lifetime inheritance? etc etc. There are some definite difficulties in implementation. But even then, my argument is that it could be a really harmful tax if it could be applied at all.

Why should education be privately financed? Why should there be a need to privately pay for your children's basic (or university) education?

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#416

Post by trumpownsyou420 »

esarbe wrote: post #321

What strikes me the most when looking at many of the comments here is the blatant disregard for human suffering that extreme inequality and the resulting poverty cause. The current economical status quo is accepted as a given and all the harm it causes is dismissed with the shrug of a shoulder. "It can't be helped, the poor sods should have made better life choices to avoid ending up as janitor" is the attitude by wh…

i did not come from educated elite and i did something with my life. cry me a river, fuckboy.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#417

Post by pcrh »

conanbatt wrote: post #374
pcrh wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is that allowing large inheritances is harmful to society at large. It allows for an accumulation of economic influence within too few hands, and the creation of an entrenched elite. The "Founding Fathers" of the US were particularly opposed to it for this reason. One would have to balance the "harm" caused to the children of wealthy people for not inheriting wealth (mostly when they are around 50-60 yr…

What evidence? > One would have to balance the "harm" caused to the children of wealthy people for not inheriting wealth (mostly when they are around 50-60 yr old themselves), with the harm caused to society at large. I wonder if we could think of other examples of how harming a minority of people can be good for society at large. But regardless of the moral standpoint of the remark you said, you also have to account…

My point is that there's no obvious harm implicit in denying people an inheritance. They did nothing to earn it. There's no inherent right to be bequeathed wealth; that this is evident is that it is nigh on impossible to sue one's parents (or their estate) for not willing their wealth to you (in the US; under Napoleonic law, there is a right to inherit).

Many people spend inherited wealth frivolously. Business acumen isn't known to be genetically determined, whereas political influence is certainly affected by wealth and pedigree, see George Bush the first and the second.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#418

Post by conanbatt »

alansammarone wrote: post #360
whack wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem though isn't wealth inequality, it's income inequality. If someone has a billion dollars that's invested in various stocks, and never tries to withdraw that money, leave him alone. The day he decides to sell his investments and start buying private jets, that's the time to tax him on his income. The argument against a wealth tax, is that it penalizes savers, and rewards spenders. Which is not what we…

Could you please expand on why its necessarily better for the average Joe to invest money (without knowing beforehand whats gonna be a "productive enterprise" of course) instead of fuelling the economy directly by buying goods? (honest question)

Investment is what produces more wealth in the long run, and all investment is foregone consumption. If you buy less coffee but invest in a coffee maker, eventually, more coffee will be made in total, which is the real riches of a society.

Saving is paramount to growth in the classic economic model.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#419

Post by fasquoika »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #143
vanderZwan wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, the US isn't remotely socialist yet, and the thing Lenin did was try to force communism on society instead of wait for it to come "naturally" as a response to capitalism, which is what Marx predicted. So this warming up to socialist ideas is pretty much in line with Marx' predictions and has little to do with the Soviet Union I think.

Oh, USA is socialist. Looks at the taxation in the past 150 years and you will understand why, if you want to. Easy way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...

Is your implication that the US is socialist simply for having an income tax? If not, you're going to have to quit the snide remarks and actually explain your opinion...

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#420

Post by peoplewindow »

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #335
peoplewindow wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Oversight and mentorship doesn't exist for entry level self-taught doctors or lawyers. Everyone starting out would be learning the hard lessons the hard way, and for law and medicine, that means jail, injury, and deaths.

What makes you think that professions other than law and medicine don't have mentorship or oversight?
Post reply on HN