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

451–460 of 694 posts

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#451

Post by AdrianB1 »

tchaffee wrote: post #189
AdrianB1 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought the people that left Europe for USA did it for a different life, not to get socialism and get back in line with the herd. But it seems that the people in California had afterthoughts about this and decided to go commie. Not kidding, Hacker News commenters are very much biased towards socialism - take it from a guy that was born and lived in a socialist country and had the chance to feel it the hard w…

Universal healthcare helped get me over there and it's one of the reasons I'll settle down there. I think all the socialized services are great. Excellent value for the taxes you pay.

If you pay small taxes and you get great value, good for you. Other people pay much bigger taxes and get nothing in return. Tax based healthcare is robbery, richer people are not sicker and there is no justification to pay for services a percentage of your income. Otherwise you should pay for groceries a percentage of your income, for gas, for rent etc, so in the end everyone is equal in what they can buy. Better than socialist utopia, you can go directly to communism.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#452

Post by Bakary »

jackmott wrote: post #354
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…

there are a lot of posters here who seem to be border line sociopaths, so maybe another thing they should conaider is that when inequality increases to much the proletariat will tend to kill the elite. nobody wins if we get there and there are signs we are headed there.

How do you kill the elite if they have advanced weaponry and can monitor all communications? What happens if they have no use for servants or consumers by virtue of having automated all their production needs? This scenario may sound extreme but it's certainly not implausible.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#453

Post by e12e »

averagewall wrote: post #445

This sounds negative from an America-centric view. Seen globally, poverty has plummeted and countries have become more equal. If you care about people suffering, the cleaner at Apple is probably much better off than the farmer in China who could easily be dead from famine by now if it wasn't for the global economy - driven by companies like Apple. It may also be misleading to compare a contractor cleaner today to an…

> I don't know the industry but perhaps the modern job is easier to get and seen as lower status than it was in the past?

I'd say there's more technical skill (certifications and iso standards) to adhere to in cleaning today, than 30 years ago - and each worker clean larger areas (and probably works harder than 30 years ago, suffering under tight micromanaged schedules). That's my impression (though mostly in Norway). Note that cleaners might be better, more efficient and doing a more demanding job, and still have lower status...

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#454

Post by CPAhem »

That's globalization for you.

Apple's software is based on open source BSD. They sub-contract the building of their phones to China, and they are made mostly with Korean chips and displays.

Apple can import cheap indentured workers from overseas on H1B visas.

They avoid US tax by pushing their profits through Ireland.

Kodak was a far more progressive company that invested in their employees. Apple is now the world's biggest company, Kodak is dead.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#455

Post by ryanbrunner »

user5994461 wrote: post #438
point78 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And their wealth was distributed evenly? Hell yeah the poor would have it better, is this a trick question?

The rents would increase everywhere the next year to capture all that new cash.

If the hypothetical we're discussing is "kill all the rich", assuming the year after takes place in a capitalist economy doesn't seem like a sure thing.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#456

Post by aoeusnth1 »

user5994461 wrote: post #438
point78 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And their wealth was distributed evenly? Hell yeah the poor would have it better, is this a trick question?

The rents would increase everywhere the next year to capture all that new cash.

Then construction would increase, causing rents to fall.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#457

Post by aoeusnth1 »

point78 wrote: post #433
oh_sigh wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does inequality in itself cause suffering? If all super rich people were magically erased from the earth, would the poor have it any better?

And their wealth was distributed evenly? Hell yeah the poor would have it better, is this a trick question?

No, the hypothetical was if the wealthiest disappeared, along with all their wealth.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#458

Post by JamesBarney »

yorwba wrote: post #333
JamesBarney wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can agree "when you give poor people money to spend, they don't end up spending more money" is an extraordinary claim. And so should need an extraordinary amount of evidence to back it up. Can you point me in the right direction to some more information about how this could possibly be true?

I don't see anyone upthread making that claim you are challenging. Could you point me to the comment you meant to respond to?

Many of the comments up thread said redistribution doesn't work. Working is defined as reducing poverty levels which is literally measured by how much money they spend. And redistribution is literally giving poor people money.

I.e. giving poor people money doesn't end up with the poor spending more money.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#459

Post by koalaman »

0xbear wrote: post #439
fasquoika wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

I am a multimillionaire. Came here with a negative net worth, by way of skilled immigration. Born and raised in the USSR. Don't bother trying to convince me about the virtues of socialism. Unlike you, I actually lived it.

Socialism is a bit of an over-loaded word. Most people use it to speak about market economies in western Europe with heavily funded public health, wellness, and education programs which intend to promote democratic constitutional goals such as equal opportunity for citizens.

Planned economies such as the USSR clearly impinge on human liberty, tend to be undemocratic, and are usually very inefficient, and I think almost everybody would agree with you that they aren't a good alternative to the current U.S political and economic system.

Re: To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors

#460

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN