Live data from Hacker News

Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

wid.world

131–140 of 248 posts

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#131

1. When everyone was a farmer, the difference between the best possible farmer and the worst farmer just wasn't that great. Maybe you're 2x faster at picking corn, or 3x better at hunting deer. But a few guys literally built a communication tool (WhatsApp) to be used by billions of people. So maybe in the old world you could pick 2x as much corn, but in today's world you can build 1 billion times the communication to…

Like Steve Jobs made the iPhone with his own hands... He played a role in the creation of the iPhone, but the level and proportion of reward he received for that role is a choice we made as a society, not an intrinsic physical fact. I guarantee you, even in a world where telling other people to make iPhones doesn't make you a billionaire, there are still people who would line up at the chance to do it.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#132
post #52

Changing the graph from "Share %" to "Average Income or Wealth" shows a much more optimistic looking chart, with every country ramping upwards, almost at an exponentially positive rate. The world as a whole is moving away from poverty and quality of life is improving which IMO is the most important metric here. Far more important to the average person than the relative wealth ratios at the top vs the bottom, which ye…

The top 10% share and top 1% share are increasing. The middle 40% and bottom 50% have gotten worse. The data in some of these graphs are for as few as three countries.

It paints a picture of the rich milking the rest of the world for wealth. It does not paint a picture of global improvement for the commoner. (Though, tbf, there isn't data on quite a lot of countries, so we really don't know.)

I think ratio of top to bottom does matter, or can matter. I don't really care how rich the rich are, but I do care that upward pressure on size and amenities for housing in the US means that there is a long standing (going back decades) shortage of genuinely affordable housing in the US. There are people who are homeless in the US in part because they can't find anything for $400 or less a month in rent. We have largely done away with very basic housing, such as SROs and boarding houses. We tore a lot of those down (up to 80% of them in some cities) when the Baby Booomers were coming of age and didn't need something that cheap. We never rebuilt.

So, the US suffers from this idea that all housing needs to be appropriate for a family of four or five while our demographic has moved away from the nuclear family. We have a lot more single people putting off marriage, couples putting off having children or not having them at all or only having one child, seniors whose kids have all moved out, etc. But we don't really have housing designed for the needs of 1 to 3 people.

If we had strong policies to create enough very basic housing to house around 2 percent* of the population, then I likely would agree that I don't really care how rich the rich are compared to me. The problem is that the rich are the only ones being served here. There are huge challenges for the average person in the US.

I think the rich folks at the top are fools for doing this. This is the kind of thing that leads to bloody revolutions.

I won't be leading some bloody revolution. I am doing all in my power to reverse such trends. But I am an incredibly poor divorced single mom with health problems and adult special needs kids that still live with me. There are substantial limits on what I am likely to accomplish.

Doing a little blogging and making comments on forums is the majority of what I can do about this at the moment. Currently, I am also trying to put out flyers locally to promote some of my blogs to try to help put a dent in the high rates of poverty in the town I moved to. Unemployment and homelessness are rampant here.

But I am new to town and I lack connections and have credibility challenges. People think my "how to make money writing online" site is probably a scam. People don't want to approve the flyers for it. When they do get approved, people who see the flyers remain skeptical.

So, the reality is that the fools at the top who are milking the majority for money are the ones with the most power for trying to reverse such trends in some way (and, no, basic income is not the answer -- that is a lazy concept and won't work). I won't be leading the bloody revolution, but if it does happen, I will kind of sit back and laugh at the "victims" of it who brought it on themselves. Cuz, duh, you could see that coming from miles away and did nothing about it, you greedy dumbasses.

I am not talking about morality. I am talking about enlightened self interest here. (A la Henry Ford wanting all of his employees to be able to afford to buy a car.)

* http://projectsro.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-two-percent-solut...

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#133
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, wealth is the means of production.

Nothing is being produced when rent seeking.

That's a good point, which potentially leads to Georgism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

> Georgism, also called geoism and single tax, is an economic philosophy holding that, while people should own the value they produce themselves, economic value derived from land (including natural resources and natural opportunities) should belong equally to all members of society.

> Any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of 'land monopoly' involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair, and equitable. The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value. Georgists argue that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes (for example, on income, trade, or purchases) that are unfair and inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue back to the people by means of a basic income or citizen's dividend.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#134
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. You can have low income inequality through redistribution of wealth and still have massive differences in opportunity at birth based on other, non-monetary societal factors.

I see that, and yet those other factors nowadays have some correlation with wealth too. In Spain gypsies are discriminated against, with a stereotype of them being poor, not educated, and thieves. And yet the children of a rich gypsy football player won't probably even be thought of as gypsies, just kids.

That's not because he's rich; it's because he's a famous footballer. People won't know that he's rich if he's not also famous, and they associate him with the club he plays for and the skillset he possesses more than his wealth.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#135

1. When everyone was a farmer, the difference between the best possible farmer and the worst farmer just wasn't that great. Maybe you're 2x faster at picking corn, or 3x better at hunting deer. But a few guys literally built a communication tool (WhatsApp) to be used by billions of people. So maybe in the old world you could pick 2x as much corn, but in today's world you can build 1 billion times the communication to…

regarding #2 and 3 - there is some sort of social psychological principle where it doesn't matter if the pie has been made bigger. You will end up with discontent if the inequality happens nonetheless. So while it may not be rational, you still have to avoid it unless you want French Revolution scenarios.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#137

1. When everyone was a farmer, the difference between the best possible farmer and the worst farmer just wasn't that great. Maybe you're 2x faster at picking corn, or 3x better at hunting deer. But a few guys literally built a communication tool (WhatsApp) to be used by billions of people. So maybe in the old world you could pick 2x as much corn, but in today's world you can build 1 billion times the communication to…

Like Steve Jobs made the iPhone with his own hands... He played a role in the creation of the iPhone, but the level and proportion of reward he received for that role is a choice we made as a society, not an intrinsic physical fact. I guarantee you, even in a world where telling other people to make iPhones doesn't make you a billionaire, there are still people who would line up at the chance to do it.

" the level and proportion of reward he received for that role is a choice we made as a society"

I don't believe this statement to be at all accurate. We did not make that decision as a society.

Millions of individual people made the decision to buy or not buy the phone based on its price and value. Millions of workers decided to work (or not work) for Apple/Foxconn based on their wages and the work. One of those workers was Steve Jobs, and the owners of Apple decided to pay him a certain amount for his work (and of course some of his wealth was derived from his ownership of Apple).

A free market is a special economic system in that it's made up of completely voluntary agreements. There was no coercion involved to make Jobs wealthy.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#138

Ok. So I looked into it and I had my "OHHH!!" moment. It seems income/wealth inequality got magnified because of the number of opportunities went exponentially higher. Those who were able, took advantage of those opportunities if they had education, business acumen, surplus income, liquid wealth, or were fortunate enough to have ownership in an industry that was not valued very highly before and became very valuable…

If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it. Wealth has been increasingly taxed, poverty increasingly subsidized. For the bottom 50%, this matters.

So your argument is that people are poor because being poor is just too good of a deal?

I don't know any poor people who wouldn't prefer to be wealthier, but being in poverty also reduces opportunity and a lack of opportunity means your situation stays the same.

I grew up poor, and without the assistance from government programs my family received I would not have had the opportunity to pull myself out of the cycle of poverty.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#139

1. When everyone was a farmer, the difference between the best possible farmer and the worst farmer just wasn't that great. Maybe you're 2x faster at picking corn, or 3x better at hunting deer. But a few guys literally built a communication tool (WhatsApp) to be used by billions of people. So maybe in the old world you could pick 2x as much corn, but in today's world you can build 1 billion times the communication to…

Part of the problem is that the inequality leads to behavior that protects the inequality. Disney passing lobbying for laws that will keep their work out of public domain despite how much they benefited from public domain. Drug companies lobbying to outlaw certain products that would help people but cut into profits.

Enough inequality allows information control. Enough information control allows government control.

Overall, if things were constantly getting better, I doubt people would care. But once things start stagnating for those at the bottom, they begin to consider not playing by the current set of rules.

Re: Explore Wealth and Income Inequality in the World Wealth and Income Database

#140
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, my interest is in seeing the quality of life for my fellow citizens improve first. Yes, people in other countries are people too, etc., but they also have their own governance, their own resources, their own economics systems to manage and oversee. I can take no active part in any of that--only my own country's. Until we have one world government, I'm always going to prioritize the places where I have…

I just want to vocally support your having expressed this view. I don't necessarily agree wholesale with the position, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable and sound preference to have, but one that, if said in public, with your real identity attached to it, you may be admonished for. And that I find to be a shame -- that we find it so difficult to see the logic in a position we may disagree with.

Hey thanks!

The other thing is, I don't just apply this to international politics, I'm a firm believer in working to change your local politics as much as possible above all else.

How your city runs is both more accessible to the layperson and has a far bigger impact on your day-to-day experience than federal stuff, for example.

That's not to say I'd eschew federal level politics--I'm a huge proponent for socialized medicine, stringent environmental regulations, and a host of other stuff.

But when I go out and campaign, I do it for local folks.

Post reply on HN