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

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

wid.world

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 248 posts

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

#151

Post by clairity »

dmix wrote: 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…

progress has no bounds. it's like water, finding a route where none existed before. even if you try to dam up some portion, the pressure mounts, and the dam breaks. do not worry about stifling advancement, especially through economic means.

when it comes to wealth (in)equality, you basically want to balance greed on one side and anger on the other. sure, allow the greedy to amass a little weath to promote their playing by the rules, but only just enough for those ends. and the other side, make sure wealth is distributed enough that people feel collectively prosperous, so we don't have riots and the like (fairer wealth distribution should come from better ways to more equally value the work of all people, not just that of gatekeepers and rent-seekers; and it should especially not come from simplistic wealth redistribution schemes like universal basic income).

wealth inequality has risen sharply over the past 50 years. whether you're a lefty or a righty, most people agree that it's time to level that playing field. there's absolutely no need to worry about stifling progress as we do that.

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

#152

Post by frandroid »

tuna-piano wrote: post #128

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…

> The whole idea of inequality, while potentially useful, kind of assumes a fixed pie.

No. The idea of income inequality assumes that no matter the size of the pie, everyone should have a decent slice of pie that lets them live comfortably.

Industrialization was supposed to reduce the amount of hours we work and increase our quality of life. We seemed to have reached a floor at 40/50 hours a week and many many people are struggling to make ends meet, even if the richest countries in the world. There's a problem.

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

#153

Post by Florin_Andrei »

tuna-piano wrote: post #128

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…

> The whole idea of inequality, while potentially useful, kind of assumes a fixed pie.

No. It simply says group A has a big pile of stuff, whereas B has a small pile. Which is factually true.

It's about piles, not pies.

Sorry for the awkwardly mixed metaphors.

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

#154

Post by logfromblammo »

tuna-piano wrote: post #137
Chinjut wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

The coercion is embedded in the corporate structure, where many employees do the actual work of bringing a new product to market, but only one executive has the power to fire any single one of them if they demand a greater share of the profits, or all of them if they form a cartel to collectively demand more.

The consumer does not have an option at the point of purchase to direct those dollars to specific employees. Their choice is to buy the phone and pay the executive the most, or to not buy the phone at all. You cannot buy the phone and direct the bulk of its purchase price to the guy who wanted to save the TRRS headphone jack.

Your option in that vein is to purchase enough stock in a public company to get a board seat, then propose that the workers be paid more, and the executives less. And hope you get enough votes. This is not realistically possible for any individual consumer.

The choice that "society" makes is to allow that company to continue to exist, and to operate itself as it sees fit. The decisions about the distributions of profits are overwhelmingly made by rich people alone, who unsurprisingly vote to direct the majority of profits to themselves.

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

#155

Post by retailbuyout »

tuna-piano wrote: post #128

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…

I don’t think the total size of the pie matters so much as the proportion.

Also, it’s relative positioning that determines happiness—i’d much rather live in a place where I can look my neighbor in the eye than one where I can leverage my privileges to provide myself many times a better life than my neighbor. I’m american; my quality of life could plummit without affecting my happiness much at all. But I have no idea what could compensate for someone living on my stoop in a tent.

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

#156

Post by dragonwriter »

moduspol wrote: post #148
ryandrake wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it is income inequality is just the derivative of wealth inequality. Opportunity inequality is the derivative of income inequality. Opportunity equality is the idea of a level playing field. When people complain about income inequality, they're really complaining about opportunity inequality, which I believe drives the bulk of income inequality. All that people are asking for is real opportunity equalit…

The government can't give you two married parents that love you in a stable household, the best education money can buy, or social connections with powerful people. It can minimize the value of those things for the people that have them... at least within its borders. I'm not convinced that's in anyone's best interests, though.

> The government can't give you two married parents that love you in a stable household, the best education money can buy, or social connections with powerful people.

It can do the second, and it can create opportunities for the third. And it can help (or hinder) the first. (As a purely hypothetical illustration of that, it could implement a systematically racially biased criminal justice system and engage in a pattern of racially-suitable violence against a specific segment of the adult population, decreasing the number of two-parent present families in that segment.)

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

#157

Post by Chinjut »

Mz wrote: post #141
tuna-piano wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 wor…

My assumption is that the parent comment means, in part, that how we choose to do things like structure corporations and corporate compensation is a societal thing.

Yes. (Among a million other things. ALL the rules that determine who is a billionaire and who is a beggar are social choices, because wealth is a social relation. The fact that there even are these particular different possible ways for people to be treated is a social choice.)

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

#159

Post by tuna-piano »

mancerayder wrote: post #146
tuna-piano wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 wor…

What you said, while true, is one-sided. It omits that companies like Apple are the beneficiaries of large tax breaks that ipso facto function as subsidies (because Apple is the beneficiary of tax spending in innumerable ways). It also looks at different taxation rates for individuals as well, with a capital gain tax that's far lower than ordinary income tax rates, as one example. So "as a society" applies here, in t…

I would ask, what courts, tax laws, civil laws, etc are you referring to? Of course they impact the outcome, but which of those do you think is unfair or antithetical to my point about the free market?

I think the tax thing is a huge misconception that just isn't backed up by reality. The US still has a progressive tax system, even after taking into account the many rules (or the mysterious and nefarious "tax breaks" that everyone alludes to).

The top 1% have around 20% of the income, but pay 40% of the federal income taxes!

Real federal income tax rate paid:

Top 1% - 27%

Top 5% - 23%

Top 10% - 21%

Top 25% - 18%

Top 50% - 16%

Bottom 50% - 3.45%

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...

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

#160

Post by clairity »

tuna-piano wrote: post #128

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…

that's an econ 101 concept that so badly misses the point, i'm not even sure it knows what the target is. and then a false dichotomy is tacked on to boot.

yes, if you are playing an ideal, rational, competitive economic game, one strategy is to "grow the pie" and as a result capture larger economic gains even if your proportion of the market remains the same (or even shrinks).

but when it comes to the real world, with all its complexity, we consider many more consequences than just the economic one (the profit motive).

to answer the false dichotomy (the last question), we care about both. we want fairness (not perfect equality) and we want less poverty. and yes, that's entirely possible and should be pursued rigorously and with singular focus.

Post reply on HN