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

161–170 of 248 posts

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

#161

Post by [deleted] »

evanlivingston wrote: post #111
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…

What do you mean when you say success, progress or upwards? Here's a hypothetical: If a person is moved from a situation where they have no money, but the food, services and mobility they need for a somewhat comfortable and stable life to a system of employment that is less stable and creates dependency on this employmenet is that progress? That person or family might have moved out of extreme poverty but is their si…

[deleted]

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

#162

Post by Mz »

Chinjut wrote: post #157
Mz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

"Possession is nine tenths of the law."

(Though Wikipedia tells me it means something else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_t...

My assumption has always been that the phrase meant that 90% of law is related to who owns what, basically.)

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

#163

Post by euyyn »

ameister14 wrote: post #134
euyyn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree: You're describing what fans of him will think of his son.

But in this kid's day-to-day life after graduating, unless he becomes famous on his own, nobody will know who he is. They'll just see a dude that dresses well, lives in a well-off neighborhood, and got an education like everybody else. He won't have been raised in a violent neighborhood with poor access to education. And no employer will think twice about his application on account of his looks or the way he speaks.

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

#164

Post by conanbatt »

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…

There is a strong case to be against relative inequality.

What happens when the next difference is not yatchs, but something substantially different like access to longevity medicine, bionic instrumentation, genetic engineering, armament, whatever.

The great problem of some people being subdued to others clearly stems from the difference in power between them. Marx accounts that an English capitalist of his time could command 3 thousand servants, and as soon as he took them to america, literally all of them scrambled because they didn't have a dependency on him any more.

Not only that, but, there is a big question on why is this happening at all. Is it because the upper classes are better at tax dodging? Is it because its just how capitalism normally works and provides the best results? Is it because we have a crushing difference on how the State benefits one over others?

These are open questions, even Capital by Piketty doesnt have clear answers.

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

#165

Post by eighthnate »

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…

> 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 the problem is that anyone can build whatsapp. It's not technologically sophisticated or difficult to do.

> but in today's world you can build 1 billion times the communication tools as someone else.

Which depends on market access, free time ( wealth ) and most importantly - access to capital. Most people in the world don't have access to it.

> 2. The whole idea of inequality, while potentially useful, kind of assumes a fixed pie.

That is an argument. But it really doesn't matter if the pie grows if a small fraction of the population gets a greater share of the larger pie.

> 3. Does anyone care about equality, or do people care about poverty? Would a world where 1% of people had 100 yachts but 99% of people each had 1 yacht bother you?

Yes, if yachts = power. The problem in america is that money = power and more importantly, now money = speech.

> Would you rather live in a poor equal country or a rich unequal country?

Neither? You are offering a false dichotomy. It's the same argument posed by monarchists centuries ago. Either we have divine right monarchy or anarchy/complete chaos. How about democratic representative government?

You are offering us two extremes and falsely claiming those are our only two options. It isn't. Extreme poverty and extreme economic inequality are both terrible systems.

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

#166

Post by tuna-piano »

frandroid wrote: post #152
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…

And yet even the poorest in the US still have TVs and refrigerators. I don't dismiss that life is difficult for many, but I also realize that they're working hard for a higher standard of living than is possible in many other times in history and many countries today.

And in actuality, the poorest quintile in the USA is the quintile that works the least hours, not the most! Why do the top 20% of Americans work so much, then they could potentially work less and earn less? Perhaps that's the tradeoff that they as a group make?

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib348-trends-us-work-hours-wa...

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

#167

Post by conanbatt »

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…

I agree mostly. The narrative that "the world is being robbed by the rich" is far from being true.

Still, its a problem that we don't understand yet, and we have no economic model to solve. Milton Friedman's economic paradigm does not help. We need something new.

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

#168

Post by moduspol »

dragonwriter wrote: post #156
moduspol wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 patte…

How do we get everyone through Ivy League without lowering the bar? How do you propose the government manage social connections to powerful people?

You're right about it affecting the first, though. Also as a purely hypothetical illustration, it might create a multiple generation-spanning dependency on social programs, make single parent households more economically feasible and socially acceptable as a lifestyle, and foster class warfare that downplays the importance of one's own choices by blaming only others for one's own outcomes.

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

#169

Post by ako »

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 total size of the pie influences prices: if people have more money this by itself can cause inflation. See for example housing in San Francisco. Some people are forces to move, eventhough they have lived in the same house for years.

Housing prices in the neighbourhood go up, because potential buyers have a large piece of the pie. This causes average house prices to rise, which causes taxes to rise.

Suddenly the original piece of the pie is no longer enough to afford the house you always lived in.

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

#170

Post by Chinjut »

tuna-piano wrote: post #166
frandroid wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And yet even the poorest in the US still have TVs and refrigerators. I don't dismiss that life is difficult for many, but I also realize that they're working hard for a higher standard of living than is possible in many other times in history and many countries today. And in actuality, the poorest quintile in the USA is the quintile that works the least hours, not the most! Why do the top 20% of Americans work so muc…

Yes, poor people today have access to technology which didn't exist hundreds of years ago. What of it? Poor people everywhere in every era under every economic system have access to technology which didn't exist in the past; this is the nature of time. Paupers of the late Neolithic had access to wheels their ancestors could only dream of.

The comparison of note isn't between the present and the past, but between the system in place and alternative possible systems; between the present/future that is, and the present/future that could be. (Somehow, the same folks who love to proclaim "It's Econ 101…" also always go on to compare present to past to somehow prove the poor are getting a grand deal, instead of thinking about "opportunity cost" for the poor compared to alternative presents under alternative choices for how to structure society's wealth.)

As for the idea that the poorest 20% in the US are voluntarily choosing to live in poverty out of work-shyness, while the richest 20% have contrastingly simply opted-in to their different status along some trade-off curve, this is both laughably ignorant and cruelly smug.

Post reply on HN