U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#31

Post by jadedhacker » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:25 PM UTC

rvo wrote: post #24

knuththetruth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

I have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?

The idea is that feudal ideologies are making a comeback with the rise of an aristocratic class. These ideologies are finding support amongst the (conservative/reactionary) lower classes as they try to process why their lives are getting shittier without being provided a clear logical explanation. Thus they reach backwards for older more authoritarian models to try to restore their power. What is missing is the narrative of class struggle.

From the linked wikipedia article:

"It broadly rejects egalitarianism and the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment (thus, it is in part a reaction against "Whig historiography").[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism or other forms of strong, centralised leadership such as a "neocameralist CEO"[3] of a joint-stock republic,[4] coupled with a right-libertarian, conservative or other approach to economics."

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#32

Post by knuththetruth » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #29

knuththetruth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if their is mobility between the income groups I'm not sure how you can't be arguing the same thing I am. The income inequality is what creates the immobility. This is demonstrated by other developed countries where there is less income inequality and greater social mobility, as others have pointed out. Can you elaborate?

Are you sure the income inequality creates the immobility and isn't just linked to the immobility in other ways? The demonstration of other countries implies the latter, but even that is really hard to prove.

Yes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly. Only when resources are more evenly distributed among social classes has that ever happened.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#33

Post by skybrian » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #6

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top…

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in…

A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory.

But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#34

Post by ameister14 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:30 PM UTC

knuththetruth wrote: post #7

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top…

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal l…

Uh...the gilded age resulted in massive industrial and income expansion, the rise of the US onto the world stage financially and the lowering of maternal death rates, raising of life expectancy and a general post-industrial boom. Wages and average per capita savings doubled.

It was also associated with the immigration of tens of millions of impoverished people, which is part of the reason for the massive inequality numbers - the population doubled during this period.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#35

Post by praha14 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:31 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #27

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what I said. I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if there is mobility between the income groups. They statistics in the Bloomberg article show income inequality but don't show lack of mobility, and then say we've hit "a disturbing new threshold". There may be lack of mobility along with income inequality, but the article doesn't demonstrate it.

That's not what's happening though. First off, social mobility is declining, so let's get that out of the way: http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-dec... Second, I think it's still a problem if the income of 90-98% of the country stagnates for decades , while the top earners get higher and higher income. Of course that affects inequality. I'm also not sure it matters that much if the players at t…

One thing I've never understood- in a fair society in which people are not artificially limited, wouldn't we expect social mobility to decrease over time as successive generations "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics?

Let's say we've got a feudal society with dumb nobility that rules over a smart peasantry by force. If that society becomes free, we'll expect smart peasants to move up and dumb noblemen to move down across the first few generations... but once they've moved, they've moved. Ergo, declining social mobility.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#36

Post by 39d3493I93 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #14

This is in keeping with a long term trend in which the standard of living for the median American has been allowed to stagnate for a long time. The male median wage has been stagnant or declining since 1973. This was previously discussed on Hacker News: http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike... Also, consider that, when it comes to death-by-childbirth, the USA is among the very worst developed c…

The fact of the matter that we can't even discuss, let alone even mention the realities of these matters on account of the PC authoritarian goons going after you and silencing you and banning your accounts, is quite telling.

It's quite unfortunate that regardless of when, all of this current liberal, PC, postmodern insanity will result in horrific results, because nothing can deviate so much without causing repercussions, regardless of what they may be.

Just take your last point; we simply can't even discuss, let alone bring up the fact that the "death-by-childbirth" rates that you lament as being so high, are localize to specific ethnic and racial groups; but because the PC nazis will go after you if you if you don't, we are forced to imagine and repeat that the USA suffers from these third world problems not because there are exponentially more third world people in the USA than in ANY developed country.... while we are compelled to chant "diversity is our strength" at the end of the barrel of a gun.

There is actually a huge degree of likelihood that you would not have seen this comment at all any more than you see any of the other comments and users that are digitally silenced and executed and whisked away to digital mass graves on sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. So maybe this comment is just for some future researcher or digital archeologist that is able to reconstruct this message from digital pieces in their effort to understand how the current form of authoritarians were able to hoodwink and bamboozle the feeble minded fools into self-destruction and self-harm and pushed humanity to the brink.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#37

Post by BadCookie » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

These stats are pretty ridiculous. Not all advanced degrees are more valuable than a bachelor's. In my own company, we definitely have men with a BS in computer science earning lots more than women with master's degrees in English and education, but you can hardly blame the wage difference on their genders.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#38

Post by 12312390123 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top…

It's very fascinating to me how the vast majority of time someone is saying "the statistics for gender are misleading" it appears to be a man saying it.

> If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses).

Citation needed.

> And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern

Citation needed.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#39

Post by benmw333 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:34 PM UTC

knuththetruth wrote: post #7

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top…

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal l…

"where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning?"

Capitalism in the US has created more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in the history of mankind. Your statement applies to third world countries... not the United States. Oh, we're also the most free and most prosperous nation ever. That helps.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#40

Post by evrydayhustling » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #16

knuththetruth wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal l…

No, that's not what I said. I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if there is mobility between the income groups. They statistics in the Bloomberg article show income inequality but don't show lack of mobility, and then say we've hit "a disturbing new threshold". There may be lack of mobility along with income inequality, but the article doesn't demonstrate it.

Other comments have brought additional evidence about declining wage mobility. I'll add that the article's stats about the impact of race demonstrate lack of mobility. Working while black seems to mean a 20% pay cut, regardless of education.

As an American, I've always based a lot of national pride on our history as a (relative, for some groups) meritocracy with a lot of mobility. It's really sad to see rapid erosion of this over the last 20y.