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

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

#41

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

ameister14 wrote: post #34

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…

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 n…

Excuse me but those benefits weren't result of the Guilded Age. Correlation, not causation. Both things were a result of the industrial revolution and globalization.

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

#42

Post by Consultant32452 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:38 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…

I think it's easy to explain why wages have stagnated. The time wages started to stagnate coincides with women's lib, immigration policy changes, and free trade changes. Women's lib dropped an extra 40% more people into the labor pool. Of course that's going to put downward pressure on wages. We changed our legal immigration policy to favor more poor people while simultaneously changing our illegal immigration enforcement policy to keep tons of illegal aliens in the country pushing wages down for the American poor. Trade policy has gutted a huge portion of the country in favor of the already wealthy elites on the coast.

The big economic question of the day should be asking how we've managed to keep wages at only the "stagnation" level rather than precipitously falling in the face of so much downward pressure.

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

#43

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

ameister14 wrote: post #34

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…

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 n…

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dar...

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

#44

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

praha14 wrote: post #35

mtgx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

> "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics

There's an extreme amount of assumption baked into that.

1. Genetics is the only factor that determines merit for wealth?

2. Genetics merits extreme differences in income/wealth?

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

#45

Post by rory096 » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:41 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…

Median wage is a bad metric in a world where health insurance costs (and thus non-wage benefits) are rapidly rising. Median household wage is doubly bad in a world of changing household composition.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...

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

#46

Post by microcolonel » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:42 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…

> robber barons

You mean, like, people who did productive business? How dare they!

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

#47

Post by watwut » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:44 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #21

netfire wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same could be said for the racial-based statistics, since race might be tied to cultural opinions which could impact how many hours a week or years in a lifetime someone works.

Well, the difference between race and gender is that most women have children, which take up a lot of time and require taking at least some time away from work. If the difference is due to cultural issues then maybe it makes sense to worry about the differences and try to address them, but if the difference just comes down to women have children so they work less that's a less compelling reason to try to equalize men…

Men have children too. There are not many kids that have no biological father.

I mean these comments talk about it as if kids and work around them had zero to do with men and we're some kind of female hobby. Among some men it is so as they don't care, but many men do actually care and do spend time with them.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:44 PM UTC

praha14 wrote: post #35

mtgx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by dominotw » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:45 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…

> 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

Cant they control democracy via increase access to speech though wealth.

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

#50

Post by ribosometronome » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 7:48 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…

>So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so?

To be fair, he did say it's concerning if the top income brackets are static, so as long as we shuffle out our feudal lords from time to time, we should be okay.