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

U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 209 posts

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

#61

Post by cmurf »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #40
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.

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…

Meritocracy in the U.S. is a myth in civilian life. The military almost approximates meritocracy but it is by design not egalitarian or democratic. Without extreme discipline, again found in militarism, meritocracy results in the formation of elites who define what the metrics are for merit, they quickly become corrupt with nepotism, lowering the ladder for family and friends to the exclusion of people with actual merit, and it becomes incompetent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/06/th...

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

#62

Post by ribosometronome »

gameswithgo wrote: post #53
ribosometronome wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

yes, but he just made that idea up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, also probably never happens.

It's almost like the haves want to try avoiding being the have-nots.

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

#63

Post by netfire »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #17
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.

Why should we care the reason people make their choices? What if I like surfing, so I decide to work part time which allows me to surf more? Does my skin color or gender matter? If I want to participate in this "surf culture," why would you feel the need to either force me to work more or demand that others subsidize my surfing habit?

I’m just saying there is a factor that could impact the statistics and that how much a person works should be taken into account for all the findings. Not just the gender-based one, so that we have accurate data from which to make decisions from.

I didn’t say anything about forcing anyone to work or subsidizing habits. I think these charts are trying to claim that discrimination is happening and if how much someone is working isn’t taken into account, they don’t support that claim very well.

To be clear I’m not stating that discrimination is or isn’t happening. I’d just like better data.

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

#64

Post by d357r0y3r »

What would you rather have? 1) Perfect income equality (1:1 poorest:richest), but everyone is starving and most don't live out of childhood 2) Perfect income inequality (1:~infinity poorest:richest)), but the poorest in the world have a much higher standard of living and that standard is going up 3-5% a year.

The point I'm driving at here is that income equality, by itself, isn't automatically desirable if the cost is a worse standard of living for the poor.

It makes perfect sense that income inequality would increase due to globalization. The economic ramifications of "correct" business decisions are amplified by orders of magnitude when compared to mercantilist economies a few hundred years ago.

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

#65

Post by pdeuchler »

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…

Wet pavements do not cause rain

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

#66

Post by thrden »

dzonga wrote: post #59

Those that are okay, with this are 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires' who don't have millions yet. Fact, remains only people that love capitalism are capitalists themselves. for the rest of us we're doomed, if we don't embrace BI, Unions and a massive welfare state. Also full 100% inheritance tax.

I disagree, I happen to love capitalism though I'm just a student. Its brought about incredible changes, and raised the standard of living for billions across the world. I've lived in post-soviet countries, and I've lived in the west and I'd much rather live within a capitalist system. Socialism and its derivatives do little to replace inequality as they merely replace trackable, earn-able financial capital with an amorphous social capital. One gets jobs based on who they know, who their parents are or perhaps what tribe they come from. No one can reasonably aspire to the the child of the nomenclatura. One can reasonably push toward the middle class, or upper middle class. Further within a racially stratified country, it seems likely that ethnic class-difference would be reinforced rather than alleviated.

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

#67

Post by joyeuse6701 »

12312390123 wrote: post #38
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.

What are you implying? Is there some point you want to make about being a man and its relation to gender studies, or was that a sexist statement trying to call out sexism?

It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Let's try not to be facetious while simultaneously undermining our own argument with poorly veiled prejudice.

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

#68

Post by akkat »

dzonga wrote: post #59

Those that are okay, with this are 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires' who don't have millions yet. Fact, remains only people that love capitalism are capitalists themselves. for the rest of us we're doomed, if we don't embrace BI, Unions and a massive welfare state. Also full 100% inheritance tax.

I don't think I will ever be as rich as Bill Gates but I would still rather live in a capitalist country as a middle class person than in a communist country as a rich person.

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

#69

Post by icebraining »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #42
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…

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 enforc…

Under that theory, by 1960s there shouldn't be almost any jobs left, since the population grew 25x since the foundation of the country.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN