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

121–130 of 209 posts

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

#121

Post by jhundal »

praha14 wrote: post #93
marnett wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried multiple times to try to refute all of the assumptions made in this post, but I gave up. 1) One does not have to be intelligent to be wealthy. 2) Those born wealthy do not have to be intelligent to remain wealthy - they just need not be a consumeristic imbecile. 3) Genetics has such a small impact, if any, on social mobility - quite the opposite. If I am born a Kennedy I am more likely to never fall below my…

1. Of course not, I referenced unintelligent wealthy people ("dumb nobility") in my post. 2. 70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation, 90% by the third. [A] 3. IQ is a greater predictor of income than parental SES. Someone in the 95th percentile for IQ has a higher EV for earnings than someone born into the 95th percentile for wealth. 4. A number of revolutions have happened. If you don't belie…

I would not use the Time article as a reliable source, it cites the 70/90% figures a study by the "Williams Group wealth consultancy", which of course is trying to sell its services to wealthy clients.

I've seen the statistic quoted in so many places, yet have never found a link to the actually study. No info on sample size; we don't even have a definition of 'wealth' used in the study.

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

#122

Post by blackbagboys »

malvosenior wrote: post #97
LarryDarrell wrote: post #72

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…

> What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. It's not a zero sum game. Just because the 1% benefit from a particular policy, it doesn't mean other non-1% people supporting it don't benefit as well.

The "1%" might be an overly broad bracket (it's catchier than "the parasite rentier class"), but there are plenty of people in that category who actively support policies that not only don't benefit the vast majority of the population, but actively, physically harm them. See, for instance, every top health insurance executive in the country.

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

#123

Post by and0 »

ameister14 wrote: post #102
pdeuchler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wet pavements do not cause rain

You can't really support the argument that the Gilded Age actively caused these negative things by virtue of them taking place during the Gilded Age without supporting the argument that the Gilded Age caused positive things by virtue of them taking place during the period.

And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would be pretty bonkers.

Humanity can accomplish great things without dehumanizing or hurting most of the population, and being critical of the morality of these systems is a big part of that.

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

#124

Post by PopsiclePete »

commandlinefan wrote: post #100
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 know that the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" rhetoric is supposed to frighten or shame me into supporting liberal causes (most notably wealth redistribution), but although you're absolutely correct that I don't have millions and likely never will, when I compare how I grew up to what I've been able to carve out for myself by just educating myself and doing the best job I could against what I see in places li…

"Hard work" will pretty soon not be enough to achieve whatever American Dream you might have achieved for yourself. The bar is getting higher and higher. In the 1950's any half-wit with a high-school degree could get a decent factory job and raise two kids in a 2-car-garage-picket-fence-in-the-suburbs. A lot of those jobs are just gone now and never coming back. What are people who can't go into STEM supposed to do now? What about in 20 years, after advances in machine learning and AI eliminate even more jobs that used to put food on the table? Work harder?

Yes, those of us in software can just be smart and work hard and be successful, but millions of others will not be, and it will be harder for them to get to where we've gotten to. Telling them to suck it up and "work harder" is exactly how you get wealth distribution, in fact. On terms you really won't like, just ask the Romanovs.

Millenials are the first generation in a long time to be worse off than their parents, and no, it's not because of avocado toast or iphones alone.

The "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" rhetoric is indeed meant to frighten, but your "anyone can make it if they work hard" is so mid-to-late-20th century Reagan-era rose-colored-glasses adorable, it's positively quaint. Let's just ignore automation and globalization and supply outstripping demand and tell those lazy kids to just get a job, eh?

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

#125

Post by forinti »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #72

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…

That's exactly what happens in Brazil. The middle class fears the introduction of inheritance tax more than the lack of universal health care or good public schools.

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

#126

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

closeparen wrote: post #78
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #6

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). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in…

The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.

>The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems.

Yes but that's good.

>Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble.

I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing.

>We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.

You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars.

My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.

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

#127

Post by evanlivingston »

hueving wrote: post #94
LarryDarrell wrote: post #72

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…

Because there has been a successful campaign to vilify the 1%. When you look at income levels, the 1% includes doctors, lawyers, lots of small business owners, and even many software engineers that got good stock grants in Silicon Valley. So picking 1% as the threshold was very ill-conceived because now it includes many expert professionals and small business owners. So it's very easy to relate to them if you are als…

er, small business owners making $800,000+ a year? I don't think that's very easy to relate to.

Who is waging this campaign?

I don't think is a campaign to vilify the 1% as much as it's an increased awareness by the 99% that no one needs to be making $800,000 a year. As people see home ownership being increasingly implausible, healthcare difficult to afford, fulfilling work unable to be found and less than $1000 in savings, is it any wonder people are upset, bothered and judgemental of people who make an impossibly larger amount of money than 99% of people?

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

#128

Post by malvosenior »

blackbagboys wrote: post #122
malvosenior wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. It's not a zero sum game. Just because the 1% benefit from a particular policy, it doesn't mean other non-1% people supporting it don't benefit as well.

The "1%" might be an overly broad bracket (it's catchier than "the parasite rentier class"), but there are plenty of people in that category who actively support policies that not only don't benefit the vast majority of the population, but actively, physically harm them. See, for instance, every top health insurance executive in the country.

The argument the OP was making isn't about the 1% alone, it's about policies that benefit the 1% and the top 20%.

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

#129

Post by ameister14 »

and0 wrote: post #123
ameister14 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really support the argument that the Gilded Age actively caused these negative things by virtue of them taking place during the Gilded Age without supporting the argument that the Gilded Age caused positive things by virtue of them taking place during the period.

And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would be pretty bonkers. Humanity can accomplish great things without dehumanizing or hurting most of the population, and being critical of the morality of these systems is a big part of that.

Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost?

I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.

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

#130

Post by thaumasiotes »

watwut wrote: post #13
thaumasiotes wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for reference, feudal lords didn't have wages. If it was discovered that you worked for money, you were basically expelled from aristocratic society.

That kinda depends on which version of feudalism we are talking about. They were not same. Nevertheless, feudal Lords did competed among each other and parent talked about competition not about wage.

>> an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets
Post reply on HN