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

131–140 of 209 posts

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

#131

Post by marnett »

drb91 wrote: post #91
eanzenberg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Well maybe if you abolished drug patents innovatio could come from all over the world instead of the chilling effects we have today. Open source beats closed in the long run and Open source Drugs would beat big pharma in the long tail whose plight isn't even worth pursuing for these guys. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants, why is medicine different than science?" Literally no new drugs would be prod…

Seems like a great place to nationalize the means of production! Why not? Economic incentives are inherently at odds with helpful medicine. If it helps too much you can't make money off it!

Modern day big-pharma would have shelved the polio vaccine in place of a daily pill one must take for the remainder of one's life.

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

#132

Post by jeffdavis »

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…

I'm disturbed that you are talking purely in terms of one's interests, as though priciples have no place.

You may disagree, but many people do have priciples that include private property rights, limited government, and flatter tax schemes.

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

#133

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ryandrake wrote: post #111
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…

Old article but probably still relevant today: 39% of Americans think they either are (19%) or one day will be (20%) among the top 1% incomes [1]. You can’t get someone to oppose enriching the richest if that person thinks he’s one of them! 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...

That's because a surprisingly large fraction of them are right.

At any given time a person is more likely to be a student, in an entry level position, or retired, than be at the height of their career.

39% in the top 1% is still an overestimate, but it's probably not far wrong to say that 39% of people will at some point in their lives be in the top 5%.

The problem is with using "1%" as the threshold, because that just means you and your spouse are successful professionals at the height of your careers, when the real problem is the top <0.001% and, even more than that, the accumulating wealth of large corporations relative to individuals.

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

#134

Post by marnett »

jhundal wrote: post #121
praha14 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The sample size is 2000 families over 20 years. Better submarine piece here [1].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324662404578334...

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

#135

Post by watwut »

belorn wrote: post #95
watwut wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Taking numbers from Norway, there is twice as many childless men than there is childless women. 24% vs 12%. If that has a impact on the economical state of everyone involved is up to debate, but there is a distinctive difference.

You cant take numbers from Norway when talking about Americans incomes. Norway is way less christian and way more socialist. Precisely this kind of statistics differ between countries. I have no idea how America compares. (For example Norway has similar suicide rates for women then America, but less of them for males. That is the one on top of head.)

Also, male incarceration is much higher then female one, that is another difference that should push income the other way round. And some babies without fathers are due to incarceration and people in prison are not earning all that much.

I mean, I get argument that women are more likely to do kids work and more likely to say no in work because something kid related, but it kinda rubs me wrong when people talk about kids and female only thing. I see too many good caring fathers around me and also fathers who did made choice to spend more time with kids in expense of career. They deserve a bit of recognition too.

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

#136

Post by evanlivingston »

jeffdavis wrote: post #132
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…

I'm disturbed that you are talking purely in terms of one's interests, as though priciples have no place. You may disagree, but many people do have priciples that include private property rights, limited government, and flatter tax schemes.

Sure, and many people also have principles that include extremely limited private property rights, limited government and flatter social hierarchies.

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

#137

Post by ryandrake »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #133
ryandrake wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old article but probably still relevant today: 39% of Americans think they either are (19%) or one day will be (20%) among the top 1% incomes [1]. You can’t get someone to oppose enriching the richest if that person thinks he’s one of them! 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...

That's because a surprisingly large fraction of them are right. At any given time a person is more likely to be a student, in an entry level position, or retired, than be at the height of their career. 39% in the top 1% is still an overestimate, but it's probably not far wrong to say that 39% of people will at some point in their lives be in the top 5% . The problem is with using "1%" as the threshold, because that j…

According to old (2014-2015) measurements, to be in the 1% you need to be pulling in at least $455k a year[1], $1.4M on average[2]. It’s probably even higher today. That’s way way beyond the typical “professional at the height of his career.”

1: https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-t...

2: http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/u-s-top-one-per...

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

#138

Post by l33tbro »

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…

Indeed. The advocacy for Universal Basic Income for the top 1% has always struck me as a wealth insurance move on their behalf. Sustain the status quo and the great unwashed won't sack your property portfolio.

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

#139

Post by username223 »

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…

Just for reference, being in the "top 1%" in the US means about $300k income and/or $3m net worth at age 40. That's not "buy a politician" rich, but it is also not the average professional or small business owner.

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

#140

Post by marnett »

akkat wrote: post #68
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.

What about a social-democratic nation?
Post reply on HN