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

141–150 of 209 posts

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

#141

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ryandrake wrote: post #137
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's household income, including your spouse's income. Your half of that is significantly less than what a senior cardiologist or senior partner at a law firm makes.

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

#142

Post by jeffdavis »

evanlivingston wrote: post #136
jeffdavis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure what your point is. I was criticizing another comment for neglecting the role of principles in political choices. So it seems like you agree with me?

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

#143

Post by rvo »

icebraining wrote: post #82
rvo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is an idea circulating that the political system in the US is turning into a "neo-feudalism", pushed by a mix of those alt-right "theorists" and some of the new rich. How much of this "neo-feudalism" shares with actual feudalism is not clear to me. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/californias-new-feudalism-bene... https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/new-feudalism-fred-ba... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jo…

National review and Huffington Post agreeing on something. Wow.

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

#144

Post by marnett »

thrden wrote: post #66
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 a…

Have you lived in any of the progressive social-democratic nations? Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Norway?

I think their societal structures are much better suited for the technologically advanced world we live in today.

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

#145

Post by hcnews »

username223 wrote: post #139
hueving wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

$300k per year income is pretty common for 5 years experience in silicon valley including stock grants these days.

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

#146

Post by and0 »

malvosenior wrote: post #112
and0 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.

> In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. If I benefit from something, it doesn't bother me at all that someone benefits even more. Should I forfeit my benefits out of spite? > What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not…

The choice isn't between no benefits and the status quo for lower classes / income brackets. It's about lower classes getting a bigger piece of the pie. You're acting as though questioning how resources are divided among a populace, which is almost entirely what politics is, is irrational or pointless, as though we've arrived to the current state of things via some other perfect, entirely natural process that we're foolish to tamper with.

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

#147

Post by pdeuchler »

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.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but there are direct causal links between the Gilded Age and robber barons causing huge harms, like union busting using bullets, and absolutely no causal links between robber barons and global decreases in poverty.

Put another way, it's very easy to prove that without robber barons we wouldn't have had many of the terrible abuses during the Gilded Age, and also very easy to prove we would have had worldwide improvements in the human condition even without the robber barons.

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

#148

Post by microcolonel »

jandrese wrote: post #55
microcolonel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How dare they ruthlessly exploit a powerless serf class and the natural environment for their personal gain! Wait, that's exactly what we're saying.

Welcome to the mid 1800s, where almost everyone is a serf almost everywhere, and the only way that'll change is through a revolution in industry, supported by uncoerced but nonetheless low-brow, hard, and nearly thankless labour.

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

#149

Post by AnthonyMouse »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #87
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…

Why do you think so many 1%ers are advocating for Universal Basic Income? It's not due to some altruistic notion that everyone should be able to follow their dream. It's out of fear of a populist revolt. Their backup plan is New Zealand based prepper compounds.

A UBI is literally the purest form of redistribution of wealth. It takes money disproportionately from the rich and then gives it equally to everyone.

There are only three classes of people who oppose it: 1) people who oppose all redistributive programs, 2) people who favor the centrally planned farce of the existing welfare system because it allows them to covertly insert corrupt industry-specific subsidies into the system, and 3) people who don't actually understand how it works.

If the 1% favor it they must like income redistribution, dislike opportunities for political corruption, or not understand what they're asking for.

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

#150

Post by wavefunction »

kermittd wrote: post #118
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 apologize for the reddit level of discourse...here here!

It's "hear! hear!"
Post reply on HN