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

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 368 posts

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#151

Post by Emma_Goldman »

thinkloop wrote: post #90
Semaphor wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is also a problematic word. I guess you could say that Europe has "more units of communism" than the US. But if you ask where a poor person is more free, you'd get quite different answers from different people.

The poor person has more choices because money was forced from a rich person to them (please keep in mind that I am not against this, it is likely the better system). But these are extremely different kinds of freedom. If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here.

You are working with a politically loaded conception of what 'force' is. The fact that we live under a mode of production in which one class of people have a monopoly over the means of production, and everyone else is destitute and must sell themselves to access the conditions of life, is not a natural state of things which does not require force, and from which any deviation is some kind of violation of nature.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#152

Post by v_lisivka »

petra wrote: post #61
thinkloop wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism and socialism were disliked primarily because they reduce freedom. Every additional unit of socialism, is one less unit of freedom. Full communism dictates almost every part of your life. I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force.

It's just propagnda. Capitalism is also freedom limiting. Just ask low wage earners struggling to pay rent and afford healthcare. And on the other hand, the nordiis seem to do quite well.

Can you point to a socialists country where workers are living in palaces and live forever?

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#153

Post by ericd »

sparkzilla wrote: post #104
tibbetts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters, and it might be ok if the wealthy were being nice about it. Unfortunately a very active subset seems to be bringing back feudalism. In the 20s-70s rich people were conveniently afraid of communist revolution and thus inclined to distributed gains. Without another credible threat of global revolution I don’t know how this gets fixed. Of course, communism did have downsides for the people who actually lived…

"downsides"

Largest understatement I've seen in a while.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#154

Post by tonyedgecombe »

sykh wrote: post #96
cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

I haven't read Pinker's book and he is certainly more knowledgeable than I am on the topic. What does he say about attitudes like "keeping up with the Joneses", jealousy, and similar emotions? It seems to me that most people tend toward jealousy and compare themselves to those who are better off rather than those who are worse off. I've been under the impression that disparity, inequality in and of itself is a proble…

I think it's disingenuous to label someone who is struggling to fund housing and healthcare as just jealous.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#155

Post by psyc »

danschumann wrote: post #58

Top 1% of composers are most of all classical music played ( probably over two-thirds ). Of their music, maybe 1% of their songs are the ones that get most of that playing. Celestial bodies also have exponential inequality. Get a little mass, get more gravity, get more mass. Inequality is within nature itself. Actors in hollywood. They release one movie, now they get 50 offers for other movies. They quickly get more…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#156

Post by whb07 »

psyc wrote: post #80
cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.

It’s not a static group. Those in the 1% are not the same group over the following years. This has been well established.

For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#157

Post by ericd »

v_lisivka wrote: post #139
danmaz74 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income/wealth inequality always happens and probably always will, but it doesn't NEED to be so big and become bigger and bigger as it's doing since Reagan started the movement to tax the rich less and less.

Riches are not working at all, so it is not important how much taxes they will pay, because all taxes will be paid by workers.

The richest pay the vast majority of the tax in the US, regardless of whether they work. And the very richest in the US almost all got there by working, many of them by starting huge companies.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#159

Post by psyc »

whb07 wrote: post #156
psyc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.

It’s not a static group. Those in the 1% are not the same group over the following years. This has been well established. For another simple example, look at the Fortune 500 of today vs 20 years ago. Very few companies remain, it’s still very much fluid.

I think it's more relevant that the vast majority will never be in the group, than that the group's roster changes.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#160

Post by v_lisivka »

collyw wrote: post #116
austenallred wrote: post #32

I wonder what percentage of Hacker News readers are in the international 1%. That’s about $32,000/yr salary. My guess is it’s much greater than 50%.

We should clarify if we are talking about top 1% of earnings, or top 1% of wealth. The housing boom in the UK in the last 15 years has made wealth very related to age.

Nobody cares. If you have computer and Internet, you are in top 5%. Communists says that they need to hung top 10% to "clear world".
Post reply on HN