Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030 • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by theseatoms » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

tdmule wrote: post #109

defertoreptar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.

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

#162

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

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…

There's a lot to agree with, for example the things Pinker talks about and the fact that wealth is not necessarily a zero sum game.

However...income inequality by itself is a problem. Hmm...I thought it was one of Hans Rosling's (amazing) TED talks, but now I just see Richard Wilkinson's talk:

https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

Anyway, the fascinating thing is that everything gets worse in a country when there is "too much" inequality. Even the rich in unequal countries are worse off by many/most measures than the rich in more equal countries, despite having more money. (And even than the not quite so rich in the more equal countries, IIRC).

And that's without the whole pitchforks action that starts to happen when things get too out of hand.

So yes, there is some level of inequality that we need to tolerate in order to run a basic capitalist economy, and interestingly enough most people are OK with that. But you also need to work hard to not let that inequality get out of hand, and not because of a bleeding heart, but because of pure self interest.

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

#163

Post by cal5k » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #157

v_lisivka wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Marxist reverence for the proletariat has been an enduring concept. The problem is that nobody has actually defined who the prols are - are they the factory workers? Entrepreneurs? Teachers? Accountants? Lawyers? Engineers? Civil servants?

The US economy is crazy diverse. There really is no such thing as a unified working class struggling against "the man".

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

#164

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:01 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

But what if there are alternative models where the bottom half are improving faster than they are now? I think it's helpful to think about different economic models in terms of optimizing a figure of merit. Free-trade globalization is probably good for optimizing aggregate global GDP. In a democratic society, that's not necessarily the most relevant figure of merit. Are there a different set of economic rules that, for example, maximizes the wealth of the middle 50% (such that they have more wealth under that system than they do under the current one)?

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

#165

Post by thinkloop » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #142

thinkloop wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws of nature are simply that life is inherently a struggle. Imagine being born on a planet with no-one else, if you don't gather food and build shelter you will die. You are constantly on a path of poverty and death unless you fight against it. Since humans are social creatures that love each other we don't like letting that happen to others even if they can't create enough value to sustain themselves. But once…

One could just as well make the opposite argument (and many have, mostly famously Rousseau): humans originally lived in a condition of equanimity and plenty and it was the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies which you ascribe to 'the laws of nature'. IMO there is no 'neutral' description of the abstract nature of the social condition as such. All forms of social or…

> the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies

Wait are you arguing for or against social cooperation? I would definitely disagree that social organization cause more harm than good. I would say that it is humanity single most important strength. Imagine a place with complete anarchy and disorganization.

> property

Do you think that there was never any property? I am not sure which era you are referring to but when things are infinitely abundant relative to the population there is no need or concern for making them property. No one cares who owns which land when there is endless land. If you decided to take your fellow caveman's spear tho, you would probably get a knock on the head. Have you seen children's natural reactions and jealousy when another child takes their toys? Material is fundamental to survival, and gets more pronounced when things is scarce.

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

#166

Post by jpollock » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

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.

1% of wealth is USD770k in net assets.

However, don't forget to include any defined benefit pension (state provided or otherwise) to the list of assets.

A pension paying USD$30k/yr (20yr length, 4% growth) costs USD$425k[1]. Add on an employer provided defined benefit pension (e.g.police, fire, military, federal employee), that can be worth a lot of money.

[1] https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity-calcu...

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

#167

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #143

mentos wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest mistake people make when counting this wealth is that if it is hoarded and never spent then it might as well not exist and should be viewed as anti-inflationary. What if all the billionaires in the world decided 'let me just hit delete on all of the zeroes in my bank account' what affect would that have on the rest of the world?

Not so much hoarded as invested. Warren Buffet primarily keeps his money in BerkHa stock, which itself puts its money to work employing nearly half a million people. If the wealthiest 1% had their assets wiped out tomorrow, most of us wouldn’t have a job the next day.

Define "wiped out". If the wealth were simply redistributed, for example the ownership of the companies transferred to the employees, no jobs would be lost.

Not that I am an advocate of that.

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

#168

Post by perfunctory » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

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 just spurs on class resentment which is, if history is any guide, just about the worst way to go about things possible.

Indeed, the worst thing slaves could do is to resent against their masters. I am sure there must have been a better way.

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

#169

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:05 PM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #23

USA wants to be #1 at the GINI index and coefficient, we are challenging Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Chile, African countries and more for the top spot! USA! USA! [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

I wonder if the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.

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

#170

Post by perpetualcrayon » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:05 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #135

perpetualcrayon wrote: post #53

Plutocracy is to economics as inbreeding is to genetics.

Howso?

If beliefs were fluid and adapted continuously and were challenged by the current state of the world I would maybe argue differently. But ask yourself this. How frequently do you change your fundamental beliefs about how the world works? How do you think the people who enjoy success beyond your wildest dreams feel about changing the system that has benefited them and their families for countless generations?

On top of that, which "causes" would you decide to support? Would you choose to support a cause that disproportionately affects your family's net worth in a negative way as long as it made the rest of the world a better place to live? The fact is no one knows the precise ingredients to a healthy society or what the real solution to wealth inequality is, but only the wealthy and powerful get to steer the ship.