151–160 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mention NIMBYism. I would regard that as the principal vector of wealth transfer.
Nimbyism is only a regional factor. I think we agree this is a national conversation.
Some of the points about privilege might be accurate, but breaking economic status in to .1%, 9.9%, and 90% is arbitrary and misleading. The author tries to make the point that “the 9.9%” have the majority of the wealth and this issue is as big or bigger than the concentration of wealth at the very top. The problem is that this is largely an artifact of the division system. The distribution is highly skewed, and the…
I disagree. What the article is trying to point out is that the 9.9% thinks he's not so wealthy, so he is against inequality, but he still, somehow, for his own comfort and merit belief system, likes his higher income. Trying to talk about ranges of income, would it the top N%, is pointless. You could strip out the hypocrisy like so: "I am not at the top, so I am still against inequality, but I am comfortable, but si…
If I said that 70% of the wealth is in the 9.99% and the remaining .01% only have 20% (or whatever it is), that would seem a little odd right? Or 9.999% have 75% and .001% only have 15%? Making cutoffs like this feels like the author is mishandling the numbers in order to make his point. Because there really is a pretty big difference between $1m (90th percentile) in net-worth and $6m (99th). $1m in net-worth quite comfortable but not "rich" by even a very liberal definition of the term in most cities (remember most of that is going to be locked up in a primary residence).
And in the end, yes, it is important to recognize our wealth and privilege and the civic responsibility that comes with it. I just don't like it when numbers are mis-represented, whether the underlying point is valid or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. What the article is trying to point out is that the 9.9% thinks he's not so wealthy, so he is against inequality, but he still, somehow, for his own comfort and merit belief system, likes his higher income. Trying to talk about ranges of income, would it the top N%, is pointless. You could strip out the hypocrisy like so: "I am not at the top, so I am still against inequality, but I am comfortable, but si…
This is a big debate in the HN world too, where tech workers in that top 10% think they are working class. The real breakdown here is that in todays day and age, there's hardly a middle class, there's the working class who struggles, lives basically paycheck to paycheck, and at the age of 45 has up to 40k in wealth to their name. Then there's that top 10% whose able to afford a million dollar home, take yearly vacati…
78% currently live paycheck to paycheck, with this number rising year after year [0]. The endless consumerism that this type of unchecked capitalism needs to survive looks to have a pretty bleak future if we keep going down this path.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...
Some of the points about privilege might be accurate, but breaking economic status in to .1%, 9.9%, and 90% is arbitrary and misleading. The author tries to make the point that “the 9.9%” have the majority of the wealth and this issue is as big or bigger than the concentration of wealth at the very top. The problem is that this is largely an artifact of the division system. The distribution is highly skewed, and the…
> I would hypothesize that even within this 9% we’d find the wealth concentrated at the top in the “2nd 1%”, i.e., the top 2% likely make the middle class look mostly irrelevant. I doubt this particular point. The 98th percentile of earners make something like $200-$300k a year, the 89th percentile make about $100k/year[0]. That's a big difference, and it will equate to an even bigger difference in wealth, but not en…
And I think your point about the interests of the 9% being more aligned with the 1% than the 90% is an important one. Which is part of the author's point as well, that the 9% are really benefiting from the system in a way that those at the bottom aren't.
And I myself am an example of exactly this. I plug myself in those calculators and think "how much would I have to make to be in the 1%?" rather than "this is unfair, how do we lift more people up?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that we should let students from poor towns go to awesome schools in rich towns even if they aren’t residents of the rich town. The wealthy self-segregate by limiting low-income housing in their area to keep out the poors. Similarly I think it should be easy to create a new school (charter or whatever you want to call it) to compete with bad schools in poor districts. But even without option 2, option 1 would…
I disagree that it's segregating or done on purpose, but it is deeply unfair that the price of a good "public" education is being able to afford the real estate in that catchment area / school district.
I believe very strongly in equality of opportunity, and the liberal tendency to zone everything to prevent development and keep out the poors is a glaring example of hipocrisy. I don’t know if charter schools are the answer, but certainly letting the family choose where to stick their education dollars could alleviate the vast difference in K12 education that keeps the “9.9%” in continuous power.
Some of the points about privilege might be accurate, but breaking economic status in to .1%, 9.9%, and 90% is arbitrary and misleading. The author tries to make the point that “the 9.9%” have the majority of the wealth and this issue is as big or bigger than the concentration of wealth at the very top. The problem is that this is largely an artifact of the division system. The distribution is highly skewed, and the…
Which form of society would allow for complete equality? Where everyone has the same things to eat, drink and learn and everyone is missing the same things (usually luxury). I can’t think of any social system like that mostly cos it all involves people and not all people are the same and will behave differently inevitably wanting different stuff which will lead to more more inequality over time. Maybe someone has ide…
Some of the points about privilege might be accurate, but breaking economic status in to .1%, 9.9%, and 90% is arbitrary and misleading. The author tries to make the point that “the 9.9%” have the majority of the wealth and this issue is as big or bigger than the concentration of wealth at the very top. The problem is that this is largely an artifact of the division system. The distribution is highly skewed, and the…
Do you find topographical maps arbitrary and misleading too? 'Cause it's the same method. What alternative methodology for describing the wealth peak do you prefer? With luck, maybe we'll be able to take it and improve our maps, too.
What's a topological map?
Rebuttal from Slate: https://slate.com/business/2018/05/forget-the-atlantics-9-9-...
I don't think the rebuttal makes a fair characterization of Stewart's article. Slate's argument comes down to "Stewart is taking his eyes off the prize, asking us to focus on the 9.9% when the 1% are really the problem" but I didn't interpret the Atlantic piece as implying that those at the very top are innocent in all this. It was more saying that the upper class (9.9%) have been complicit as the top 0.1% have garnered an increasingly vast portion of wealth.
Stewart is asking those in the 9.9% to be more cognizant of those below them, to stop looking up at the 0.1% and realize that the actions they take to improve the outcomes for their children are reducing income mobility.