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

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

cbpp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 196 posts

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#41

Post by java_script »

csa wrote: post #40
java_script wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers e: Oh shit I just realized who I'm replying to. Serious answer time. Socialism will be a disruptive new paradigm for start-ups and other businesses where (following the idea of a meritocracy) workers, and not stuffy old capitalists, each own an equal number of shares at their place of work. And even more innovative in structure than Zappos and Valve, it allows for capital i…

I liked your original answer. It got the point across while being absolutely fucking hilarious.

Thanks. People keep getting mad at my jokes though (I'm on thin ice with dang) so I wanted to contribute a little bit more.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#42

Post by rb808 »

This is a very US - centric view. With globalization I think a different picture emerges. Increasing global trade has hurt US (and Other Western) working classes with de-industrialization, where many more people foreign countries have been lifted out of poverty.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#43

Post by qaminsod »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #2

What's the best solution to this - if wealthy and high-income individuals get more power via political lobbying, they can then gain more wealth and higher incomes, gaining even more lobbying power. They can also flood the media with advertising money and propagandist messaging to convince voters to care more about less impactful issues. It feels like an endless cycle to me. Other than war or complete societal upheava…

Seems like getting rid of lobbying and other forms of legalized corruption might be a good start.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#44

Post by fixermark »

java_script wrote: post #15
csallen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers e: Oh shit I just realized who I'm replying to. Serious answer time. Socialism will be a disruptive new paradigm for start-ups and other businesses where (following the idea of a meritocracy) workers, and not stuffy old capitalists, each own an equal number of shares at their place of work. And even more innovative in structure than Zappos and Valve, it allows for capital i…

Fast Company was reporting on a bill that would implement part of this idea for companies with over $1 billion in revenue.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90223130/how-elizabeth-warrens-a...

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

darkerside wrote: post #34

Is there an inherent problem with income inequality? Would you rather live in: * World 1, where everybody has x, except one person has 100x * World 2, where everybody has .5x and is thus totally equal (I realize assets and income are not equal, but I think the point stands)

> Is there an inherent problem with income inequality?

Yes, because once you get past the truly abject absolute poverty (which isn't an issue for most of the developed world), there's a lot of indication that experienced utility or disutility is driven more by relative material position than absolute position. So, yes, outside of very poor economies (where absolute gains that increase inequality may still improve utility across the board), increases in inequality are very often utilitarian ills that are not compensated by absolute gains at the lower end.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#47

Post by GabrielBen »

digitalmaster wrote: post #8

So looks like the 80s is when things start going south (increased income inequality) so I looked up who was president during that time, then looked at their wiki page to see their economic policy and found this gem of a quote: "Soon after taking office, Reagan began implementing sweeping new political and economic initiatives. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics", advocated tax rate reduction to sp…

This is something that economists have debated over for decades since. Stiglitz specifically attacks Reagan on that front. Milton Friedman defends it.

Reagan was the last president to make a deep impact change in how economics and politics relate. He was unique in the way he self-deprecated government, something that is truly rare for presidents. He would actively advocate the government was the problem not the solution, a famous line by Milton Friedman on his economic ideas.

To this day, I am awed at the air-traffic controller firing. I am from a country with a pervasive strike culture, to the point that even cops strike, and it has been unfathomable for any president , of any ideology, from dictatorships to democratic socialists, to fire a swath of strikers.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#48

Post by malandrew »

bilbo0s wrote: post #19
WhompingWindows wrote: post #2

What's the best solution to this - if wealthy and high-income individuals get more power via political lobbying, they can then gain more wealth and higher incomes, gaining even more lobbying power. They can also flood the media with advertising money and propagandist messaging to convince voters to care more about less impactful issues. It feels like an endless cycle to me. Other than war or complete societal upheava…

War and societal upheaval never solve the problem of the common man's inequality with the élites. "Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece etc etc etc" Or something like that anyway. That was Goering, or Goebels. Don't really remember which, but the point is war and soc…

War typically reduces inequality by making everyone more equally poor. It never helps the poor become richer because it is destructive of value.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#49

Post by claudiawerner »

fixermark wrote: post #38
jjoonathan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still amazed at how effectively we have collectively shunned thought along these lines by turning the founding father of the relevant branch of economical philosophy into a real life he-who-shall-not-be-named. Anyone who wants to talk about these problems either has to either re-invent the wheel or mention the unmentionable name and doom themselves to immediate dismissal as a kook.

In fairness, attempts have been made to translate the revolution part of his ideas into functional policy at least twice now and both events have included massive violence (and one has followed up that massive violence with a general mismanagement of public resources to the detriment of the "unconnected," not unlike the pain inflicted upon them by the previous ruling class). At this point, the burden of proof is on t…

Those familiar with contemporary ideas of communism, socialism, communalism, left-anarchism, etc. will know there's been a lot of work done since the 50s (and a little earlier) on criticism of Marx, of the Soviet system and of the Chinese system. Modern Marxology actually takes up these issues with regard to their historical context, the USSR in particular. Unfortunately very few people actually get round to reading this wealth of work, especially after the year 1970 or so, in which most departments Marxism was declared dead and refuted.

The question of Marx's meaning and intentions, what does or does not flow from his critique, the idea of revolution, the issue of Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Mao are all very much actively discussed today. At the same time, there is a distinct, perhaps irreconcilable, difference of opinion between the liberals who treat property as part of an individual, or an extension of him, and the tradition since Marx which does not take this for granted at all.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#50

Post by munk-a »

darkerside wrote: post #34

Is there an inherent problem with income inequality? Would you rather live in: * World 1, where everybody has x, except one person has 100x * World 2, where everybody has .5x and is thus totally equal (I realize assets and income are not equal, but I think the point stands)

I don't really understand why this scenario is worded this way, it seems like World 2 where everybody has .5x is just worse due to World 2 getting the shaft. Here's a setup:

* World 1, where everybody has x except one person has 100x

* World 2, where everybody has 1.2x

I think World 2 pretty clearly wins but this is a bit of a strawman to begin with. I'd personally rather live in a world where the poor have x and the rich may benefit by having 6x in extreme cases.

I agree with the general concept that incentives can increase productivity and different people are adding different amounts to society, I disagree with the idea that some people are equal in skill to 100,000 other people and need to be rewarded accordingly.

Post reply on HN