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

141–150 of 196 posts

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

#141

Post by setr »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #131
rwcarlsen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an engineer and computational scientist, drawing conclusions from correlations like this is absurd. Maybe Reagan was good for income inequality or maybe he was bad for it. Did you control for the other variables before drawing your conclusions? What about: * The governments' legislation and economic policies in countries like the USSR, China, etc. in the 80s * Changing technology especially communication technolog…

>As an engineer and computational scientist, drawing conclusions from correlations like this is absurd. Maybe Reagan was good for income inequality or maybe he was bad for it. Did you control for the other variables before drawing your conclusions? Drawing absolute conclusions in this area is nearly impossible, and we can't say with any certainty that Reaganomics caused this problem. The evidence does seem to suggest…

Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say. It’s quite possible that reagonimics is in fact helpful, just not enough to overcome other negatives in the environment (so in sum, a loss). Removal may very well increase the rate of inequality.

In other words, with just the evidence provided, you can’t safely say much of anything beyond “it started getting worse in the 80’s”

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

#142

Post by maxxxxx »

darawk wrote: post #133
maxxxxx wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will these rich capital allocators do when nobody has money to buy their stuff? We need people to produce things and we need people who buy things. Both of these roles are equally important. Considering how housing and other asset prices are going up and companies like Apple are sitting on billions of dollars it seems there are a lot of rich people who don't know how to invest their money productively.

> What will these rich capital allocators do when nobody has money to buy their stuff? We need people to produce things and we need people who buy things. Both of these roles are equally important. Considering how housing and other asset prices are going up and companies like Apple are sitting on billions of dollars it seems there are a lot of rich people who don't know how to invest their money productively. Totally…

How about "Give working people more money"? Maybe if they had some capital they could allocate it for something useful too. When I look at the money that's being thrown around in SV I have my doubts that the professional allocators are doing a good job.

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

#143

Post by maxxxxx »

darawk wrote: post #132
zanny wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a generally well documented trend that once rich it becomes difficult to actually fall out of wealth. I'd definitely love some unbiased research in how much better these purported rich people are better at allocating capital. Because I can easily start naming microeconomically selfish ways of managing capital that the wealthy practice on the regular that it is no way economically beneficial to the parent economy…

> Its a generally well documented trend that once rich it becomes difficult to actually fall out of wealth. I'd definitely love some unbiased research in how much better these purported rich people are better at allocating capital. Huh? The fact that they're rich is proof. > Because I can easily start naming microeconomically selfish ways of managing capital that the wealthy practice on the regular that it is no way…

"Sure, but they had to get rich in the first place."

That can be achieved by being born with the right parents, not necessarily by doing intelligent things.

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

#144

Post by jahaja »

thanatropism wrote: post #137
jahaja wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem helpful to say that the Frankfurt school coined the term when their academic use is so vastly different from the bullshit we see today.

You should read up on Gramsci. It's not that far removed from the alt-right's straw man -- indeed they seem to be learning tactics from him.

Thanks, his works are on my reading list. Curiously enough, I reckon that the sole reason I've pushed his works down the list is because he's so talked about by the sort of people that like to obfuscate everything in an esoteric language - which I despise.

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

#145

Post by darawk »

maxxxxx wrote: post #143
darawk wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its a generally well documented trend that once rich it becomes difficult to actually fall out of wealth. I'd definitely love some unbiased research in how much better these purported rich people are better at allocating capital. Huh? The fact that they're rich is proof. > Because I can easily start naming microeconomically selfish ways of managing capital that the wealthy practice on the regular that it is no way…

"Sure, but they had to get rich in the first place." That can be achieved by being born with the right parents, not necessarily by doing intelligent things.

> That can be achieved by being born with the right parents, not necessarily by doing intelligent things.

Again, exceptions are irrelevant. We're talking about the aggregate here.

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

#146

Post by darawk »

maxxxxx wrote: post #142
darawk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What will these rich capital allocators do when nobody has money to buy their stuff? We need people to produce things and we need people who buy things. Both of these roles are equally important. Considering how housing and other asset prices are going up and companies like Apple are sitting on billions of dollars it seems there are a lot of rich people who don't know how to invest their money productively. Totally…

How about "Give working people more money"? Maybe if they had some capital they could allocate it for something useful too. When I look at the money that's being thrown around in SV I have my doubts that the professional allocators are doing a good job.

I'm not disagreeing with you. You need both.

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

#147

Post by JustSomeNobody »

darawk wrote: post #132
zanny wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a generally well documented trend that once rich it becomes difficult to actually fall out of wealth. I'd definitely love some unbiased research in how much better these purported rich people are better at allocating capital. Because I can easily start naming microeconomically selfish ways of managing capital that the wealthy practice on the regular that it is no way economically beneficial to the parent economy…

> Its a generally well documented trend that once rich it becomes difficult to actually fall out of wealth. I'd definitely love some unbiased research in how much better these purported rich people are better at allocating capital. Huh? The fact that they're rich is proof. > Because I can easily start naming microeconomically selfish ways of managing capital that the wealthy practice on the regular that it is no way…

> Huh? The fact that they're rich is proof.

A certain popular politician/business owner has filed bankruptcy 6 times.

> Sure, but they had to get rich in the first place.

That's easy, just be born that way.

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

#148

Post by boomboomsubban »

setr wrote: post #141
boomboomsubban wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an engineer and computational scientist, drawing conclusions from correlations like this is absurd. Maybe Reagan was good for income inequality or maybe he was bad for it. Did you control for the other variables before drawing your conclusions? Drawing absolute conclusions in this area is nearly impossible, and we can't say with any certainty that Reaganomics caused this problem. The evidence does seem to suggest…

Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say. It’s quite possible that reagonimics is in fact helpful, just not enough to overcome other negatives in the environment (so in sum, a loss). Removal may very well increase the rate of inequality. In other words, with just the evidence provided, you can’t safely say much of anything beyond “it started getting worse in the…

>Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say.

Yes, I can. The current situation seems undesirable. While it's possible that the situation would be worse without Reaganomics, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a plan that led to undesirable results.

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

#149

Post by JoshuaDavid »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #148
setr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say. It’s quite possible that reagonimics is in fact helpful, just not enough to overcome other negatives in the environment (so in sum, a loss). Removal may very well increase the rate of inequality. In other words, with just the evidence provided, you can’t safely say much of anything beyond “it started getting worse in the…

>Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say. Yes, I can. The current situation seems undesirable. While it's possible that the situation would be worse without Reaganomics, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a plan that led to undesirable results.

Your argument proves too much. Consider the following example:

> You are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. Your doctor tells you to monitor your blood sugar and take insulin. This situation seems undesirable. While it is possible that the situation would be worse without monitoring your blood sugar and taking insulin, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a plan that led to undesirable results.

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

#150

Post by enraged_camel »

darawk wrote: post #145
maxxxxx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sure, but they had to get rich in the first place." That can be achieved by being born with the right parents, not necessarily by doing intelligent things.

> That can be achieved by being born with the right parents, not necessarily by doing intelligent things. Again, exceptions are irrelevant. We're talking about the aggregate here.

You have yet to prove that those are exceptions.
Post reply on HN