Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going • Hacker News Board

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#51

Post by dsfyu404ed » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #43

shados wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like playing an MMORPG-style videogame where the developers keep raising the level cap. The higher the cap, the worse off people who are just starting are (and why in those games developers keep having to provide a "catch up mechanics", like a scroll to rush you to level cap, or making stuff easier to obtain. In the real world that's a lot harder to do though). Probably made worse by the vastly higher amount of…

In the real world those are called "redistributive policies" and work quite well, especially for the economy as a whole. http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/can-redistribution...

They work well... until they don't. Anyone from Eastern Europe over the age of about 40 can tell you about it.

Like anything else redistribution falls on it's face if you go too crazy with it.

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#52

Post by xenocyon » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

lilsoso wrote: post #6

The credibility of the article is undermined by hyperbolic statements such as, "For a lot of children, when they’re 8 years old, it’s too late. If your parents aren’t engaged in the education system, in 10 years you’ll be competing in the labor market against people whose parents sent them to violin lessons and summer programs in the Dominican Republic. There’s inequality of opportunity." It's too late for "a lot of…

If anything, age 8 is an overestimate rather than an underestimate. Nowadays, the preschool years are considered crucially important towards determining lifelong outcomes. It's a good idea to not be poor from age 0 to 2.

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#53

Post by DoreenMichele » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

A large portion of what reduced inequality was the destruction of wealth during World War II and the fact that the U.S. benefited afterward from being the last standing industrial economy.

I seriously doubt that.

We shipped essentially all able-bodied men off to war, so much so that we filled a lot of jobs with women. Birth rates were low because the men were physically absent.

People were encouraged to grow Victory Gardens so farm food could feed soldiers. Tobacco, sugar etc were all rationed. We stopped making cars and converted car factories to keep factories.

A lot of families had two incomes, no children and couldn't spend their money on luxury goods because they simply weren't available. Savings rates during the war were extremely high, above 50 percent some years.

The boys came home, bringing veterans benefits with them. This included help buying a house and going to college.

Unlike with modern lottery winners, this formula did not encourage people to just blow their money frivolously. They began buying houses at such high rates we invented new ways to throw them up quickly, giving rise to the modern suburb.

Celibacy, low birth rates, frugal living, hard work and high savings rates helped reduce inequality. A lot of that could be replicated. We just don't typically have the self discipline to do so individually.

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#54

Post by ACow_Adonis » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:10 PM UTC

lilsoso wrote: post #6

The credibility of the article is undermined by hyperbolic statements such as, "For a lot of children, when they’re 8 years old, it’s too late. If your parents aren’t engaged in the education system, in 10 years you’ll be competing in the labor market against people whose parents sent them to violin lessons and summer programs in the Dominican Republic. There’s inequality of opportunity." It's too late for "a lot of…

I actually had a very similar conversation with my wife last night about our son's future education (wish me luck) where I effectively said the same thing.

To paraphrase my argument: reading, writing and math are too important to be taught at school or rely upon their standardised tests. if I have to wait for a test result from school to tell me my child can't do the thing, I've already failed. And in addition he'll have started on music, some sports, sciences and programming likely before he ever reaches a compulsory classroom.

This idea that teachers, in a group environment, with a standardised curricula can compete with that is just downright dishonest. And the idea that this is meritocratic and that children compete on some level playing field is absurd. You can't teach finance and programming and economics well at school because most current teachers do not understand or cannot implement such into their own lives,and philosophy just isn't taught in general.

By the time you reach cs 101 at university, how is the average child who learnt to type at school and that computing is an iPad with YouTube attached supposed to be realistically competing with the other students who already have 10 to 15 years of experience?

and if you cannot read or do math at 8, on average, what sort of life have you had and how do you compare with children already thriving and building upon what they know?

perhaps we also have a disagreement about where lower/middle skill jobs and wages are also going? you might be assuming "well, he won't thrive in comparison, but he can live a nice normal life at a "insert basic job here", under the assumption basic job will exist or have a good living standard.

By all means, I want a world where learning is available to all and we tell people that they can improve, but I'm not in denial about the stark probabilistic realities a lot of kids face, and I haven't even touched upon anti-intellectual attitudes and active consumerist/marketing/ ideological strategies that are actively trying to stop people learning to be educated or think critically...

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#55

Post by car12 » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

shdh wrote: post #13

car12 wrote: post #7

I wonder how much effect immigration has had on the matter of inequality. I'm going off these assumptions: -> Lesser immigration would've led to a higher GDP/capita figure for US. -> More resources to subsidize college and lesser cut-throat competition for jobs. -> Employers would be forced to pay higher wages and people would be more easily to retrain for different jobs. -> Bonus points: We can help Africa and South…

> Employers would be forced to pay higher wages and people would be more easily to retrain for different jobs. Labor has long been subject to outsourcing as a result of entities trying to reduce costs and increase profits.

That is true but we're talking about the still remaining low skilled jobs that simply could not be outsourced.

Now with a high number of low skilled immigrants competing with natives for those same remaining low skilled jobs that couldn't be outsourced, the outcome is worse for existing population.

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#56

Post by ahaferburg » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #53

A large portion of what reduced inequality was the destruction of wealth during World War II and the fact that the U.S. benefited afterward from being the last standing industrial economy. I seriously doubt that. We shipped essentially all able-bodied men off to war, so much so that we filled a lot of jobs with women. Birth rates were low because the men were physically absent. People were encouraged to grow Victory…

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Are you saying if only the poor were better with money they'd stop being poor?

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#57

Post by twright » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

> Q: A much steeper income tax has gotten attention — some pitching even 70%. Is that possible?

> Oyer: I can’t imagine a 70% tax rate. And I don’t think we’ll see a universal basic income for a long time. These are hugely expensive ideas.

Then Oyer is experiencing a failure of the imagination as well as historical recollection. Tax rates have been that high before. Today a marginal tax income over what, 100 million at 70%--even 50%-- and there's suddenly a lot more money to build a social safety net with.

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#58

Post by gleb » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

Most of perceived rise in inequality is actually growing healthcare costs.

http://www.econtalk.org/mark-warshawsky-on-compensation-heal...

"Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Warshawsky shows that because health care benefits are a larger share of compensation for lower-paid than higher-paid workers, measures of inequality and even measures of economic progress can be misleading or distorted. "

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#59

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #4

“But the last 50 years have been terrible for people with lower skills. Adjusted for inflation, the average earnings of a man who didn’t go to college is lower now than it was 50 years ago. That’s unheard of.” How much of this effect is the vastly higher percentage of people who now go to college? If you line up 100 people by vague estimation of their likely earning potential in 1970 and do the same today, but now 2.…

This suggests that everyone going to college is doing well. That isn't the case. There are people who have master's degrees, but are earning $15/hour.

I agree with your point that populations can change over time. Fifty years ago, many people didn't get degrees and made good money. Today, people without degrees (and some with) don't make good money.

So instead of trying to segment in groups (the college educated vs. everyone else), let's just look at everyone. This removes the concern of our shifting populations.

One metric to look at is median income. Adjusted for inflation, it hasn't budged much in decades. In the past 42 years, it's increased about 32 percent.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

Re: Rising US Inequality: How We Got Here, Where We're Going

#60

Post by imtringued » Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #4

“But the last 50 years have been terrible for people with lower skills. Adjusted for inflation, the average earnings of a man who didn’t go to college is lower now than it was 50 years ago. That’s unheard of.” How much of this effect is the vastly higher percentage of people who now go to college? If you line up 100 people by vague estimation of their likely earning potential in 1970 and do the same today, but now 2.…

It's basic supply and demand. Globalization puts high downward pressure on wages because people in Asia can live on far less money than Americans. If you have to raise prices because of higher cost of living then your customers simply buy from somewhere else. Then there are certain degrees with too many graduates which flood the market which results in lower wages. Others have a shortage of graduates which means the companies have to hire from a labor pool where everyone is employed and therefore have to outbid their competitor to hire anyone at all. Add double income households which compete for rivalrous (if I have it, you don't have it) goods like housing and the end result is the US economy.