The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#81

Post by lanstin » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

squirrelicus wrote: post #61

billions wrote: post #49

Is the Hacker News community open to alternative viewpoints on this subject? It would be informative to read a wide spectrum of opinions, like we get for things like microprocessor design and code libraries.

Generally you get downvoted for doing so, but people still try to argue. I have a lot to say on the subject, but one thing I still need an argument for is why inequality is bad intrinsically. I'd love to hear a cogent argument that addresses that fundamental point, but what I end up seeing in the wild is camps of people who think inequality is some intrinsic evil, and those that don't think it's relevant to anything.

Isn’t the problem with inequality that it makes the society less stable? More envy and less feeling of being part of a group? It is good that poverty in the world is much less and there are more people in the middle class but it is also a problem that wages in the US are stagnant for large swath of the population that feels like it isn’t part of the group anymore and makes trouble because of it.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#82

Post by majewsky » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

lanevorockz wrote: post #48

opportune wrote: post #9

The article mentions globalization but doesn't view inequality through a global lens. If you look only within rich nations, yes inequality has increased, because the poor and blue collar middle class have lost a lot of jobs to poorer countries. But that phenomenon is actually reducing inequality as measured from a global view. The biggest issue I have with the article is that it ignores the geopolitical trends that w…

Very true, in terms of poverty the world was never as equal as today. My guess is that Free Software had the consequence of providing a lot of value to people for free, taking part of the cost of the supply chain. This is the real equaliser, it is not tax and it's not the market. In all honesty even in their example, the 1% in the US is not stable .. it's more like a game of chair, if you blink you can loose your sea…

Free Software is a miniscule part of that process, if it even is a part at all. The main reason is reduced transport and communication costs making it feasible to outsource work across continents.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#83

Post by dlp211 » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

squirrelicus wrote: post #61

billions wrote: post #49

Is the Hacker News community open to alternative viewpoints on this subject? It would be informative to read a wide spectrum of opinions, like we get for things like microprocessor design and code libraries.

Generally you get downvoted for doing so, but people still try to argue. I have a lot to say on the subject, but one thing I still need an argument for is why inequality is bad intrinsically. I'd love to hear a cogent argument that addresses that fundamental point, but what I end up seeing in the wild is camps of people who think inequality is some intrinsic evil, and those that don't think it's relevant to anything.

Inequality of wealth is the same as inequality of power in our system.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#84

Post by Ar-Curunir » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #23

The problem with inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc. is that they erode the meaning of ownership and permanence. For example, if I as a parent want to save up and give up my immediate gratification from spending that money so my children have a head start or even a luxurious cushion, what’s wrong with that? That’s me spending my utility the way I want. With property taxes, ownership turns into renting - you never…

it's not the case that all your savings are only the outcome of your own hard work. Your income depends on the labour of countless others that make your modern life possible. Why should your wealth stay with you instead of going to workers that make your shoes or your clothes or your laptop or your phone?

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#85

Post by throwawaysea » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

billions wrote: post #49

Is the Hacker News community open to alternative viewpoints on this subject? It would be informative to read a wide spectrum of opinions, like we get for things like microprocessor design and code libraries.

My observation is that the patterns around downvoting and dead comments suggests that HN is not as open to alternative views as it used to be in the early days. It is slowly regressing to something more like Reddit or Twitter, although it is not nearly as bad yet, where Bay Area far-left progressive viewpoints are the most welcome.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#86

Post by coldtea » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #9

The article mentions globalization but doesn't view inequality through a global lens. If you look only within rich nations, yes inequality has increased, because the poor and blue collar middle class have lost a lot of jobs to poorer countries. But that phenomenon is actually reducing inequality as measured from a global view. The biggest issue I have with the article is that it ignores the geopolitical trends that w…

>The article mentions globalization but doesn't view inequality through a global lens. If you look only within rich nations, yes inequality has increased, because the poor and blue collar middle class have lost a lot of jobs to poorer countries. But that phenomenon is actually reducing inequality as measured from a global view.

Actually inequality (of percentage of the world's resources amassed) between poor and rich countries has increased as well. The get richer compared to their own past, but less than the world is getting richer overall.

But that's a red-herring. Even if inequality among countries was lessening, that could just be part of poor countries getting richer, building infrastructure and so on.

That wouldn't mean the richer countries having rising inequality and poverty is is not a problem, nor we should view it like "inequality in the west is being balanced as less inequality in other countries".

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#87

Post by caconym_ » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

nugget wrote: post #4

Implementation may be politically difficult, but the solution isn't rocket science: substantially raise the inheritance tax and abolish all trust loopholes.

100% tax on inheritance and other hereditary wealth-transfer schemes, eliminate loopholes, use the (substantial, I assume) takings to supplement existing funds and implement a universal basic income. Also do something about education and healthcare. You can work and compete as hard as you like during your life, and get as rich as you possibly can in that time, but you can't take it with you and your wealth is used to give everybody in future generations the same chances you had yourself.

I don't believe it will ever happen. There's too much inertia and rot in what we have now, and nowhere to go to build something new.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#88

Post by DoreenMichele » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

squirrelicus wrote: post #61

billions wrote: post #49

Is the Hacker News community open to alternative viewpoints on this subject? It would be informative to read a wide spectrum of opinions, like we get for things like microprocessor design and code libraries.

Generally you get downvoted for doing so, but people still try to argue. I have a lot to say on the subject, but one thing I still need an argument for is why inequality is bad intrinsically. I'd love to hear a cogent argument that addresses that fundamental point, but what I end up seeing in the wild is camps of people who think inequality is some intrinsic evil, and those that don't think it's relevant to anything.

I don't think inequality is inherently evil. I also don't think it's simply irrelevant.

What I've always seen suggested is that extremes of inequality are bad for society. That idea seems to be an implicit assumption behind this article.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#89

Post by michaelmrose » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

lastofus wrote: post #13

nugget wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe lower taxes stimulate productive investment of both human and financial capital so I'd prefer to lower income and investment taxes. But this only seems fair and sustainable if you raise the inheritance tax to a very high level. The problem isn't wealth so much as dynastic wealth. Land value tax I support 100%.

Isn’t this a restatement of trickle down economic theory (sans raising inheritance tax), which has not really panned out when attempted?

The problem with trickle down economics is that it involved decreasing the taxes of the wealthy so that in theory that money would trickle down to improve the lot of the poorer.

This doesn't work because the rich can opt to do a lot of different things with their money including hide or invest it overseas.

Taking the money of the rich and using it to directly improve the lot of the less fortunate has been tried and actually works as one would expect.

Re: The Rich Can't Get Richer Forever

#90

Post by jnordwick » Sun, Sep 01, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #42

As Kuznets determined, it was after the American Civil War that the gap between the rich and the poor began to widen. I wonder how much of that was counting blacks in the South as people (after slavery was ended). During the post Civil War era, they typically made half as much as whites for the same work. I read a history book years ago which, unfortunately, I can't determine the name of. The current narrative is tha…

This is almost exactly opposes the history of union support of minimum wage legislation. It was pushed and supported by predominantly white unions to protect their workers from lower skill and cheaper minority workers. The minimum wage doesn't just say you can't hire a worker for less than an amount. The other side is that you are not allowed to sell your labor for less than the floor. White union workers were being out competed on price by workers who were either trying to gain experience of lived in cheaper neighborhoods.

While some higher skilled and higher priced workers are needed, not all of them need that level of expertise and it prices out people trying to enter into a field where the on the job experience would be invaluable. If you can produce 2/3rs of the value on lower skill tasks but at half the price, it is better to hire two of you than one higher skilled individual. Plus it allowed you to build skills for the next job. These minority workers were seen as a social (racism) and economic threat. There were literally white-only unions that supported these policies.

The infamous Cabrini Green chicago housing project was a more recent example of this. It was mostly poor black families, and many thought it would be a boon for local black employment. In reality, white union workers were bused it at huge expense to fill the roles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-t...

https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

https://reason.com/2019/01/21/washington-forced-segregation/