31–40 of 200 posts
If you provide a service people want/need, you are going to end up with more money.. It's not rocket science. This is how the capitalist cogs turn.
Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%
There's a sizeable group of people that just cannot stand someone working hard and reaping the fruits. Again I'm not talking about Lambo-driving, yacht owners but an average doctor, small business owner or an engineer for that matter.
Per the old meme, success breeds jealousy, but unfortunately recently it breeds hate and violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.
It is not a universal principle that wealth must follow a power law, and even if it was, the coefficient need not be so extreme. The wealth inequality in America is higher than it has ever been. This did not come about naturally.
This does not mean it’s good. The source even presents some methods of avoiding it.
But the key point is that it doesn’t need some sort of conspiracy of the rich to happen. It will happen inevitably without being anyones fault if steps are not taken to address it.
Every time you talk about the top 1% or even the top 0.01%, you eliminate an opportunity to talk about how you can really help the bottom 50%. By constantly painting things as hopeless and unfair, all you do is stimulate rage.
That rage needs to be there so that we can change the system that produces and perpetuates the unfairness. Rage is a tool for electoral mobilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That rage needs to be there so that we can change the system that produces and perpetuates the unfairness. Rage is a tool for electoral mobilization.
No, it’s not. Rage removes the ability to discuss anything and fuels the “us vs them” mentality which has been proven time and time again to be unhealthy and NOT productive.
You think that the ultra-rich don't have an "us-vs-them" mentality? You think that they aren't lobbying and fighting and advertising and campaigning to keep their unearned wealth and power for themselves?
>“The demand for top skill has outpaced its supply, with the returns to top skill increasingly taking the form of business income.”
This really doesn't come off as a problem that needs solving and instead sounds like a purely political war cry. These aren't lords abusing powerless peasants, they're contributing members of society being disproportionately rewarded for their disproportionate contributions. Wealth inequality needs to be considered in the context of overall prosperity and despite the fearmongering you see online, most Americans are doing well. Even our poor have modern conveniences, access to emergency healthcare, generally safe food and infrastructure - eating the evil rich and redistributing their wealth is unlikely to solve any of the major issues in the country, as we're already throwing tons of money at schooling and healthcare and the like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.
The point is that extreme wealth distributions push towards non-democratic societies. You like democracy, you like policies that promote it. Also, “you can never change how it is!” is a nirvana fallacy; you certainly can make things better. It’s been done before.
I’d love to see an analysis of who the top 0.01% are, in terms of income. My guess is the people who make the list this year, drop off the next and never end up on it again. The top people (again income) are the folks that sell their company or equity stake. It’s a huge windfall, but they never make that much again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.
Is there any theoretical reasoning for expecting a Pareto distribution to result? Would a distribution closer to normal not be equally valid?