Live data from Hacker News

Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

review.chicagobooth.edu

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Proven when? Proven how? 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?

I’m not super rich but I wouldn’t call their wealth “unearned”. Why are you privy to their money?

The rich have an us vs them mentality because the media demonizes them for working hard. I dislike rich people as much as anyone but the productive response isn’t rage. Rage gives the rich even more power and reason to look for more reasons to hide their wealth and exploit.

If you’re so convinced the rich have “harmed” you why not try to move somewhere where you believe your ideals are more aligned?

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#52
post #32
post #9

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%

Unfortunately that's not always the case. Living in Germany, I've heard and read (good example /de/ subreddit) loads of hate against middle and upper-middle class people. People who are nowhere near close to being rich. This is also a group that's being taxed as much as the actual rich, or in practice even more, because the rich can afford to "optimise" their taxes. There's a sizeable group of people that just cannot…

Doctors' trade group actively lobbies to keep the supply of physicians below demand so as to inflate their guilds' average salary.

Critiques of the merely well-off can sometimes be more indicative of the major problems facing America, since there are so many more in this category. For example, by critiquing this 1% class you also get into very interesting questions about land use in California.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#53
post #44
post #9

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%

The real issue should be the multiplier on CEO pay and boards. 300x or more is pretty obviously ridiculous. Hard work should be rewarding, but is anyone really working 300 times harder than the delivery guy? I could believe 10x I guess.

It's not about how hard you work, but how hard it is to find someone else to do that job. Anyone can deliver packages.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#55
post #9

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%

   It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth.
In reality you have a power law distribution where ~20% have 80-90% of the wealth.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#56

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.

Most revolutions that fundamentally changed society required a lot of rage to get going. The French Revolution caused a reorganization European society along much more rational and liberal principles, but the Revolution required a great deal of rage to break out and sustain itself.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#57
post #15
post #9

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%

Seems like there were plenty of people in the 1% cohort that would have taken up the movement if they had found an even catchier soundbite.

Yes. Call it "The Millionth", which would include the 300ish wealthiest Americans. Everyone in the Forbes 400 has a net worth of over two billion. Even though within that group there is a wide gap between the top and bottom of the list, it's nothing compared to be difference between the top and bottom of the 1%.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#59

Here in Denmark the highest tax bracket applies to almost 10% of the Danish population. The Top 1%, Top 0.01% and billionaires are not taxed more than the Top 10%. I belong to the Top 10% and I'm fine with that. Why do Americans focus so much on the "ultra-rich" and the billionaires when you can build a successful welfare state by just taxing the Top 10% a little more?

It could be because income inequality is much higher in the US.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#60
This essay presents interesting comparisons and data, but then it goes on to try to explain that the top 0.01% are getting richer faster because they have special skills and technologies (such as being able to scale a business up using foreign workers, or manage 20bn assets because of computers).

What is not mentioned but certainly plays a key role in one's ability to perform so well financially is the special opportunities the top 0.01% have and circumstances they operate within compared to the lessers. If we were to review each person in the top 0.01%, I expect most of them would be making their huge gains not by exercise of special skills but rather by exercise of special circumstances.

RISK - As we have seen with the 2007/8 financial crisis, there is a small group of very wealthy, very powerful finance people who can take enormous risks with other people's money, profiting whether they win or lose. The 07/08 crisis cost the general public (in bailout using public funds (debt)) hundreds of billions of dollars. But the stratospheric executive bonuses paid to fund managers and bank executives during the lead up years was not retracted. So the people that took unreasonable risks profited greatly, and the public paid for their profit and then some. Even during the following years, the executives and fund managers received significant bonuses. And thanks to golden parachutes, the exit/firing of some of them resulted in even bigger profits for that group.

OPPORTUNITY - The wealthier one is, the easier it is for them to get credit. Even in cases such as Trump where he has a long history of running businesses into the ground and leaving debtors unpaid, he was famously able to secure very large loans to take even bigger actions (which similarly often resulted in underperforming businesses which would later seek forgiveness or reductions of debts). The point is, once you're rich enough, you need never risk your own money. You can borrow huge sums to seize opportunities. When you win, you win big. When you lose, you can probably get away with no personal loss.

LAWS - With wealth and power comes influence. You can afford to lobby (sometimes a polite term for bribe) to get special laws or loopholes that have direct financial benefits for you. Perhaps it relates to a defense contract, and you hold a lot of Boeing stock. Or perhaps it relates to an FAA regulation and you hold a lot of Boeing stock. Or it's a special rule that lets you write off the purchase of a piece of luxury property as a business expense.

TAXES - This is a huge space for gaining an advantage over the normal people. Not only do you have the means to play the offshore/shell-company game (reducing your tax burden, perhaps to zero), but you also can do strange things like deferring your taxes indefinitely if you're a hedge manager.

I could go on with plenty more examples of special advantages that the top 0.01% have compared to everyone else. These advantages, even if modest, represent an exponential benefit in terms of financial growth over time.

Post reply on HN