Live data from Hacker News

What if incomes grew like GDP?

rand.org

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#21
post #3

You’d have economic prosperity like in the USA between 1945 and 1970.

Wasn't that the result of a unique world order where the USA was the only industrialized country not recovering from huge war damage?

Doesn't seem like something you could replicate worldwide. Not all countries can be winners all the time.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#22
Macro-analyses like this aren't particularly representative of any relevant point. For one thing GDP is a poor measure of the general increases of wealth. The US's pivot to services isn't represented in GDP since it only accurately measures physical production (Microsoft/Google/Facebook etc. aren't accurately represented). The actual increases that wind up going into salaries (particularly at the top half) are heavily impacted by these intangible aspects of the economy (so if you isolated this report to just Mark Zuckerberg you'd see billions in wealth but no growth to account for it). At the lower end of the income spectrum, you'd miss the growth of surplus labor. Only 25% of people in the US have an undergraduate degree or higher, and of the people that don't, labor participation is only around 49%. So seeing limited gains in the people who still have jobs isn't that shocking. Whatever general idea of "inequality" this shallow report is meant to convey isn't particularly instructive. Enough data is available to make more interesting analyses.

*edited for clarity

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#23
post #3

You’d have economic prosperity like in the USA between 1945 and 1970.

Highly unlikely. Productivity growth engendered higher incomes, not the other way around. The 70's is when that growth came to an end.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#24
post #22

Macro-analyses like this aren't particularly representative of any relevant point. For one thing GDP is a poor measure of the general increases of wealth. The US's pivot to services isn't represented in GDP since it only accurately measures physical production (Microsoft/Google/Facebook etc. aren't accurately represented). The actual increases that wind up going into salaries (particularly at the top half) are heavil…

Can you elaborate on how services aren't factored into GDP? That was not my understanding.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#25
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Gates, nor Jobs, nor Zuckerberg, nor Bezos, nor Musk inherited their billions. At best they inherited access to the social circles of their parents, and maybe paid-for education (too lazy to check). Knowing the right people is not something you can, or want, to limit or forbid. Should anyone suggest to prevent passing as much as, say, $100k to your child (an approximate price of a university tuition), said an…

Yeah, but they benefited from a system that coerces people to trade their labor for less than it is worth. Zuckerberg is worth >3x the annual income of all surgeons in the US. It is implausible that his net worth reflects his replacement cost. Even PG has said (to Zuckerberg) that if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else.

The amount of value you can obtain by trading something is by definition what it is worth. If nobody is willing to pay you an amount for something, it's not worth that much.

> It is implausible that his net worth reflects his replacement cost.

Why should it? His net worth reflects the expected value of the portion of Facebook that he owns. Why would it have anything to do with his replacement cost?

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#26
post #5
post #4

I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.

>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?

There's a better perspective to apply.

How can we better incentivize those with wealth into investing it productively.

Or perhaps, how can we incentivize the wealthy into investing in increasing the rate of growth of the real standard of living for everyone.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#27
post #13
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?

Neither Gates, nor Jobs, nor Zuckerberg, nor Bezos, nor Musk inherited their billions. At best they inherited access to the social circles of their parents, and maybe paid-for education (too lazy to check). Knowing the right people is not something you can, or want, to limit or forbid. Should anyone suggest to prevent passing as much as, say, $100k to your child (an approximate price of a university tuition), said an…

It's a lot easier to make billions when you already have millions (like Elon Musk's dad, who joked about how he had too much money in his safe to be able shut the door when his gemstone mine was doing well).

It's a lot riskier to be an entrepreneur when you're living paycheck to paycheck and don't have a family fortune to fall back on.

Extraordinary people also often have extraordinary childhoods. Most teenagers can't borrow their dad's private jet to go sell emeralds to Tiffany&Co, but I imagine that sort of experience comes in handy for a businessman

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#28
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but they benefited from a system that coerces people to trade their labor for less than it is worth. Zuckerberg is worth >3x the annual income of all surgeons in the US. It is implausible that his net worth reflects his replacement cost. Even PG has said (to Zuckerberg) that if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else.

The amount of value you can obtain by trading something is by definition what it is worth. If nobody is willing to pay you an amount for something, it's not worth that much. > It is implausible that his net worth reflects his replacement cost. Why should it? His net worth reflects the expected value of the portion of Facebook that he owns. Why would it have anything to do with his replacement cost?

Hmm, not really. The cost of labour is actually generally agreed to be the replacement cost of the labour.

As a society, the only thing that we take out of Zuckerberg is his labour, so he shouldn't get anymore than the replacement cost of his labour. In other words, if someone would have done Zuckerberg's work for less compensation - and the GP asserts it is the case - then we as a society lose by having Zuckerberg do it instead of the lower compensated alternative.

In other words, when someone gets paid more than their replacement cost, there is a market inefficiency that causes loss to the vast majority.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#29
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of value you can obtain by trading something is by definition what it is worth. If nobody is willing to pay you an amount for something, it's not worth that much. > It is implausible that his net worth reflects his replacement cost. Why should it? His net worth reflects the expected value of the portion of Facebook that he owns. Why would it have anything to do with his replacement cost?

Hmm, not really. The cost of labour is actually generally agreed to be the replacement cost of the labour. As a society, the only thing that we take out of Zuckerberg is his labour, so he shouldn't get anymore than the replacement cost of his labour. In other words, if someone would have done Zuckerberg's work for less compensation - and the GP asserts it is the case - then we as a society lose by having Zuckerberg d…

He doesn't "get" anything. His net worth is due to ownership in the company he made. When people talk about his net worth increasing, that's due to the shares appreciating. He didn't get more of anything. He owns the same number of shares, they just became more valuable.

Zuckerberg is not employed by society. We're not all collectively paying him a salary.

If you're saying we should completely abolish private property, that's a different thing altogether.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#30
post #4

I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.

A better way to think about this is from the "Born On Third Base" report looking at the Forbes 400. In 2012, it was estimated only 35% of the wealthiest people grew up in low or middle class--as opposed to 95% of the general population.

Another way to say this is that 65% of the wealthiest people were born into the top 5%.

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ufe/legacy_url/410/Born...

Post reply on HN