What if incomes grew like GDP? • Hacker News Board

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#111

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

bsanr wrote: post #103

dragonwriter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doctors and lawyers are not making $50k a year For the most part, no. > $50k is not even the average annual income in this country That depends which average you are referring to. It's well above the median personal income (around $35K)—the median being usually the useful average for income statistics, but a little bit less than the mean personal income. (The most common “average income” number, though, is neither…

Generally, when one says average, they mean average. I used it deliberately because of the implicit comparison to be made between it and the median, and because of where it compares to the arbitrary $50k figure grandparent chose to swing the conversation around.

> Generally, when one says average, they mean average.

“Average” is an ambiguous term. The mode, median, and the various (harmonic, geometric, arithmetic) means are all averages.

In income statistics specifically, the usual average referenced is the median of the appropriate measure.

In context-neutral informal conversation, the arithmetic mean is the most common average.

If you want to be clear, its a good idea to avoid “average” and use the specific term for a measure.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#112

Post by jelliclesfarm » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #109

username90 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference is that the top 10% like software engineers and doctors earn much less and the bottom 50% earn more. So most people posting at HN would be much poorer while the top 0.1% are still very rich in Europe.

> So most people posting at HN would be much poorer You have it completely backwards. Software Developer salaries would likely be higher , _yes higher_, in the US. The US has had very large GDP growth over the past 45+ years. But that's how much money has gone to capital vs labor since the 70s. The clearest way to think of software engineer salaries is: median software engineer salary as a multiple of median country…

a lot of work was also outsourced. that led to global upward class mobility. it was win win because young professionals in india and vietnam and eastern europe were able to climb the salary/wealth ladder while american companies also made profits.

millions of jobs were created globally that did indeed have a role in erasing poverty in many countries. the wealth re-distribution was global. at the same time, noone became poorer in the united states and corporates flourished. to me, it is all win-win.

we forget that bay area was responsible for global change. it isnt just about california or america. silicon valley made the whole world a better place on average in the past two recent decades. this cannot be disputed.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#113

Post by jelliclesfarm » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

throwaway189262 wrote: post #67

hliyan wrote: 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.

There's way too much wealth worship in the US. Yeah most rich people are smart but not exponentially smarter than everyone else. A lot of wealth is luck. But wealthy people (like HN audience) don't like to hear that. I can't find a link but there's controlled studies that show the richer someone precieves they are, the more they attribute it to skill. Even in studies where outcomes are completely randomized. Usually…

i agree. thats why people shouldnt talk about other people's wealth. it is very rude and useless gossip. age, wealth and politics...it's just impolite to discuss or gossip or be nosy about these things. its personal.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#114

Post by yyyymmddh » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

rualca wrote: post #81

yyyymmddh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not arbitrary. It’s defined by one’s relation to the means of production. This is capitalism in a nutshell.

You're confounding stuff for no reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the profits of your work, which naturally including the return on investment in a company you started and put together from nothing.

There is a big difference between the product of one’s work and the profits of one’s work. The latter is a curious notion.

A fundamental component of capitalism is private ownership of means of production, which allows a few people to profit from the product of other people’s labor.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#115

Post by bsanr » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #111

bsanr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, when one says average, they mean average. I used it deliberately because of the implicit comparison to be made between it and the median, and because of where it compares to the arbitrary $50k figure grandparent chose to swing the conversation around.

> Generally, when one says average, they mean average. “Average” is an ambiguous term. The mode, median, and the various (harmonic, geometric, arithmetic) means are all averages. In income statistics specifically, the usual average referenced is the median of the appropriate measure. In context-neutral informal conversation, the arithmetic mean is the most common average. If you want to be clear, its a good idea to a…

I've heard of the median and mode being associated closely with the "average," but never as a synonym. Actually, I think it's much safer to assume that someone speaking of the average is referring to the mean unless they specifically say "median."

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#116

Post by bsanr » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #112

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So most people posting at HN would be much poorer You have it completely backwards. Software Developer salaries would likely be higher , _yes higher_, in the US. The US has had very large GDP growth over the past 45+ years. But that's how much money has gone to capital vs labor since the 70s. The clearest way to think of software engineer salaries is: median software engineer salary as a multiple of median country…

a lot of work was also outsourced. that led to global upward class mobility. it was win win because young professionals in india and vietnam and eastern europe were able to climb the salary/wealth ladder while american companies also made profits. millions of jobs were created globally that did indeed have a role in erasing poverty in many countries. the wealth re-distribution was global. at the same time, noone beca…

>at the same time, noone became poorer in the united states

This is false.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#117

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

bsanr wrote: post #115

dragonwriter wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally, when one says average, they mean average. “Average” is an ambiguous term. The mode, median, and the various (harmonic, geometric, arithmetic) means are all averages. In income statistics specifically, the usual average referenced is the median of the appropriate measure. In context-neutral informal conversation, the arithmetic mean is the most common average. If you want to be clear, its a good idea to a…

I've heard of the median and mode being associated closely with the "average," but never as a synonym. Actually, I think it's much safer to assume that someone speaking of the average is referring to the mean unless they specifically say "median."

> I've heard of the median and mode being associated closely with the "average," but never as a synonym.

They aren't synonyms, they are more specific terms.

In colloquial language, an average is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers. Different concepts of average are used in different contexts. Often "average" refers to the arithmetic mean, the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are being averaged. In statistics, mean, median, and mode are all known as measures of central tendency, and in colloquial usage any of these might be called an average value.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Average

1a: a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#118

Post by rualca » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

bsanr wrote: post #100

boh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, that's the point. How do you think the doctors and lawyers feel (or to be more specific to HN--the people doing well in the tech sector)? Having a finger pointed at you for living your life without "doing something" when you're not part of the country leadership is an aspect of the "change" myth we're often subject to (i.e. it's your fault things are bad, not the actual people in charge). *also depending on w…

Doctors and lawyers are not making $50k a year. $50k is not even the average annual income in this country; it is not the income of the barely-wealthy. This is the problem: people making multiples of $50k live fundamentally different lives from those making sub-$50k. They have money to burn, and they do just that, often on self-serving goods and services with limited ROI compared to what the same amount of money woul…

> $50k is not even the average annual income in this country;

You really should refresh your statistics. Average means absolutely nothing if you don't take into account how uneven the income distribution is, specially in the US where income inequality reached abismal levels.

To focus on the facts, the median household income in the US is close to $63k. Note it's median, not average, and note it's household income, and not anual income.

That means that in half of US households you still get a household income lower than those $63k even if you add two incomes. That's how half of the US population lives.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#119

Post by rualca » Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

yyyymmddh wrote: post #114

rualca wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confounding stuff for no reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the profits of your work, which naturally including the return on investment in a company you started and put together from nothing.

There is a big difference between the product of one’s work and the profits of one’s work. The latter is a curious notion. A fundamental component of capitalism is private ownership of means of production, which allows a few people to profit from the product of other people’s labor.

> There is a big difference between the product of one’s work and the profits of one’s work.

Of course. That's why you should face the fact that if no one puts in the money and the legwork to jump-start the company, there is no taxes to be made nor there is profit to be distributed.

Re: What if incomes grew like GDP?

#120

Post by bsanr » Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:03 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #117

bsanr wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard of the median and mode being associated closely with the "average," but never as a synonym. Actually, I think it's much safer to assume that someone speaking of the average is referring to the mean unless they specifically say "median."

> I've heard of the median and mode being associated closely with the "average," but never as a synonym. They aren't synonyms, they are more specific terms. In colloquial language, an average is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers. Different concepts of average are used in different contexts. Often "average" refers to the arithmetic mean, the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are…

>In colloquial language

Further, if you go into the definitions of median, mean, and mode on Merriam Webster's, only "mean" actually mentions the word "average." It shows up in the "synonyms" section for median, hilariously, but not in the definition itself. It is then probably least incorrect to assume that average refers to the mean unless there is some previous understanding that it doesn't (and since you presented the other meanings within a hypothetical, obviously there was no such understanding).

In any case, since I brought up the word "average" in the first place, and in all reasonability meant it to refer to the mean, I don't know why you're still arguing with me about this. You read an marginal meaning into my text to make a pedantic point and have wasted both our times.