Live data from Hacker News

America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

time.com

261–270 of 961 posts

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#262
post #182

Usury, which is to say lending at interest, will inevitably in aggregate lead to a tiny minority owning virtually everything. This is obvious to anyone who has basic high school math and understands that interest compounds geometrically and wages grow linearly at best.

Lending at interest only leads to unlimited aggregation if the risk of lending is zero. Zero interest rate policy and government backed securities is indeed as close to zero risk as possible in the real world.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#263

I'm definitely not 1%, and sympathize with/understand somewhat some of these claims. Bail-outs and unchecked government spending or borrowing from future generations worry me. However I'm also pretty aggressive at investing. I feel like in general my retirement and taxable investing has benefitted me financially, though I'm solidly middle class. I feel (with data to back me up) like I'm upwardly mobile, though still…

I'm more or less in the same situation as you, although relatively early in my career. I would urge you to try and look a little broader at what situations people even just below "middle class" are facing nowadays.

From a personal finance perspective, I'm aligned with you. I shovel my money into my 401k and index funds, and still have plenty left over to survive and buy things I want and need. By doing so, I can participate just a tiny bit on the finance side of capital and take in a bit of the upside.

>I understand those below the poverty line may not have the luxury of opening a IRA, stock account, etc. or immediately starting their own online business.

It's not just people below the poverty line. The vast majority of Americans, especially younger ones, are not making enough to substantially invest or feel secure financially. If someone does start their own business (an incredibly difficult venture), it will be at their own risk, with much to lose. Dabbling in side projects is a luxury, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who are more overworked and less financially stable than you or I to realistically use that as a way to lift themselves up. It's also not really a solution that scales, in my opinion. You can't expect everyone to start their own side hustle. Most businesses fail. Some lose money for years until eventually breaking even. Obviously, more opportunity is good, and I want to see people succeeding in starting their own businesses and innovating, but isn't having financial and social safety the biggest factor in encouraging that?

>Make this article relevant to a middle-class person on track to retire in their 60s, who tinkers on weekends with a few startup ideas, and generally thinks their kids will be better off if they continue to have the same access to education, business and investing. Why should that person be personally concerned about income inequality?

I'll take a stab at this from a couple angles. First off, you either care or you don't. Like you said, you're doing fine. I'm doing fine. I don't think anyone really owes you an explanation to make you care, because you don't have to. But I have friends who graduated at the same time as me who aren't doing great. They're working way harder at whatever blue collar job they could find than I ever did, for less money. Mental health isn't great. I'm not particularly different from them, other than I happened to like computer science as a kid, and my brain is sufficiently configured to churn out some code for an employer for 8 hours a day. I don't think I could look them in the eye and suggest that they just invest more, or consider starting their own business, or try online learning, when they're already down. I never did any of that.

The other side of it is that the middle class is still significantly more aligned politically and financially in their interests with the rest of the population than the 1%. I'm making a lot of money, but one bad trip to the hospital would still bankrupt me. I still worry about rent. How about everyone else who is worse off than me? The truly wealthy are playing a fundamentally different game than the rest of us, however you feel about that. One interesting aspect of the recent push for more progressive policies is that much of it is being driven by middle class white collar workers, and not blue collar. I see it as a sign of the increasing income/wealth inequality trending over the last several decades. The middle class has typically been 'placated' by being able to live a decent living, but even they're feeling the squeeze now.

I hope that was somewhat coherent and didn't come off as too combative. I really just want to convey my personal experience and how it's different from yours.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#264
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not imply "wealth inequality is the result of federal policies". It implies that the current transfer of wealth is a result of federal policy.

All they do is regulate the flow of new money, they aren't responsible for tax codes that ensure a widening gap of wealth via the return on capital vs the return on labor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...

They affect the inflation rate and inflation should be thought of as a tax. And its a tax that primarily affects middle class people that keep their wealth in cash rather than assets.

They also implicitly affect asset prices which is probably one of the primary causes of wealth inequality.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right of exit, as they say, is still there. > Some people believe that the freedom to earn a living is a right, not a privilege. There is also freedom in the security of living in a content and happy society that isn't setting up guillotines because massive underclasses have been pushed to their breaking points. The price you pay for civilization, and so on.

> The right of exit, as they say, is still there. The existence of rights does not obviate the possibility that they will be infringed upon. > There is also freedom in the security of living in a content and happy society that isn't setting up guillotines because massive underclasses have been pushed to their breaking points. The price you pay for civilization, and so on. So I’d really like these leaders to quit push…

It does not require endorsement of the current leaders nor their system to recognize the very basic and banal fact that taxation is a valid mechanism that a society uses to sustain itself. This doesn't even require one to be in favor of specific current taxes, it's simply acknowledging that taxation as a principle is not some sort of ludicrously unjust abomination. Taxation predates central banks.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wages grow linearly at best. This isn't true at all. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-real-gdp-per-capi...

Analyses like this show why we need to teach statistics in place of calculus in high school.

not really. the key mistake here is treating gdp is a proxy for wages when there is no direct connection between the two. in a pathological case, you could have a $1T GDP and have zero wages paid. the question of whether mean or median figures are more appropriate when talking about wages (what I assume you are alluding to with your statistics quip) is a side issue. no amount of statistics knowledge will help someone who insists on comparing apples to oranges.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#268
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is almost a natural law of wealth. When you have significant capital, you can do things like loan it out with interest It is a natural law of usury, which is what you describe. This is why we used to ban usury as unjust.

Again, what's the alternative?

Democratic control of the economy.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Things are less shitty now" does not mean things are not still shitty now

Sure, but it's a perfectly reasonable retort to the claim that things are shittier now.

It would be, if anyone was making that claim.

Instead they say that because things are better now, then you cannot complain.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#270
Here's the problem. When the little guy fails, there is no bailout. No 100% restoration of income/wealth.

When the 1% fails, there is immediate push to bail them out with > 100% of their losses.

If the reckless investors are allowed to fail equitably, there would be far fewer billionaires and far more people without $100k of debt.

Post reply on HN