Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 961 posts

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

#571

Post by jonnycoder »

danans wrote: post #220
mindslight wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with income remaining stagnant, the prices for goods and services should have been continually going down due to technology and outsourcing. Price optimization is the fundamental mechanic of any market! For example, when most manufacturing was moving to China the promise was that it would benefit consumers via lower prices. However the Fed's overt policy is to erase these gains by printing money via low interest…

> Even with income remaining stagnant, the prices for goods and services should have been continually going down due to technology and outsourcing. The price for goods did go down. Everything from food to toys to tools got much cheaper than it was before. However, the price for cornerstone needs that govern access to opportunity - i.e. healthcare, housing, education, physical security - and the percentage of income a…

You mention healthcare, housing, education needing governing and those have been "governed" to outrageous prices. Our governing parties have destroyed wealth for the bottom 80% unless those of us with kush tech jobs or anyone who bought a house between 2010 and 2016.

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

#572

Post by Godel_unicode »

deelowe wrote: post #547
pembrook wrote: post #480

> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…

We're entering a potentially deflationary period. An aging demographic and technology create deflarionary pressure as people leave the workforce and technology improved efficiency. The Fed wants to create inflation. We know what's going to happen over time by observing germany and japan.

Germany has had negative inflation 1 year out of the last 30, and has hovered between 1 and 2 percent most years. Sounds good to me...?

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

#573

Post by 23iofj »

adam_arthur wrote: post #565
23iofj wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular: education, insurance, and housing really is accurately reflected in the CPI, but the true price of non-shit consumer goods are consistently under-estimated in the CPI.

Housing is not included in CPI, only "rents". If home prices go up 10% this year, but interest rates drop such that the carrying cost is the same, the effect on CPI is net 0% inflation. Obviously the purchase price matters, because the higher prices are, the more money you need to even get in the door with homeownership.

> Housing is not included in CPI, only "rents".

This reads like an oxymoron to anyone who's not a property owner, which is about half the country -- all of whom are in the bottom 90% referred to in the headline.

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

#574

Post by adam_arthur »

23iofj wrote: post #573
adam_arthur wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is not included in CPI, only "rents". If home prices go up 10% this year, but interest rates drop such that the carrying cost is the same, the effect on CPI is net 0% inflation. Obviously the purchase price matters, because the higher prices are, the more money you need to even get in the door with homeownership.

> Housing is not included in CPI, only "rents". This reads like an oxymoron to anyone who's not a property owner, which is about half the country -- all of whom are in the bottom 90% referred to in the headline.

Exactly. Inflation in home prices is great for property owners, bad for everybody else.

Should renters not have the opportunity to buy a home?

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

#575

Post by ska »

refurb wrote: post #465
ska wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call it a myth. High income earners both then and now have a lot of ways to avoid paying tax, so they don't pay nearly as much as the top marginal rate. It's also true that the top marginal rate used to be much higher. > Meanwhile, the proportion of taxes paid by the top quintile earners has increased from 55% in 1980 to 70% by 2013. Isn't this exactly what you would expect with growing income & wealth ine…

But the percentage of total tax revenue paid by the top income earners has only grown over time, not decreased.

Which is what you would expect, no? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, can you elaborate?

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

#576

Post by mgfist »

natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

> Wealth inequality and social unrest in America is DIRECTLY related to corrupt and/or incompetent (you choose) Fed policies. It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education.

Who do you think is behind this. Jerome ain't going to lunch with you or me.

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

#577

Post by refurb »

ska wrote: post #500
refurb wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top of 1% of income for a household was $421k in 2018. So $210k if a two person household with each working. There are plenty of Silicon Valley low level engineers who are in the top 1%. Doctors and top lawyers are in the top 1%. I would fathom most in the top 1% are wage earners and not owning so much capital they can live off of it.

> Doctors and top lawyers are in the top 1%. According to BLS, median physician salary doesn't quite make your list, at 208k. Median lawyer is more like 120k. And you are assuming there are two such wage earners per family here, which is probably the minority case. I know a few two doctor couples, by I know far more where the other career either doesn't exist or is much less lucrative. Any way you cut it, top 1% of i…

I'm not arguing all doctors and lawyers are in the top 1%, just a significant percentage of them. Your average specialist salary will get you very close to that threshold and being a specialist is not exactly a "capital owner who doesn't have to work".

To say that all top 1% are "capital owners who don't need to work" isn't accurate. There are plenty of wage earners in the top 1%.

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

#578

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

pembrook wrote: post #556
natenthe wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article that this thread is based off of is literally the opposite take from my original post. The article claims that America's 1% is responsible for the wealth inequality. That is why I posted my comment. My opinion, and the "majority" opinion according to you, is that wealth inequality is because of Fed policies, not the 1% boogey-man. The people protesting are not protesting the Fed. No institution (i.e. medi…

I have nothing against you personally. I'm just refuting your idea that Fed actions from the 2010s are responsible for wealth inequality that has been rising since the 1970s. So how do you explain everything that happened on the wealth inequality front from the 1970s up to the financial crisis of 2009? I don't agree with everything in the original article either, but many of the points it made are correct.

> So how do you explain everything that happened on the wealth inequality front from the 1970s up to the financial crisis of 2009?

Are you able to articulate why you believe "because Fed policy" doesn't apply as a valid argument for 1970 through 2009?

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

#579

Post by newacct583 »

pembrook wrote: post #480

> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…

> You're angry because it feels like everybody is getting rich and you aren't.

This is uncharitable. In fact most middle class folks who sign on to this frame are motivated by basic ideas like justice and fairness. Realistically policies designed to address wealth inequality are going to make very little difference to anyone here making a typical engineering salary.

It's easy to sign on to "a rising tide lifts all boats" when you hear it the first time. But after decades of waiting, the dinghies are just plain sunk at this point as the yachts are pulling out of the harbor. It's time to try something else.

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

#580

Post by refurb »

ska wrote: post #575
refurb wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the percentage of total tax revenue paid by the top income earners has only grown over time, not decreased.

Which is what you would expect, no? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, can you elaborate?

Check the percentage of total income vs. percentage of total taxes paid. The system has become more progressive even ignoring the increase in income.
Post reply on HN