Live data from Hacker News

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

time.com

831–840 of 961 posts

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

#831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some nice graphs to go along; https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

A bunch of these graphs are misleading, especially the ones from the EPI. /r/badecon can explain better than I can: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/6rtoh4/produc... TL;DR: 1. The pay line is for the bottom ~80% of workers, while the productivity line is for all workers. If you graph all workers wages vs all workers productivity, then the gap shrinks quite a bit. (Of course, maybe we should redistribute…

I guess it's pretty obvious that it's just a collection of graphs from different sources which all basically indicate that something did happen (decouple) in the early to mid 70s.

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

#832
Zero-sum thinking perceives situations as zero-sum games, where one person's gain would be another's loss. The term is derived from game theory. However, unlike the game theory concept, zero-sum thinking refers to a psychological construct—a person's subjective interpretation of a situation. Zero-sum thinking is captured by the saying "your gain is my loss" (or conversely, "your loss is my gain"). Rozycka-Tran et al. (2015) defined zero-sum thinking as:

> A general belief system about the antagonistic nature of social relations, shared by people in a society or culture and based on the implicit assumption that a finite amount of goods exists in the world, in which one person's winning makes others the losers, and vice versa ... a relatively permanent and general conviction that social relations are like a zero-sum game. People who share this conviction believe that success, especially economic success, is possible only at the expense of other people's failures.

Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people's tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case. This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions. In economics, "zero-sum fallacy" generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking

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

#833
post #832

Zero-sum thinking perceives situations as zero-sum games, where one person's gain would be another's loss. The term is derived from game theory. However, unlike the game theory concept, zero-sum thinking refers to a psychological construct—a person's subjective interpretation of a situation. Zero-sum thinking is captured by the saying "your gain is my loss" (or conversely, "your loss is my gain"). Rozycka-Tran et al.…

Also the disparity of wealth can be simply explained by investments (or lack of).

If you invest in the stock market, your wealth grows exponentially.

If you don't invest in the stock market, your wealth grows linearly.

Exponential growth >> linear growth

Who owns stocks? Mostly the top 10%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in...

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

#834
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say it probably has something to do with the collapse in union membership, deregulation and growth of the finance sector, and capture of the political system by those who can afford billions of dollars worth of advertising, but it’s a complicated story. Are you suggesting that wages haven’t kept up with productivity because inflation has been consistently high since the US abolished the gold standard?

Yes, mostly. I'd say that high inflation, declining union membership, and growth of the financial system are all consequences of the U.S. dollar's status as a fiat reserve currency. The causality for the decline in union membership runs [collapse of Bretton Woods system] -> [U.S. dollar becomes global reserve currency] -> [U.S. manufacturing becomes uncompetitive abroad] -> [American manufacturing firms go bankrupt,…

It'd be really good to get an explanation for why someone disagrees with this to learn a bit about this.

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

#835
post #833
post #832

Zero-sum thinking perceives situations as zero-sum games, where one person's gain would be another's loss. The term is derived from game theory. However, unlike the game theory concept, zero-sum thinking refers to a psychological construct—a person's subjective interpretation of a situation. Zero-sum thinking is captured by the saying "your gain is my loss" (or conversely, "your loss is my gain"). Rozycka-Tran et al.…

Also the disparity of wealth can be simply explained by investments (or lack of). If you invest in the stock market, your wealth grows exponentially. If you don't invest in the stock market, your wealth grows linearly. Exponential growth >> linear growth Who owns stocks? Mostly the top 10%. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in...

> Compound interest is the 8th wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn't, pays it.

Albert Einstein

...supposedly:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/compound-interest/

But you get the point: exponential growth is the key to building wealth.

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

#836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things that have seen large price increases are things that aren't scalable i.e. they still require the same amount of human input labor to produce Childcare is constrained by the fact that each childcare worker by law (for better or worse) can only look after so many children at once. This ratio varies by state but it's usually around 4 children per childcare worker. The result is that it has to be expensive bec…

What a load of tosh. Textbooks are now distributable by e-books, easily scalable. Yet somehow capitalism has utterly failed to deliver it's supposed benefits. College tuition is now distributable by remote learning, theoretically massively reducing costs. Again, capitalism has utterly failed to deliver it's supposed benefits. Housing has massively advanced, with cheaper construction, high rises, etc. but laws have be…

"Capitalism" completely solved the textbook problem, it simply ignored universities and degrees and whatnot altogether. (How come coding bootcamps don't have expensive textbooks?)

I put the quotes there because (arguably obviously) it's also thanks to capitalism that intellectual property is extended so obscenely.

Anyway, no university (or higher-ed institution) is forced to use textbooks. They do it because they can. Because there's no market force pushing prices down, because captive audience, because the signaling value of degrees is still high (because nobody got fired for hiring the candidate with more degrees - that also happens to have a wealthier background, and maybe even also happens to be white). But it's changing (due to market forces).

Similarly, housing is not a market problem. It's about "preserving the character of the neighborhood", and most neighborhoods happen to be favoring those who happen to be wealthy and against building.

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

#837
post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>any this opportunity was available to "everyone" in society. What does "everyone" mean?

i meant by "everyone" as in there's no special privileged class of people that were allowed to become techies. Of course, not everyone can afford a college education, but in general, back in 2004, right after the big crash, the openings were available, the opportunities existed then. It just looks risky back then, because tech just crashed. However, if you weren't willing to take on risk, you cannot blame that the ou…

Privileged classes can afford to take on risk because if they fail then they still have decent prospects.

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

#838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we haven't been experiencing inflation? I guess it's just me seeing all the real items in the economy skyrocket in price. But I guess when you can just readjust the definition and what's included it doesn't matter. The fed won't be able to raise interest rates without crushing the same people they were lowered to support.

1.4%? https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/inflation

“Cost of shelter”. What a joke. Feudalist economics.

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

#840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that mainstream economics fails to accept that the choice of metric to perform their analyses encodes biases. Ivory tower economists don't really grok what affects the working class. (I can't say I totally do myself, but at least I drove for Lyft full time for a year and a half). Mainstream economics says that monetary intervention is necessary to "stabilize" the economy, as measured by metric X Y or Z…

> Mainstream economics says that monetary intervention is necessary to "stabilize" the economy, as measured by metric X Y or Z. Who benefits from that stability? The people who lose absolutely everything they've ever worked for in the event of a sustained recession. They tend not to be rich, nor comfortable with the rival Austrian solution of waiting it out because if wages drop low enough the rich might eventually d…

You don't have to be an austrian to acknowledge that some of what they say is sensible. Discarding a theory in toto because it's adherents are odious is exactly the sort of hubristic political bullshit that results in you fucking everyone over.
Post reply on HN