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

Just Be Rich

keenen.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#271

Post by TaylorAlexander »

frashelaw wrote: post #219
SequoiaHope wrote: post #185

“You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed.” This is listed as a quote from the PG essay. It seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what “labor” means here. When the left fights for “labor” it is for all laborers to get a fair shake. PG seems to be talking about the fact th…

Exactly. PG's essay completely misses the point of the left: it makes it about some vague idea of labor being a potential path to wealth. The left fights for worker solidarity, power, and people's democracy to end exploitation from the owning class.

Yep. Wealth being withheld by capital so it can be a carrot dangled in front of the worker is exactly the structure the left wants to dismantle. And we see with the gig economy and heavy use of contractors at big tech how much labor has lost. Absurd to say they should be happy. Folks have no healthcare, no job security, no free time, and no workplace satisfaction.

If anyone wealthy is reading this:

Go find some podcasts with David Harvey, Richard Wolff, Nina Turner, Angela Davis, and Bree Newsome Bass. Learn from the left what they actually want. If that sounds absurd to you listen to a few talks by Jonathan Haidt first and then you will see why it matters. The left makes a lot of sense but you won’t know that if you believe what shallow outsiders say about the left.

Re: Just Be Rich

#272

Post by herbst »

danillonunes wrote: post #138
EvilEy3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they have family obligations that take priority. Is that "I have kids!" I hear now? > Because they live outside high-income countries. Well then move to high-income country. > Because they have no access to support network, so when they fail, they fall all the way to bottom. That's unfortunate, but that's life. A lot of people don't have that safety. And not all of them are poor. > Because they may have mad…

> Well then move to high-income country. You can't just take an Uber to a rich country. You have to do a lot of work to get there. All that work is wasted years compared to someone who was just born there in the first place and can focus 100% on their actual path of getting rich.

Did you actually see how this really works before forming your opinion? The only thing my family needed to migrate to Switzerland was one job contract for my mum, not even a well paid job but some future potential due to relatively good education. The most complicated part was not paying way to much to get our stuff over here.

Its not to different in many other countries. The thing is, if you are somewhat valueable (i.e. learned a job that has a higher need) you have a realistic chance.

Re: Just Be Rich

#273

Post by camhart »

bo0tzz wrote: post #258
camhart wrote: post #247

Income inequality is growing, yes. But are the wealthy somehow responsible for it? Is their "getting richer" directly responsible for it? There seems to be a growing consensus on the left that they are. I have yet to see a convincing argument to show this though. Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. If they did steal, then that's what needs fixed. Preve…

> Someone who builds a company worth 100m didn't have to steal money from me (or anyone else) to do it. Wage theft makes up the major part of all theft in the US [1]. At least some part of the value of companies is coming from this theft. As an example, look at Amazon and how they treat their warehouse and delivery workers. They're not just working them like this for the sake of it, but rather it's an example of conc…

This is interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'm in favor of preventing wage theft. That certainly seems corrupt.

I'm arguing that underlying issues like this need to be fixed.

Re: Just Be Rich

#274

Post by flexie »

Barrin92 wrote: post #49

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

Protestant zealotry? Seriously? When you bring religion into it, at least get the religion right:

The Google founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, had Jewish backgrounds but consider themselves non-religious. Facebook founder Zuckerberg had Jewish background and considered himself atheist at some point. Microsoft founder Bill Gates is Catholic. Paul Allen had Jewish parents. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was raised Catholic. Apple founder Steve Job's closest religious interest seems to have been Buddhism. Steve Wozniak describes himself as atheist.

So we don't find a single Protestant, certainly not a Protestant fundamentalist, among any of the founders of the 5 largest tech companies.

Re: Just Be Rich

#275

Post by pydry »

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #265
Barrin92 wrote: post #49

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

Wealth tech people are giving their money away younger than the previous generation of billionaires: https://outline.com/mtGgFW I think they understand noblesse oblige. But it's a 2-way street. Don't expect them to feel a sense of obligation if you're going to assume the worst about them just because they are rich.

You've got cause and effect reversed. Bill Gates started giving his money away after he was attacked for his anti competitive behavior and attempts to kill open source, etc.

The rich donate because they are protecting their reputation and for the sake of their own self image (everybody needs to be the hero of their own story).

The only ones who can manage that and not be charitable are the utterly self deluded (e.g. Trump).

Don't expect them to donate a damn thing if they are lauded as heroes. Bill Gates likely wouldn't be giving his money away at all if it he didn't feel the need to repair his image in the 2000s.

Same reason all of the robber Barrons were philanthropists - do you think they would have been more charitable if they had been cheered on instead of villainized? Like hell they would.

Re: Just Be Rich

#276

Post by imtringued »

camhart wrote: post #264
johnfn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m stuck on the second sentence of your argument. If the wealthy aren’t responsible for income inequality, then who is? An action doesn’t have to be illegal for us to condone it. Do you like income inequality? No? Then let’s take measures to stop it.

There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I. People need to be able to cover their needs. Food, housing, healthcare, and I'd be open to arguments in favor of education. But I don't see income inequality as bad necessarily. I see massive amounts of people unable to cover those need…

>There isn't a finite amount of "wealth" in the world. You can go out and make wealth every single day. The rich obtaining more of it doesn't mean there's less left over for you and I.

Non invested savings are zero sum. This is just macro economics. If one person has a savings surplus, the other person has a savings deficit (unemployment). Buying existing housing isn't an investment. Building new housing is. Buying an existing company isn't an investment. Starting new companies or growing old companies is.

Non invested savings are growing, just look at treasury bond yields and interest rates. If you buy $100 worth of treasury bonds the government has to issue $100 in debt, otherwise yields drop. If the government doesn't issue additional debt it cannot invest the additional money on behalf of buyers of the treasury bonds. Conventionally, inflation would rise immediately because more money is circulating in the economy but it doesn't, implying excess savings that are not being invested.

Re: Just Be Rich

#277

Post by marvin »

christiansakai wrote: post #3

What's the solution then?

I don't agree with the rebuttal - it seems like the author is picking a fight that's more of a woke-style personal attack than addressing problems that follow from wealth inequality in the US today. Knowing Paul Graham from years of reading his essays and tweets, he's very much aware that there's many people suffering in the current system. But that isn't the focus of the essay, and in today's climate you can't get away with writing about the "priviliged" without spending three paragraphs on disclaimers first. PG didn't put in the disclaimers, so he gets pummelled.

Acknowledging that the USA has horrible problems with poverty, where wealth inequality superficially appears to be part of the problem, I have the following suggestions:

-Universal healthcare

-Social safety net in terms of indefinite unemployment support and disability pay, so health issues and unlucky upbringing or genetics doesn't lead to destitution and permanently being in the world's shittiest negotiating position. Maybe basic income.

-Finance the above by taxing everyone, including the rich, at a similar percentage as the middle class, designing a tax system that avoids the big loopholes. A wealth tax may be a part of that.

This ensures that lack of wealth doesn't translate into de facto slavery and lack of power over one's autonomy and personal life. It sets a minimum.

I live in Norway, where total taxation is >50% of income on average, we have a 0.85% annual tax on the total value of all assets, capital gains tax is 32%, universal healthcare, de facto basic income system where everyone uncapable of otherwise either get a public-sector administrative job or disability pay.

We have imported the same debate that the author is fronting. This is ludicrous. We don't have a problem with poverty. We have implemented the dream of the American left. Wealth inequality is only a problem if you find it morally problematic in itself. And yet people are still complaining about it.

At that point, it's only about envy and not trying to make the world better.

Re: Just Be Rich

#278

Post by watwut »

reader_mode wrote: post #82
ironman1478 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Poverty doesn't just cause immediate issues it can also cause long term issues that can effect not only adults, but the children who grew up in that environment. This is largely because families in poverty tend to also abuse their kids at higher rates (this includes mental abuse) or at least foster an extremely unhealthy environment due to the stress it causes. So even a generation later it can be difficult for…

I grew up in a family of 7 (4 younger siblings), during civil war, father was into gamling and drinking, mother was unemployed and constantly on the verge of a mental breakdown (understandable given the conditions she was living in). To paint the picture, I have vivid memories of vomiting a boiled onion I ate after not eating for days (I think I was arround 5 years old). And we were poor well into my early 20s untill…

It is much easier to be functional parent when your material needs are met and you are not under big stress. That is my experience from my parenting and from family history.

It is much easier for me to be functional and caring parent when I am happy and content. It gets harder when the period is stressful. I would be failing at that way more if I had one of those real big problems.

Re: Just Be Rich

#279

Post by tjmc »

runarberg wrote: post #59
raspasov wrote: post #51

Every time I see wealth inequality being talked about, I remember this quote: "It's not greed that drives the world, but envy.".

I hate that quote. Personally I’m not envious of the rich, I despise them. I hate the fact that there are rich people, not because I want to be one some day, but because they ruin the party for the rest of us. The climate disaster is disproportionately the fault of the rich, yet it is the poor who are disproportionately affected by it. I don’t envy the rich. When I see the rich, I see pitiful humans that work too muc…

Talk us through the "hate dogs" bit.

Re: Just Be Rich

#280

Post by molszanski »

The poor get poorer not because tech startups get richer.

If we remove tech startups, the poor wood get poorer just as fast.

The difference would be that there would be less tech-rich people to calculate the Gini coefficient.

The real question is: "why poor are getting poorer?"

It is a very complicated question involving taxes, capitalism and hundreds of broken policies and institutions, like mass incarceration that is guaranteed to make people poor.

Complex questions never ever have simple answers.

Post reply on HN