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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#811

Post by jb775 »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #198
baron816 wrote: post #58

Inequality by itself is not a bad thing. Let's start from there. If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. Inequality is only bad if you're in a zero-sum game. The rich do have the power to extract rents and "rig the system" to ceme…

I agree, and would go further and argue that the lives of most middle class is perfectly fine right now. I think the lives of the bottom 20% could be improved, and I think that we should ask those at the top 10% to help them out. I think there are other more specific things we could worry about, like house prices out of control, nobody is paying to clean up the waste they produce, governments baling out rich people e…

Do you have any data to support anything you said here? The middle class has been getting decimated the past 20 years. They used to live comfortably on a single income, now both parents slave the week away and have even less purchasing power.

Also, housing prices aren't "out of control" at all. Inflation is reducing the value of the dollar, and it's showing up in the real estate market. Inflation hurts anyone on a salary, not people with income dependent on assets that appreciate alongside inflation.

Also, the they in the "waste they produce" is referencing the richest business owners. They are reaping the benefits of the production processes and leaving everyone else with the pollution.

The root cause of all these things is the upper class either feeding on or taking advantage of the middle and lower classes. "Inequality" is just a term used as a window to look between the different classes.

Re: Just Be Rich

#812

Post by ameister14 »

busterarm wrote: post #763
enkid wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the Titanic sunk in 1912. Second, these are two events that happened around the same time. That does not mean they are at all related. Titanic primarily carried American and British passengers. The start of World War I primarily involved Austria, Serbia, Germany, and Russia. It's hard to see how British or American Millionaires would have influenced those events to stop the war.

Banking, at the level of being the financier of nations, was a global industry then as it is now. Many of those people at the time were British or American and a number of them died on that boat.

"A number of them" is an interesting way to say two.

Re: Just Be Rich

#813

Post by esyir »

dougmwne wrote: post #807
baron816 wrote: post #58

Inequality by itself is not a bad thing. Let's start from there. If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. Inequality is only bad if you're in a zero-sum game. The rich do have the power to extract rents and "rig the system" to ceme…

> If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. I strongly disagree with this and I think it runs counter to human nature. You're looking at quality of life as if there were some kind of absolute measure of it, but it really doesn't wor…

Basically, crab in pot. Fuck having overall better conditions, I'm screwing myself over if it means I can be king of the dirt mound.

Re: Just Be Rich

#814

Post by jb775 »

atweiden wrote: post #83
baron816 wrote: post #58

Inequality by itself is not a bad thing. Let's start from there. If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. Inequality is only bad if you're in a zero-sum game. The rich do have the power to extract rents and "rig the system" to ceme…

> Inequality is only bad if you're in a zero-sum game The French Revolution disproves this.

What's the over/under in years til the next French Revolution?

Re: Just Be Rich

#815

Post by gmadsen »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #98
dignick wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. You are looking at this from a world where that isn’t the case. Money would be worth less in that scenario, and that 10% owns 99% of the wealth, which is still going to cause problems.

Yes but OP meant the 90% of people would get access to opportunities like the millionaires today. So even if inequality would be wild, nobody would worry about “issues of the poor”, like food or healthcare bills.

that hypothetical can't exist though, so what is the point in entertaining it. The world have finite resources, money (no matter the inflation) is a way to ration this to people. Not every single person can have a mansion in SF.

Re: Just Be Rich

#816

Post by pas »

ramblerman wrote: post #35

Great article, I wasn't aware the share of the middle class had dropped so significantly. I think there is also another factor that plays a role in the de-democratization of wealth. In the olden days you could be the biggest fish in your pond, but as that pond grows it's becoming more and more a winner takes all ocean. > As more occupations become scalable, jobs that were previously stable are becoming risky. Telehea…

PDF: https://economics.mit.edu/files/11563 about the disappearing middle-income jobs (because those are the things that sit at the optimum point on the cost-benefit curve for innovation - be that automation, offshoring, better organization, standardization, etc)

The problem is, there's too big of a labor market force pushing wages down in the low-income segment.

Re: Just Be Rich

#817

Post by nly »

McScroogy wrote: post #716
yarcob wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't a "housing shortage". The problem is that interest rates are so low, so everyone who has a bit of money on the side tries to invest in the real estate market. The result is that for every house thats sold, there isn't just someone who wants it as a living space, but also 5 people who want it as an investment. So 5 people outbid each other, the highest bidder gets it, and then the sucker who wanted t…

From your description, it seems to me that renting is cheaper than buying. So it seems renters get the better deal. It's a pity if a flat is empty for a year, but that in itself also does not cause a shortage. After all, it was rented out after a year. The market is supposed to deliver the flat to the person who needs it most. In that case, apparently it was you. Without the speculator, somebody would have rented it…

Mortgages are generally cheaper than rents right now in the UK, provided you have capital put down for a mortgage

Re: Just Be Rich

#818

Post by px43 »

Aunche wrote: post #761
px43 wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brilliant* idea to solve the real estate problem is to tax the hell out of properties that are sitting empty. Something like a 2x or 3x multiplier on property taxes or something, especially in densely populated areas, and especially in areas where there is rampant housing insecurity. The tax needs to be greater than the potential gamble of waiting for occupants. This should be both for residential and commercial u…

It's a myth that there are just a ton empty houses sitting idly like that. The reality is that the most expensive housing markets are also the ones with the least vacant. Even after a ton of people temporarily moved out of NYC during the pandemic, like me, the vacancy rate of NYC is still less than that of the entire US.

> It's a myth that there are just a ton empty houses sitting idly like that.

Maybe where you live. NYC and SF are special in that they have very powerful people working to reduce the construction of new housing. This is obviously what needs to get fixed first in those markets, but it isn't a relatable problem in most of the US.

> The reality is that the most expensive housing markets are also the ones with the least vacant.

This is a basic supply and demand observation, and does not preclude the existence of people who allow their properties to sit vacant for long periods of time.

Looks to me like in NYC the vacancy rate is up to 6% (from a previous steady 2-3%) while housing insecurity is increasing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/08/empty-rental-apartments-in-m...

https://cccnewyork.org/press-and-media/family-homelessness-i...

To my eyes this seems like a tragically dumb problem with several really obvious solutions.

Re: Just Be Rich

#819

Post by xiphias2 »

qazpot wrote: post #428
d_silin wrote: post #7

A lot of people who are just as smart and motived as Elon Musk or Steve Jobs will never be able to start their own companies and get rich. Because they have family obligations that take priority. Because they live outside high-income countries. Because they have no access to support network, so when they fail, they fall all the way to bottom. Because they may have made a crippling mistake in their pasts that now prev…

On HN I see the sentiment that you expressed a lot of times. I live in a country which will be categorized by western countries as a developing country. There is no social support system in my country, you are pretty much on your own. Nobody is coming to help you. And I have made serious mistakes when I was in school which resulted in not being able to go to a good college which makes things in my country ten times m…

What you did is great, but there is still a part where luck made a role: you are still probably healthy, and you don't yet know how to live together with a chronic disease.

As a person who is successful in terms of money, but sacrifised my health, I suggest you to start taking your health seriously (sleep, nutrition, gym, air quality for you home). The problem is that nobody can tell you when you will start having real problems with it.

Re: Just Be Rich

#820

Post by mariksolo »

dougmwne wrote: post #807
baron816 wrote: post #58

Inequality by itself is not a bad thing. Let's start from there. If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. Inequality is only bad if you're in a zero-sum game. The rich do have the power to extract rents and "rig the system" to ceme…

> If 90% of the population had a (sustainable) lifestyle of current dollar millionaires, and the remaining 10% had a (sustainable) lifestyle of dollar billionaires, there would be lots of inequality, but it wouldn't be problematic. I strongly disagree with this and I think it runs counter to human nature. You're looking at quality of life as if there were some kind of absolute measure of it, but it really doesn't wor…

It sounds to me like you do agree with them. The OP wasn't saying Americans feel wealthier, but rather that the quality of life relative to the past is higher.
Post reply on HN