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

Wealth Shown to Scale

mkorostoff.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#121

Post by esarbe »

refurb wrote: post #114
cloudfifty wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?

It’s not bad faith. Plenty of arguments in the US have been around wages where the govt has to provide additional support. It’s called “corporate welfare”. The argument is the company should pay enough on its own. Why can’t you have a conversation in good faith?

> Why can’t you have a conversation in good faith?

I think cloudfifty already answered the question in good faith. And honestly; this question comes over as a bit trolly.

But hey, I'll bite!

> The mother will also receive a monthly allowance for each child. She will also likely be eligible to rent support. So children is a special case, but a living wage doesn't involve that.

In this case, rent support would come from the state and if the mother in question is also working, you could classify this as additional support. So, if the mother is working, she should get a salary high enough to not warrant this kind of support. (Given that rent is usually highly dependent on the location of the property, not having such a support could further push gentrification and require longer commute for the mother in question. In this case we also need to make sure that the day care for the kids doesn't suffer in quality if the mother in question has to move to a less desirable living location.)

In general, we should not do corporate welfare. In particular there might be cases where we need to support people, even if they are working.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#122

Post by ekianjo »

dredmorbius wrote: post #24
ekianjo wrote: post #16

Erm, how about the wealth/money controlled by the Federal government? That's much bigger than anything shown here.

And, in theory at least, belongs to and serves the people as a whole. Not one single solitary exclusive and extraordinarily privileged human being.

> in theory at least

creating inflation sure helps people as a whole!

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#123

Post by cloudfifty »

refurb wrote: post #119
cloudfifty wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not repeating myself again. But given your comment history I'm sure that you're just here in bad faith in general.

Avoiding the question just makes me think you don’t have an answer.

For the last time. The concept of a living wage is not adapted on an individual basis. The problem of the US wrt a living wage is certainly not that single mothers of 3 children are the standard model, and you know that, hence bad faith. You can't change the subject to your own trolly question if it constitutes "corporate welfare" and expect an answer.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#124

Post by refurb »

cloudfifty wrote: post #123
refurb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding the question just makes me think you don’t have an answer.

For the last time. The concept of a living wage is not adapted on an individual basis. The problem of the US wrt a living wage is certainly not that single mothers of 3 children are the standard model, and you know that, hence bad faith. You can't change the subject to your own trolly question if it constitutes "corporate welfare" and expect an answer.

You sound very upset.

It sounds like in Scandinavia you don’t worry about corporate welfare. That’s news to me, but good to know.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#125

Post by esarbe »

inter_netuser wrote: post #44
esarbe wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would certainly help if the ultra wealthy and global corporations would just pay their fair share rather than use possible combination of barely-legal structures to avoid being taxed, bribe officials to create special exemptions, offload money to tax heavens and scare-monger about losing jobs whenever an actual tax increase is due. The USA cannot even properly finance the IRS to go after the super wealthy tax chea…

the powerful write the rules. always has been the case. do you know of any societies that managed to sustain a dynamic where that's not the case? I literally cannot think of any at all. Just some very brief temporary aberrations.

Well, yes. Might makes right, no question there.

The question is how far the powerful are willing to push the system in order to maintain their relative status (relative to each other, not to 'us') and how much the disenfranchised are willing to take.

If the powerful are careless, an angry mob will spice up the game. But of course that's just opportunity for other powerful entities to advance their relative status.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#126

Post by cloudfifty »

refurb wrote: post #124
cloudfifty wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the last time. The concept of a living wage is not adapted on an individual basis. The problem of the US wrt a living wage is certainly not that single mothers of 3 children are the standard model, and you know that, hence bad faith. You can't change the subject to your own trolly question if it constitutes "corporate welfare" and expect an answer.

You sound very upset. It sounds like in Scandinavia you don’t worry about corporate welfare. That’s news to me, but good to know.

> You sound very upset.

Not really, but what's the purpose of this particular reply other than to try to wind me up?

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#127

Post by csomar »

carnitine wrote: post #81
csomar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are focusing on numbers which will lead you nowhere. The reason the US has a struggling population is that the US has a population that didn't have a good education and training. If you want to make a population richer, you need to train people to do things (ie: Plumbing, installing an Air Conditioner, becoming an ophthalmologist, etc...). As evidenced by the latest stimulus checks, giving people money will only…

Quantitative easing swaps bank reserves for high grade bonds. How is that remotely equivalent to the forced liquidation and distribution of equity?

I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where swapping $200bn worth of equity will generate $200bn worth of cash without disturbance to the market.

Obviously, this couldn't be less true and the market will collapse even before the selling starts.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#128

Post by refurb »

cloudfifty wrote: post #126
refurb wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound very upset. It sounds like in Scandinavia you don’t worry about corporate welfare. That’s news to me, but good to know.

> You sound very upset. Not really, but what's the purpose of this particular reply other than to try to wind me up?

You’re avoiding answering the question.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#129

Post by PenguinCoder »

refurb wrote: post #83
dragonwriter wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dual tech worker couples making more than $400k in Silicon Valley are wealthy, and always have been. There's no suddenly about it. They aren't ultrawealthy members of the capitalist class, sure. But they are definitely wealthy, and pretending that they aren't is just phenomenally out of touch.

I don’t disagree but plenty of people I know who voted for Biden didn’t think it applied to them. $400k per year barely lets you buy a home in the Bay Area. And regardless, what makes you think they’ll stop at $400k? That’s the point. Eventually a tax bill gets passed some couple making $150k need to “pay their fair share”.

Who cares about the price of a house in San Francisco when your income makes it a struggle to buy weekly food.

If you're talking about buying a house anywhere, you're already outside the "I'm poor" status.

Post reply on HN