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

20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 444 posts

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#361

Post by esarbe »

refurb wrote: post #357
esarbe wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Huh. Supply side economics is exactly giving more people money to spend”. You even admit that. What, no! Here, let me quote myself from the previous answer I gave you. >> But "Give people more money and they spend it" not supply-side economics, actually, is it? Here, have a look at what supply-side economic is[0]. Supply-side economics is basically just lowering taxes. > Real wages grew and unemployment was at reco…

Sorry your not discussing this in good faith. Yes unemployment skyrocketed in the early 80’s followed by the biggest economic expansion in decades. The 70’s were a morass of stagflation. To argue Regans policies didn’t bring the economy out of that mess is just being dishonest.

> To argue Regans policies didn’t bring the economy out of that mess is just being dishonest.

It's only dishonest if I actually thought that Reagan's policies did any good, isn't it? Joking aside, I actually think Reagan's policies were a disaster for the USA in the long run and didn't accomplish much during his time in office[0]. It is however during this time that real wage growth for the middle/low-income completely decoupled from economic growth for the first time and set them up for the mess they are in today. But don't take my word for it: [1]

[0] https://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330443901_Reaganomi...

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#362

Post by spencerflem »

yorwba wrote: post #272
spencerflem wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wages have stayed the same while housing, medicine, college, have gotten massively more expensive and & via inflation everything else is somewhat more expensive. I honestly find it absurd to suggest that we're somehow 'richer' while most young people have no hope of a stable life. Technology has made us much more productive but all that added value has been captured by the ultrarich

> wages have stayed the same while housing, medicine, college, have gotten massively more expensive and & via inflation everything else is somewhat more expensive Which country is this where inflation affects everything except wages? Are you sure you're not comparing inflation-adjusted wages (where it's not surprising if they stay mostly the same) to nominal prices affected by inflation? > I honestly find it absurd t…

1. Minimum wage has stayed the same since 2009, meanwhile there has been a 30% cumulative inflation. Certain costs are not included in the official inflation number and they have gone up significantly more. House prices near me (random suburb) are up 20% since last year. Other important things like healthcare have also risen in cost well above inflation.

Also, it should be surprising that inflation adjusted wages stay the same when we are now much more productive thanks to technology. Why has this not caused wages to go up!

2. People have not gotten richer, wage increases at best match inflation. With the decline of unions even this is not the case. Good jobs have been outsourced for pennies. House prices and healthcare have gone up. I would have an easier time getting married and buying a house literally anytime in the past.

You used to be able to sustain a family on a single income. That's almost impossible now.

3. I'm on hackernews, I like tech. Videocalling is nice. I do pay $50 a month for the privilege to some of the most hated companies in America. Most of the internet has been designed to ruthlessly take your money and attention as efficiently as possible. It's not a very pleasant place, videocalls aside.

Really though, my point is: technology has made us all much more productive. The stock market is at record levels. Trillions of dollars have been given to businesses.

Meanwhile, wages as a whole have at best matched inflation. Minimum wage has not increased at all. Houses are massively more expensive. There are so few good jobs that people work at Starbucks with master's degrees.

Why has all the record setting economy stats only benefited billionaires? The ability to pay for slave-labor built spying planned-obsolete smartphones is the only thing the common person has gained in the last 20 years

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#363

Post by sokoloff »

sveme wrote: post #236
seibelj wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A major difference now is the majority of those with vast wealth earned it themselves through creating new enterprises. The aristocrats of old received it through birth or politicking. The rich today are far more effective and organizationally superior considering it was those exact skills that made them their wealth.

Most, if not all of the rich entrepreneurs come from wealthy families. If you start rich it is so much easier to spend time on founding companies.

If you are surrounded by entrepreneurs, you’re also more likely to contemplate doing that yourself. I suspect there’s an inherent positive correlation here.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#364

Post by masklinn »

rbanffy wrote: post #173
masklinn wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trickle down economics is the same kind of error. Is it really an error if what is observed is what was expected is what was desired?

What is observed is more or less the opposite of what its proponents say would be observed.

> the opposite of what its proponents say would be observed.

Your mistake is you’re listening to what they’re saying rather than looking at what they’re doing.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#365

Post by imtringued »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #359
imtringued wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens? Everyone works 40 hours.

>What happens? Everyone works 40 hours. The people who work 20 hour weeks are upset and certainly dont work any additional amount. Daycare probably booms as a business. Productivity plummets to tremendously low levels, economies collapse, massive numbers of people die, etc. Less than half of doctors work 40 hours or less. Pretty significant number above 60 hours/week. Same for nursing and much of the medical field. F…

Your comment was about three brothers where the third was complaining that he was working too much and that the first was working too little.

All the examples you listed don't have anything to do with your thought experiment. I hope you didn't interpret my comment as normative or as the right would say "market intervention" I was merely describing one way that the three brothers could get along.

I find your comment quite amusing.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#366

Post by dredmorbius »

DeathArrow wrote: post #346
dredmorbius wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconvenience to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, laborers and workmen of different kinds make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. N…

That doesn't mean all people should earn the same.

You asked a question.

I answered it.

You're ignoring the answer.

You're now arguing against a proposition which doesn't exist and wasn't made.

Goalposts have been moved.

The goal, however, stands.

Anyone in the least familiar with Smith's works, would be aware of his discussion on differentiation in wages. It's actually a useful discussion, with solid points though with divergence from empirical evidence, and including only a subset of sources of personal wealth. It would make for a more useful further discussion than ignoring responses and changing the subject.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#367

Post by fumar »

Jensson wrote: post #226
fumar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing that the wealth class today isn’t politicking to maintain power and wealth either to a corporation or themselves?

They do, but as we have seen in the past 30 years they often still fail to do that.

Given the rise of lobbyist spending, I am not convinced they failed. https://www.statista.com/statistics/257337/total-lobbying-sp...

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#368

Post by sleepysysadmin »

imtringued wrote: post #365
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What happens? Everyone works 40 hours. The people who work 20 hour weeks are upset and certainly dont work any additional amount. Daycare probably booms as a business. Productivity plummets to tremendously low levels, economies collapse, massive numbers of people die, etc. Less than half of doctors work 40 hours or less. Pretty significant number above 60 hours/week. Same for nursing and much of the medical field. F…

Your comment was about three brothers where the third was complaining that he was working too much and that the first was working too little. All the examples you listed don't have anything to do with your thought experiment. I hope you didn't interpret my comment as normative or as the right would say "market intervention" I was merely describing one way that the three brothers could get along. I find your comment q…

>Your comment was about three brothers where the third was complaining that he was working too much and that the first was working too little.

To demonstrate the progressive tax system. Completely valid to the real world.

>All the examples you listed don't have anything to do with your thought experiment. I hope you didn't interpret my comment as normative or as the right would say "market intervention" I was merely describing one way that the three brothers could get along.

That's just not practical. People choose to work 20 hour weeks for various reason, people choose to work more than 40 hour weeks for various reasons. You cant form society into everyone working exactly the same hours. It probably would be a great thing if we could. Allow productive people who work 60 hour weeks to do something different and do more.

However, the reality is that we discover income inequality is just a fact because of individual choices. Trying to 'fix' this using a progressive tax system in fact only makes it worse.

>I find your comment quite amusing.

How do you mean?

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#370

Post by [deleted] »

goohle wrote: post #288
romwell wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats wrong is that this money was generated domestically, and people who generated it are screwed by lack of healthcare, education, housing, infrastructure, transportation, etc.

Can you name the country, please?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN