Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now • Hacker News Board

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#221

Post by jberryman » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:12 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #90

forensic wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think there is much debate that societies should try to mitigate that. You haven't been reading HN then, and you haven't met the Tea Party. There are a lot of people here who believe that poor people deserve their lot and should wallow in it. In my opinion society needs to use tax dollars to ensure a basic standard of living for all citizens. This idea (the welfare state) is deeply unpopular in contemporary…

Just because I might disagree with your methods of equalizing income, doesn't mean I "believe poor people deserve their lot and should wallow in it." You've turned a political disagreement about the methods to accomplish some desirable goal do so into a moral argument. You've decided that if I think there is a better way to elevate the poor than your way, I must want them to stay poor and thus must be evil. Why do yo…

> Why do you feel you need to frame the argument as such?

While it might not be your view, the notion that the poor "deserve their lot" and even that their being poor is the Will of God (evangelical prosperity theology) is literally a mainstream conservative position.

If this doesn't ring a bell then you haven't actually been paying attention.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#222

Post by richcollins » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:13 AM UTC

pg wrote: post #72

portman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality " Does that mean you are unfazed by growing inequality, and view it as an unavoidable byproduct of progress? Or do you believe economic inequality is a negative externality (like pollution) that needs to be remedied?

I don't automatically assume it's a problem, as so many people seem to. I don't assume that all economic inequality is the medieval type, where the rich are the winners of a zero sum game. At the high end of the scale it doesn't seem to be a problem. I've seen a lot of people go from middle class to rich when their startups succeeded. Most live pretty quietly. I would guess most of the damage done by economic inequal…

Status is a zero sum game. Also:

a perceived threat to one's status activates similar brain networks to a threat to one's life. In the same way, a perceived increase in fairness activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a monetary reward.

http://www.edbatista.com/2010/03/scarf.html

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#223

Post by true_religion » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:16 AM UTC

bermanoid wrote: post #206

pg wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't automatically assume it's a problem, as so many people seem to. I don't assume that all economic inequality is the medieval type, where the rich are the winners of a zero sum game. At the high end of the scale it doesn't seem to be a problem. I've seen a lot of people go from middle class to rich when their startups succeeded. Most live pretty quietly. I would guess most of the damage done by economic inequal…

I don't automatically assume it's a problem, as so many people seem to. I don't assume that all economic inequality is the medieval type, where the rich are the winners of a zero sum game. The problem I see with growing income inequality is not the "inequality" part, it's the "growing" one. From a purely mathematical point of view, in any economic climate there's some level of income inequality that's going to be eco…

You can have growing inequity whilst at the same time having better non-monetary benefits for all.

For example, in medieval times in Europe (and identically in sub-saharan africa), there was very low inequity.

The ruling class did not own anything except the shirts off their backs. Their jewels were "crown jewels" and couldn't be sold. They had control of the land, but usually couldn't sell it between themselves.

The few fungible valuables they had (salt, and other trade goods) barely elevated them above the common masses.

Today, the power of the ruling class is magnified a 1000 fold, but the working bottom 10% lives better than they ever have thanks to innovations in technology. Indeed, the bottom 10% lives even better than medieval kings despite living in a highly unequitable society.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#224

Post by kevinpet » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:25 AM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #213

kevinpet wrote: post #115

"debt exceeded income in 2001" I read until I find a fundamental error like comparing two values with different units. Only if it doesn't make any fundamental errors do I consider whether it's valid or makes any subtle errors.

Aren't debt and income both denominated in $? What's the other unit?

One is in dollars, the other in dollars per time unit.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#225

Post by learc83 » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:30 AM UTC

trevelyan wrote: post #132

learc83 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the stats on incorporated business include LLCs?

I really don't know. They wouldn't capture multi-founder startups, but it's probably a fair proxy for degree of independent entrepreneurialism that Paul's talking about.

My reason for asking, is that most small business started over the last decade have been LLCs. If the stats are only tracking corporations the data could be extremely skewed.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#226

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:38 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #192

InclinedPlane wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of a metropolitan area, it's easy (I've done it, and had plenty of money to spare). Inside of a metropolitan area it's a lot harder and probably requires roommates or living in the suburbs or finding a particularly cheap area to live.

... and you're willing to forfeit your position in the gene pool by not having any kids.

Yes, where you choose to live will affect your options depending on your income. Has it ever been any different?

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#227

Post by learc83 » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:43 AM UTC

jberryman wrote: post #221

learc83 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because I might disagree with your methods of equalizing income, doesn't mean I "believe poor people deserve their lot and should wallow in it." You've turned a political disagreement about the methods to accomplish some desirable goal do so into a moral argument. You've decided that if I think there is a better way to elevate the poor than your way, I must want them to stay poor and thus must be evil. Why do yo…

> Why do you feel you need to frame the argument as such? While it might not be your view, the notion that the poor "deserve their lot" and even that their being poor is the Will of God (evangelical prosperity theology) is literally a mainstream conservative position. If this doesn't ring a bell then you haven't actually been paying attention.

Myself, I'm libertarian, but I grew up in a very conservative household, surrounded by conservatives at church, and I was a conservative until my early twenties.

I have never met a conservative who believed that the poor "deserve their lot." And I can't think of one single conservative I know who wouldn't love to see the elimination of poverty. They just disagree with the liberal method.

If this were really the case why would conservatives donate money to charity? Why would conservative churches run food kitchens?

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#228

Post by jberryman » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:53 AM UTC

philiphodgen wrote: post #135

I'm sorry, but there seems to be an omitted first step in the entire comment thread of critiques -- from all comments coming from all political angles: examining the underlying data. The NYT graphic tells a terribly compelling story that supports a particular political point of view. That tickles my bullshit sensor, and tells me it is time to question the underlying data and assumptions. Frankly, this graphic makes m…

> I am not saying the graphic is wrong or it is right in the conclusions it suggests. I just find it telling that the discussion thread jumps straight to an Itchy and Scratchy Show level of discourse, without questioning the underlying data.

So then tell us what's wrong with the data. I assume most people didn't question the data because income inequality since the eighties is rather well documented.

That you would call the data into question without providing any justification suggests you have some ideologies of your own.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#229

Post by Roboprog » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 5:00 AM UTC

jberryman wrote: post #221

learc83 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because I might disagree with your methods of equalizing income, doesn't mean I "believe poor people deserve their lot and should wallow in it." You've turned a political disagreement about the methods to accomplish some desirable goal do so into a moral argument. You've decided that if I think there is a better way to elevate the poor than your way, I must want them to stay poor and thus must be evil. Why do yo…

> Why do you feel you need to frame the argument as such? While it might not be your view, the notion that the poor "deserve their lot" and even that their being poor is the Will of God (evangelical prosperity theology) is literally a mainstream conservative position. If this doesn't ring a bell then you haven't actually been paying attention.

Such people seem more than ready to forget about something called "Jubilee" in the Old Testament, it seems. Jubilee was essentially a 100% property tax (property, not income) collected (and redistributed) twice a century. Of course, that era in that tradition had no aristocracy, despite the supposed "divine right" of such.

It's funny how people can skim through a 1200 page book and select just the parts they want to emphasize. I could go on, but I'm getting way off topic.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#230

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 5:07 AM UTC

forensic wrote: post #216

yummyfajitas wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many false dilemmas. Proposition (a) only demands a non-zero level of redistribution (call this X). One might believe (a), but also believe that our current level of redistribution is greater than X. Assuming one does believe (a), and also believes that our current level of redistribution is lower than X, it still does not follow that we need to redistribute from the rich. We could also redistribute from political…

My dilemmas aren't false they just contain assumptions. Challenging assumptions is reasonable but don't assume that the presenter is unaware of their own assumptions. There are ALWAYS more assumptions available to be challenged. Plenty in your post for instance. Turtles (assumptions) all the way down. For instance, if the goal is to reduce poverty, you assume that it is mathematically possibly to take money from teac…

For instance, if the goal is to reduce poverty, you assume that it is mathematically possibly to take money from teachers. But if teachers are already on the brink of poverty, that won't work to reduce poverty.

That's not an assumption, it's a simple fact.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=teacher+salary

Teacher wages are not even close to poverty, and they get lots of non-wage compensation which costs real money (not to mention they only work 9 months/year).

Politically connected insiders are less relevant than those who actually have the majority of the money.

On the contrary, the existence of politically connected insiders mooching off the system is evidence that we can provide more assistance to the poor without raising taxes.