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

Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 356 posts

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#151

Post by munificent »

gretch wrote: post #86
Qem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are devolving to the status quo from the nineteen century and before. A couple owners of inherited wealth and huge dispossessed masses.

This is true if you view the world from a zero-sum perspective. If the rich are winning, then the poor must be losing. But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history (the 2 notable exceptions are post WWII USA and post Cold War USA, when America was punched through as an undisputed global superpower). We are a looooonnng…

I think you're confusing zero-sum between people at different economic levels and zero-sum between people at different points in time.

Yes, people at a given economic percentile today have many things better in absolute terms compared to poor people at that same economic percentile X years ago. (This is obviously true for large enough X. Everyone's got it better today than the Cro-Magnons did!)

That does not mean the present system is not zero-sum in its relative distribution of wealth among people today. Every dollar in a billionaire's bank account is a dollar that could be in someone else's instead.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#152

Post by resters »

gretch wrote: post #86
Qem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are devolving to the status quo from the nineteen century and before. A couple owners of inherited wealth and huge dispossessed masses.

This is true if you view the world from a zero-sum perspective. If the rich are winning, then the poor must be losing. But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history (the 2 notable exceptions are post WWII USA and post Cold War USA, when America was punched through as an undisputed global superpower). We are a looooonnng…

The biggest factor in whether people become rich is simply luck.

Why else would a small number of people who are by far not the most intelligent or capable among us, and who happen to live in a few select countries, be the ones who own 90+% of the world's resources?

Sadly, even Silicon valley tells a grim story. How many successful founders go on to repeat their success in another venture? How many don't even bother to try and instead become "philanthropists" or pundits of some kind, promoters of their personal brand, still trading off of that one burst of luck they had?

We all know that most people with big successes would absolutely never subject themselves to the "meritocracy" again, once they have already established financial dominance over others...

If the world were meritocratic we would not tolerate people living uneducated in slums and those with resources would invest heavily in human capital. Do they? Absolutely not, they build gates around their homes to protect themselves from the masses. The pass zoning laws to limit the density of dwellings so that the poor won't live nearby, etc.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#153

Post by flappyeagle »

Qem wrote: post #53
mushufasa wrote: post #17

This is the conclusion of Thomas Picketty's 2013 book, "Capital in the 21st Century." Due to the historical averages of the rate of return on capital, he concluded empirically that wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to the inheritors. The book was very provocative in economist circles, but even the c…

We are devolving to the status quo from the nineteen century and before. A couple owners of inherited wealth and huge dispossessed masses.

Who is dispossessed?

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#154

Post by alfredol »

rabuse wrote: post #127
mushufasa wrote: post #17

This is the conclusion of Thomas Picketty's 2013 book, "Capital in the 21st Century." Due to the historical averages of the rate of return on capital, he concluded empirically that wealth will continue to concentrate to the point to inheritors, to the extent that individuals become increasingly unable through labor to achieve parity to the inheritors. The book was very provocative in economist circles, but even the c…

What happens when the masses get fed up with the inequality and 400+ million guns in the U.S.?

Fascism, apparently.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#155

Post by DennisP »

pkkm wrote: post #134

This title is pure clickbait. The article says that out of the last 9 years, the statement has been true for 1 and false for 8. Flagged.

Hah, I've seen this title all over. Pretty easy to miss that it was just this past year, contrary to the prior eight years.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#156

Post by gretch »

akprasad wrote: post #103
gretch wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true if you view the world from a zero-sum perspective. If the rich are winning, then the poor must be losing. But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history (the 2 notable exceptions are post WWII USA and post Cold War USA, when America was punched through as an undisputed global superpower). We are a looooonnng…

There are two separate concerns here: - increases in material standards of living - decreases in class mobility and increased concentration of social power It is perfectly coherent to appreciate one and condemn the other. The parent comment seems to focus on the latter.

> decreases in class mobility and increased concentration of social power

> The parent comment seems to focus on the latter

Okay but it's still not a very good argument. Like really? That's when you literally had to be _born_ noble, like your blood ancestry. That's why a bunch of people died in the French revolution, Russian revolution, etc

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#157

Post by tsunamifury »

The affects of this are being proved out at a macro scale already with big tech. 5 companies now have so much cash on hand they can buy their way out of any issue that would disrupt them.

It means labor in any form is disincentivized to create as they will always been on not just the loser, by the hyper-loser side of the equation where their work is stolen and they get nothing in return.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#158

Post by standardUser »

gretch wrote: post #86
Qem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are devolving to the status quo from the nineteen century and before. A couple owners of inherited wealth and huge dispossessed masses.

This is true if you view the world from a zero-sum perspective. If the rich are winning, then the poor must be losing. But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history (the 2 notable exceptions are post WWII USA and post Cold War USA, when America was punched through as an undisputed global superpower). We are a looooonnng…

> Like seriously, would you desire to go back in time to 1890?

This is a completely frivolous argument. We should all sit tight and be content because we're not being lynched or dying of dysentery?

We live in a world where a tiny number of people sit on mountains wealth that will last them a hundred lifetimes while the vast majority ration themselves what limited education, food, shelter and healthcare they can afford in a given month or year. A few have unfathomable plenty and most live in a world of constant scarcity. That's the world we live in today and that is the world we must grapple with. The 19th Century has jack all to do with it.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#159

Post by kajecounterhack »

gretch wrote: post #86
Qem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are devolving to the status quo from the nineteen century and before. A couple owners of inherited wealth and huge dispossessed masses.

This is true if you view the world from a zero-sum perspective. If the rich are winning, then the poor must be losing. But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history (the 2 notable exceptions are post WWII USA and post Cold War USA, when America was punched through as an undisputed global superpower). We are a looooonnng…

> But I would argue the world is not zero-sum. Modern life for middle class or poor class people is a lot better than the vast majority of history

Zero sum is not a binary. For things where we are able to increase output using technological progress to the point where supply sufficiently meets demand, sure, it doesn't feel zero sum. Nobody is arguing that we need to fix that -- the challenge is actually preserving the situation in these cases (it's bad to kill the reward signals that make the economic engine go).

For things where we cannot rapidly increase output, things that have unlimited demand but very limited supply, the rich are likely to monopolize. In those cases, it is zero sum. Public spaces (think of the beach access controversies with people like Vinod Khosla), farmland, housing, fresh water, college admissions. Housing and land in particular are really tough.

Strategies like wealth redistribution (but _also_ other related policies!!) are needed to mitigate the latter.

Wealth centralization is also anathema to democracy -- just ask proof of stake folks. When the wealthy get to make all the laws, you won't want to live in that society.

Re: Billionaires amass more through inheritance than wealth creation, says UBS

#160

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

1-6 wrote: post #51

When you have the assurance that you'll get wealth handed down to you, it opens up the possibility to explore things you're good at and take on more risk to amass greater wealth. So really, it's a push and pull situation. Billionaires do indeed know how to get rich but they're from stable backgrounds which permits them to do so. Meanwhile, most of us are stuck at 9-to-5 jobs and worried about making good on our inter…

That's partially true, but I've very much seen the flip side as well. I know a few people that had trust funds, and for them it was absolutely the worst thing that could have been given to them. It basically stunted their growth to the point that they never really escaped the orbit of their parents because their parents always had the "leash" of paying for their lifestyle.

Obviously that experience isn't universal - there are plenty of wealthy families that grow their wealth over generations, but I think it's more the case that these families cultivate their social standing, relationships, and businesses, so it's not like they're just burdened with wealth alone.

Post reply on HN