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

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

hive.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#561

Post by wolverine876 »

briHass wrote: post #522
wolverine876 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> considers themselves 'middle class' They don't consider themselves middle class, statistically they are middle class based on (income, wealth, purchasing power, etc.). They aren't out of touch - nobody asked them - they just live where there's a higher cost of living. But it pays off, or they would move someplace less expensive, and housing would cost the same nationwide.

They are not middle class by any metric. They may feel overextended, but that can happen at any income level, and (as in this case) is often due to the spending side of the equation.

They are by the metric in the article, and in the scope of their locale. I get your point, that they have lots of money. But at the same time it's not relevant: Just moving doesn't solve any problems, because they'd be much less productive in their new destination and have much less money. They are gathered around and investing in - very successfully and productively - the high-productivity resources of NYC, which produce higher income, which produce a higher standard of living.

The average US locality's economy produces more wealth and requires more expense to live in than the average locality in a low-income country. You can't just move the Americans to the low-income country; they wouldn't be nearly as productive, and thus have less income. NYC's economy is more productive than almost any place in the world.

We could widen the scope to all of human history, and then we're all unimaginably wealthy compared to hunter-gatherers we were until 10K years ago. But does that mean we're just as wealthy here and now?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#563

Post by wolverine876 »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #558
wolverine876 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many fewer, actually. People lived significantly shorter, harder lives; many more died young.

Now that tax rates are lower again compared to the "90%" rates, is the same saying not true for today compared to that time period? So, surely, you will agree the people who live the easiest and highest quality lives are people today, and lowering tax is actually fully indicative of increasing life expectancy and quality of life. Be consistent.

As we've cut taxes beginning in the 1980s, most people in the US have been living worse. Now life expectancy has been dropping, iirc home ownership, access to education, etc.

I don't mean there's a 100% direct correlation, but that investment is needed for returns. If we don't invest in healthcare, we'll have worse health. If we don't invest in education, etc.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#564

Post by WalterBright »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #494
poncho_romero wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. Still, I would disagree. Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Capitalism has endured great challenges for much longer, and despite increasing discontent with the system in many areas of the world, doesn’t appear likely to go anywhere. If that’s the case, the prodigious output of environmental harm capitalism generates won’t go anywhere either. Gree…

> Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Look at the sky in any given photograph of china.

China turned away from communism a couple decades ago.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#565

Post by wolverine876 »

FredPret wrote: post #546
wolverine876 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many fewer, actually. People lived significantly shorter, harder lives; many more died young.

Of course the economy was much smaller then, especially on a per capita basis, and modern capitalism hadn’t had time to create the safe, abundant, filled-with-medical-marvels lifestyle we enjoy today.

> Of course the economy was much smaller then, especially on a per capita basis

Indeed, and even more on an aggregate basis, the population also being much smaller.

> modern capitalism hadn’t had time to create

You're assuming that was created by modern capitalism, which I think is a major flaw. Capitalism contributed certainly, but so did democracy, freedom, rule of law, government investment, civil society, etc. etc. Just look at most of the education system, courts, security, roads, most of science, soldiers, etc etc etc.

> abundant, filled-with-medical-marvels lifestyle we enjoy today.

A great many, maybe most people in the US don't live in that world.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#566

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

briHass wrote: post #459
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the blurb does literally say, "No-one deserves to be a millionaire." That threshold is the wrong choice, at least with prices where they are today. If you do the math, millionaire is just about where your assets start to balance your liabilities. By liabilities, I mean the cost of a modest and frugal life. In that fuller accounting, the millionaire is merely the freedman, the person who has climbed out of the d…

You forgot a big asset on this hypothetical balance sheet: the individual's (your) productive output over their lifetime. Until we get to a point where all existing, and all possible, human output can be done by machines at no cost to anyone, the 'indenture' is more of a reciprocal arrangement where you trade your output for others'. The scenario you outlined is one of unimaginable privilege for most humans living to…

I like the "reciprocity" angle. Indeed, if you're consuming food &etc without contributing anything, then you're sort of a leech. That's fair.

When we go further to speak of "unimaginable privilege", then I have mixed feelings. In historical and global terms this is comparatively true. But if this comparison is simply used to scold workers when they get too uppity, then it serves another purpose.

Returning to "reciprocity" -- it might be worth pausing to ask why my imagination is limited to financial rents. If I were the baker, and I lived next door to the butcher and the candlestick-maker, then maybe I wouldn't mind making a loaf of bread and trading it for some meat or some light. (Yes, I see the predation involved in the meat -- perhaps it is inescapable -- but I will choose to gloss over it for now, privileging humans.) In this imaginary village, people have roles and trade labor, but you understand that your labor is in fact useful, and you understand who it is helping. I guess I am talking about Marx's "alienation", or lack thereof.

As a software developer, in many industries it is not clear that your work really benefits any individual person, or even society in the abstract. You perform drudgery and endure stress, but it all seems to be some terrible social game that accomplishes nothing, and you participate only because you must, to justify your existence.

So it makes sense why many software developers -- despite the flexible work arrangements, and the physically undemanding job, and the good pay -- would see work as only an evil and seek to escape it.

There has to be a way to do reasonable amounts of useful labor -- to pull your own weight -- without participating in Silicon Valley style "life".

Unfortunately, a degree of financial independence has to be an intermediate goal. But what the next step should be after that, I am not sure. For the super-rich, the answer is philanthropy. But for the yeoman programmer, it's less clear. It will need to be less grandiose than all that. It will need to continue to produce some cashflow, but it should provide understandable value to the community. I will need to think about this.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#567

Post by NegativeK »

asadotzler wrote: post #300
askafriend wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is stopping you from contributing more. In fact, contributions to charity are tax exempt. But if you want to contribute more to the government directly, others here have pointed you to some good resources.

The individual wants his class to be taxed. Telling the individual they can simply pay more does nothing for everyone else in the class. Your reply is unserious.

The entire discussion seems to have veered into the unserious.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#568

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #160
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying social justice warriors on hacker news is just awesome.

The grandparent comment argues for "businesses [which] are democratic institutions" and a "hard cap" on wealth which will presumably be taken and distributed to people with less wealth, for the goal of "do[ing] substantial good". Ergo, arguing justice (FSVO justice) for society. As such, I am of the position that this is one of those rare situations where the term "social justice warrior" is meaningful and accurate.

I agree it’s accurate, but you said “these social justice warriors,” which made me figure you were doing more than referring to the author. It seems like the goal of invoking the term was to aid in your dismissal of the author’s positions by linking them to a derided stereotype of activists. If I’m wrong then I apologize.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#569

Post by throwawaymaths »

WalterBright wrote: post #564
throwawaymaths wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Look at the sky in any given photograph of china.

China turned away from communism a couple decades ago.

It's turning back.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#570

Post by shkkmo »

gottorf wrote: post #456
shkkmo wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're aware that all publicly traded companies are run by a democratic system where the voters are shareholders? The only change here is who limiting who allowed to own shares to people work are directly involved.

> run by a democratic system where the voters are shareholders The more shares you hold, the greater your voice, when it comes to corporate governance. It's not at all the same as the typical idea of democracy as "one person, one vote". Would you rather corporate governance be more like a political democracy, where no matter if someone has 30% of the shares or 0.0001%, they get the same vote? Or, perhaps the other wa…

> The more shares you hold, the greater your voice, when it comes to corporate governance. It's not at all the same as the typical idea of democracy as "one person, one vote".

"One person, one vote" is not how the presidency works in the USA.

Beyond that, you seem to trying setup some strawman positions rather than engaging in a discussion about anything anyone actually said.

Post reply on HN