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

Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

nationaljournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–229 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#221

Post by Daniel_Newby »

anthonyb wrote: post #201
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complex carbohydrates are cheap. Fat is cheap. Eating simple carbohydrates is not an economic choice. Vitamins pills and vegetables are reasonably cheap. And anyway if deficiencies caused obesity, the rate would drop off dramatically over some threshold income. Lotteries matter because that's where poor Americans spend about 10% of their income. Taxing the rich to destruction will not fix that.

They're not as cheap though, are they? Here are a couple of articles on poverty, obesity and cheap calories that you might find interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/obesity-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/not-having-enoug... 10% of a poor person's income turns out to be about $25/week according to this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123448/Poorest-peop...…

Yes, in fact good food can be extremely cheap. Beans, eggs, and butter are dirt cheap. Canned vegetables are affordable if you buy for nutrition (i.e., not empty food like green beans).

Re. lottery spending, they are losing $12 a week! That is $600 a year! That could buy premium multivitamins, an extra several eggs a day, rather a lot of cheese, with money left over for the occassional meal out.

The problem of most poor Americans is not resources, it is the deployment of them.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#222

Post by gadders »

jules wrote: post #37
gadders wrote: post #18

Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?

You'd think, but as it turns out, inequality has strong negative effects to the point that even the rich in an inequal country do worse than the more poor in a more equal country. TED talk about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Is that an appeal to authority? Just because something is on TED, doesn't make it true.

I'm sure you could find studies that disagree with this.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#223

Post by gadders »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #87
gadders wrote: post #18

Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?

Half the taxpayers of the United States make less than $32k/year. How's that a comfortable standard of living?

But if you are saying $32k is not a comfortable standard of living, then that is a statement about absolute poverty.

$32k would still not be a comfortable standard whether Bill Gates had earnt $1million or $1billion.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#224

Post by gadders »

webXL wrote: post #9

Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html ) Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power…

If he feels strongly about it, he is also perfectly at liberty to pay extra taxes voluntarily and lead by example.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#225

Post by gadders »

jakubmal wrote: post #20

I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since that's not the case, I decided to speak up. Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. S…

Point of order - Robin Hood was against excessive state taxation - the Sherriff of Nottingham, King John etc. Not against rich people per se.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#226

Post by gadders »

anthonyb wrote: post #194
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get fat by not having enough money for food?! Seriously?! Do you think they spend so much on lottery tickets because the rich so unfairly keep them out of derivative trading?

Decent food. There are two main effects at work: If all you can afford is ramen/bread/fast food, your body makes you overeat to get enough other nutrients (eg. vitamin C, B). The second is that your insulin goes crazy with all those simple carbs and sugars (carbs are cheap, unlike protein, fish and vegetables, and get metabolised to glucose) so you get massive blood sugar swings. The low side of those makes you eat m…

It's just as cheap to eat properly as it is to eat unhealthily. The difference is you need to actually put some effort in, rather than order a large Big Mac Meal.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#227

Post by gadders »

petercooper wrote: post #11

There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes. I'd suggest it's not too controversial but too pedestrian. Or maybe I'm seeing this through European eyes; ideologically, this topic/argument is mainstream here, even if politicians fail to do m…

The thing is, even if you ask the rich to pay more in taxes, that doesn't go to poor people. It goes to the government.

If you want poor people to get richer, tax them less (or remove them from tax altogether). Don't re-circulate the money via self-interested politicians to waste.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#228

Post by jules »

gadders wrote: post #222
jules wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think, but as it turns out, inequality has strong negative effects to the point that even the rich in an inequal country do worse than the more poor in a more equal country. TED talk about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Is that an appeal to authority? Just because something is on TED, doesn't make it true. I'm sure you could find studies that disagree with this.

That's not an appeal to authority. It's a link to information. If you manage to find any contradicting studies, please do post them here. That said, his data seems pretty solid, unless he's flat out lying (unlikely). Keep an open mind!

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#229

Post by mikecane »

crusso wrote: post #168
mikecane wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OMG. Have you also algorithmically quantified love too? And tell me what a "proven economic model" is. One where the rich have to hire working class cops in their off-hours -- depriving said cops' families of their presence -- so they can feel safe in common spaces? One in which private security and private prisons are the fastest growing employers? I've got news for you, pal, and you can shove this up your algorithm…

> OMG. I'll leave that there to speak for itself. > Have you also algorithmically quantified love too? I can certainly see where an emotional person who doesn't know much about economics would try to turn this into an emotional issue. It's not. It's an economic issue. The whole reason why we step from one financial mess to the next is that we don't make political decisions based upon economic forces such as supply &…

> OMG.

> I'll leave that there to speak for itself.

It was a trap.

Post reply on HN