Degrees of Wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#31

Post by hackyhacky » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:23 PM UTC

phyzix5761 wrote: post #17

hackyhacky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more accurate version is "Money does not bring happiness, but poverty really sucks." A billionaire is not orders of magnitude happier than a millionaire. But a millionaire is much happier than someone who is worried about being able to pay rent, afford food, etc. Thus, the solution to maximize happiness is to distribute wealth evenly.

I wouldn't say they're happier. They have other things they're stressed about. An undisciplined mind finds things to be dissatisfied with no matter what the financial situation of the individual. Billionaires have desires and aversions just like people living in poverty. Yes, those desires and aversions are about different things but its the mechanism of desire and aversion that causes unhappiness not the external si…

> They have other things they're stressed about.

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Equating stress about whether my company's stock price stays about $200 with stress about whether I will be able to afford a meal for my children is simply not on the same level.

Billionaires may choose to be emotionally involved in their financial situation, but a person in poverty has no choice. A bit of mindful meditation will solve the former problem; only money can solve the latter.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#32

Post by betaby » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:24 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #5

This is an insightful article but it misses the elephant in the room, which is wealth inequality . In Shanghai, there is vastly more wealth inequality than in Netherlands. The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is mu…

> The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is much closer to the socioeconomic stratum to that of their employer.

In Canada there are people making peanuts and living very poorly while technically inequality is low. The problem in Canada and other developed countries is excessive taxation of salaries. That's an orthogonal to wealth problem.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#33

Post by iambateman » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:24 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #16

hackyhacky wrote: post #5

This is an insightful article but it misses the elephant in the room, which is wealth inequality . In Shanghai, there is vastly more wealth inequality than in Netherlands. The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is mu…

I do worry that the “app / gig economy” independent contractors with weak i9 verification is basically trying to import the developing-world inequality permanent underclass service sector here.

I would say this is true, but should be understood in the context of sharecropping, Jim crow, and slavery as a long and continuous outworking of poorly-checked capitalism.

I’m not saying that you meant to say that it’s our first round with this…just pointing out that Americans have significant experience at maintaining a underclass.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#34

Post by ElevenLathe » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:25 PM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #12

credit_guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is not a terrible measure of good life. "Money does not bring happiness" is a trope that rich people would like poor people to believe. I don't think poor people fall for it, though.

The more accurate version is "Money does not bring happiness, but poverty really sucks." A billionaire is not orders of magnitude happier than a millionaire. But a millionaire is much happier than someone who is worried about being able to pay rent, afford food, etc. Thus, the solution to maximize happiness is to distribute wealth evenly.

This is called "marginal utility of money" and is IMO the reason wealth redistribution is at minimum rational to the point that it doesn't disincentize needed growth. In this light (and this is obviously a gross simplification that doesn't even begin to capture reality) the main disagreement across the spectrum from communists to anarcho-capitalists is really: where is that point? and how much growth is needed? AnCaps say any redistribution is too much, communists would like no inequality gap at all. Presumably the pareto value is in the middle somewhere and changes constantly based on charging preferences, technology, and a trillion other variables.

This of course treats the whole issue in a very technocratic, whiggish way whereas the real disagreements between these groups is not like that at all.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#35

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

tensor wrote: post #15

credit_guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is not a terrible measure of good life. "Money does not bring happiness" is a trope that rich people would like poor people to believe. I don't think poor people fall for it, though.

Wealth is objectively a poor measure of a good life, past a threshold. Scientific studies have shown that yes, up to a level of wealth (e.g. being able to not worry about food, shelter, and future security), improving wealth improves happiness. After that, reported levels of happiness do not really change with wealth.

And better studies later have shown that the threshold is just the knee in a log curve. Happiness improves with wealth on a logarithmic scale.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#36

Post by engineer_22 » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:28 PM UTC

smokedetector1 wrote: post #18

hackyhacky wrote: post #5

This is an insightful article but it misses the elephant in the room, which is wealth inequality . In Shanghai, there is vastly more wealth inequality than in Netherlands. The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is mu…

In fact, a lot of wealth is only created by inequality. If wealth is power to effect your will, you have more of it when others are more desperate. The Shanghai wealthy have to spend less to get the same service - they have more real dollars DIRECTLY BECAUSE someone else has less.

Wealth != power

But you hit on an important point that wealth cannot accumulate unless consumption is disciplined. Sometimes discipline is self-imposed (e.g. calvinists), other times by the organizing authority (e.g. state, church).

In the 2nd type, authority as the source of discipline, there’s debate on the right balance of disciplining the elite classes vs the under classes. This debate will never cease, as long as there are human beings consuming wealth.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#37

Post by triceratops » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:28 PM UTC

The author is comparing the experience of being well-off in a developing country to middle-class in a wealthy country. Of course they're going to be different lifestyles.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#38

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

tensor wrote: post #15

credit_guy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is not a terrible measure of good life. "Money does not bring happiness" is a trope that rich people would like poor people to believe. I don't think poor people fall for it, though.

Wealth is objectively a poor measure of a good life, past a threshold. Scientific studies have shown that yes, up to a level of wealth (e.g. being able to not worry about food, shelter, and future security), improving wealth improves happiness. After that, reported levels of happiness do not really change with wealth.

>up to a level of wealth (e.g. being able to not worry about food, shelter, and future security),

Assuming future security means affording cutting edge healthcare, this puts you in the 95th, if not the 99th, percentile of the world.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#39

Post by ragazzina » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

> And because everything is more expensive (both goods and labour), the Netherlands has a way bigger second-hand market

The Chinese aversion for second-hand stuff is cultural. You don't buy stuff that's been used by someone else because it brings energy from the previous owner.

Re: Degrees of Wealth

#40

Post by CPLX » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 3:31 PM UTC

smokedetector1 wrote: post #18

hackyhacky wrote: post #5

This is an insightful article but it misses the elephant in the room, which is wealth inequality . In Shanghai, there is vastly more wealth inequality than in Netherlands. The reason why nannies are affordable in China is because those nannies aren't paid very much, and consequently enjoy a much lower standard of living than their employers. In Netherlands, nannies are relatively expensive, but you the employee is mu…

In fact, a lot of wealth is only created by inequality. If wealth is power to effect your will, you have more of it when others are more desperate. The Shanghai wealthy have to spend less to get the same service - they have more real dollars DIRECTLY BECAUSE someone else has less.

Yeah this was a shocking realization as I grew older.

I always thought “third world” countries were trying really hard to improve their economies but just failing for various reasons.

Turns out living in those places can be more than great if you’re rich and there’s actually lots of people in power who are actively trying to increase inequality and maintain a permanent underclass.

Of course what clued me in was the increasing success of that project by the equivalent group of people here in the US.