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

Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

chawkins.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#81

Post by mjn »

ctdonath wrote: post #75
examancer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling progressive tax systems institutionalized theft is incredibly clever, and incredibly false. No one who has wealth created it by themselves. You don't print your own money, you don't extract wealth from a vaccum. Wealth is built by extracting that wealth from a shared economy. Asking those who were able to extract the most wealth to help the most in paying to protect this shared system, and help those who were…

Not dishonest. It is possible, in fact, for people to have moral views which differ from yours in good faith. This warrants respect, not insults. I create wealth by pure thought. Sure that sounds stupid to some, but it's quite true: with about a thousand dollars' worth of borrowed equipment, I sit here writing software to do things useful to my employer. I am not "extracting wealth", I am creating it, organizing elec…

> This warrants respect, not insults.

Considering most of what you post is full of insults and attacks on people who have moral views which differ from yours in good faith, I would suggest you start at home with this advice. "I think the poors should stay poor because they're worthless while I create wealth, and I'm prepared to shoot anyone who tries to implement a contrary policy, be warned" is not a reasoned debate.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#82

Post by rpenguin13 »

coldtea wrote: post #64
ctdonath wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Institutionalized theft isn't an acceptable solution. Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well.

> Institutionalized theft isn't an acceptable solution. Such class jealousy does not, historically, end well. Historical precedents are not, historically, very useful. Lots of things that worked at some point in time for some country (e.g a revolution) failed at other points in time for some other country and vice versa. Each era has unique factors -- from technology to culture. You cannot make assumptions based on w…

Institutionalized by whom? In a society of voluntary contracts, those who have lots of wealth DO deserve it, and if they're clear under law then they DID get it all themselves, and "Society" is a mythical being: it has no right to forcibly steal from some more wealthy individuals. "Oh, so you built this house from LEGO blocks during break hour while the other kids where playing around?" "Yes" "It'd be better off for all of you if we could take that house and give it to stupid kids who can't build it."

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#83

Post by mjn »

rpenguin13 wrote: post #79
mjn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Class antagonism around here has ended pretty well historically. The 19th-century working class agitated against the aristocracy and landlord classes, and after a rocky start, the workers' parties successfully gained power in the 20th century. From around the 1920s/30s to about the 1970s most of the Nordic countries were led by nearly unchallenged social-democratic governments, which used their power to create the mo…

Scandinavian countries have some of the highest external debt per Capita, good job spending money you don't really own.

Did you check net external debt? One side of the debt equation (which is what the "external debt" figures show) is not a particularly interesting figure. If you owe people $75 billion, and they owe you $100 billion, you are "$75 billion in debt" by the external-debt statistic, but "$25 billion in the black" by the definition of indebtedness most people use. There are specific technical uses for external debt, but it does not equate to "spending money you don't really own".

The figure that nets these out is the "net international investment position", which subtracts liabilities from assets. The Scandinavian countries have very good positions here. Denmark's NIIP is +27% of GDP, versus the U.S.'s -17%.

The Scandinavian countries have high debt positions basically because they are advanced (i.e. highly financialized) economies with good credit ratings, so make a lot of use of cheap bonds. Same reason Apple issued a bunch of bonds last year despite their huge cash pile. Due to some quirks at the moment Denmark is actually making money on their bonds, as they are issued at negative interest rates— there has been an influx of EUR into DKK due to fears over the EUR, and to discourage that influx (to protect its pegged exchange rate) Denmark is offering negative rates...

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#84

Post by dragonwriter »

rpenguin13 wrote: post #79
mjn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Class antagonism around here has ended pretty well historically. The 19th-century working class agitated against the aristocracy and landlord classes, and after a rocky start, the workers' parties successfully gained power in the 20th century. From around the 1920s/30s to about the 1970s most of the Nordic countries were led by nearly unchallenged social-democratic governments, which used their power to create the mo…

Scandinavian countries have some of the highest external debt per Capita, good job spending money you don't really own.

External debt per capita is a pretty silly measure; external debt to GDP ratio would be more sane to care about, and, on that measure, the Scandinavian countries aren't particularly bad compared to, say, most of Western Europe.

This is in addition to mjn's sibling post noting why "external debt" may not be the right thing to be concerned about to start with.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#85

Post by ctdonath »

mjn wrote: post #81
ctdonath wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not dishonest. It is possible, in fact, for people to have moral views which differ from yours in good faith. This warrants respect, not insults. I create wealth by pure thought. Sure that sounds stupid to some, but it's quite true: with about a thousand dollars' worth of borrowed equipment, I sit here writing software to do things useful to my employer. I am not "extracting wealth", I am creating it, organizing elec…

> This warrants respect, not insults. Considering most of what you post is full of insults and attacks on people who have moral views which differ from yours in good faith, I would suggest you start at home with this advice. "I think the poors should stay poor because they're worthless while I create wealth , and I'm prepared to shoot anyone who tries to implement a contrary policy, be warned" is not a reasoned debat…

Insults? attacks? where?

And yes there are lines which, when crossed with threat of force, will be met with force.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#86

Post by mjn »

ctdonath wrote: post #85
mjn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This warrants respect, not insults. Considering most of what you post is full of insults and attacks on people who have moral views which differ from yours in good faith, I would suggest you start at home with this advice. "I think the poors should stay poor because they're worthless while I create wealth , and I'm prepared to shoot anyone who tries to implement a contrary policy, be warned" is not a reasoned debat…

Insults? attacks? where? And yes there are lines which, when crossed with threat of force, will be met with force.

And a tax rate is that line? I cannot think of any change in tax policy that would induce me to shoot a human.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#87

Post by stretchwithme »

mjn wrote: post #35
stretchwithme wrote: post #33

Income inequality is not a bad thing. People are very different in what they are capable of producing. If you want to produce paper napkins by hand 10 hours a week and someone else chooses to make them by machine 40 hours a week and its the same product, why should you both take home an equal income? "Oh" they say "we just want to make it less unequal than it is, not equal." Isn't that why we pay all these taxes and…

Why should you take home a different income? I don't feel that the fact that I'm a computer scientist, which at the moment happens to pay well, ethically entitles me to more resources than other people. If anything I feel a bit guilty taking home several times the income of the guy who's been showing up at 7am every morning to replace my roof; my job is a lot more pleasant and enjoyable, and yet that in itself isn't…

Technology is what produces wealth and those that master it make more. And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology.

It should be this way if you want people to solve hard problems. If you want everyone working at the drive thru, pay everyone the same.

Then it will be other countries that master the future.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#88

Post by gopher1 »

paul_f wrote: post #19

For those caught up in what I think is a cause-de-jour, income inequality, I'll pose these two questions: 1. Is anyone worse off because Mark Zuckerberg is very rich? 2. If policies to reduce income inequality made the poor worse off, would you be in favor of them?

The very rich (Mark Zuckerberg included) use their wealth to influence government, therefore the answer to #1 is yes, the average person is worse off because they don't get the same opportunity to affect policy. #2 is an odd hypothetical which is unlikely to be the case and without further context (what is defined as poor? etc.) it's a useless question.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#89

Post by mjn »

stretchwithme wrote: post #87
mjn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should you take home a different income? I don't feel that the fact that I'm a computer scientist, which at the moment happens to pay well, ethically entitles me to more resources than other people. If anything I feel a bit guilty taking home several times the income of the guy who's been showing up at 7am every morning to replace my roof; my job is a lot more pleasant and enjoyable, and yet that in itself isn't…

Technology is what produces wealth and those that master it make more. And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. It should be this way if you want people to solve hard problems. If you want everyone working at the drive thru, pay everyone the same. Then it will be other countries that master the future.

> And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology.

If anything, I think this part is probably backwards. The market does not reward you on the basis of how difficult the technology you mastered was, but on how marketable it is. The most marketable technology-related skills are not technologically very complex, but involve coupling fairly basic technology with good sales and product/market fit skills. Having ungodly levels of technical skill produces a Sun Microsystems: great technology (ZFS, DTrace, Zones, etc.), but out of business. Having relatively poor levels of technical skill but a good product idea produces Facebook or Groupon.

Re: Have US Income and Wealth Inequality Actually Increased?

#90

Post by stretchwithme »

mjn wrote: post #89
stretchwithme wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology is what produces wealth and those that master it make more. And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. It should be this way if you want people to solve hard problems. If you want everyone working at the drive thru, pay everyone the same. Then it will be other countries that master the future.

> And those that master more difficult technology make more than those that those master easy technology. If anything, I think this part is probably backwards. The market does not reward you on the basis of how difficult the technology you mastered was, but on how marketable it is. The most marketable technology-related skills are not technologically very complex, but involve coupling fairly basic technology with goo…

Yes, how marketable something is governs how much you get at the moment.

How rewarding it is governs whether people endure the difficulty. This is what matters in the long run.

And overall success happens in the long run.

Post reply on HN