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

Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 144 posts

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#11

Post by ameister14 »

balance_factor wrote: post #9

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant, not landlord. I assume the Forbes 400 richest are in the 1%. How did the Koch brothers get their $100 billion? Where did the Waltons get their $140 billion? Where did the Mars family get their $75 billion? The article makes it sound like these people became rich…

There are millions of people in the 1%. The 400 people at the very top aren't going to come into it much.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#12

Post by groby_b »

pdonis wrote: post #8
alexasmyths wrote: post #2

What I find interesting is that it is in the 'professions'. I would have thought it was massively wealthy equity owners/holders, hedge fund managers etc.. But yes - if we are paying doctors $1M/year then this will happen. At a nearby hospital in Canada, technology improvements have allowed doctors to diagnose using x-rays a lot faster ... but the Unions have kept pay scale the same. The doctor at the Orangevill hospi…

> One would think a private system would be more efficient ... but it's probably just as bad in the US. The US health care system is not a "private system". It's a mishmash of private and public which combines the worst features of both. The reason we have it in the US is that during WW II, the government controlled wages, so businesses trying to compete for employees had to offer something else as an incentive, and…

Let's not forget that health care is a great point of leverage for employers, too. Because often, your spouse is also insured on that same plan, and leaving a job is not palatable if either one is dealing with significant illness.

If you wanted to create a legal equivalent of indentured servitude, company healthcare plus high healthcare cost would be a great solution. I don't think that was the plan, but it sure works out that way.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#13

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ameister14 wrote: post #11
balance_factor wrote: post #9

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant, not landlord. I assume the Forbes 400 richest are in the 1%. How did the Koch brothers get their $100 billion? Where did the Waltons get their $140 billion? Where did the Mars family get their $75 billion? The article makes it sound like these people became rich…

There are millions of people in the 1%. The 400 people at the very top aren't going to come into it much.

But even within the 1%, the income distribution is highly skewed, i.e. those 400 people are responsible for a very sizable total of the overall wealth within the 1%.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#14

Post by tveita »

"Workers at the 90th percentile of the income distribution for professionals make 3.5 times the earnings of the typical (median) worker in all occupations in the United States. Only Mexico and Israel, which have very high inequality, compensate professionals so disproportionately. In Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark, the ratio is about 2 to 1."

It's hard to find comparable numbers, but aren't the median wages higher in all those countries?

The article vaguely makes it sound like it's just a matter of paying highly-paid professionals less, but would that lift the bottom or just concentrate the money to an even thinner slice of the population?

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#15

Post by blunte »

balance_factor wrote: post #9

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant, not landlord. I assume the Forbes 400 richest are in the 1%. How did the Koch brothers get their $100 billion? Where did the Waltons get their $140 billion? Where did the Mars family get their $75 billion? The article makes it sound like these people became rich…

The 1% is still a large number of people, and the people you refer to are the .1% or fewer. That's not to say that their methods of wealth accumulation aren't worth discussing, but apparently that wasn't the group that this article was focused on.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#16

Post by dcre »

balance_factor wrote: post #9

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant, not landlord. I assume the Forbes 400 richest are in the 1%. How did the Koch brothers get their $100 billion? Where did the Waltons get their $140 billion? Where did the Mars family get their $75 billion? The article makes it sound like these people became rich…

Everything you say is absolutely right about the very richest 0.01% -- unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem. But there are very few such people, and what really drives the top-line inequality numbers is the redistribution of income upward to the 5% or the 1%.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#17

Post by aaronbrethorst »

balance_factor wrote: post #9

It's interesting what words are not in the article. Words like heir, inheritance, profit, interest, rentier. The word rent is there, but assumed as a tenant, not landlord. I assume the Forbes 400 richest are in the 1%. How did the Koch brothers get their $100 billion? Where did the Waltons get their $140 billion? Where did the Mars family get their $75 billion? The article makes it sound like these people became rich…

The Kochs inherited a $680mm fortune. I was just listening to a great podcast about them, as a matter of fact: https://crooked.com/podcast/dangerous-dark-money/

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#18

Post by cperciva »

In the United States, the richest 1 percent have seen their share of national income roughly double since 1980, to 20 percent in 2014 from 11 percent.

Not true. The highest income 1% have seen their share of national income roughly double. But the highest income 1% is not the richest 1%.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#19

Post by sigi45 »

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit.

It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet.

It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a modern democratic society.

There is a good reason to allow people to accumulate wealth. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to not spend all his/her money for alcohol, party and cars or whatever and instead put the money into real estate for there children. But something like 5-10 Million per Child is still super reasonable.

Perhaps that leads the way to a more fair feature where it is not necessary for anyone anymore to horde money for the familiy heritage.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#20

Post by auggierose »

sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

I don't know. Somebody needs to make those huge decisions, and it is not always clear if that should be by democratic means (here is to you, Trump and Brexit).
Post reply on HN