101–110 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine for some to own nothing in order to have bigger economy on the whole world? Who are we competing with Mars? What a billionaire need more than billion for anything? You comment just funny since it's the perfect billionaire's first world problem.
Who are you to decide who needs what?
In other news: Top 1% singers better than the remaining 99%. Top 1% sprinters better than the remaining 99%. Top 1% producers better than the remaining 99%. Where's the surprise here? It's a variation of Sturgeon's Law. EDIT: the top 1% of wealthy americans are better producers than everyone else, yes. They are not better people than everyone else, no. How is this so hard to understand to HN-level people?
Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
Nick Hanauer (first non-family investor in Amazon and self-described zillionaire who sold one of his companies for $6.4 billion in cash) believes if current income inequality continues then the pitchforks will come because there is no long term stability in such a society. The middle class are essential to growth and prosperity. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork... But the problem isn’t tha…
Just one point: the minimum wage ensures that the disabled, the incompetent, the inexperienced, the frankly semi-useless, the old and a few other losers - anyone beaten to the post by a smart productive young blade - will never ever get a job but can be thankful to subsist, courtesy of the taxpayer, until he or she fades away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nick Hanauer (first non-family investor in Amazon and self-described zillionaire who sold one of his companies for $6.4 billion in cash) believes if current income inequality continues then the pitchforks will come because there is no long term stability in such a society. The middle class are essential to growth and prosperity. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork... But the problem isn’t tha…
You sure enjoy your massive generalizations. Just one point: the minimum wage ensures that the disabled, the incompetent, the inexperienced, the frankly semi-useless, the old and a few other losers - anyone beaten to the post by a smart productive young blade - will never ever get a job but can be thankful to subsist, courtesy of the taxpayer, until he or she fades away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What gives you that impression? The second family now has a $250k asset and a $200k debt, so they're worth the same. If you wait ten years and one of them collects 1% interest and the other gets their house value doubled then there's a difference.
This specific report doesn't count that $200k debt.
>The original report states: Once debts have been subtracted, a person needs only USD 3,210 to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens in mid-2015. However, USD 68,800 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and USD 759,900 to belong to the top 1%. Which is more clearly stated and uses the same numbers as the Guardian article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10493143
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true, but the book does not just provide correlations.
What does it provide?
Taking a quick glance at the book, they are over 400 such references made in the text.
Not very related but if you're using Chrome install this plug-in to get a clean "AMP" version of Guardian and many more websites: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%E2%9A%A1%EF%B8%8F...
If anyone else was wondering, that's "Accelarted Mobile Pages": https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml Does seem odd me to point that out on a Guardian link - it's never struck me as particularly slow (on mobile or otherwise).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do you think this can be applied to say, D.R.Congo, Peru or India? There is a reason Scandinavian countries can have semi-socialistic governments. I have repeatedly say this: it is easy to play Socialism when your population is 1-10 million (All Scandinavian) , when you have natural resources (Norway) or high profit strong liberalized private industry (All). Clearly they will be tested by the coming crises such as…
Thats not the point. The point is that re-distribution does not mean that you can't increase the wealth of everyone which was that intended claim my OP. Germany has a pretty big welfare state and are 80million people and they even had to take on eastern germany.
Of course, Norway has oil, so selling it gives money. And Sweden has lots of old money, from the time when ball bearings were selling for good money while everyone else was at war, but it has fallen from the top place of the wealthiest nations where it was decades ago. Finland, on the other hand, is in deep trouble with the same model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats not the point. The point is that re-distribution does not mean that you can't increase the wealth of everyone which was that intended claim my OP. Germany has a pretty big welfare state and are 80million people and they even had to take on eastern germany.
There are quite huge challenges in keeping the wealth of the nation with current redistribution systems in Nordic countries. Of course, Norway has oil, so selling it gives money. And Sweden has lots of old money, from the time when ball bearings were selling for good money while everyone else was at war, but it has fallen from the top place of the wealthiest nations where it was decades ago. Finland, on the other han…
Finland has slow growth but still doing relatively well. And low (by EU standards) debt.