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

U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#111

Post by ryandrake »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #72

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…

Old article but probably still relevant today: 39% of Americans think they either are (19%) or one day will be (20%) among the top 1% incomes [1]. You can’t get someone to oppose enriching the richest if that person thinks he’s one of them!

1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#112

Post by malvosenior »

and0 wrote: post #105
malvosenior wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. It's not a zero sum game. Just because the 1% benefit from a particular policy, it doesn't mean other non-1% people supporting it don't benefit as well.

In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.

> In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so.

If I benefit from something, it doesn't bother me at all that someone benefits even more. Should I forfeit my benefits out of spite?

> What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.

Maybe people feel it's fair to get to pass your wealth onto your children and that if they were rich they would support this idea. There's something to be said about sticking to your moral values and not being a hypocrite especially when what is being debated is having the state take a private citizen's money away from them.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#113

Post by nugget »

marnett wrote: post #84
jdoliner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He certainly didn't just make that idea up. You can find plenty of research on it by googling "turnover in the 1%". For example: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.htm...

The 'feudal lords' are not the 1%. They would be the .1% or the .01%. I imagine the latter two remain a much more static environment. Also, the 1% in this article is not even defined. After some digging it looks like it is Gross Adjusted Income. There are CEOs who wouldn't be considered in the 1% because they take salaries of $1 while making millions in stock options - it is such a ridiculous metric. Inequality is ab…

Stock compensation is rolled into AGI. But I agree with you that 1%ers are not feudal lords.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#114

Post by moate »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #83
metalliqaz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non sequitur. Capitalism requires some income inequality, but runaway income inequality will not be beneficial. Eventually, people get sick of eating rotten cabbage and the guillotines come out. Side note: "most free nation ever" is a total fiction as part of American exceptionalism. For just one example out of many, there are still religious blue laws on the books in towns across the country, and many are still enfo…

We have laws against trading on Sundays here in Norway too. They might well have started as religiously justified laws but they are nonetheless popular here where the vast bulk of the population is non-religious and a substantial fraction avowed atheist. We don't want our day of quiet disturbed.

No matter how much you love a law, limiting someone's ability to do something peaceful* is limiting their freedom.

*Peaceful here means there ability to do something that doesn't harm others. We can start deep diving on the value of having a quiet day, but the idea that you can't buy a bottle of Gin on Sunday is a choice some people might not find is worth the quiet

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#115

Post by crusso »

knuththetruth wrote: post #7
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #2

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top…

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal l…

"to be among a handful of feudal lords"

Is it helpful in a discussion like this to use exaggerated rhetoric? Wealthy people aren't in any meaningful way feudal lords.

"everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation"

But that doesn't describe Americans either, where absolute poverty levels are below 3%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas...

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#116

Post by plandis »

d357r0y3r wrote: post #64

What would you rather have? 1) Perfect income equality (1:1 poorest:richest), but everyone is starving and most don't live out of childhood 2) Perfect income inequality (1:~infinity poorest:richest)), but the poorest in the world have a much higher standard of living and that standard is going up 3-5% a year. The point I'm driving at here is that income equality, by itself, isn't automatically desirable if the cost i…

Is standard of living increasing? At least in terms of wage growth adjusted for inflation that’s not true.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#117

Post by Consultant32452 »

icebraining wrote: post #108
Consultant32452 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing against a straw man. It's possible to support social and economic policies while recognizing that they have both positive and negative aspects to them.

What I'm saying is that having more workers is not by itself sufficient explanation. The US always had more workers YoY.

Do you believe that illegal immigrants have the same income distribution as the general population in the US?

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#118

Post by kermittd »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #72

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…

I apologize for the reddit level of discourse...here here!

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#119

Post by evanlivingston »

hueving wrote: post #101
EGreg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same old arguments. "Inequality is totally OK" "But if many people have total food insecurity and bad health outcomes, that's bad right?" "Well hey but in the long run people got wealthier overall than if we redistributed wealth and no one would have an incentive to work like a dog" "That would have happened anyway because it's not capitalism but science and technology that drives wealth forward" "Look, Capitalis…

Don't have a mock strawman argument this long. If you have a point to make, just make it. Don't write up a whole argument that includes weak responses so you conveniently 'win'.

Would Plato's 'The Republic' qualify also an overly long strawman?

I think you missed the point of the comment to which you're responding.

Also, why are you telling people how to have discussions?

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#120

Post by [deleted] »

and0 wrote: post #105
malvosenior wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. It's not a zero sum game. Just because the 1% benefit from a particular policy, it doesn't mean other non-1% people supporting it don't benefit as well.

In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN