Live data from Hacker News

Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

blog.rongarret.info

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#161
Access to resources & social attention are key concerns.

Some harmful effects of inequality when people do not have access to:

* needs (i.e. Maslow Hierarchy); particularly autonomy * ability to express perspective * ability to have perspective considered, paid heed to, & respected * ability to influence local systems * protection from those who are abstracted away from local systems; those who will not feel immediate consequences of their actions

If we can create systems where these concerns are prioritized, then inequality of wealth may not matter.

Some people are good at playing the game of gaining wealth. Some are good at other games. In the end, we all benefit from respecting and having compassing & empathy for all life & natural systems.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#162
post #14
post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

It took me years to realize that economics isn't physics - and it isn't ruled by physics-like laws. Instead, economics is governed by laws created by our society. And what we think of as "free market" is really just norms of trade which are created by our society. There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just…

Oh come on. I've started a manufacturing business with my smarts, a hammer, a tape measure, and a saw. In 5 years I will sell it for several million dollars.

When a convicted felon can do that, the argument that we don't live in a Free Market doesn't hold any weight, imho. A person can find a need, build a business around it, and become powerful and have money.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#163
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon? What would happen is that Wal-Mart and Amazon, et al. would pay their fair share of taxes, and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. The effect would be that every single person in the United States would…

> the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. Mmmm, I don't think your numbers add up... There are 500 people in the US who have more than a billion dollars. If we made them all "single digit millionaires", we'd be looking at a one time wealth transfer of less than a $1T dollars, or about 25% of the US Federal Budget for one year. Sure, that would make for a…

Not only is there a one-time wealth transfer, there is in the ongoing extra taxes of companies paying what they should be paying.

i.e. let's get Facebook to actually pay something in taxes

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use the same iPhone, have access to the same chemo, and watch the same movies. The only difference is they fly in private planes instead of commercial, drive high end Mercedes instead of Fords, live in mansions instead of apartments. But their HVAC cools just the same as my window unit, it's just quieter. Yeah, they have lots of things we don't. But the difference is smaller than between a rich person in 1915 an…

I think the life of the ultra rich is fundamentally different to the average middle income person in the same way that royalty lives a different life to a commoner. Sure we all breath, eat, sleep and procreate, but the differences in the concerns of the ultra rich and the rest of us is quite large. A poor person today is richer in many ways to the rich of 1915 thanks to technological advance, but there still is a hug…

> More fundamentally I just don’t think it is good for the ultra rich to live a life that is so different to the rest of society.

Why not? So Jay Leno has a 10,000 sqft garage and 500 cars, what do I care? Tom Cruise doesn't affect my daily life. Politicians do, and most of them are rich but not ultra rich.

People will always have a warped perspective of others, that's just how the human brain works. In fact we discuss that on HN frequently, how Silicon Valley can seem so clueless solving "white first-world problems".

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the hate against Walmart. It only has a profit margin of 3.12% [1] and return on assets of 7.69%. Now I suppose you could argue that all the profits are hidden away somewhere, but that sounds like an unfalsifiable statement. It certainly would be illegal to hide assets from shareholders. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT

Perhaps you should read up on it's labor practices. Two cases in point: They encourage their employees to sign up for food stamps, which results in a $6.2B government subsidy[1]. Also, the workers are intentionally paid so little (via only part-time employment) the company asks customers to donate food to their employees. That company is scum. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w... [2] ht…

So why do people work there if it such a bad job? My second job at Burger King wasn't great, but I didn't plan on making a career there.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#166
Pg's main point is that the major source of wealth inequality comes from wealth creators as opposed to wealth exploiters. The wealth creators are typical startups and people creating new industries while wealth exploiters are the one playing high frequency trading, lobbing congress, buying up real estate, creating monopolies, investing with insider info and so on. My gut feeling is that wealth creation part is in reality less than 20%. This intuition is based on simple fact that wealthy people have managed to far more disproportionately increase their wealth than what comes from increase in GDP or other measures of productivity. There is plenty of analysis available in Capital book that clearly suggests that wealthy people mainly invests in non-productive investment instruments such as real estate that has nothing to do with increasing productivity of the society. It just constraints the supply side, inflating prices and thus increasing value of the investment. These investment tools enables them to transform themselves to become passive wealth exploiters with a setup that generates massive multi-generational income and wealth increase without proportional need for positive contribution to society. There was a very well written article with data analysis on HN that proved that most increase in wealth for top 1% came from these non-productive investment tools such as real estate. This is like wealthy people grouping up to buy loads of the fresh water and inflating prices so average people now must pay majority of income in buying water. So wealth transfer from common people to rich occurs through inflated water prices. Of course, if wealthy people really did this for water, they will be in trouble and revolutions will break out. However doing this for real state raises no eye brows even though real estate is essential need for humans.

A fun fact: Despite of giving billions and without starting any new blockbuster companies, Bill Gates has managed to increase his wealth by more than 50% since he officially retired. He has sure helped few startups but it would be too funny as well as cruel to think that most of his wealth gain comes via helping startups or causing productivity gains in society. Last I checked his billions are managed by hedge fund like setup who typically have goal to maximize returns through non-productive instruments such as real estate, HFT, commodity market games, derivatives etc and they rarely devote more than 20% of portfolio to truely productive activities such as startups.

It is also marvelous how some of the wealthiest have outright bought the laws for themselves, for example, middle class in US universally pays almost twice the tax rates than top 1%. This would be unthinkable in previous generation. The entire capital tax gimmic is put in to law with a full knowledge that it does not benefit majority of citizens who have little or no savings, let alone investments for short term trading. It is purely designed to benefit top 1% who derives large chunk of income as capital gains. The most depressing thing is that the field is becoming less and less level playing, for example wealthy can buy out admissions in best universities while average citizens are getting priced out from same institutions. The significant increase in mortgage and student debt load combined with long term stagnant wages now eliminates possibility of savings or investments and therefore risk taking. I suppose this wasn't exactly like this in 70s when many more people had decent savings, had ability for some risk taking and lot of them even actually were able to retire. In our generation most people don't even think of retirement anymore except in tech industry which is probably less than 5% of population. We in tech field are perhaps not so much impacted and so world looks little different from our glasses, especially if you had been college dropout or without family. However for a common citizen with a family, mortgage, healthcare bills, no savings, retirement funds uncertainty and student loans it is much more difficult to cross the chasm than it used to be in 70s.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#167
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon? What would happen is that Wal-Mart and Amazon, et al. would pay their fair share of taxes, and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. The effect would be that every single person in the United States would…

> the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. Mmmm, I don't think your numbers add up... There are 500 people in the US who have more than a billion dollars. If we made them all "single digit millionaires", we'd be looking at a one time wealth transfer of less than a $1T dollars, or about 25% of the US Federal Budget for one year. Sure, that would make for a…

Of course numbers his numbers don't add up, as barbie would say, "math is hard"

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#168
Wealth inequality and income inequality are often touted as the incentive for people to do actual useful work.

However, if you think about it for a second, it's clear that having more money in a bank or on a payslip doesn't make you work harder.

What makes you work harder is the possibility of improving your status, getting richer.

So, one would imagine that a society with drastically reduced inequality (both wealth and income) but with extra high social mobility could work perfectly well.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the life of the ultra rich is fundamentally different to the average middle income person in the same way that royalty lives a different life to a commoner. Sure we all breath, eat, sleep and procreate, but the differences in the concerns of the ultra rich and the rest of us is quite large. A poor person today is richer in many ways to the rich of 1915 thanks to technological advance, but there still is a hug…

> More fundamentally I just don’t think it is good for the ultra rich to live a life that is so different to the rest of society. Why not? So Jay Leno has a 10,000 sqft garage and 500 cars, what do I care? Tom Cruise doesn't affect my daily life. Politicians do, and most of them are rich but not ultra rich . People will always have a warped perspective of others, that's just how the human brain works. In fact we disc…

The reason why I mention in the next sentence - the ultra rich have a lot of power. I want the powerful to understand how us commoners live.

The ultra rich have a very large influence over politicians. This is why they are important. If they just spent their time flying around in private jets and talking to each other then it wouldn't matter - once they start to have a very large influence over public policy it matters what they think.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the life of the ultra rich is fundamentally different to the average middle income person in the same way that royalty lives a different life to a commoner. Sure we all breath, eat, sleep and procreate, but the differences in the concerns of the ultra rich and the rest of us is quite large. A poor person today is richer in many ways to the rich of 1915 thanks to technological advance, but there still is a hug…

In what way is it different? You keep asserting this without making any concrete claims.

As a non-member of the ultra rich all I can do is look in on the peeks they give us via the media. I am willing to admit that it is possible that they are exactly like you and me, but they certainly don't appear to be.

In regards concrete claims the ultra rich appear to far more to the economic right than the average person. I am sure you are aware of this.

Post reply on HN