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

Average Is Over

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 254 posts

Re: Average Is Over

#181

Post by billybob »

rayiner wrote: post #158
watty wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the argument of "allowing" people to become billionaires. Many of these people created things that changed the world. Should they be artificially limited even more on their income?

Billionaires don't exist without a state. Nobody toils for years in grad school and invests time and money in a new enterprise without the panoply of legal protections created by the state. Moreover, since the system of property rights enforced by the state is, like any other system of law, completely arbitrary, the specific people that get rich under a certain system owe their wealth to that arbitrary choice. So the…

Assuming that the laws are uniformly applied (which may not be true), they are irrelevant to the differences between people's incomes.

If Person A invents hoverboards and everyone buys them, creating billions in economic value, and Person B works at a gas station and creates a few thousand in economic value, they both reap proportional rewards.

No, Person A couldn't have succeeded without laws protecting him/her from theft and arson. But Person B also has that protection, so clearly the difference between them lies somewhere else.

If Person A has gotten billions in government aid through political connections unavailable to Person B, there's a problem. But a non-corrupt legal system is impartial, and therefore you can't attribute success or failure to it. If the system is corrupt, the solution is reform, not income redistribution.

Re: Average Is Over

#182

Post by roc »

anamax wrote: post #104
mike-cardwell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come across this "salary disparity isn't a problem" comment every so often and need to call it out. Salary disparity is definitely a social problem. When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. I have no problem with there being rich people, but I find it obscene that our society allows people to become billionaires.

> When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem. Note that organizations also have power. Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?

> "Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?"

For the same reason you should be happier that it's possible to win a Presidential election in the US with less of the popular vote than your opponent, as opposed to, say, a plutocracy simply choosing the winner.

Neither is great, but one is at least representative of compromise and shared values across a very large chunk of the nation where it's very unlikely they all share the same best interests.

Re: Average Is Over

#183

Post by geogra4 »

gyardley wrote: post #163
geogra4 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(preface: I'm an American speaking from an American POV, not sure where you're located so this may not be 100% relevant if you're aussie or swedish or canadian or something) I think that everyone in a society as wealthy as our own deserves the chance at a life free from fear. Freedom from the fear of hunger, from the fear of a parent losing their job and being plunged into destitution. Freedom from the fear of medica…

Thanks. I'm in America too, although I'm not American. We agree completely on the need for some sort of minimal welfare state. No one wants to let others die on the street. I've said as much elsewhere in this thread. We don't agree if you, like Friedman, think we need "a G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education." I don't believe our current levels of spe…

Why don't you believe our spending is sustainable? The USA is nowhere near default. Rates on US Treasury bills are extremely low, as they're actually seen as an incredibly safe investment compared to both other countries and stocks in general.

I sort of disagree with Friedman. I think we need to reform high school educations to make them useful. Career and Technical education needs to be seen as a viable track for students who don't go to college. High schools should let people take 2 years of programming, welding, metalwork, plumbing, carpentry, CNC machining, HVAC or other useful skills if the student doesn't plan on college. There is no reason why a HS grad should be flipping burgers. Quite frankly I think even people on the college track should learn a bit of trade work.

I am an advocate for increased social spending, but I do think it should be sustainable. I don't think we need to worry about that just yet, and I think the consequences of NOT spending on society now in the midst of a great recession are pretty dire.

Re: Average Is Over

#184

Post by billybob »

ScottBurson wrote: post #178
noonespecial wrote: post #123

I think he meant "ordinary" not "average". Average has a specific meaning and as many have pointed out, you can't make everyone above average. What we've got to figure out is how to keep the large mass of ordinaries from being made into Eloi by a combination of welfare states, machine productivity, and wealth disparity. Or, failing that, find a way to prevent the Morlocks from eating the Eloi when it suits them.

you can't make everyone above average Yes, you can, because there's an infinity of dimensions and each person only has to be above average on one of them. I'm really surprised how many people here aren't getting this.

Infinity of dimensions, sure. But we're only talking about one of them: number of dollars of economic value you can create.

Whether you're an above-average Scrabble player is irrelevant to a discussion about work and wages. Unless there's something of economic value that you can do better and more cheaply than a robot, there is no reason for anyone to pay you.

Re: Average Is Over

#185

Post by gyardley »

giardini wrote: post #172
gyardley wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a completely wingnut idea. I first bumped into it in Hayek, who was in favor of it and not much of a socialist. The rationale works like this - given that some less-fortunate members of society will need assistance at some point in their life, and given that 'conservative' != 'asshole' and we don't want to just let them die in the street, we have to provide some form of limited welfare state. Since we have t…

"... or we could simply periodically cut everyone a small check." And what do you do when they drink the check and once again lie dying in the street? I really do agree with you - society can pay up to some point and no more. But at some point people must be allowed to die. For example, today I would not be opposed, in the case of cancer, to society providing payment for all necessary pain medications and hospice car…

And what do you do when they drink the check and once again lie dying in the street?

Not particularly much you can do in that case, no?

If we can manage it as a society in a sustainable way, people should be protected somewhat from bad fortune, whether it's from a ephemeral event or a bad roll in the genetic lottery. Protecting people from the predictable consequences of their own bad decisions is another thing entirely.

Re: Average Is Over

#186

Post by roc »

ajkessler wrote: post #152
mason55 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not salary disparity though, as it isn't a problem in the first place. Salary disparity is very much a social problem. Crime is correlated much more highly to income disparity than it is to income. Even poor-on-poor crime is correlated to overall societal disparity, it's not just rich people getting mugged and secretaries embezzling funds.

How do you explain some of the highest income disparity in the last century with the lowest crime rates, well, pretty much ever?

If the correlation between income disparity and crime rates remains despite a net drop in crime, how is that a refutation of inequality of disparity as a component to crime?

Wouldn't a larger drop in crime in more-equal countries than less-equal countries only re-affirm that though there are clearly other factors involved, inequality is still a component?

I don't actually know the numbers but I'd think it would be pretty easy to look and see whether crime rates are dropping uniformly, or if less-equal countries are seeing a lower drop than more-equal ones.

Re: Average Is Over

#187

Post by SudarshanP »

wladimir wrote: post #76
mtts wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're already seeing societies like this in North Western Europe: large numbers of unproductive, uneducated and essentially useless people are kept fed, housed and clothed as that is the humane thing to do, but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty (mostly - there are of course people who can make it work for themselves). Occasionally they revolt, like they did last summer in England, but even the…

but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty There is nothing "the economy" can do to change that, though. Feeling meaningful and full is a state of mind. And that goes more in the realm of religion and spirituality (and psychology) than materialism. It cannot be changed by any government intervention. Some people have confused those things to the point of extremity. To take an extreme example on the other si…

The economy does a lot to give people a delusion of purpose. If u r scared that ur kids will starve, or ur wife will go without healthcare, ur focus is now on survival. If I know that "the system will take care of me and my family", I will suddenly have a lot of free time. So I now need a philosophical or religious strategy to find meaning in my life. Just consider what is already happening in the so called services economy... a lot of it is pointless paper pushing coz we have not yet simplified it to the level necessary. Just imagine if the entire banking and insurance industry was replaced by a single web scale app with a few simple rules... u'd have a huge chunk of people sitting at home. All these people "remain busy" because of the economy... I wonder whether boredom or drudgery(hand everyone spoon instead of a shovel??) is better...

Re: Average Is Over

#188

Post by hello_moto »

steder wrote: post #117

“Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly-line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the [Chinese] plant near midnight. A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into be…

I'd like to see the author in the shoes of those workers :)

Re: Average Is Over

#189

Post by ajkessler »

roc wrote: post #186
ajkessler wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain some of the highest income disparity in the last century with the lowest crime rates, well, pretty much ever?

If the correlation between income disparity and crime rates remains despite a net drop in crime, how is that a refutation of inequality of disparity as a component to crime? Wouldn't a larger drop in crime in more-equal countries than less-equal countries only re-affirm that though there are clearly other factors involved, inequality is still a component? I don't actually know the numbers but I'd think it would be pr…

Sure. But since income disparity has soared in the last 40 years and crime rates have plummeted, even if they have plummeted everywhere, this indicates that inequality, if it has any effect at all, is likely pretty minor.

I think this would be near impossible to test for though. So many factors affect crime rates across difference societies, and different societies experience wildly different types of income disparity. Intuitively, I imagine places with smaller net income disparity but larger real income disparity (ie a city where everyone is relatively poor but some are destitute) have much more crime than places with larger net income disparity but smaller real income disparity (ie a city where everyone is relatively wealthy, but a few are unbelievably rich).

Re: Average Is Over

#190

Post by kokey »

billybob wrote: post #184
ScottBurson wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can't make everyone above average Yes, you can, because there's an infinity of dimensions and each person only has to be above average on one of them. I'm really surprised how many people here aren't getting this.

Infinity of dimensions, sure. But we're only talking about one of them: number of dollars of economic value you can create . Whether you're an above-average Scrabble player is irrelevant to a discussion about work and wages. Unless there's something of economic value that you can do better and more cheaply than a robot, there is no reason for anyone to pay you.

I think a better way to describe it would be to say that in order to make sure you earn an average salary, you have to be above average at something, and more so than in the previous century.
Post reply on HN