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

Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

oxfam.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 136 posts

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#21

Post by ekianjo »

fsloth wrote: post #14
bobby_9x wrote: post #12

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other st…

Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception. Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

> Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

Inheritance -> heavily taxed about everywhere.

rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it.

Interests on investment exist to allow your money to be useful to other people trying new things and building their businesses. So it's a positive enabler.

Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#22

Post by ximeng »

ekianjo wrote: post #20
ximeng wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite sure the point of your comment. This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? The report you link to agrees with what they say is a problem (e.g. "In high-income countries, the rising concern about shared prosperity is a reaction to income inequality that has reached levels unprecedented in the post-war period.") There is no contradiction between the top 1% getting richer and mor…

> This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? They are saying the inequalities are growing, whereas the world bank report says the inequalities in income are shrinking progressively. That's a very different view.

I've skimmed the report you linked to, and I really don't see the contradiction. E.g. look at the quote below, taken from several on inequality:

"The second WBG goal of boosting shared prosperity is new and opportune. It shifts the focus in evaluating economic development from average income growth to income growth of the bottom 40 percent. Indicators proxying the socioeconomic status of the bottom 40 percent of the population, have shown little improvement, even though the growth of incomes of the bottom 40 percent of the population has not been slower than that of the general population in many countries. This growing inequality in basic living standards is worrisome".

I don't see anything that contradicts the Oxfam report, while there are some comments that seem broadly in line with it. Overall, the broad thrust of both seem in roughly the same direction, although they do take different views.

Again the inequalities in income shrinking progressively shown in the interactive presentation is between countries. It looks at incomes below 100k USD, which is not particularly relevant to a debate on the top global 1%.

I'm sure there's a debate to be had on how much inequality restricts growth. Perhaps it's not correct when Oxfam says that reducing inequality could improve the overall size of the pie. But I see little in your links to contradict that at first glance. Maybe you could point out more specific grounds for your views?

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#24

Post by xshift »

bobby_9x wrote: post #12

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other st…

"the natural form of most free marketplaces and systems"

i like how you add that as if it were indisputably a good thing. lol.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#25

Post by xshift »

ekianjo wrote: post #21
fsloth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception. Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

> Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments. Inheritance -> heavily taxed about everywhere. rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it. Interests on investment exist to allow your money to be useful to other people trying new things and building their businesses…

> rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it.

think he may have meant to refer to rent-seeking in general and not specifically property rentals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

either way, your response indicates that you seem to be missing the point...

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#26

Post by mahyarm »

brandonmenc wrote: post #23

> Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014. I know plenty of people in their 60s who simply busted their asses at middle-class jobs while saving their pennies who are members of this "global elite."

And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too.

Still as far as 60 year olds go, that is actually pretty good. There are many 60 year olds who did not pinch pennies or did and had some medical disaster wipe their savings.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#27

Post by MacsHeadroom »

chiaro wrote: post #11

This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards…

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered.

Probably because most capitalists don't believe this?

>nor did the property rights regarding their shares.

Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business).

>Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to these profits in the first place.

True. Obviously a laissez-faire capitalists would say they're both unnatural- as they would say most, if not all, concepts created via legislative action are also "unnatural." Of course, people don't typically expend effort fighting "unnatural" injustice that benefits them- especially when money is on the line, and even more so state protected stock holder money.

>A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with the law,

Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality?

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#28

Post by refurb »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

What do they do with it then? The only way they could hold money and it not have a positive impact is if it's sitting in cash.

If they invest it or hell, even put it in a savings account, the money is having a positive impact on the economy. If they buy a ridiculous $50M yacht? That money flows to the company that built it.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#29

Post by ps4fanboy »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "money" the wealthy have most of their wealth tied up in ill liquid assets like property, would you call owning property hoarding? Cash is almost always invested, either directly or indirectly through deposits.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#30

Post by ps4fanboy »

jqm wrote: post #19

2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world. I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative. I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.

1% is just tugging at heart strings, marketing.

If you further divide that 1% you'll find it like you suggest is much worse than that. 0.001% seems more likely.

Post reply on HN