>startups are on the whole good
Are they? Seems to me that question is far from settled.
Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
31–40 of 118 posts
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#32economic inequality is a mathematical fact referring to the idea that growth in outcomes in the US has diverged over the years between various income brackets. see this https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729 when people say that inequality is bad, what they are talking about is that it is bad that, even though average incomes grew a lot, incomes for the lower brackets grew a lot less than incomes for the higher bracke…
I am curious which specific point downvoters think here is incorrect. I am backing up what I am saying with data
Edit: to those downvoting, here is some more data
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-i...
does it look like income growth of the 1% has much to do with startups from this data ?
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#33[deleted]
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#34I am kind of surprised that PG insist on confusing extreme economic inequality (which is the one most people are talking about when they say it's bad) with normal economic inequality (which most people are totally fine with.) Edited to clear up confusion
This comment doesn't make any sense without defining "extreme" vs "normal" income equality. That is far from obvious. Do you think that technology alone can't produce extreme income inequality? Why?
Market forces and legislation. Simple caps would defeat all attempts to do that. Realistically, the design of a system dictates how it will behave in many scenarios. Our system's properties lead to accumulation and concentration of extreme wealth. Even Citigroup's leaked docs describe it as a "plutonomy:" a system designed to shift most wealth to already rich. I like how they mentioned that voters were the greatest threat with the defense being to promote the illusion that everyone can get ahead.
Combine stuff like that with executives making 300x the average (not worst) employee to see system is clearly rigged against the many for a very few. Not even top 1%: a fraction of a percent.
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#35Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.) Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys). Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tec…
You are obviously biased. Im sure those tech gods affect politics as much as the Kochs -- but it is the kind of political choices that you are ok with. Therefore, they are the good guys and the Kochs are the bad guys. Not so sure things are that simple. E.g. Bill Gates and patents.
Haha, I cannot believe I defended the Kochs.
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#36Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.) Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys). Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tec…
Income inequality, unemployment etc. are necessities for that dynastic wealth as well.
If you're not going to make money by working and creating wealth, you have to make it as a rentier, expropriating wealth created during surplus labor time of those who do work.
It causes a struggle for where the money goes - the worker who created the wealth by their labor, or to the heir in the profit of that expropriated labor time.
Poverty and unemployment are backbones of pushing that wealth towards the heir and away from the worker creating the wealth. That's why his note on ending poverty etc. is so phony. Heirs aren't trying to lower unemployment or end poverty, they work hard to create it.
It's not a secret. It's said openly in Businessweek - http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_44/b3653163.htm . The problem as they see it is when unemployment gets too low. It puts a crimp on their parasitism on those of us who work and create wealth.
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#37Most people I know that are concerned about economic inequality aren't super bothered by self-made billionaires (Jobs, Zuck, and Gates to a lesser degree.) Mostly they are concerned about dynastic wealth (Waltons, Kochs) particularly when it's economic power intertwined with political power (Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys). Outside of San Francisco, where many people feel real downward economic pressure from tec…
You are obviously biased. Im sure those tech gods affect politics as much as the Kochs -- but it is the kind of political choices that you are ok with. Therefore, they are the good guys and the Kochs are the bad guys. Not so sure things are that simple. E.g. Bill Gates and patents. Haha, I cannot believe I defended the Kochs.
You and parent both make excellent points.
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#38Why do startups necessarily increase economic inequality? I agree that they do now, but is it impossible to have the good of startups without also increasing economic inequality? Out of the usual reasons people encourage you to either found or work for a startup, "get rich" is not the primary motivator, and "get richer than other people" certainly isn't. (To claim that "get rich" implies "get richer than other people…
Is it impossible to have the good of startups without also increasing economic inequality? Yes. This is discussed in detail in the original essay and in The Refragmentation essay here: http://paulgraham.com/re.html
I don't think that is correct. For example, a startup could make its founder a billion dollars, but if hundreds of millions of people are able to raise their incomes because they became more productive as a result of using that startup's product, then overall inequality would decrease. Does Coursera lower or increase inequality? I would argue it lowers it in the long run.
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#39> And in the unlikely event I left no holes, some will say I'm backpedalling or doing "damage control."
There's nothing particularly wrong with doing damage control if you think people have misunderstood or misrepresented you. And PG is doing damage control here. Why else post such a "simplified version"?
Re: Economic Inequality: The Simplified Version
#40> economic inequality per se is not bad So let's grant that economic inequality is good in some cases. Even if this is the case, reducing economic inequality may be the most efficient way to solve a wide variety of societal issues. E.g. how many societies are there with high inequality where the poor aren't discriminated against or pushed around by those with money? Sure, in theory inequality isn't the same as: - Reg…
Its almost certainly true that well-implemented policies of reducing income inequality would fix some of these problems, but that completely ignores negative side effects. The negative side effects are what makes that type of high level policy making bad.