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

Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 144 posts

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#31

Post by jopsen »

vtange wrote: post #25

I'm surprised the words "capital gains" are not mentioned at all in the article. It's already well known that the richest of the 1% did not get there purely through a high wage/salary. Some might blame loose monetary policy for providing easy money for the 1% in the USA (if you can borrow money and speculate for free, why not, after all), but if that's the case Japan really stands out; they've been QE'ing since their…

> It's already well known that the richest of the 1% did not get there purely through a high wage/salary.

This talks about the 1%, not the few super rich, which is less than 1 out of 100.

It's confusing because often when people say "the 1%" they actually mean multi-millionaires; which is less than 1%.

Most 1%'ers are elite professionals. And this articles argues they make more money because of regulation that creates barriers to competition.

The super rich multi-millionaires and billionaires is a different story.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#32

Post by jabretti »

Mitchhhs wrote: post #22

Is inequality a feature or a bug of capitalism? Seems like the general thinking is that its a feature in-so-much as it encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, etc. It seems like it becomes a bug when it reaches a level in which it creates a positive feedback loop of more inequality. As with anything, i've noticed the discussion is really about how much, not should it exist at all. Almost every debate in American pol…

It's a feature, not of capitalism, but of human interactions in general. (It should not have escaped our attention that any time an "alternative to capitalism" is tried it inevitably winds up with wealth and power even more heavily concentrated, this time in the hands of the people whose job it was to ensure that wealth and power were shared fairly.)

And, to a large extent, of animals. I suppose there are some animal species where all members are more or less equal, but they're probably mostly solitary animals which rarely interact with each other. In social species, massive inequalities, particularly between males, are the norm.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#33

Post by Spooky23 »

tveita wrote: post #14

"Workers at the 90th percentile of the income distribution for professionals make 3.5 times the earnings of the typical (median) worker in all occupations in the United States. Only Mexico and Israel, which have very high inequality, compensate professionals so disproportionately. In Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark, the ratio is about 2 to 1." It's hard to find comparable numbers, but aren't the med…

That’s already happening. Remember they usually talk household income — the 90th percentile couple is two professionals.

We have this massive underclass that is growing faster. The US is going to be like Brazil in 15-20 years. I’m sorry for my son’s generation.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#34

Post by slavik81 »

ryandrake wrote: post #26
slavik81 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Forbes 400 has a self-made score rating the people on its list from 1 to 10, where higher means more self-made. https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2014/10/02/the-ne... https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

Only numbers 8 through 10 are what any reasonable person might consider even remotely "self made" and lumping "middle-class background" and "upper-class background" into 8 (so that Mark Zuckerberg could be considered 8 instead of 7) is a stretch. Any credible list of "self-made this" or "successful entrepreneur that" should include a disclosure of parental wealth.

That's true, though I like that it presents "self-made" as a scale rather than something binary. It allows acknowledging differences that would have been glossed over on a binary scale.

There are big differences between how Laurene Jobs (1), Charles Koch (5), Bill Gates (8) and Oprah Winfrey (10) became as wealthy as they are, and it reflects that.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#35

Post by jopsen »

tveita wrote: post #14

"Workers at the 90th percentile of the income distribution for professionals make 3.5 times the earnings of the typical (median) worker in all occupations in the United States. Only Mexico and Israel, which have very high inequality, compensate professionals so disproportionately. In Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark, the ratio is about 2 to 1." It's hard to find comparable numbers, but aren't the med…

> It's hard to find comparable numbers, but aren't the median wages higher in all those countries?

Last I looked no; the bottom 30% is where Denmark does better than the US. The median wages are similar, maybe slightly higher in the US.

> The article vaguely makes it sound like it's just a matter of paying highly-paid professionals less, but would that lift the bottom or just concentrate the money to an even thinner slice of the population?

Good question. Probably you have to hit the super rich 0.001% with massive taxes, or an aggressive estate tax (preventing wealth from accumulating across generations).

But even with that, good regulation that facilitates competition is probably necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if that makes a bigger splash than the top 0.001%.

Note: there is good and bad regulation. Denmark is heavily regulated, but a lot of it is efficient and fosters competition.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#36

Post by auggierose »

Retra wrote: post #23
auggierose wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Somebody needs to make those huge decisions, and it is not always clear if that should be by democratic means (here is to you, Trump and Brexit).

Trump and Brexit are the result of people with too much money making terrible decisions for the rest of us. They're not evidence that rich people should have more power. But incidentally, someone's ability to make a lot of money (or worse: inherit it) doesn't imply that they have any preferential ability to spend it in a way that benefits society. And when someone has the unchecked power to spend massive sums of mone…

I think you get that wrong. Trump and Brexit are the direct result of democratic decisions in countries with a long history of democracy. Denying that isn't helping.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#37

Post by lovich »

200x0 wrote: post #30

Funny to see you people discussing petty caviar-allowance inequality so fervently within your own arbitrary Western borders yet never giving much mindshare to the rampant "developing" country exploitation that is the very source of your general prosperity. I'm a citizen of third-world country that is being sucked dry by the West for its resources and getting its people shackled to the ground by direct support for the…

I see what you mean and it is bad. Until we have nations merge however, there's nothing we can do even when the system is working at it's theoretical perfection. Our people live in demarcated areas with separate rule sets.

When it comes to the rich vs poor in Western society we are ostensibly equal and many people are upset because reality doesn't reflect that. When it comes to the US vs say Burkino Faso, what would the correct course of action be? There's exploitative actions being taken by individuals and companies against developing nations that could stop, but then what happens? I don't think sweatshops are good but no western company is going to source goods from them if they aren't cheap as the quality isn't the same. We could try to help other nations get to the same quality of life, but many have made it explicitly clear that they don't want interference from foreign powers.

Do we act paternalistic and do what we think is right for other people which removes their autonomy? Do we avoid that and avoid exploiting them, but leave them in the dust because they have nothing we want or need if they are using regulation and price arbitrage to gain business? Do we continue as we currently do which sends money into these countries which should help them develop, but tends to be spread unevenly and causes a lot of human despair?

I can't tell what the right answer is, I can't tell if there even is a right answer

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#38

Post by Spooky23 »

hkmurakami wrote: post #3

>Almost all of the growth in top American earners has come from just three economic sectors: professional services, finance and insurance, and health care, groups that tend to benefit from regulatory barriers that shelter them from competition. >The groups that have contributed the most people to the 1 percent since 1980 are: physicians; executives, managers, sales supervisors, and analysts working in the financial s…

No it’s not that rare — they are just not being paid salaries.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#39

Post by MuffinFlavored »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #13
ameister14 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are millions of people in the 1%. The 400 people at the very top aren't going to come into it much.

But even within the 1%, the income distribution is highly skewed, i.e. those 400 people are responsible for a very sizable total of the overall wealth within the 1%.

i'd be curious to know around what portion the 400 people are responsible for

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#40

Post by tailrecursion »

cperciva wrote: post #18

In the United States, the richest 1 percent have seen their share of national income roughly double since 1980, to 20 percent in 2014 from 11 percent. Not true. The highest income 1% have seen their share of national income roughly double. But the highest income 1% is not the richest 1%.

Is this change in distribution over time being measured using income tax returns? In the 1950s the highest marginal rate was about 90%, and there were many loopholes and special rules. How do we know those rich people back then were accurately declaring income above $250,000?
Post reply on HN