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

Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 302 posts

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#41

Post by Vivtek »

forensic wrote: post #38
Vivtek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give up 100% of my silicon-based technology if in exchange I can afford to own some land. Easy choice. You can't possibly be serious. Why aren't you already in Nebraska, then? There's plenty of land in the United States, most of it dirt cheap (being dirt). If you're not already from the country, you probably don't know why we all left the country. (Myself included.)

I'm not talking about any crappy dirt pile anywhere, I'm talking about owning my own place to live in a community where there are jobs and 1960s technology. I could move to Nebraska but it is unlikely I could find a job that would afford me a residence. This isn't about social norms, this is about whether the computer revolution has been worth it for the great majority of Americans. A lot of Americans would kill righ…

No, I'm pointing out that just owning land isn't enough. If you want to idealize the 1960's, no skin off my nose, although you're probably white and male. And you weren't alive in the 60's.

The only reason to put "owning land" on a pedestal is because you can grow food on it. There's no other reason to care about land ownership. But you don't want to be a caveman and actually grub in the dirt - no, you want to be an industrial worker, apparently. One without silicon technology - just steel and coal. Because that world was just fantastic.

Aspie computer nerd my ass. Punk.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#42

Post by bendotc »

rayiner wrote: post #29
bendotc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Carter's reign wasn't exactly an economic wonder-time, and I don't think Reagan was influencing the economy that much as governor. I do think there's a political dimension to the change, but laying the blame at Reagan's feet exclusively seems like simple political point-scoring. Edit: it's funny seeing this comment getting down-modded. I think I'm significantly more liberal than most people here, but it l…

The article gives two ranges: 1947-1979, 1980-Present. Reagan's presidency (1981-1989), and the political changes it brought, coincided with the beginning of the second range.

Right, again, I think there's a political dimension to this, but I don't think Reagan created the problems two years before he got into office. My gut tells me economic repercussions like this probably lag their causes by several years, and looking at the graph, there's reason to think the problem started even earlier in the seventies.

In short, saying Reagan had a big part in this is a claim I would support, but saying it's all Reagan's fault is clearly untrue, barring time travel.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#43

Post by cbs »

Gormo wrote: post #33

Every time I see this kind of chart, I always wonder why the aggregate income distribution of a population is a metric that anyone ought to be concerned about. What does one person's income have to do with anyone else's - why would you aggregate everyone's separate incomes into a single figure in the first place? And if someone's particular income is insufficient to meet their needs, how do the aggregate population d…

>What does one person's income have to do with anyone else

If I make $10/yr I could be the richest man on earth or the poorest. It kind of depends on what everybody else makes too.

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#44

Post by [deleted] »

forensic wrote: post #30
adamjernst wrote: post #18

This analysis also ignores actual purchasing power (non-core inflation). Wages may have stagnated, but purchasing power for non-core goods has soared. Free trade is a powerful cause of both wage stagnation and purchasing power. Sure, eliminate free trade and the working class will see wages go up; but they'll spend those wages on $4000 plasma TVs and $50,000 economy cars.

People making your argument always mention TVs, they never mention rent, land, food, education, childcare, or healthcare. 1. Rent 2. Land 3. Food 4. Education 5. Childcare 6. Healthcare You know, the stuff that actually matters. I'll give up my $400 LCD TV to be able to afford having my spouse stay home. No problem. I'll give up my Hyundai to be able to get a degree on the cheap like they did back in the 60s. I'll gi…

[deleted]

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#46

Post by pg »

wanorris wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #36

Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality, because the bottom end of the scale is firmly anchored at zero (someone taking a vacation), while technology gives the top end ever more powerful levers. So the interesting question is not why economic inequality is increasing, but why for a few decades in the mid twentieth century the trend was reversed. There are probably several factors at work he…

Don't you think that the top tax bracket being slashed from over 70% to well below 50% had something to do with it as well?

Less than people think. Back when taxes were so high, the rich were really good at tax avoidance. So the rate doesn't tell you the whole story.

As one of the people whose opinion about working for a large company changed during the 1970s, I know I didn't consciously think about tax rates. (It's possible they affected me unconsciously though, via the examples of people who'd cleared more after tax due to lower rates.)

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#47

Post by portman »

pg wrote: post #36

Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality, because the bottom end of the scale is firmly anchored at zero (someone taking a vacation), while technology gives the top end ever more powerful levers. So the interesting question is not why economic inequality is increasing, but why for a few decades in the mid twentieth century the trend was reversed. There are probably several factors at work he…

"Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality"

Does that mean you are unfazed by growing inequality, and view it as an unavoidable byproduct of progress?

Or do you believe economic inequality is a negative externality (like pollution) that needs to be remedied?

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#48

Post by [deleted] »

forensic wrote: post #38
Vivtek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give up 100% of my silicon-based technology if in exchange I can afford to own some land. Easy choice. You can't possibly be serious. Why aren't you already in Nebraska, then? There's plenty of land in the United States, most of it dirt cheap (being dirt). If you're not already from the country, you probably don't know why we all left the country. (Myself included.)

I'm not talking about any crappy dirt pile anywhere, I'm talking about owning my own place to live in a community where there are jobs and 1960s technology. I could move to Nebraska but it is unlikely I could find a job that would afford me a residence. This isn't about social norms, this is about whether the computer revolution has been worth it for the great majority of Americans. A lot of Americans would kill righ…

[deleted]

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#49

Post by hans00 »

pg wrote: post #36

Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality, because the bottom end of the scale is firmly anchored at zero (someone taking a vacation), while technology gives the top end ever more powerful levers. So the interesting question is not why economic inequality is increasing, but why for a few decades in the mid twentieth century the trend was reversed. There are probably several factors at work he…

Man, what fantasy world do you live in? Large corporations decrease inequality? [citation needed] Ambitious people started to lose interest? I can't even dignify that with a [citation needed]. Ambitious people have what to do with anything on a national scale? Ambitious people somehow caused, or were party to, the decimation of the middle class, which somehow never once gets mentioned by the actual economists and political theorists who actually know stuff about this stuff?

Oh! Are you "pg" of that ludicrous "hackers and painters" essay, the one that actual painters tore to shreds because it's the same sort of bizarre nonsequitor drivel? I can see you're still at it. Nice "work".

Re: Share of Income Gains by Quintile - Great Depression til Now

#50

Post by btilly »

wanorris wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #36

Technological progress should cause increasing economic inequality, because the bottom end of the scale is firmly anchored at zero (someone taking a vacation), while technology gives the top end ever more powerful levers. So the interesting question is not why economic inequality is increasing, but why for a few decades in the mid twentieth century the trend was reversed. There are probably several factors at work he…

Don't you think that the top tax bracket being slashed from over 70% to well below 50% had something to do with it as well?

Go back further. 70% itself was a major slash by JFK (a very rich person from a very rich family) from the previous 90%+ in the 50s.

Before that, there was no point in being paid more. The only thing that made sense was to take pleasure in the organization that you ran.

Post reply on HN