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

Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#61

Post by Retra »

vlehto wrote: post #40
randomsearch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. There is a vast amount of evidence. For example, much of it is cited in the famous book "The Spirit Level".

It only shows lots of correlations. The real problem might just as well be obesity, teenage births, imprisonment, educational performance or drug use. If inequality is just one of the symptoms and not the real devil, then eradicating inequality would probably be rather destructive. Just like eradicating drug use seems to be destructive, because the underlying cause is mental problems.

Correlations are evidence.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#62

Post by prostoalex »

jacalata wrote: post #49
prostoalex wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, according to this report, if you have two families both earning exactly the same (by contributing to the economy in the same manner), but one has $50,000 in the bank, while another has used that $50,000 to put a down payment on a house (perhaps by assuming a $200,000 mortgage), the wealth disparity between the two is enormous. Debt (when used prudently) is a useful financial instrument and an enabler. In low-ra…

What gives you that impression? The second family now has a $250k asset and a $200k debt, so they're worth the same. If you wait ten years and one of them collects 1% interest and the other gets their house value doubled then there's a difference.

This specific report doesn't count that $200k debt.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#64

Post by alextgordon »

nilkn wrote: post #35
refurb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good catch. So if I "own" a $1M house, but have a $800K mortgage, they ignore the debt and say that I have $1M in wealth? Ridiculous.

Even if that's their methodology, I don't think it's that ridiculous. It's not like just anyone can go get an $800k mortgage. On top of that, you would stand to personally profit on any gains the home might see in the real estate market. To offer a slightly extreme example, I'd consider a recently minted surgeon with $300k in loans, a mortgage, and a $500k base salary to be considerably wealthier than the debt-free s…

> To offer a slightly extreme example, I'd consider a recently minted surgeon with $300k in loans, a mortgage, and a $500k base salary to be considerably wealthier than the debt-free small-town auto mechanic making $35k.

Is this your perception or is it reality? If your hypothetical surgeon overleverages himself to the point where he has less on paper than the auto mechanic, his financial position sounds very brittle. What if there is a large unexpected expense? Like $50k to clean up a mercury spill...

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#65

Post by rgbrgb »

tyadon wrote: post #16

I really hate to break it to you guys: It's always been like this. Maybe not quite THIS extreme, but a very small group of wealthy white men have run the United States since the beginning.

I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the status quo in this crowd. We like fixing things.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#66

Post by godzillabrennus »

pvnick wrote: post #52

Wealth disparity may be growing, but I think folks disagree about the source. Some point to tax havens which allow the rich to accumulate wealth without a bit being shaved off and redistributed. They say we need to increase taxes and disallow tax havens to limit wealth accumulation. I don't think taxes paint the full picture. For the past 7 years or so central banks in the US, Japan, and UK (and recently the European…

We are living in a consumer economy where an increasing number of jobs are becoming automated. QE is effective in relaxing capital constraints for private industry to thrive but trickle down economics not only doesn't work it certainly doesn't work when you take into account the increasing automation. More than half of Americans live on less than $30k a year. If we want to jump start America we need a minimal viable income. Guaranteed checks to every citizen for them to do what they want. You can argue inflation all you want but without free market economics working for labor we need to tax the rich and siphon that cash back into the hands of the consumer.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#67

Post by lsniddy »

specialist wrote: post #47
tveita wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who work hard and contribute to the economy but still live paycheck to paycheck due to stagnant wages care. It's an extraordinary proposition that sifting more money to the top instead of paying people fair wages would somehow help the economy. Turning your example on the head: what if making the distribution more equal would in the long term give all brackets more money, even the very rich ones? Would you the…

People who work hard and contribute to the economy "Economy" is the measurement of the movement of money. Rich people hoarding money slows the movement, thereby slows the economy. Any one wanting to help the economy would logically oppose the ever growing inequity.

I know zero rich people who "hoard" money, and the ones who become richer tend to be the best at redistributing their cash faster.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#68

Post by sp332 »

themetrician wrote: post #46

In other news: Top 1% singers better than the remaining 99%. Top 1% sprinters better than the remaining 99%. Top 1% producers better than the remaining 99%. Where's the surprise here? It's a variation of Sturgeon's Law. EDIT: the top 1% of wealthy americans are better producers than everyone else, yes. They are not better people than everyone else, no. How is this so hard to understand to HN-level people?

Oh well if the top 1% are better than the rest of us, then what are we 99% "crap" people complaining about? /s

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#69

Post by mikeash »

lumberjack wrote: post #38
mikeash wrote: post #13

> The report defines wealth as the value of assets including property and stock market investments, but excludes debt. How does this make the slightest bit of sense? Counting property but ignoring debt is going to exaggerate the wealth of many Americans by an order of magnitude, for example. Beyond that, one person's debt is another person's investment, so you're double counting all that money.

It makes a lot of sense actually. Poor people are not allowed to go into all that much debt. If you have somebody who is $2M in debt, chances are they are wealthy and were only allowed to accumulate all that much debt because of their influence and reputation or some other kind of leverage. The average graduate who is $40K to $50K is not actually poorer than the homeless beggar who is in the green. They don't live as…

I'd say that's an argument for counting (discounted) future earnings as part of current wealth, but not for ignoring debt.

Sure, that student isn't poorer than a beggar. But they are poorer than their classmate who has the same degree, same skills, and same financial situation in all other respects, but has no debt.

Somebody with a $500,000 house and a $400,000 mortgage and no savings isn't five times wealthier than somebody living an apartment with $100,000 in savings.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#70

Post by zardo »

rgbrgb wrote: post #65
tyadon wrote: post #16

I really hate to break it to you guys: It's always been like this. Maybe not quite THIS extreme, but a very small group of wealthy white men have run the United States since the beginning.

I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the status quo in this crowd. We like fixing things.

We can learn from it though, the history of inequality does suggest that inequality is an attractor, and equality is an unstable state that would require active management to maintain.
Post reply on HN