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

61–70 of 144 posts

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

#61

Post by WalterBright »

alexasmyths wrote: post #2

What I find interesting is that it is in the 'professions'. I would have thought it was massively wealthy equity owners/holders, hedge fund managers etc.. But yes - if we are paying doctors $1M/year then this will happen. At a nearby hospital in Canada, technology improvements have allowed doctors to diagnose using x-rays a lot faster ... but the Unions have kept pay scale the same. The doctor at the Orangevill hospi…

The AMA is empowered by government to restrict the supply of doctors. The purpose is to keep doctor compensation high.

See "Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech

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

#62

Post by odonnellryan »

vlehto wrote: post #28
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

Is that a real problem? Seems like 5 richest US citizens own less than 0,5% of all US assets. I'd be lot more worried about organizations. JP Morgan chase and General Electric are not exactly democratic either. Both are way richer than Gates. And while church of latter day saints is not quite in the same league, it's incredibly wealthy and not at all democratic. If you assume that Gates foundation gets 5% profits and…

I think at the end of the day it approaches dystopian levels of "what can we do?" against these people if they were to behave in ways that the majority of society deems irresponsible.

If Gate's wanted to he could cause immense harm in the country.

It can be argued that some like the Koch's and Mercer's are doing that harm: depending on your political views.

What could be done? These people are literally untouchable. I think the Mercer's would be untouchable even by the US government, if they played their hands in a smart way.

...Unless we'd want to send the army after them, they could just hide on their yachts :)

Anyway, there's no realistic revolution you can have against these people, is my point. If that fear doesn't exist, well, they can do what they want, yes?

I know that what keeps my worst urges "in check" is because it is not healthy for me to act on those actions.

I'm talking about stuff like "pissing off my prior employer" and "saying fuck you to my boss."

I do not know what kind of impulses the .01% have ... I am afraid what I may say or do to that old employer's company if I didn't have to worry about repercussions!

What should I fear from them?

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

#63

Post by odonnellryan »

WalterBright wrote: post #58
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

In what way has a rich person in America spent their money in a way that infringes upon your rights?

You do not think that, through lobbying, a person having literally thousands-more-times a say in our democracy is infringing on my rights?

I do think that it is.

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

#64

Post by euyyn »

200x0 wrote: post #43
lovich wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. Exploitative actions taken by individuals and companies are nothing compared to the ones taken by your governments. Europe is running cheap education improvement programs here as we speak, and other such show-tell crap, but they also sign exploitative deals and house corrupt blood money of my dictator in your banking systems - giving him free-pass to do as he likes, as long as the deals are signed and people are s…

I'm European and, like almost all, don't want my government making deals with dictators. If there's some press coverage about the things you say at least we can make enough noise that it gets the attention of politicians.

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

#65

Post by WalterBright »

pdonis wrote: post #8
alexasmyths wrote: post #2

What I find interesting is that it is in the 'professions'. I would have thought it was massively wealthy equity owners/holders, hedge fund managers etc.. But yes - if we are paying doctors $1M/year then this will happen. At a nearby hospital in Canada, technology improvements have allowed doctors to diagnose using x-rays a lot faster ... but the Unions have kept pay scale the same. The doctor at the Orangevill hospi…

> One would think a private system would be more efficient ... but it's probably just as bad in the US. The US health care system is not a "private system". It's a mishmash of private and public which combines the worst features of both. The reason we have it in the US is that during WW II, the government controlled wages, so businesses trying to compete for employees had to offer something else as an incentive, and…

Employer provided health care stuck around because it was paid for with pre-tax dollars, while buying it individually was with post-tax dollars. This hugely incentivizes employer paid plans.

It has become so entrenched it has more or less morphed into a "right" that employers should pay for it.

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

#66

Post by einarvollset »

humanrebar wrote: post #49
dcre wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you say is absolutely right about the very richest 0.01% -- unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem. But there are very few such people, and what really drives the top-line inequality numbers is the redistribution of income upward to the 5% or the 1%.

> ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?

Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four?

In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.

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

#67

Post by humanrebar »

jabretti wrote: post #32
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…

Good point. Pointing out the flaws of the current system and actually realizing improvements are two different things.

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

#68

Post by jjeaff »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #27
civilian wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for a balanced outlook, you might listen to Freakonomics' interview of Charles Koch: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...

Here's a response to Dubner's interview: https://medium.com/@maxwellllindquist/freakochnomics-how-ste...

Not much of a response. The interview treated Koch influence on politics as a forgone conclusion. (Because it is and Charles didn't seem to argue otherwise).

The point of the interview was to learn about his personal philosophy. Something of which wouldn't be of much interest were it not for his huge amount of influence (that, again, no one is arguing).

As for the final thrust of this response, on how Koch helped stopped a supreme Court nominee, it's likely nothing nefarious. It would be the same as any citizen. Contact your congress people. Difference is, they are going to really listen to the billionaire donating money to their campaign a bit more than your average Joe.

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

#69

Post by diggernet »

bittercynic wrote: post #45
heylook wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bill Gates rented a yacht for $5M/week. How is this not a clear waste? Those $5M don't just get lit on fire. They transfer to some other set of people who can then decide what to do with it, and then onto some other set of people. Maybe the yacht's owner donates all proceeds to feed starving children.

It is still a waste in the sense that productive people spent their time building and maintaining a boat for the benefit of a few rich guys. It would represent reduced waste if the money was instead spent to hire those productive people to build infrastructure for their own communities. Not trying to argue that luxury goods are pure evil, but there is a degree of selfishness in having luxury goods for yourself when t…

So you advocate firing all the hard working folks who designed, built, maintain, repair, clean, and operate that boat, and take care of the passengers? They they too will lack the basics, and the money you just protected from "waste" will need to be used to provide for them.

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

#70

Post by aaronbrethorst »

jjeaff wrote: post #68
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a response to Dubner's interview: https://medium.com/@maxwellllindquist/freakochnomics-how-ste...

Not much of a response. The interview treated Koch influence on politics as a forgone conclusion. (Because it is and Charles didn't seem to argue otherwise). The point of the interview was to learn about his personal philosophy. Something of which wouldn't be of much interest were it not for his huge amount of influence (that, again, no one is arguing). As for the final thrust of this response, on how Koch helped sto…

> it's likely nothing nefarious

It's legal because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but I hope that, before the Koch brothers pass away, we'll see a constitutional amendment overturning this egregious decision.

The idea that money = speech is toxic to democracy.

Post reply on HN