71–80 of 114 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Guardian article meant that they had subtracted debt from assets, but they stated it in a confusing way. The original report states: Once debts have been subtracted, a person needs only USD 3,210 to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens in mid-2015. However, USD 68,800 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and USD 759,900 to belong to the top 1%. Which is more clearl…
Yes, I believe you're correct. Holy crap is that a terrible way to put it. I wouldn't call "excluding debt" confusing, but just outright wrong. Unless this is one of those dialect things that means something different to the Brits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are you to decide who needs what?
The majority of citizens in a democracy decide what the economic rules are.
Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
Hear, hear! Let them eat cake!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"The report shows that a person needs only $3,210 (£2,100) to be in the wealthiest 50% of world citizens. " Prices between country are adjusted to Power parity purchases (PPP)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of citizens in a democracy decide what the economic rules are.
You say democracy, I say "mob rule".
Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
I would prefer HN to be a place where things like "socialist propaganda" aren't thrown around so loosely. Thanks.
Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
While the study in the OP is poorly done.. > Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? Discussing inequality in society isn't "socialist propaganda". > There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/... > The evidence suggests that the channel through which inequality hurts growth is…