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

71–80 of 144 posts

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

#71

Post by ameister14 »

sidlls wrote: post #50
slavik81 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg aren't 5 or lower means this scale is not credible. Both of these individuals had access to substantial capital and social connections, well above any meaningful definition of "middle-class", to jumpstart their businesses.

I don't think that's entirely fair - let's say your parents made $500,000 a year; if you made 90 billion, wouldn't that still be self-made? Sure, it's not as self-made as Carnegie or Rockefeller who would have been 10/10 as child-laborers turned wealthiest men in the world, but it's not exactly Trump or JP Morgan Jr., either.

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

#72

Post by diggernet »

abrichr wrote: post #48
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 doctor at the Orangevill hospital earns over a million dollars a year, and he works from home. Swipe, swipe, swipe, swipe - done. What kind of doctor is this, radiologist? I'm not aware of any mobile apps in use clinically, but a radiologist's job is to look at images on a computer screen. It doesn't matter where they do it from. Very little of it is automated. > One would think a private system would be more e…

Interesting perspective on single-payer.

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

#73

Post by mixmastamyk »

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?

Can’t take it with ya.

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

#74

Post by thatguy0900 »

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…

Regarding 4, I'm curious why it's in this list with the others. It certainly makes life better for the individual, but doesn't losing all its top talent to foreign countries hurt developing countries?

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

#75

Post by 200x0 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #74
200x0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Regarding 4, I'm curious why it's in this list with the others. It certainly makes life better for the individual, but doesn't losing all its top talent to foreign countries hurt developing countries?

As I said, vastly different views, to the point of being annoying.

We, as a country, are not in the business of "country-building" but rather survival and that of avoiding pain. Our government doesn't need talented individuals - they just need brainwashed populace and stability for their power. Thinkers are direct infraction to the system and usually are not tolareted.

Also, what do you expect disarray of talented individuals with no power to concentrate power to do alone in a society that doesn't recognize nor like them?

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

#76

Post by sidlls »

ameister14 wrote: post #71
sidlls wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg aren't 5 or lower means this scale is not credible. Both of these individuals had access to substantial capital and social connections, well above any meaningful definition of "middle-class", to jumpstart their businesses.

I don't think that's entirely fair - let's say your parents made $500,000 a year; if you made 90 billion, wouldn't that still be self-made? Sure, it's not as self-made as Carnegie or Rockefeller who would have been 10/10 as child-laborers turned wealthiest men in the world, but it's not exactly Trump or JP Morgan Jr., either.

They're closer to Koch or Trump than anybody who labored from nothing.

Your hypothetical is why I agree a scale is better than a binary classification. I guess we might just disagree on the grade.

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

#77

Post by sumedh »

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…

> Is inequality a feature or a bug of capitalism?

Where does crony capitalism fit in?

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

#78

Post by clarkmoody »

einarvollset wrote: post #66
humanrebar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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.

You may glance at this to update your mental model of feudalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

The democratic urge to use the state for preventing the transfer of wealth between generation is sickening. It shows neither a respect for property nor liberty.

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

#79

Post by sumedh »

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…

> I believe, there should be an upper limit.

What should be the upper limit and who defines it?

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

#80

Post by ci5er »

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…

What resources are being sucked at what price per unit resource, and what amount of that price is kept in-country for investment and for paying the laborers?

Is your argument that "the West" isn't paying enough? Or that the money being paid isn't making its ways into the right pockets, or, ... what?

EDIT: To be clear ... I simply don't understand your summary of the complex phenomenon of "being sucked by the West".

Post reply on HN