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

Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#81

Post by bmmayer1 »

phs318u wrote: post #60
bmmayer1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is society becoming more feudal? I've heard this from so many people and the evidence doesn't seem to support it. For example, ~64% of Americans own a home. What % of feudal peasants owned a shovel, let alone a home?

Really? 64% of Americans own a home debt free ?

Never said that. But does the widespread ability of most Americans to finance a house, a car, and in general a better standard of living, without having to be rich, powerful, in the right caste or social strata not far trump feudal sharecropping/indentured servitude, one-step-removed-from-slavery conditions for a vast portion of the populace?

The claim was that society is becoming more feudal. I would like to see some evidence that is the case.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#82

Post by wolfgke »

grosbisou wrote: post #68
viridian wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is just a lack of knowledge on how to survive while poor. I'm in a good economic position compared to most of the US and certainly most of the world, but I can't see myself having much of an issue with this. Growing up there were times where my family was homeless, and my first job I was a carpenter's apprentice, paid under the table, for less than minimum wage. It's not that being poor is extremely…

Absolutely. It's not easy being on minimum wage. But most people don't know what they are talking about. A good example: https://twitter.com/gwynethpaltrow/status/586168041576116224...

There exist tables in the internet how to optimize your grocery shopping while still getting all the necessary nutrients if you are short on money. Use them. I know that it will not be comfortable, but to me there is hardly any excuse for not using them.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#83

Post by nine_k »

DarkKomunalec wrote: post #63
averagewall wrote: post #53

I can tell this article is preaching to the choir because it doesn't bother to explain why inequality is bad. It just assumes that we agree it is. So why is it bad? Especially since most Americans don't even know about it, how can it be hurting them? Two possibilities I can think of: A) Jealousy B) Risk of revolution

"since most Americans don't even know about it, how can it be hurting them?" By spending limited resources on yachts instead of schools and hospitals?

US hospitals charge exorbitant money for their services. Spending on schools, while not nearly as exorbitant, is still higher than in many previous decades. (Don't get me started about college tuition.) it's not lack of finite resources that is the source of their problems.

Of course, medicine and education could put some more money to good use, but likely invested very differently.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#84

Post by wolfgke »

delerio wrote: post #74
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in life is due to us. There is no "deserve". Also, you are painting a false dichotomy between "rich" and "poor". A lot of middle and lower class people can raise healthy and happy children unless they have problems with mental health / violence / substance abuse & so on. > taking away the only joy in some people's lives Looking at children as a source of joy instead of a recipient of unconditional care and ef…

I don't understand your point. Many people find joy in raising children, it fulfills a purpose in their life. Not everyone does, but many do. There is a biological desire to procreate and continue the species.

> Many people find joy in raising children, it fulfills a purpose in their life. Not everyone does, but many do.

Many people find joy in other expensive hobbies, too. The difference is: Doing such a different expensive hobby won't make someone who you produced suffer because you lack the necessary financial backing.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#85

Post by CalRobert »

wolfgke wrote: post #45
CalRobert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could say the same for being in a high quintile of leisure time, but that doesn't stop all stressed-out rich people from having kids. Most of humanity was born to parents with no monetary income at all, and volatile access to resources and shelter. Imagine that!

> One could say the same for being in a high quintile of leisure time, but that doesn't stop all stressed-out rich people from having kids. Which I consider independently from my main argument as a stupid idea.

You made an argument?

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#86

Post by nine_k »

geoka9 wrote: post #24
awptimus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because...

... with low inequality there are more middle class members of the society.

Not necessarily, as historical Communist societies show. It just could be more of the lower class, nearly zero middle class, and, unavoidably, some comrades that are much more equal than the rest of the population.

Reducing inequality down to the point of literal equality was shown to lower the quality of life.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

trentnix wrote: post #5

I've never understood using income inequality as a measure of the health of a society. As Milton Friedman said, the only place where people are equal is in a prison and in the grave. Milton Friedman on greed and income inequality: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

> I've never understood using income inequality as a measure of the health of a society.

Relative deprivation is empirically shown to be a significant source of disutility. Further, even if only absolute deprivation is held to be significant, aggregate statistics don't show you the degree to which that is present in a society without distributional measures. Either of these reasons, much less both together, make distributional measures important alongside aggregate measures.

> As Milton Friedman said, the only place where people are equal is in a prison and in the grave.

The “in a prison” part is obviously and flagrantly wrong, but even beyond that the observation is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That some inequality will always exist in real societies does not mean degree of inequality is unimportant alongside other measures, just as the fact that some aggregate output will exist in real societies does not mean that the degree of aggregate output is unimportant.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#88

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #77
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have always and will always care about how much their neighbor has.

True, but 'do not covet thy neighbor's goods' is also one of the oldest traditions we have. There's a reason such moral imperatives have developed in our culture; they are more often than not destructive.

I think the problem here is that people with a single loaf are looking around and seeing some guy with 1000 loaves of bread on the news saying that the fact that he has to pay 10 loaves to the government is immoral and that poor people would be fine with half a loaf.

Tax cuts and the cuts in government programs that come with them directly affect those with the least. Telling people not to covet and not actually addressing inequality is how you get things like the French Revolution.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#89

Post by arethuza »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #78
arethuza wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But inequality arguably leads to unfairness though - is it "fair" that someone who is successful can get better chances for their kids through better environment, schooling and connections? I'd argue that inequality pretty much always leads to unfairness. Edit: And I say that as someone who pays for their kids to be privately educated at a prestigious private school because it is obvious that doing so gives them an u…

I think the point is that fairness leads to inequality.

And extreme economic inequality leads to people using their money to control politics and the media to stack the system in their favour. It's not simply the inequality that is the problem its what the rich choose to do with their money that is causing problems.

Re: Economic Inequality Is Worse Than We Think (2015)

#90

Post by ptaipale »

wolfgke wrote: post #35
ptaipale wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment however leads me to ponder the rhetoric: poverty is indeed not a disease, but like diseases, in modern societies it is contagious. Patterns and behaviours that make poverty deeper and more destructive are spreading from person to person and family to family, in neighbourhoods and communities. Here I mean things like appreciation of education, work, stability of families, etc. What could we do to change t…

Exactly my kind of reasoning. To add a point: Since we don't know the exact kind of pathogen(s) leading to poverty, but we know that poverty of parents is a strong predictor of poverty of children, this delivers a way to at least partly quarantine the poverty disease.

Yes, poverty of parents is predictor of poverty of children, but for a large part, it isn't about money. It's about those contagious factors - for instance, how much the parents want their children to do well in school, how much they care about it. So fixing the poverty metric isn't going to change this, something else might.

At least what I read about the number of poor black American kids growing without a father: it's shocking. There seems to be a widespread collapse of culture of having a stable kernel family. What could be done about it?

Post reply on HN