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

U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 209 posts

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#81

Post by marnett »

praha14 wrote: post #35
mtgx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's happening though. First off, social mobility is declining, so let's get that out of the way: http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-dec... Second, I think it's still a problem if the income of 90-98% of the country stagnates for decades , while the top earners get higher and higher income. Of course that affects inequality. I'm also not sure it matters that much if the players at t…

One thing I've never understood- in a fair society in which people are not artificially limited, wouldn't we expect social mobility to decrease over time as successive generations "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics? Let's say we've got a feudal society with dumb nobility that rules over a smart peasantry by force. If that society becomes free, we'll expect smart peasants to move up and dumb no…

I tried multiple times to try to refute all of the assumptions made in this post, but I gave up.

1) One does not have to be intelligent to be wealthy.

2) Those born wealthy do not have to be intelligent to remain wealthy - they just need not be a consumeristic imbecile.

3) Genetics has such a small impact, if any, on social mobility - quite the opposite. If I am born a Kennedy I am more likely to never fall below my birthright social class because of my family lineage.

4) You contradict yourself. You say the nobility rules by force, then immediately follow that with "If that society becomes free" - how exactly would that society magically free?

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#82

Post by icebraining »

rvo wrote: post #24
knuththetruth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

I have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?

There is an idea circulating that the political system in the US is turning into a "neo-feudalism", pushed by a mix of those alt-right "theorists" and some of the new rich.

How much of this "neo-feudalism" shares with actual feudalism is not clear to me.

See

https://www.thedailybeast.com/californias-new-feudalism-bene...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/new-feudalism-fred-ba...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-age-of-n...

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#83

Post by kwhitefoot »

metalliqaz wrote: post #60
benmw333 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning?" Capitalism in the US has created more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in the history of mankind. Your statement applies to third world countries... not the United States. Oh, we're also the most free and most prosperous nation ever. That helps.

Non sequitur. Capitalism requires some income inequality, but runaway income inequality will not be beneficial. Eventually, people get sick of eating rotten cabbage and the guillotines come out. Side note: "most free nation ever" is a total fiction as part of American exceptionalism. For just one example out of many, there are still religious blue laws on the books in towns across the country, and many are still enfo…

We have laws against trading on Sundays here in Norway too. They might well have started as religiously justified laws but they are nonetheless popular here where the vast bulk of the population is non-religious and a substantial fraction avowed atheist. We don't want our day of quiet disturbed.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#84

Post by marnett »

jdoliner wrote: post #75
gameswithgo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but he just made that idea up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, also probably never happens.

He certainly didn't just make that idea up. You can find plenty of research on it by googling "turnover in the 1%". For example: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.htm...

The 'feudal lords' are not the 1%. They would be the .1% or the .01%. I imagine the latter two remain a much more static environment.

Also, the 1% in this article is not even defined. After some digging it looks like it is Gross Adjusted Income. There are CEOs who wouldn't be considered in the 1% because they take salaries of $1 while making millions in stock options - it is such a ridiculous metric.

Inequality is about wealth as much as, if not more than, wage.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#85

Post by kwhitefoot »

akkat wrote: post #68
dzonga wrote: post #59

Those that are okay, with this are 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires' who don't have millions yet. Fact, remains only people that love capitalism are capitalists themselves. for the rest of us we're doomed, if we don't embrace BI, Unions and a massive welfare state. Also full 100% inheritance tax.

I don't think I will ever be as rich as Bill Gates but I would still rather live in a capitalist country as a middle class person than in a communist country as a rich person.

The middle class in the US is shrinking fast.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#86

Post by praha14 »

gowld wrote: post #44
praha14 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've never understood- in a fair society in which people are not artificially limited, wouldn't we expect social mobility to decrease over time as successive generations "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics? Let's say we've got a feudal society with dumb nobility that rules over a smart peasantry by force. If that society becomes free, we'll expect smart peasants to move up and dumb no…

> "sort" themselves into the spots allowed by their genetics There's an extreme amount of assumption baked into that. 1. Genetics is the only factor that determines merit for wealth? 2. Genetics merits extreme differences in income/wealth?

1. No of course not, but if it's a factor at all we'd expect to see the pattern I described.

2. We're talking about social mobility, not the level of inequality.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#87

Post by joejerryronnie »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #72

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm…

Why do you think so many 1%ers are advocating for Universal Basic Income? It's not due to some altruistic notion that everyone should be able to follow their dream. It's out of fear of a populist revolt. Their backup plan is New Zealand based prepper compounds.

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#88

Post by milkshakes »

opportune wrote: post #71

Wage inequality is just a labor aristocracy, divide the masses tactic. We should also be looking at non-wage income i.e. dividends, interest, and capital gains. The untold story: non-wage income in the US is increasing as a share of total income, and the richest of the rich pay the lowest in taxes

dividends and interest are in fact taxed as ordinary income in the united states

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#89

Post by opportune »

milkshakes wrote: post #88
opportune wrote: post #71

Wage inequality is just a labor aristocracy, divide the masses tactic. We should also be looking at non-wage income i.e. dividends, interest, and capital gains. The untold story: non-wage income in the US is increasing as a share of total income, and the richest of the rich pay the lowest in taxes

dividends and interest are in fact taxed as ordinary income in the united states

Yes, but capital gains are not

Re: U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

#90

Post by Consultant32452 »

icebraining wrote: post #69
Consultant32452 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's easy to explain why wages have stagnated. The time wages started to stagnate coincides with women's lib, immigration policy changes, and free trade changes. Women's lib dropped an extra 40% more people into the labor pool. Of course that's going to put downward pressure on wages. We changed our legal immigration policy to favor more poor people while simultaneously changing our illegal immigration enforc…

Under that theory, by 1960s there shouldn't be almost any jobs left, since the population grew 25x since the foundation of the country.

You're arguing against a straw man. It's possible to support social and economic policies while recognizing that they have both positive and negative aspects to them.
Post reply on HN