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

91–100 of 104 posts

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

#91

Post by vixen99 »

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?

Is expenditure on schools proportional to attainment? Very often not. Given that health care spending in the U.S. far exceeds that of other high-income countries, is injecting yet more cash the answer to a better outcome?

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

#92

Post by bmmayer1 »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #88
bmmayer1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 addr…

You won't find an argument with me that the tax system should be fairer, or at least have fewer loopholes (fair is obviously a matter of opinion). But note that we have moved the goalposts here from a discussion about economic opportunity/inequality/what have you to a discussion about government policy and taxes...so I'm unclear if the original point is still being addressed.

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

#93

Post by bmmayer1 »

bjourne wrote: post #19

I think everyone should read Nickel and Dimed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed ) by Barbara Ehrenreich. She goes undercover and tries to survive working minimum wage jobs. I don't think I'm spoiling the book by revealing that she wasn't able to. After three months she were so deep in debt that she had to abort the experiment.

That book was well written but incredibly condescending to people who do live those lives and don't get to 'abort the experiment' when they aren't comfortable with the step down in lifestyle anymore. And obviously there are millions of people who live on those wages in the real world, not in the fiction she created for herself. She was obviously trying to make a point about the difficulty of being poor or 'working poor' which is hard to dispute. Obviously it is difficult being poor and it always has been.

The real questions of import are left completely unanswered in that book: what meaningful policy changes can be made to increase jobs, training, education, lower costs (that's a big one--she never mentions the supply side at all) and other meaningful metrics that actually move the needle rather than merely evince patronizing sympathy from her Prius-driving, suburb-occupying, Ivy League-educated audience.

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

#94

Post by ionised »

majewsky wrote: post #33
oblio wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preventing some arbitrary part of the population from having children is basically eradicating that population, long term. I just used "kill", for simplicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I find that equation of terms troubling. If I take that argument to its logical conclusion, we are all killers because we don't get as much children as previous generations. We're effectively killing our unborn offspring by refusing to procreate.

> We're effectively killing our unborn offspring by refusing to procreate.

No we're not.

Killing requires something to exist and be alive first.

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

#95

Post by bjourne »

wolfgke wrote: post #80
bjourne wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably more about lack of liquidity than the lack of knowledge. Housing costs are higher if you are living in a daily motel and can't afford to pay 2-3 months of rent in advance. Food is also more expensive if you don't have access to proper cooking utensils and your own oven and so on. It was a long time since I read the book, but I recall that the experiment ended because she had more unforseen expenses than…

> I think her car broke down a few times and as she had no money in her pocket, she had to take out payday loans to get it repaired. Eventually she couldn't do that anymore so no car, no way to get to work, no job and no income. Why not do carpooling instead?

Part of her experiment was to move out of her social network. And carpooling doesn't work unless you know other people who also needs to move from point A to point B at time C. She didn't know such people.

Besides, she worked as an hourly employee which meant that she, as most hourly workers, didn't have a fixed schedule but would receive one on a weekly basis from her manager. Making car pooling even harder.

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

#96

Post by bjourne »

huyt77 wrote: post #34
Quarrelsome wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jesus. Pick from: alcohol, depression, boredom, dynasty building, genetic programming. I apologise for being rude but it sounds like you have limited compassion if you haven't been able to think this one through. What do you want to do, sterilise the poor? I would remind you that despite a poor background children can and do still excel and even if they don't these children are often the backbone of our industry. You…

Empathy doesn't come into play when we make ppl take a drivers test before we allow them to drive. Why? Cause we don't want them hurting other ppl or themselves. Same rule should apply to parenthood imho. As more data roles in like so https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2017-06-mother-personality-...

So in your opinion, poverty is a form of child abuse?

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

#97

Post by bmmayer1 »

arethuza wrote: post #89
bmmayer1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what the rich choose to do with their money that is causing problems

What do 'the rich' (as a class) choose to do with their money that is causing problems, and what are those problems?

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

#98

Post by arethuza »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #97
arethuza wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what the rich choose to do with their money that is causing problems What do 'the rich' (as a class) choose to do with their money that is causing problems, and what are those problems?

I'm not talking about the rich as a class. I'm in the UK where we have an unhappy combination of remarkably venal politicians (with some notable exceptions), media interests that are either overtly political (e.g. News International and the Daily Mail and related newspapers) or selected from a rather narrow privileged and biased group (e.g. BBC).

I'm not a Labour supporter - but the fact that a hard left party is within striking distance of winning the UK general election (despite the horrendously biased media coverage) shows that there things have got so bad for many people that extremely far left wing policies (by US standards) are starting to look attractive to an awful lot of people.

Not all rich people abuse their positions to obtain disproportionate political influence - but to get disproportionate political influence you have to be rich. Wealth isn't the problem - abuse of the power that wealth can bring is the problem.

Edit: Labour's motto of "For the many not the few" sums up the current political mess rather nicely.

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

#99

Post by antisthenes »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #93
bjourne wrote: post #19

I think everyone should read Nickel and Dimed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed ) by Barbara Ehrenreich. She goes undercover and tries to survive working minimum wage jobs. I don't think I'm spoiling the book by revealing that she wasn't able to. After three months she were so deep in debt that she had to abort the experiment.

That book was well written but incredibly condescending to people who do live those lives and don't get to 'abort the experiment' when they aren't comfortable with the step down in lifestyle anymore. And obviously there are millions of people who live on those wages in the real world, not in the fiction she created for herself. She was obviously trying to make a point about the difficulty of being poor or 'working po…

She's a writer, not an economist.

It's good that she didn't try to tackle a problem completely outside her competence, unlike the libertarian economists of HN.

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

#100

Post by antisthenes »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #76
ryanbrunner wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on whether one loaf (my example was slice, which is maybe a bit more evocative) is the bare minimum to survive or enough to be fully satiated. At that level, it (and wealth inequality) can be viewed as an absolute metric. I absolutely care if my neighbour has 100 loaves if I'm emaciated and unable to think about anything but hunger, even if I'm eating enough to survive. My argument is, for the bottom 40%…

If the true intention of 'inequality' arguments is to highlight the plight of the emaciated and hungry, then it certainly doesn't come across. I don't know where you're getting the 40% number, but 40% of Americans are not 'unable to think about anything but hunger.' 14.5% of Americans are below the poverty line (that's about the same % of people on SNAP). 5% of Americans are considered 'extremely food insecure.' I un…

Solution to poverty is a massive retroactive redistribution of wealth and far more progressive taxes.
Post reply on HN