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

91–100 of 209 posts

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

#91

Post by drb91 »

eanzenberg wrote: post #79
EGreg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same old arguments. "Inequality is totally OK" "But if many people have total food insecurity and bad health outcomes, that's bad right?" "Well hey but in the long run people got wealthier overall than if we redistributed wealth and no one would have an incentive to work like a dog" "That would have happened anyway because it's not capitalism but science and technology that drives wealth forward" "Look, Capitalis…

>> "Well maybe if you abolished drug patents innovatio could come from all over the world instead of the chilling effects we have today. Open source beats closed in the long run and Open source Drugs would beat big pharma in the long tail whose plight isn't even worth pursuing for these guys. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants, why is medicine different than science?" Literally no new drugs would be prod…

Seems like a great place to nationalize the means of production! Why not? Economic incentives are inherently at odds with helpful medicine. If it helps too much you can't make money off it!

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

#92

Post by malvosenior »

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'm not a capitalist (if you define that as someone who makes the majority of their income from investments). I in no way feel "doomed". I was able to lift myself from poverty by dedicating my life to a craft I love (software development). The system we inhabit in the West allowed that to happen. Quite the opposite of doomed.

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

#93

Post by praha14 »

marnett wrote: post #81
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…

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…

1. Of course not, I referenced unintelligent wealthy people ("dumb nobility") in my post.

2. 70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation, 90% by the third. [A]

3. IQ is a greater predictor of income than parental SES. Someone in the 95th percentile for IQ has a higher EV for earnings than someone born into the 95th percentile for wealth.

4. A number of revolutions have happened. If you don't believe that modern France or Japan are freer than their feudal predecessors then I agree that we are probably not on the same page.

A. http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

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

#94

Post by hueving »

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…

Because there has been a successful campaign to vilify the 1%. When you look at income levels, the 1% includes doctors, lawyers, lots of small business owners, and even many software engineers that got good stock grants in Silicon Valley.

So picking 1% as the threshold was very ill-conceived because now it includes many expert professionals and small business owners. So it's very easy to relate to them if you are also an expert or small business owner.

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

#95

Post by belorn »

watwut wrote: post #47
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference between race and gender is that most women have children, which take up a lot of time and require taking at least some time away from work. If the difference is due to cultural issues then maybe it makes sense to worry about the differences and try to address them, but if the difference just comes down to women have children so they work less that's a less compelling reason to try to equalize men…

Men have children too. There are not many kids that have no biological father. I mean these comments talk about it as if kids and work around them had zero to do with men and we're some kind of female hobby. Among some men it is so as they don't care, but many men do actually care and do spend time with them.

Taking numbers from Norway, there is twice as many childless men than there is childless women. 24% vs 12%.

If that has a impact on the economical state of everyone involved is up to debate, but there is a distinctive difference.

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

#96

Post by pault »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #42
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…

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…

Your explanation presumes fixed demand.

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

#97

Post by malvosenior »

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…

> 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%.

It's not a zero sum game. Just because the 1% benefit from a particular policy, it doesn't mean other non-1% people supporting it don't benefit as well.

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

#98

Post by ameister14 »

metalliqaz wrote: post #41
ameister14 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...the gilded age resulted in massive industrial and income expansion, the rise of the US onto the world stage financially and the lowering of maternal death rates, raising of life expectancy and a general post-industrial boom. Wages and average per capita savings doubled. It was also associated with the immigration of tens of millions of impoverished people, which is part of the reason for the massive inequality n…

Excuse me but those benefits weren't result of the Guilded Age. Correlation, not causation. Both things were a result of the industrial revolution and globalization.

Exactly. The Gilded Age was also a result of the industrial revolution and globalization. It describes a period of history - during which, these things happened.

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

#99

Post by Flavius »

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

What do you mean by "the lowest"? Percentage wise? Because I'm sure they pay millions or even billions in some cases. I agree that the rich might not pay the same percentage that you pay, but that's not even the real problem.

The real problem is that we don't have equal opportunities. That gives the rich people a huge advantage when it comes to earning more money. We don't need to tax the rich more, that doesn't really help you when you're poor. We need to wisely use the money that we already have to create more opportunities for everyone.

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

#100

Post by commandlinefan »

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 know that the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" rhetoric is supposed to frighten or shame me into supporting liberal causes (most notably wealth redistribution), but although you're absolutely correct that I don't have millions and likely never will, when I compare how I grew up to what I've been able to carve out for myself by just educating myself and doing the best job I could against what I see in places like Venezuela, I continue to be more concerned by people like you than people like, say, the Koch brothers. It's a shame that traditionally left-wing causes like humane working conditions get bound up in really dangerous suggestions like universal basic income and single-payer healthcare, because there are a lot of areas where America could stand to improve if only we could stop being so back-biting and divisive.
Post reply on HN