The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-economic-expansions-are-increasingly-going-to-the-richest-americans.html
126 comments
Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed).
I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources. Yes. Houses (actually Land).
Let them bid up Mona Lisa, Diamonds, old Ferraris til infinity if they want.
But don't park your money in land inflating house prices beyond what local wages can support making me pay 30% of my salary in rent for 10 years waiting for a house price "correction".
Wealth should be chased out of non productive pure rent seeking "investments".
At some point wealth moves past material goods and into the realm of your ability to influence society. If only everyone with money had noble goals when it came to this influence...
If only we could separate the power to reshape society for personal benefit from the ability to score "mine is bigger than yours" points. Zuck, Gates, the Kochs, and others probably have "buy a President" money, and could probably also develop personal nuclear arsenals. Let them play that video game and compete for new high scores.
Net Neutrality
Yet the greatest evils in society did not arise from the behavior of the rich but from those that claim they will help the poor.
That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral. Some dictator uses a popular sentiment to seize power and then uses that power in horrible ways. It's as often due to racial animosity or religious fervor as it is the well-being of the poor; it just has to be something that sells well to the population at large.
> That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral. Some dictator uses a popular sentiment to seize power and then uses that power in horrible ways. It's as often due to racial animosity or religious fervor as it is the well-being of the poor; it just has to be something that sells well to the population at large.
USSR + communist china + North Korea + Communist countries in Europe + Cuba + communist countries in Africa. They kind of blow that ideal-neutral theory out of the water
USSR + communist china + North Korea + Communist countries in Europe + Cuba + communist countries in Africa. They kind of blow that ideal-neutral theory out of the water
The British Empire + historical monarchies and oligarchiies + capitalist countries in Africa + the Nazis + 20th century Japanese Empire + American expansion westward (and one might argue, modern day American influence) would like to help balance your cherry picked examples.
There's a little problem with the scale. All of the ones that you have mentioned in total would be dwarfed by the numbers of USSR + China.
> That statement is downright silly; on the whole atrocities have been essentially ideal-neutral
I disagree with the premise, but for the sake of argument, even if taken as assumption the point still stands. "Taxing the rich" is a proposition that will help the people that collect the tax far more than the general population.
A simple example of this can be Seattle and San Francisco Governments, that have had explosive tax income booms, most of their staff collection 6 figure salaries, and yet both cities enjoy very large homeless populations.
Increasing tax income does not mean inequality will decrease. It might even make it worse.
I disagree with the premise, but for the sake of argument, even if taken as assumption the point still stands. "Taxing the rich" is a proposition that will help the people that collect the tax far more than the general population.
A simple example of this can be Seattle and San Francisco Governments, that have had explosive tax income booms, most of their staff collection 6 figure salaries, and yet both cities enjoy very large homeless populations.
Increasing tax income does not mean inequality will decrease. It might even make it worse.
How did you manage to turn a discussion about atrocities and demagogues into a complaint about your pet peeve of tax collectors being highly compensated?
Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed?
Absurd.
Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed?
Absurd.
> How did you manage to turn a discussion about atrocities and demagogues into a complaint about your pet peeve of tax collectors being highly compensated?
I didn't turn anything: they are the same thing more often than not.
> Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed?
And thus my examples of Seattle and San Francisco: cities that have had exponential tax income at the same time as a net increase in homelessness. + TAX + (extreme?)Poverty simultaneously. It is disproven constantly that what the state gathers, it does not distribute appropriately.
The city of san francisco spends 20k+ a year per homeless person, but if you look at the way they live, you can be pretty certain they don't get that.
Raising taxes is not the solution to poverty. Specially when everybody pays them.
I didn't turn anything: they are the same thing more often than not.
> Your argument is completely incoherent. Are you suggesting that raising taxes on the rich through closing loopholes, raising capital gains tax, removing 529 and housing subsidies, and yes, increasing income tax, would actually end up with Gini inequality getting even more skewed?
And thus my examples of Seattle and San Francisco: cities that have had exponential tax income at the same time as a net increase in homelessness. + TAX + (extreme?)Poverty simultaneously. It is disproven constantly that what the state gathers, it does not distribute appropriately.
The city of san francisco spends 20k+ a year per homeless person, but if you look at the way they live, you can be pretty certain they don't get that.
Raising taxes is not the solution to poverty. Specially when everybody pays them.
Data please, showing that Seattle/San Fran have a tax income booms, that the tax income boom is due to changes in laws, that tax collection workers are paid ridiculous 6 figure salaries (note, $100,000 is not a ridiculous 6 figure salary), and finally that homeless populations have grown or remained stable even after tax income booms that resulted from legal increases in tax rates.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/sea...
https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/documents/Economic...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/podcast-h...
Thats seattle. I have limited anecdotal data of seattle, but the homelessness is pretty pervasive, almost San Francisco Level.
On SF:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
Googling has reports on SF tax revenue, but dont have a quick link for it. It will definitely show growth in the past decade, since there are more people, more consumption, housing boom (and hence prop taxes) etc. If you insist I can google more, but I dont have a skill you dont on that front.
Two of the fastest growing cities ever, tax revenue surge, increased government expenditure, higher homelessness.
Cant help but think that Henry George was right.
https://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/documents/Economic...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/podcast-h...
Thats seattle. I have limited anecdotal data of seattle, but the homelessness is pretty pervasive, almost San Francisco Level.
On SF:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
Googling has reports on SF tax revenue, but dont have a quick link for it. It will definitely show growth in the past decade, since there are more people, more consumption, housing boom (and hence prop taxes) etc. If you insist I can google more, but I dont have a skill you dont on that front.
Two of the fastest growing cities ever, tax revenue surge, increased government expenditure, higher homelessness.
Cant help but think that Henry George was right.
Your first link claims that city services are increasingly more reliant on tax revenue than non-tax revenue to pay the bills. Two immediate reasons for the increased reliance on tax revenue: 1) Seattle is using "public private partnerships", and outsourcing some public services to private companies, which overcharge them, increasing city expenditures, 2) city revenue that isn't tax based isn't growing to keep up with the city's needs, because revenue streams probably come from fines which are meant to help enforce a particular law, rather than create a sustainable revenue source, so naturally over time, the tax revenue increasingly provides funding for city services.
Provide me with data that shows that both 1) and 2) are not the case.
Your second link is just a big "data dump" and doesn't point me to the relevant facts, so I'll just share what I saw out of it: tax revenue is growing, even though tax rates aren't being increased. So, amongst other factors, this is likely due to population growth. This actually makes the opposite point of what you want to make.
Your third link does nothing to connect the homeless problem to the increases in tax rate. Show me that homelenessness spikes each time tax rates are increased. It's really a pretty simple graph I am asking for.
You provided no evidence for other points I raised, and the evidence you did provide were for mostly for questions I did not ask. In my first post, I clarified that I want data that shows cause and effect you claim:
increases in tax rates (not revenue!) => increases in city spending => increases in homelessness
Grade: fail. Off to the gulag with you.
Provide me with data that shows that both 1) and 2) are not the case.
Your second link is just a big "data dump" and doesn't point me to the relevant facts, so I'll just share what I saw out of it: tax revenue is growing, even though tax rates aren't being increased. So, amongst other factors, this is likely due to population growth. This actually makes the opposite point of what you want to make.
Your third link does nothing to connect the homeless problem to the increases in tax rate. Show me that homelenessness spikes each time tax rates are increased. It's really a pretty simple graph I am asking for.
You provided no evidence for other points I raised, and the evidence you did provide were for mostly for questions I did not ask. In my first post, I clarified that I want data that shows cause and effect you claim:
increases in tax rates (not revenue!) => increases in city spending => increases in homelessness
Grade: fail. Off to the gulag with you.
According to http://openbudget.seattle.gov/#!/year/default
2013: 4.32Billion
2014: 4.72Billion
2015: 5.14Billion
2016: 5:41Billion
2017: 5.71Billion
Tax revenue is increasing enormously.
> Your second link is just a big "data dump" and doesn't point me to the relevant facts, so I'll just share what I saw out of it: tax revenue is growing, even though tax rates aren't being increased. So, amongst other factors, this is likely due to population growth. This actually makes the opposite point of what you want to make.
My point is that increasing taxes is not the way to solve poverty. Increasing tax rates is a proxy to leevying taxes, its not meaning per se. Its not that if you tax 40% you have poverty and if you tax 41% you have equality. What matters is how much money is taking and how much is given from top top bottom.
But lets say we want to talk only in percentages. Its not about the legal increase of rates, its about the effective rate. Seattle gathers most of its income with property taxes, which, even with the tax rules unknown to me, have to have been increasing with the increase of prices of land and properties, I'm confident. To the very least, it shows in the revenue.
> ou provided no evidence for other points I raised, and the evidence you did provide were for mostly for questions I did not ask. In my first post, I clarified that I want data that shows cause and effect you claim:
increases in tax rates (not revenue!) => increases in city spending => increases in homelessness
I did not say that increasing tax rates increases homelessness. I said increasing taxes does not necessarily decrease homelessness. SF and Seattle are examples of increased revenue (and effective rates, considering income and prop taxes respectively) and increasing homelessness.
So to the one that says that a steeper progressive taxation will reduce poverty, I shall answer nay.
2013: 4.32Billion
2014: 4.72Billion
2015: 5.14Billion
2016: 5:41Billion
2017: 5.71Billion
Tax revenue is increasing enormously.
> Your second link is just a big "data dump" and doesn't point me to the relevant facts, so I'll just share what I saw out of it: tax revenue is growing, even though tax rates aren't being increased. So, amongst other factors, this is likely due to population growth. This actually makes the opposite point of what you want to make.
My point is that increasing taxes is not the way to solve poverty. Increasing tax rates is a proxy to leevying taxes, its not meaning per se. Its not that if you tax 40% you have poverty and if you tax 41% you have equality. What matters is how much money is taking and how much is given from top top bottom.
But lets say we want to talk only in percentages. Its not about the legal increase of rates, its about the effective rate. Seattle gathers most of its income with property taxes, which, even with the tax rules unknown to me, have to have been increasing with the increase of prices of land and properties, I'm confident. To the very least, it shows in the revenue.
> ou provided no evidence for other points I raised, and the evidence you did provide were for mostly for questions I did not ask. In my first post, I clarified that I want data that shows cause and effect you claim:
increases in tax rates (not revenue!) => increases in city spending => increases in homelessness
I did not say that increasing tax rates increases homelessness. I said increasing taxes does not necessarily decrease homelessness. SF and Seattle are examples of increased revenue (and effective rates, considering income and prop taxes respectively) and increasing homelessness.
So to the one that says that a steeper progressive taxation will reduce poverty, I shall answer nay.
>Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed).
Zero marginal utility in buying stuff. Tons of utility in giving you influence over laws and power over society.
Beyond a certain point it's not about wealth as buying utility at all, those people play the game for power, control, and to play the game.
That's why I find it ludicrous hearing about this or that "hard working" billionaire. It's not "hard work" when you don't have to do it. It's just doing what you like all day in -- like a 20-yo could play videogames all day in, those people play business and power games. Work is really work (with all the extra weariness and anxiety that comes from it) if you either do what you don't want to do (e.g. are a cog in some company or flipping burgers) or you do what you like but not just because you like it but also to get by (e.g. lots of small business owners, creators, etc fall into this category). Rant off.
>I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources.
The hurt is not them merely being rich, it's about them stifling wages, damaging the economy, buying policies, hurting the future, fostering abusing monopolies, and all that to increase their fortunes and win more...
Zero marginal utility in buying stuff. Tons of utility in giving you influence over laws and power over society.
Beyond a certain point it's not about wealth as buying utility at all, those people play the game for power, control, and to play the game.
That's why I find it ludicrous hearing about this or that "hard working" billionaire. It's not "hard work" when you don't have to do it. It's just doing what you like all day in -- like a 20-yo could play videogames all day in, those people play business and power games. Work is really work (with all the extra weariness and anxiety that comes from it) if you either do what you don't want to do (e.g. are a cog in some company or flipping burgers) or you do what you like but not just because you like it but also to get by (e.g. lots of small business owners, creators, etc fall into this category). Rant off.
>I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources.
The hurt is not them merely being rich, it's about them stifling wages, damaging the economy, buying policies, hurting the future, fostering abusing monopolies, and all that to increase their fortunes and win more...
> Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed).
You're picturing wealth as 0's in a checking account but "more wealth" is control of capital, probably shares in an increasingly valuable company. I don't think we've discovered the limits of capital utility; the power and influence some companies wield is only increasing.
You're picturing wealth as 0's in a checking account but "more wealth" is control of capital, probably shares in an increasingly valuable company. I don't think we've discovered the limits of capital utility; the power and influence some companies wield is only increasing.
But capitalism has imbibed the thinking - growth over everything. The environment is dying? Who cares, produce more, free markets will take care of the environment.
Now apply this mindset blindly to a person with $10mn, $100mn, $1bn and so on..
Technically, they have "enough" to live comfortably for LIFE (and a few generations after them). But capitalism says GROW, so they will put their money somewhere that returns more than bank interest rates or government bonds etc. Because growth is imperative.
So, despite the extra wealth having zero marginal utility, the rich try to become wealthier because they are of the MINDSET that growth is the highest goal and nothing trumps growth.
Now apply this mindset blindly to a person with $10mn, $100mn, $1bn and so on..
Technically, they have "enough" to live comfortably for LIFE (and a few generations after them). But capitalism says GROW, so they will put their money somewhere that returns more than bank interest rates or government bonds etc. Because growth is imperative.
So, despite the extra wealth having zero marginal utility, the rich try to become wealthier because they are of the MINDSET that growth is the highest goal and nothing trumps growth.
But then they can't be rich. They don't get to keep on bringing in millions and millions because they are creating value. They are appropriating value because that's how our system works.
So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you.
So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you.
>>So sorry but they want to keep using land to farm you.
Very good point. Rich have cornered housing markets in all #1 cities effectively farming workers & capturing value they create.
Road to serfdom?
Very good point. Rich have cornered housing markets in all #1 cities effectively farming workers & capturing value they create.
Road to serfdom?
Progress and Poverty more like.
A huge amount of resources can actually be a requirement (not a nice-to-have) if what you're trying to achieve is huge, too.
If your hobby project is e.g. putting humans to Mars, you need a lot, and every tiny million USD counts. Same applies to biotech (defeat deadly diseases, slow down or reverse aging, etc), terraforming (stop deserts from expanding and recultivate them, etc), lowering humanity's greenhouse gases emission, improving or reworking education across the world, etc.
These things are normally not what a for-profit company makes its explicit target. It's what some of the super-rich spend their own money on, seeing utility in that.
If your hobby project is e.g. putting humans to Mars, you need a lot, and every tiny million USD counts. Same applies to biotech (defeat deadly diseases, slow down or reverse aging, etc), terraforming (stop deserts from expanding and recultivate them, etc), lowering humanity's greenhouse gases emission, improving or reworking education across the world, etc.
These things are normally not what a for-profit company makes its explicit target. It's what some of the super-rich spend their own money on, seeing utility in that.
yet we often celebrate the very wealthy buying up strategic properties and setting them aside as nature preserves
just recently a chunk of California coast was preserved in such a way by the founders of map company Esri.
we also set aside vast acreage as monuments. this land is also permanently "off the market"
just recently a chunk of California coast was preserved in such a way by the founders of map company Esri.
we also set aside vast acreage as monuments. this land is also permanently "off the market"
The analysis in this article was based on data from Thomas Piketty and collaborators, who have also compiled an extremely detailed and comprehensive analysis of the subject of capital & wealth & inequality. I highly recommend Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century" (see Goodreads comments for abridged summaries and reviews by readers). Not only is it totally convincing (and depressing), but it also provides a very clear understanding of the course of modern history since the 19th century. It's amazing to see how clear economic policy (whether Marxist or Capitalist or anything in between) becomes when viewed through the lens of society grappling with the problem of capital/income/inequality.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18736925-capital-in-the-...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18736925-capital-in-the-...
There are few known ecosystems, without a small bunch of apex predators.
If nature hasn't figured out how to do it any different, given the time she has had, neither are we.
If you are not powerful, make yourself useful to the powerful. And that doesn't mean working for a douchebag.
If nature hasn't figured out how to do it any different, given the time she has had, neither are we.
If you are not powerful, make yourself useful to the powerful. And that doesn't mean working for a douchebag.
> If nature hasn't figured out how to do it any different, given the time she has had, neither are we.
Not following the logic here at all. What does an economy have to do with an ecosystem? What is "nature"? Are there Apex predator bacteria? How does an Apex preditor map to an economic actor?
This is as lazy naturalist fallacy as it gets.
Not following the logic here at all. What does an economy have to do with an ecosystem? What is "nature"? Are there Apex predator bacteria? How does an Apex preditor map to an economic actor?
This is as lazy naturalist fallacy as it gets.
Nature doesn't have any great goal just like economies don't. They are just chaotic systems we pretend to understand to claim control. The temporary periods such systems achieve some temporary stablity is when heirarchies form. Talk to an ecologist, if you want more plankton in a fixed amount of ocean you have to kill whales. If you want more whales you have produce more plankton as in you need a bigger ocean. Same story with the economy whether you pick Genghis Khan or Mark Zuckerberg you can't produce them without millions of plebs.
There is a point in here. We have a competitive system where the winners are able to capture more resources and power relative to everyone else, and we allow some of these benefits to carry over from generation to generation. It is only natural that some families will acquire so much power and influence relative to most others that they sit in an uncontested position indefinitely.
This has happened many-a-time in history. The Hapsburgs are a powerful family even today. The Japanese royal family is the same family it was 2500 years ago.
This has happened many-a-time in history. The Hapsburgs are a powerful family even today. The Japanese royal family is the same family it was 2500 years ago.
Except that compared to the laws of nature, ours are fickle.
You’re committing the naturalistic fallacy that is implies ought.
Is that surprising? Economic expansions are largely driven by monetary (stimulus, QE<N>) and fiscal policy (bailout, contracting), as a part of deliberate politics ("we need to create jobs", e.g.). As these events are derived from centralized, hierarchical organizations (Fed, us gov't, ECB, EC), the benefits will disproportionately flow to those that have access; part of the reason why the richest are the richest is because they have had success in the past obtaining exactly that access.
It's rather ironic that the keynesian perspective in the article is that the policies "aren't targeted" but in reality they couldn't be anything but.
It's rather ironic that the keynesian perspective in the article is that the policies "aren't targeted" but in reality they couldn't be anything but.
Well they could increase the amount of public spending and increase the tax rates for the top brackets and it has been historically in periods where rates of income inequality have gone down.
But no, for some ridiculous reason those ideas seem to be unacceptable with the Overton Window defined by mass-media (conglomerate-owned, of course) and economists who propose small-state solutions.
But no, for some ridiculous reason those ideas seem to be unacceptable with the Overton Window defined by mass-media (conglomerate-owned, of course) and economists who propose small-state solutions.
Increase public spending on what? NY MTA workers making $400/hour? On teachers (who, by virtue of being college educated, are by definition better off than most of the population)? On healthcare (i.e. to doctors and drug companies)? Heck, even if you give cash directly to poor people, it'll go immediately back into the hands of the well-off in the form of rent in overpriced cities.
* NASA?
* Repairing infrastructure?
* Better public education (especially adult retraining)?
* Expanding public transportation?
* Medical R&D?
* Other tech R&D - like batteries, fusion, quantum computing, superconductors, etc
* Single payer healthcare?
* Repairing infrastructure?
* Better public education (especially adult retraining)?
* Expanding public transportation?
* Medical R&D?
* Other tech R&D - like batteries, fusion, quantum computing, superconductors, etc
* Single payer healthcare?
1) Public Option for Healthcare
2) National Healthcare Standards that end the balkanization of the healthcare market.
3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that).
4) Basic Research in basically every field.
5) NASA.
6) Breaking oligopolies/monopolies
7) Public Affordable Housing. (i.e. High Density housing projects that otherwise charge market rates to cover costs.)
I'm not even sure why the idea of doing the first 6 things are even "political issues" that require discussion, to be frank. There is something seriously wrong when basic maintenance and balancing the scales of power to something below "lol rent seeking" qualifies as "increased public spending" because basically nothing is done in those areas.
2) National Healthcare Standards that end the balkanization of the healthcare market.
3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that).
4) Basic Research in basically every field.
5) NASA.
6) Breaking oligopolies/monopolies
7) Public Affordable Housing. (i.e. High Density housing projects that otherwise charge market rates to cover costs.)
I'm not even sure why the idea of doing the first 6 things are even "political issues" that require discussion, to be frank. There is something seriously wrong when basic maintenance and balancing the scales of power to something below "lol rent seeking" qualifies as "increased public spending" because basically nothing is done in those areas.
> 1) Public Option for Healthcare
So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%?
> 3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that).
So more money to MTA workers and administrators making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....
> 4) Basic Research in basically every field.
> 5) NASA.
So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%?
These proposals just benefit the top 10% instead of the top 0.1%. (It exemplifies American politics, which has largely become a war between the top 10% and the top 0.1%, with nobody looking out for the interests of the bottom half). It won't reduce the inequality that the article is talking about, which is caused by the fact that the bottom 90% have little bargaining power in a world dominated by automation and computers.
It would be far better to just give poor people money. Or better, yet, put the money in trust funds for them.
So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%?
> 3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that).
So more money to MTA workers and administrators making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....
> 4) Basic Research in basically every field.
> 5) NASA.
So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%?
These proposals just benefit the top 10% instead of the top 0.1%. (It exemplifies American politics, which has largely become a war between the top 10% and the top 0.1%, with nobody looking out for the interests of the bottom half). It won't reduce the inequality that the article is talking about, which is caused by the fact that the bottom 90% have little bargaining power in a world dominated by automation and computers.
It would be far better to just give poor people money. Or better, yet, put the money in trust funds for them.
> So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doct...
> Medicare, which provides health coverage for seniors, pays doctors, on average, about 80 percent of what private health insurance pays. However, Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor, pays a much lower rate, about 56 percent.
Imagine that sort of downward pressure on prices and how that would enable the poor to help educate their children, etc. It isn't always about cutting down the wealthy. Sometimes it is just about improving the quality of life so the bottom suffers less.
You are seriously arguing Doctors are eager for a 20-44% paycut per hour worked.
Please donate 44% of your income to charity for the rest of your life if you believe this is the case. Beyond whatever contributions you make now. I will believe you if you do it.
> So more money to MTA workers making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....
http://work.chron.com/much-highway-construction-workers-make...
> About 197,920 construction workers were involved in highway construction, as of May 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They earned a mean $45,940 per year, or $22.09 per hour. The largest number of jobs belonged to the 73,490 construction labors who averaged an annual $38,030, or $18.28 per hour.
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/
To claim it has anything to do with the pay scale of subway workers is absurd.
> So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%?
Basic research is about growing the pie of opportunity for everyone and the fact it is not normally rewarded in a capitalistic society. Do you genuinely believe technological growth has not improved life for everyone?
> This is my point. Politics in the U.S. is a battle between the top 1% (represented by the Republicans), and the top 10% (represented by the Democrats). This spending won't reduce the inequality the article is talking about.
No.
It is a battle between the economic interests of the 1%'s vs. literally everyone else.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2
Independent economists whose paychecks are not cut by people with political agendas rated the latest "1%" plan 1 in favor, 37 against.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doct...
> Medicare, which provides health coverage for seniors, pays doctors, on average, about 80 percent of what private health insurance pays. However, Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor, pays a much lower rate, about 56 percent.
Imagine that sort of downward pressure on prices and how that would enable the poor to help educate their children, etc. It isn't always about cutting down the wealthy. Sometimes it is just about improving the quality of life so the bottom suffers less.
You are seriously arguing Doctors are eager for a 20-44% paycut per hour worked.
Please donate 44% of your income to charity for the rest of your life if you believe this is the case. Beyond whatever contributions you make now. I will believe you if you do it.
> So more money to MTA workers making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....
http://work.chron.com/much-highway-construction-workers-make...
> About 197,920 construction workers were involved in highway construction, as of May 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They earned a mean $45,940 per year, or $22.09 per hour. The largest number of jobs belonged to the 73,490 construction labors who averaged an annual $38,030, or $18.28 per hour.
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/
To claim it has anything to do with the pay scale of subway workers is absurd.
> So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%?
Basic research is about growing the pie of opportunity for everyone and the fact it is not normally rewarded in a capitalistic society. Do you genuinely believe technological growth has not improved life for everyone?
> This is my point. Politics in the U.S. is a battle between the top 1% (represented by the Republicans), and the top 10% (represented by the Democrats). This spending won't reduce the inequality the article is talking about.
No.
It is a battle between the economic interests of the 1%'s vs. literally everyone else.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2
Independent economists whose paychecks are not cut by people with political agendas rated the latest "1%" plan 1 in favor, 37 against.
"Independent economists"
Adorable. Can you name one that is not in the 1%
Adorable. Can you name one that is not in the 1%
If inequality goes down because the rich become less rich, is that a win?
In my view, the answer could be yes, not by itself but only depending on the side effects. Some possibilities:
1. Redistribution of wealth carries a corresponding redistribution of political power.
2. The quality of life for the bottom quartile (or choose your threshold) is increased by more than the corresponding decrease for the rich.
3. Redistribution increases consumer spending, which stimulates growth, if for instance the economy is in a state of poor demand.
Needless to say, these are all speculative on my part.
1. Redistribution of wealth carries a corresponding redistribution of political power.
2. The quality of life for the bottom quartile (or choose your threshold) is increased by more than the corresponding decrease for the rich.
3. Redistribution increases consumer spending, which stimulates growth, if for instance the economy is in a state of poor demand.
Needless to say, these are all speculative on my part.
I would say by now you have a pretty good idea of what people around here think but... yeah, if the rich get a little less rich things are a lot better for everyone. It's the unbalance, not the total that makes life hell for the less well off.
How?
The people that answer yes to you might not even realize they are actually part of the richest group, particularly since software engineers are in the top 10% of income in the US.
The very top of the bracket (0.1%) is the one paying proportionally far less than the rest of the upper class, given their access to all sorts of accounting tricks and exemptions that you have when you are making money from capital gains or when you have tons of active assets to shuffle money around.
Do you have data to back that up? From what I've seen, the top 0.1% pay a far larger share of taxes than the rest.
Based on federal gov't data on total taxes paid, the top 0.01% (even higher income than you 0.1%) pay over 20% of all taxes with an average rate of over 49%.[1]
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573269
Based on federal gov't data on total taxes paid, the top 0.01% (even higher income than you 0.1%) pay over 20% of all taxes with an average rate of over 49%.[1]
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573269
Except that income distribution is skewed so much that top 1% top 0.1% it is really what matters in terms of inequality.
Every single person can claim there is someone richer than them, up until you get to the richest 10 people. If you have 100k in your bank account, the difference between you and someone living on 2 dollars a day is a vast enough inequality.
Sounds like perfect argument for ultra rich to make middle class to pick up the bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-ri...
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-ri...
Maybe we just see the overall trend and its global impacts, and we don’t think buying a luxury fallout shelter is the same response.
If you're asking seriously, the answer is: absolutely. The countries with the highest levels of quality of level and most socioeconomic mobility have very high levels of taxation for the wealthiest. And they are doing just fine.
GP said nothing about wealth distribution, which is what you're describing.
that includes the US, where taxation still is mostly borne by the rich
Nope, US phases out social security taxes and has vastly lower rates for capital gains etc. If you look at total earnings vs. total taxes paid including non income taxes the rich pay a lower share than the middle class.
Remember gas taxes are just as much a tax as income or property tax.
Remember gas taxes are just as much a tax as income or property tax.
By definition rich is relative, more inequity means more rich, and yes, lower inequality means less rich.
Depends of the definition. If every piece of food in the world were burnt, there would be no relative poverty, but there would be famine and death immediately.
Both relative and absolute poverty matter and have different causes and solutions.
Both relative and absolute poverty matter and have different causes and solutions.
If no other changes occur then yes because it reduces the concentration of power.
[deleted]
Yes
Explain how increasing public spending will redistribute wealth. More likely than not it will go to contractors who have gotten good at obtaining grants because they were good at obtaining grants which made them wealthy and allowed them to buy consultants to help them win the next grant.
Oh come on don't make these idiotic arguments that forget that pretty much all Western European nations that have low levels of income inequality have done so through massive taxation and the creation of public goods and benefits that allow them to support a highly developed society.
Free universities, free healthcare, long paternity leaves, environmental protection and subsidies to underdeveloped areas are all factors that are proven to have helped substantially to reduce inequality and increase social mobility.
I seriously can't stop marveling at how people can defend an increasingly unequal world when there is a shrinking middle class and a more fragile position for the most vulnerable.
Free universities, free healthcare, long paternity leaves, environmental protection and subsidies to underdeveloped areas are all factors that are proven to have helped substantially to reduce inequality and increase social mobility.
I seriously can't stop marveling at how people can defend an increasingly unequal world when there is a shrinking middle class and a more fragile position for the most vulnerable.
For the most part, Western European countries have less redistribution baked into their tax systems than the U.S. Take Germany for example. The top marginal income tax rate in Germany is about 50%. In California, it's over 50%. Corporate tax rates are similar (with Germany's being slightly lower). Capital gains rates are higher in California than in Germany (and similar between Germany and the U.S. on average). If you make $2 million per year, your tax bill is probably a bit less in Germany than in California.
But the tax burden overall, of course, is higher in Germany. That extra money comes from the middle class. Here are the tax brackets for a single person (in Euros):
If Trump proposed implementing a tax plan that distributed the burden of taxation the way Germany's does, people would be apoplectic.
But the tax burden overall, of course, is higher in Germany. That extra money comes from the middle class. Here are the tax brackets for a single person (in Euros):
0% up to 7,664
15% 7,665- 52,153
42% 52,154 - 250,000
45% 250,001 and over
If Trump proposed implementing a tax plan that distributed the burden of taxation the way Germany's does, people would be apoplectic.
Indeed. Yes, there are people that have very high incomes. However, there aren't that many of them. The gov't has no choice but to increase the burden on the middle class if they want to raise serious revenue.
It reminds me of an interview with a candidate in the Canadian election back in the 1990's. This was the NDP party (left wing).
The candidate said his platform was to raise taxes for the rich. The intrepid reporter asked "what is rich?". The candidate in a moment of honesty said "A family of four making more than $60K per year".
People went apeshit with that comment.
It reminds me of an interview with a candidate in the Canadian election back in the 1990's. This was the NDP party (left wing).
The candidate said his platform was to raise taxes for the rich. The intrepid reporter asked "what is rich?". The candidate in a moment of honesty said "A family of four making more than $60K per year".
People went apeshit with that comment.
It's true to a significant extent in the US as well that to raise significant revenue --- for instance, to create a new entitlement program for health care --- taxes have to be raised from the middle class.
You think that's sustainable? Ithink you will find that even though all of the countries in Europe have basically free social services, the divide between the rich and poor is not decreasing in all of them. What does correlate with it is institutional corruption and confiscatory monetary policy ( the nordics are not on the euro, which is for now better than the pound). People in the nordics are doing way better than in Europe they in turn are doing better than the British
The funny thing is that the world itself is not increasingly unequal, the global gini coefficient is coming down, mostly due to arbitrage - migration away from countries with corruption and poor, confiscatory monetary policy to ones where the confiscation is slow enough to be generational.
The funny thing is that the world itself is not increasingly unequal, the global gini coefficient is coming down, mostly due to arbitrage - migration away from countries with corruption and poor, confiscatory monetary policy to ones where the confiscation is slow enough to be generational.
The Nordics are doing way better precisely because they have the highest taxation rate and the largest states.
Statoil is a massive mixed enterprise and it's doing just fine, and unlike the rest of the countries where wealth from oil gets funneled overseas or goes to a few corporations, it goes into the largest sovereign fund in the planet to safeguard people's wealth.
The Nordic nations have the proportionally massive states and nobody's saying that they would be better off with fewer public services... because they wouldn't, and it's obvious to anyone who wants to make the debate global.
Statoil is a massive mixed enterprise and it's doing just fine, and unlike the rest of the countries where wealth from oil gets funneled overseas or goes to a few corporations, it goes into the largest sovereign fund in the planet to safeguard people's wealth.
The Nordic nations have the proportionally massive states and nobody's saying that they would be better off with fewer public services... because they wouldn't, and it's obvious to anyone who wants to make the debate global.
I'm genuinely curious about how states with high redistribution rates fair with regard to their impact on the broader world. For example, are the Nordics over or under-represented in Nobel Prizes? Is there some metric that takes into account population, perhaps GDP per capita, and patents filed or scientific papers written?
How about immigration policy, both statutory and real-world. I do know that the Nordics are largely mono-cultures where something like 98% of the people are the same color and religion. If the Nordics are such great places to be, and if they have statutorily open borders (they are in the EU, right?), why are they not flooded with poor people from other nations? Are they socially hostile to immigrants?
How about immigration policy, both statutory and real-world. I do know that the Nordics are largely mono-cultures where something like 98% of the people are the same color and religion. If the Nordics are such great places to be, and if they have statutorily open borders (they are in the EU, right?), why are they not flooded with poor people from other nations? Are they socially hostile to immigrants?
Today in Oslo it was -5C and had 6 hours of sunlight. There may be other reasons that the Nordic countries are hostile to outsiders.
you're neglecting the fact that the nordics have the lowest rate of inflation among all of the countries in europe, in other words, the state steals the least from its (poorest) people.
Inflation is not theft.
If you genuinely believe that:
1) Please use a deflationary currency (like bitcoin) for all your transactions.
2) Study the impact of deflation on Japan. Or the deflations in the US that almost always coincided with a depression with one (arguable) exception. Keep in mind, that arguable exception was one of half a dozen such events.
If you genuinely believe that:
1) Please use a deflationary currency (like bitcoin) for all your transactions.
2) Study the impact of deflation on Japan. Or the deflations in the US that almost always coincided with a depression with one (arguable) exception. Keep in mind, that arguable exception was one of half a dozen such events.
Correlation is not causation. your arrow of causality is wrong. Of course deflations are correlated with modern economic contractions. In the era of central banking, contractions happen after the social capacity for debt has been stretched to the limit because tptb have tried to goose the economy too hard, and defaults exceed the rate of debt creation, leading to a contraction of the money supply.
I suggest studying the free banking era and the us during the 1800s. How did the country ever survive without inflation??? They even managed to royally screw things up with a civil war and a completely insane bimetallic standard, without implosion.
I suggest you study the effect of inflation on Japan. How's that lost decade going? Well, at least we got a lot of pansocial angst among the < 30 crowd (and some interesting anime) out of it.
I suggest studying the free banking era and the us during the 1800s. How did the country ever survive without inflation??? They even managed to royally screw things up with a civil war and a completely insane bimetallic standard, without implosion.
I suggest you study the effect of inflation on Japan. How's that lost decade going? Well, at least we got a lot of pansocial angst among the < 30 crowd (and some interesting anime) out of it.
Inflation as a variable for income inequality is dwarfed by tons of other factors. No serious economist is going to say that it's a terrible thing. A lot of countries have had to deal with inflation rates above 5% and they could still grow and lower inequality.
I don't understand how you can make that assertion. The effects of inflation are compounding and disproportionately bad for the poor. Have you ever been poor? The price of everyday goods was definitely a cause of worry for me on a daily basis. And you shouldn't take anything from "seroius economists" on the issue, most of them are from the 1% and totally clueless.
Maybe but I know they are doing the best they can to increase inflation, to little avail.
>the nordics are not on the euro, which is for now better than the pound.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Finland uses the euro. Denmark is pegged to the euro, a peg which cannot be broken like Switzerland's because it is 100% politically controlled. Norway is not in the EU so why would it use the euro? Iceland is also not in the EU.
Besides being completely wrong, why does the nordics being on the euro even matter for this discussion?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Finland uses the euro. Denmark is pegged to the euro, a peg which cannot be broken like Switzerland's because it is 100% politically controlled. Norway is not in the EU so why would it use the euro? Iceland is also not in the EU.
Besides being completely wrong, why does the nordics being on the euro even matter for this discussion?
Stay tuned over the next five years. Most of the European welfare systems are teetering on the brink. The pension funds are busted, the healthcare systems are having huge budget problems, and yields are shooting up on the municipal and national bonds.
Eventually you run out of other people's money. Remember that Greece looked pretty good ten years ago.
Eventually you run out of other people's money. Remember that Greece looked pretty good ten years ago.
This applies to the entire planet (except for countries with growing populations, and that is a substantially worse problem), and European states have much greater safeguards and are in general far more stable than most other places in the world.
It really is worse in Europe on the fiscal front. About half of German municipalities have busted pension funds, for example. The problem is also huge in America, but it's an order worse and more imminent in Europe. Ceteris paribus the USA will probably blow up around 2025 or so, but instead hopefully in the wake of Europe's more imminent fiscal crises we can correct course somehow to avoid their fate.
Oh, we've been hearing the same (German pension funds are underfunded, Germany is about to collapse) things for the last 2 decades at least. Did Germany collapse? Oh no, but sure will in two years... or whatever.
Same with US. By now it should have turned to 1997 with Curt Russell being president &c, but it did not really happen.
BTW same with any stock that someone on the internet has bought or shorted. Sure it's going down... about to collapse!!! Going up... buy now!!
Same with US. By now it should have turned to 1997 with Curt Russell being president &c, but it did not really happen.
BTW same with any stock that someone on the internet has bought or shorted. Sure it's going down... about to collapse!!! Going up... buy now!!
To be fair, Detroit more or less conformed to the hype, a la Robocop, at least for a while. Cali is doomed long term with the water situation (Caddilac Desert is a great read), the future of Louisiana is unclear, and so on. The predictions have been off as to timing, but the trajectory seems accurate.
>> Most of the European welfare systems are teetering on the brink.
Thanks. I love getting some hot macroeconomic advice from a random person on an internet forum. Especially if it does not provide any sort of backing analysis, that is just the best way to do it.
Thanks. I love getting some hot macroeconomic advice from a random person on an internet forum. Especially if it does not provide any sort of backing analysis, that is just the best way to do it.
So what’s the limit to taxes? Half the people in the country don’t pay any federal income tax.
It makes sense to have the poorest not pay taxes when the marginal utility of every dollar they lose to taxes is so high and when the poor and middle class are the engines of consumerism.
A dollar taxes to the top 1% that owns more than 50% of all assets, in contrast, loses far less from taxation.
A dollar taxes to the top 1% that owns more than 50% of all assets, in contrast, loses far less from taxation.
The problem with this line of argument is the moral base it stands on: pure utilitarianism.
It stands on the idea that the tax is more effective to leevy and that it will produce less suffering (to the rich that pay it). But unfortunately, reality shows you the actual utilitarian application: the rich spend lots of resources to avoid, lobby and protect themselves from taxation, making it hard to grab and cause lot of apparent pain. But a sales tax on food, and a tax on income hits the poor, which can't defend themselves as well, and don't perceive the pain attributable to the tax.
If your stance is that taxes should be utilitarian, you already have an application.
It stands on the idea that the tax is more effective to leevy and that it will produce less suffering (to the rich that pay it). But unfortunately, reality shows you the actual utilitarian application: the rich spend lots of resources to avoid, lobby and protect themselves from taxation, making it hard to grab and cause lot of apparent pain. But a sales tax on food, and a tax on income hits the poor, which can't defend themselves as well, and don't perceive the pain attributable to the tax.
If your stance is that taxes should be utilitarian, you already have an application.
Well, given that the CEOs of the many multinationals who are benefited by the latest tax cuts in the US have explicitly said that they will not use the extra money for investments but rather just to increase profits, it stands to show that people will not necessarily engage in productive investments given more free capital unless absolutely necessary to compete, which is line with what some economists have mentioned on this.
If the government taxed that money away, maybe half of it would go to new military planes, so its not really that efficient either.
That is exclusively a problem with American conservatives that could be fixed when the populace realizes that they should be asking for the correct entitlement programs. For some reason this was never a point of debate 20 years ago.
Increase of the military budget has been bipartisan, its the one thing that never stopped growing in decades budget-wise.
Thats where money goes today, so if you raise taxes you have to take into account that the military will still eat a chunk of it. Its yet another argument of why raising taxes is not the solution to poverty.
Thats where money goes today, so if you raise taxes you have to take into account that the military will still eat a chunk of it. Its yet another argument of why raising taxes is not the solution to poverty.
That is only true for income tax, not payroll tax and sales tax.
[deleted]
The effects of globalism... Upper management stays employed and gets richer, everyone below (the middle class previously) are out of a job. Child labor and inhumane working conditions overseas and mass pollution of our entire planet. How is it that progressives actually think this is a good thing? (this is an honest question).
It's not globalism, per se, globalism is a symptom of monetary policy implemented in tandem by most of the world's central banks.
The root cause is that every developed nation on earth runs an inflationary monetary policy coupled with perpetual deficit spending. Money creation via central banks and deficits is not uniform, it pours into economies via cheap credit, subsidies, spending on boondoggles, and it's the people who have first access to this newly created money who benefit the most, and these tend to be the people with a lot of capital, political connections, etc. The average person simply sees their limited buying power decreasing over time.
The root cause is that every developed nation on earth runs an inflationary monetary policy coupled with perpetual deficit spending. Money creation via central banks and deficits is not uniform, it pours into economies via cheap credit, subsidies, spending on boondoggles, and it's the people who have first access to this newly created money who benefit the most, and these tend to be the people with a lot of capital, political connections, etc. The average person simply sees their limited buying power decreasing over time.
Sure, but it's not strictly the inflationary / deficit issue right? It's primarily (as you say) a matter of who gets the increased currency, right?
The cheap credit perverts the entire economy away from productivity growth, which is what produces real wealth that tends to be widely shared. It doesn't matter how the cheap credit is distributed, the credit just redistributes wealth and doesn't increase it.
There's that and then also the problem of the global monetary system. The average American is getting crushed by the dollar reserve currency system. America can't be globally competitive in labor intensive industries in substantial part because of it. Triffin's Dilemma. But the ability to issue endless USD denominated debt that the rest of the world eagerly gobbles up is fantastic if you're closely attached to the DC cash spigot or NYC banking. So there's this direct opposition of interest between the current elite who derive enormous power and wealth from the system, and typical Americans who just want a job.
There's that and then also the problem of the global monetary system. The average American is getting crushed by the dollar reserve currency system. America can't be globally competitive in labor intensive industries in substantial part because of it. Triffin's Dilemma. But the ability to issue endless USD denominated debt that the rest of the world eagerly gobbles up is fantastic if you're closely attached to the DC cash spigot or NYC banking. So there's this direct opposition of interest between the current elite who derive enormous power and wealth from the system, and typical Americans who just want a job.
If, as Economists suggest, the total wealth is increased, then it could be distributed so that everyone is better off (nationally and globally). Generally progressive governments support policies that would distribute the gains in that kind of way. Non-progressive governments blame outgroups, steal from the powerless and give to the already wealthy, creating the problems you blame the progressives and globalism for.
What do they steal from the powerless?
Because they are easier to bully as they are powerless. Duh.
>everyone below (the middle class previously) are out of a job
Seems a bit hyperbolic..The unemployment rate for programmers is <3%.
Seems a bit hyperbolic..The unemployment rate for programmers is <3%.
It doesn't have to be the effect of globalism. Redistribution of wealth and land is quite effective.
What makes you think that they do?
2014. And the headline result from the last recession only captures 3 years of the recovery, through 2012, when equity markets had climbed back significantly, but always-lagging labor markets had not.
I’d be shocked if the numbers didn’t look very different if you looked at the expansionary cycle to date.
I’d be shocked if the numbers didn’t look very different if you looked at the expansionary cycle to date.
Hey, this article isn't news! US median income has been stagnant since 70ies, while mean income has grown steadily. The gains obviously accrued to highest income earners. We should talk about it. But we shouldn't think of it like something new.
At this point Im fairly convinced that LVT is the way to go.
There is a tremendous confusion in separating wealth from producers to non-producers.
Taxes very frequently end up going from the poor to the rich, because of how benefits are given away (ex. prop 13, mortgage interest deductions, rent control). Not only that, taxing the rich for producing would make less production, which is fundamental for economic growth.
Why should a developer build a 40 apt building and pay 100x the taxes a month single family home next to it pays? Didnt he just make everyone a lot richer by his planning and exhertion?
There is a tremendous confusion in separating wealth from producers to non-producers.
Taxes very frequently end up going from the poor to the rich, because of how benefits are given away (ex. prop 13, mortgage interest deductions, rent control). Not only that, taxing the rich for producing would make less production, which is fundamental for economic growth.
Why should a developer build a 40 apt building and pay 100x the taxes a month single family home next to it pays? Didnt he just make everyone a lot richer by his planning and exhertion?
Also to add: Economic growth comes from producing more. "Mean has grown, but median has stagnated" means top earners are producing more (e.g. better software & hardware), while below-median earners aren't necessarily producing more (think of the services sector). If efficiency doesn't go up, incomes may and do remain stagnant.
Because the balance between capitalism and the state is out of whack. Capitalism has far too much power and influence. It needs to swing back a few degrees so that the common man can get a bigger cut of pie (or a slice at all)
A better word for it is corporatism.
Ironic how the state (at least in the case of the US) is the largest it has ever been.
Ironic how the state (at least in the case of the US) is the largest it has ever been.
It's almost as if wealth doesn't follow a Gaussian distribution and the Pareto power law applies to a few extreme cases.
Why are people obsessed with this topic lately?
Do you think fame inequality is a problem? There are people who have 100s of millions of followers/fans and then there are people who are not famous (vast majority).
Why is that not considered a problem?
Fame inequality:
1. Undermines democracy. If you have a tiny group of famous people who have a massive cultural influence, their ideas and opinions matter almost infinitely more than ideas of those who are not famous. This by definition undermines the idea that everyone's opinion/vote should have equal weight.
2. Damages people's health. When people see someone famous it can make them depressed because they are constantly being compared to cultural icons. This can have serious impact on psychological health.
3. Perpetuates itself. People can become famous and get a leg up in life just because their parents are famous. Is that fair to all talented people who don't have famous parents?
Do you think fame inequality is a problem? There are people who have 100s of millions of followers/fans and then there are people who are not famous (vast majority).
Why is that not considered a problem?
Fame inequality:
1. Undermines democracy. If you have a tiny group of famous people who have a massive cultural influence, their ideas and opinions matter almost infinitely more than ideas of those who are not famous. This by definition undermines the idea that everyone's opinion/vote should have equal weight.
2. Damages people's health. When people see someone famous it can make them depressed because they are constantly being compared to cultural icons. This can have serious impact on psychological health.
3. Perpetuates itself. People can become famous and get a leg up in life just because their parents are famous. Is that fair to all talented people who don't have famous parents?
It is feasible to believe a dystopian reality on economic inequality. Some economists have even argued that it was inequality that toppled vast empires, due to the inherent improductive consequences of economic inequality.
Inequality can be a problem alone, even if all else is equal ,because the greatest danger to freedom is the concentration of power, and what is inequality but the concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands?
Inequality can be a problem alone, even if all else is equal ,because the greatest danger to freedom is the concentration of power, and what is inequality but the concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands?
It is closely tied to wealth inequality. Famous people without wealth are not likely to influence much, nor are they likely able to make their children famous.
People are obsessed with this topic because they are looking for justification to steal from those wealthier than them. Its textbook Marxism.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They lead to flamewars and are reliably some of the most low-quality subthreads we see here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Well, I guess something similar like a "land reform" would be of help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform
This would not help. Land in of itself is not that valuable. What has value is what people develop/produce with the land. Or location to those who have developed their land. Property rights are better thought of as extensions of human rights. The reason why you build a factory is because property rights will protect your ability to use and eventually sell the factory. The reason why you plant crops is because property rights protect your exclusive right to harvest them. If someone wants to acquire land it really isn't that difficult or that expensive until you want land that people have invested in or around.
FYI, 2014.
except cryptocurrencies
you think that the winners in wealth redistribution happening around cryptocurrencies are mostly the not-so-rich? There may be a decent number of non-rich folks who are now rich this way, but I doubt that cryptocurrencies are effectively working in reverse of the wealth-inequity trends…
What? Bitcoin ownership is even more concentrated