3 ms·

A line from the article I linked: "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." > Do the specific numbers change the outcome

by harryh 11y ago

A line from the article I linked: "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." > Do the specific numbers change the outcome or what our course of action should be? Of course the data matters! Especially when (as crdoconnor did) you report data that is incorrect by an order of magnitude! Jesus.

dahart 11y ago
I don't disagree with your numbers, or with the notion that accuracy is important. But just for fun, what, exactly, is the difference in course of action you would take given his numbers versus Vanity Fairs'? To make my point more clearly, you (and vanity fair, and Wikipedia) say the top 1% is two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (40x). Some claim, and Vanity Fair doesn't exactly refute that the top 1% are two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (90x). Crdoconnor appears to have misquoted by one order of magnitude, saying that the unfairness ratio is three orders of magnitude (900x). So, ignoring crdconnors accidental misquote, and playing devils advocate for a moment, what substantive policy decisions should differ across the line between two orders of magnitude inequality versus three?
- harryh 11y ago
  The breadth of the tax base necessary to support the pension plans in question (or, for that matter, broad swaths of other social policies on the liberal agenda) is much wider than is implied by misreporting of the degree of inequality. Put more simply: Just taxing the rich more isn't enough to pay for everything.
dllthomas 11y ago
"In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." That doesn't seem to contradict anything said up-thread. If the top 0.1% control 20% of the wealth, the next 0.9% control another 20% of the wealth, and the bottom 90% control 20% of the wealth, then the claim you objected to is true. That would mean the remaining 9%, between the top 1% and the bottom 90%, control the wealth that remains - 40%. I don't think these amounts violate any of the ordering constraints, given the relative size of the groups; in reality there will be variation within the individual groups, but if we assume there isn't the math checks out fine: 20/0.1 > 20/0.9 > 40/9 > 20/90 I'm not saying the original claim was correct - I don't know. Just that what you quoted doesn't refute it.
- harryh 11y ago
  And that's really the most interesting thing to talk about here. Not what's right and wrong but the degree to which I've properly quoted evidence to support my pov. Really?
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Your position that is data matters, as long as we don't pay attention to what it actually means? You accused someone of being wrong "by an order of magnitude" and the "evidence" you produced did not even demonstrate that it was likely that they were wrong. If the data matters, fucking understand the data.
    - harryh 11y ago
      I do understand the data. And I'm not wrong. I'm just not really interested in doing the legwork to provide you with perfectly cited sources. This is Hacker News not the US Congress. You know how to use Google.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        In general, evidence provided in discussion is more useful if it's likely to be called out when it is invalid or irrelevant, so I called it out - giving my reasoning. You might not be wrong. You manifestly don't understand the data. Observe that, learn from it, update your confidence. "I'm just not really interested in doing the legwork to provide you with perfectly cited sources." I was not disputing the citations of your sources, and I wasn't demanding perfection. I was demanding that what was provided as evidence that someone was wrong "by an order of magnitude" actually be evidence they were wrong at all. "This is Hacker News not the US Congress." Exactly! So we're agreed that we should expect at least a modicum of decency, and respect for argument and informed discussion? "You know how to use Google." I do, and I know that it doesn't do a very good job answering these kinds of questions. I engaged more deeply with your evidence (including the article you drew it from) precisely because I hoped it would inform me in the ways you'd indicated that it should. I was left disappointed. Unfortunately, you seem quite a bit more interested in rhetoric and posturing than in actually engaging intellectually, so unless your replies are inordinately better than those above I won't be responding further.

by harryh 11y ago

dahart 11y ago

I don't disagree with your numbers, or with the notion that accuracy is important. But just for fun, what, exactly, is the difference in course of action you would take given his numbers versus Vanity Fairs'? To make my point more clearly, you (and vanity fair, and Wikipedia) say the top 1% is two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (40x). Some claim, and Vanity Fair doesn't exactly refute that the top 1% are two orders of magnitude larger than its relative size (90x). Crdoconnor appears to have misquoted by one order of magnitude, saying that the unfairness ratio is three orders of magnitude (900x). So, ignoring crdconnors accidental misquote, and playing devils advocate for a moment, what substantive policy decisions should differ across the line between two orders of magnitude inequality versus three?

harryh 11y ago
The breadth of the tax base necessary to support the pension plans in question (or, for that matter, broad swaths of other social policies on the liberal agenda) is much wider than is implied by misreporting of the degree of inequality. Put more simply: Just taxing the rich more isn't enough to pay for everything.

dllthomas 11y ago

"In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent." That doesn't seem to contradict anything said up-thread. If the top 0.1% control 20% of the wealth, the next 0.9% control another 20% of the wealth, and the bottom 90% control 20% of the wealth, then the claim you objected to is true. That would mean the remaining 9%, between the top 1% and the bottom 90%, control the wealth that remains - 40%. I don't think these amounts violate any of the ordering constraints, given the relative size of the groups; in reality there will be variation within the individual groups, but if we assume there isn't the math checks out fine: 20/0.1 > 20/0.9 > 40/9 > 20/90 I'm not saying the original claim was correct - I don't know. Just that what you quoted doesn't refute it.

harryh 11y ago
And that's really the most interesting thing to talk about here. Not what's right and wrong but the degree to which I've properly quoted evidence to support my pov. Really?
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Your position that is data matters, as long as we don't pay attention to what it actually means? You accused someone of being wrong "by an order of magnitude" and the "evidence" you produced did not even demonstrate that it was likely that they were wrong. If the data matters, fucking understand the data.
  - harryh 11y ago
    I do understand the data. And I'm not wrong. I'm just not really interested in doing the legwork to provide you with perfectly cited sources. This is Hacker News not the US Congress. You know how to use Google.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      In general, evidence provided in discussion is more useful if it's likely to be called out when it is invalid or irrelevant, so I called it out - giving my reasoning. You might not be wrong. You manifestly don't understand the data. Observe that, learn from it, update your confidence. "I'm just not really interested in doing the legwork to provide you with perfectly cited sources." I was not disputing the citations of your sources, and I wasn't demanding perfection. I was demanding that what was provided as evidence that someone was wrong "by an order of magnitude" actually be evidence they were wrong at all. "This is Hacker News not the US Congress." Exactly! So we're agreed that we should expect at least a modicum of decency, and respect for argument and informed discussion? "You know how to use Google." I do, and I know that it doesn't do a very good job answering these kinds of questions. I engaged more deeply with your evidence (including the article you drew it from) precisely because I hoped it would inform me in the ways you'd indicated that it should. I was left disappointed. Unfortunately, you seem quite a bit more interested in rhetoric and posturing than in actually engaging intellectually, so unless your replies are inordinately better than those above I won't be responding further.