3 ms·

I would argue that 14% isn't a significant number and, therefore, PG's point stating "a significant number who get rich by creating wealth" is indeed disproved.

I would argue that 14% isn't a significant number and, therefore, PG's point stating "a significant number who get rich by creating wealth" is indeed disproved. The rest of your comment I agree with.

marcosdumay 11y ago
What would you call significant then? Are you arguing that it's ok to apply blunt instruments that will hurt those 14% as much as the rest, since they are not enough to care about?
- noobermin 11y ago
  Another way to think of this, if you'll forgive my pro-business tone here, say that that 14% who actually create value generate a significant portion of the utility gains (if not income as well) for the rest of us. We could be harming the incomes of the 99% in that case by gutting the 86% and the 14%. The solution is a scalpel, not a pick-axe. That is one of the possible resolutions stated in the article, which is one that I think is worthy.
michaelkeenan 11y ago
Weirdly, the figure from the paper is actually 17%, not 14% (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_inequality.pdf http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_ineq...). I'm not sure where the WaPo writer got 14% from. Also note that the paper warns that 17% is an underestimate: "Our results are likely to understate the true impact of innovation on top income inequality at the national level for at least two reasons. First, if successful, an innovator from a relatively poor state, is likely to move to a richer state, and therefore not contribute to the top 1% share of her own state. Second, an innovating firm may have some of its owners and top employees located in a state different from that of inventors, in which case the effect of innovativeness on top income inequality will not be fully internalized by the state where the patent is registered. Nevertheless, overall we find a sizeable effect of innovativeness on top income inequality."

I would argue that 14% isn't a significant number and, therefore, PG's point stating "a significant number who get rich by creating wealth" is indeed disproved. The rest of your comment I agree with.

marcosdumay 11y ago

What would you call significant then? Are you arguing that it's ok to apply blunt instruments that will hurt those 14% as much as the rest, since they are not enough to care about?

noobermin 11y ago
Another way to think of this, if you'll forgive my pro-business tone here, say that that 14% who actually create value generate a significant portion of the utility gains (if not income as well) for the rest of us. We could be harming the incomes of the 99% in that case by gutting the 86% and the 14%. The solution is a scalpel, not a pick-axe. That is one of the possible resolutions stated in the article, which is one that I think is worthy.

michaelkeenan 11y ago

Weirdly, the figure from the paper is actually 17%, not 14% (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_inequality.pdf http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/innovation_and_top_income_ineq...). I'm not sure where the WaPo writer got 14% from. Also note that the paper warns that 17% is an underestimate: "Our results are likely to understate the true impact of innovation on top income inequality at the national level for at least two reasons. First, if successful, an innovator from a relatively poor state, is likely to move to a richer state, and therefore not contribute to the top 1% share of her own state. Second, an innovating firm may have some of its owners and top employees located in a state different from that of inventors, in which case the effect of innovativeness on top income inequality will not be fully internalized by the state where the patent is registered. Nevertheless, overall we find a sizeable effect of innovativeness on top income inequality."