4 ms·

You mean exporting the middle class and then undercutting upward mobility was doomed to face a political backlash? What a surprise.

justicezyx 9y ago
Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.
- candiodari 9y ago
  You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but probably not excessive wealth enjoyed by millions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Exactly. I think the 0.1% or 0.01% are the ones who truly warp our political/economic system but it is the top 10% or 20% who lock in that warped system by engaging in forms of political NIMBYism to prevent any real change. (see the Democratic party's relationship with progressives and their funders: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/)
  - deepnotderp 9y ago
    It's not even the "1%", it's the "1% of the 1%", Zuckerberg is great no doubt, but does he really deserve 2000X as much as a high level machine learning researcher? The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, that's not because of eight software engineers making $100K.
    - Brakenshire 9y ago
      > The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, Broadly speaking, isn't this because the bottom 40% of the world don't have savings? The statistic seems misleading. You could have 1 dollar, and you'd have greater wealth than more or less everyone in the world with a mortgage.
      - claudiulodro 9y ago
        A mortgage generally comes with a house (an illiquid asset). If you have a buck you do have more wealth than pretty much anyone with student loans, though.
        Brakenshire 9y ago
        Oh yes, you're right, so not a mortgage, but someone renting, with no savings, and a credit card debt or as you say, a student loan. That is a problem - for a lot of people, that will mean little to no leeway when things go wrong - but that's not the point that most people are making when they use that statistic.
    - collyw 9y ago
      Is the data for that sort of thing available anywhere? It would be good to visualize it.
    - sjg007 9y ago
      Well he was the capitalist in the situation. He owns the company.
  - jon_richards 9y ago
    What? Where are you getting that 100k/year puts you in the top 1.6%? The page you linked says 100k/year (household income) puts you in the top 25% in the United States. Globally, 32k/year puts you in the top 1%. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615... Top 1% of the United States is a bit harder to find consistent numbers for, but it looks like around 450k/year individual or 1,200k/year household. http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-to... Even if you were saying a household of two 100k/year incomes, that only puts you in the top 5-6%.
  - gthtjtkt 9y ago
    Huh? According to your link, $100k barely puts you in the top 25%. Even $250k is only 97th percentile.
  - Maarten88 9y ago
    I often complain about the inequality and the privileged treatment of the 1%, all while being part of that 1% myself. My political viewpoints do not align with my own short term interests, but I believe they do align with the long term interests of society and the interests of my children.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
crdoconnor 9y ago
It probably is a surprise if you put a lot of faith in Ricardian equivalence, the theory of comparative advantage and read and nod your head to this sort of thing: http://www.economist.com/node/605144 http://www.economist.com/node/605144
- eevilspock 9y ago
  The problem with Ricardian equivalence is that people should not be treated like bikes and bushels of wheat. Yes, let's optimize production of useful things. But the moment you commoditize people, and global trade becomes more about cheap labor than cheap goods, we get massive unfairness and exploitation. This is true for free-markets in general. We have gotten lost about what it is we are actually optimizing for.
gthtjtkt 9y ago
"We promised them the American Dream, and then we forced them to compete with people who live on $1/day in third world countries. Where did we go wrong!?"

justicezyx 9y ago

Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.

candiodari 9y ago
You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but probably not excessive wealth enjoyed by millions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Exactly. I think the 0.1% or 0.01% are the ones who truly warp our political/economic system but it is the top 10% or 20% who lock in that warped system by engaging in forms of political NIMBYism to prevent any real change. (see the Democratic party's relationship with progressives and their funders: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/warren-goldman-dccc/)
- deepnotderp 9y ago
  It's not even the "1%", it's the "1% of the 1%", Zuckerberg is great no doubt, but does he really deserve 2000X as much as a high level machine learning researcher? The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, that's not because of eight software engineers making $100K.
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    > The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, Broadly speaking, isn't this because the bottom 40% of the world don't have savings? The statistic seems misleading. You could have 1 dollar, and you'd have greater wealth than more or less everyone in the world with a mortgage.
    - claudiulodro 9y ago
      A mortgage generally comes with a house (an illiquid asset). If you have a buck you do have more wealth than pretty much anyone with student loans, though.
      - Brakenshire 9y ago
        Oh yes, you're right, so not a mortgage, but someone renting, with no savings, and a credit card debt or as you say, a student loan. That is a problem - for a lot of people, that will mean little to no leeway when things go wrong - but that's not the point that most people are making when they use that statistic.
  - collyw 9y ago
    Is the data for that sort of thing available anywhere? It would be good to visualize it.
  - sjg007 9y ago
    Well he was the capitalist in the situation. He owns the company.
- jon_richards 9y ago
  What? Where are you getting that 100k/year puts you in the top 1.6%? The page you linked says 100k/year (household income) puts you in the top 25% in the United States. Globally, 32k/year puts you in the top 1%. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615... Top 1% of the United States is a bit harder to find consistent numbers for, but it looks like around 450k/year individual or 1,200k/year household. http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-income-puts-you-to... Even if you were saying a household of two 100k/year incomes, that only puts you in the top 5-6%.
- gthtjtkt 9y ago
  Huh? According to your link, $100k barely puts you in the top 25%. Even $250k is only 97th percentile.
- Maarten88 9y ago
  I often complain about the inequality and the privileged treatment of the 1%, all while being part of that 1% myself. My political viewpoints do not align with my own short term interests, but I believe they do align with the long term interests of society and the interests of my children.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

crdoconnor 9y ago

It probably is a surprise if you put a lot of faith in Ricardian equivalence, the theory of comparative advantage and read and nod your head to this sort of thing: http://www.economist.com/node/605144 http://www.economist.com/node/605144

eevilspock 9y ago
The problem with Ricardian equivalence is that people should not be treated like bikes and bushels of wheat. Yes, let's optimize production of useful things. But the moment you commoditize people, and global trade becomes more about cheap labor than cheap goods, we get massive unfairness and exploitation. This is true for free-markets in general. We have gotten lost about what it is we are actually optimizing for.

gthtjtkt 9y ago

"We promised them the American Dream, and then we forced them to compete with people who live on $1/day in third world countries. Where did we go wrong!?"