5 ms·

Real title was, 'Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart'. Despite some of the recent coverage, this chart indicates that gains are not going to the top 20%: t

Real title was, 'Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart'. Despite some of the recent coverage, this chart indicates that gains are not going to the top 20%: they are going to top 1%, and particularly <1%. To be clear, this is not many programmers: "In 1980, the top 1% of adult earners in the U.S. made $420,000 a year, on average (before taxes and measured in 2014 dollars) — 27 times as much as the average for the bottom 50% of earners. Today the top 1% of earners make an average of $1.3 million a year — 81 times as much as the average for workers in the bottom half." HBR also found that gains are increasingly going to the top firms: there is a global set of winners and losers. Inequality is growing everywhere, in all fields. https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/03/corporations-in-the-age-of-inequality https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/03/corporations-in-the-age-...

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I'm not sure we can just blame this on the tiny minority of mega-rich at the top. The whole inversion of the curve is cause for alarm. The chart is great but it seems like everyone's eye is catching on that crazy portion on the far right. Not only do we have to bring that down, we need to grab the line at 5% and start yanking it up. That's probably going to require policies and taxes that not just the 1% but the 20% as well don't like. EDIT: I'd also like to plug this really great article on regional inequality which is a huge problem but usually goes unmentioned in these sorts of discussions: http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-...
- cristianpascu 9y ago
  If the inequality is artificial, it might be that an artificial intervention will reverse it. If it's not, than so God help us. A democratically "elected" Robin Hood will probably just take a lot from the rich and give a little to the poor to keep being "elected" democratically. On another side of life, the moment people have enough to pay the bill, anything more will not make them any happier. Leveling the income or the wealth is not doing anything effective to increasing happiness. What's and where's the problem of inequity? The fact that I can't afford a luxurious yacht trip?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    What is "artificial" in your mind?
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    The actual problem is working long hours when you could be working short hours for the same pay, freeing time for both enjoyment, well being and creativity. Rich can also afford to hire servants and employees to do things for them. They can also afford expensive extra things or medical procedures without getting bankrupted. Capital such as factories, research facilities. Teams to manipulate both common people (marketing) and politicians (lobbyists).
- gcb0 9y ago
  The 20% can be completely left alone while you bring the bottom line up. but the <1% always manage to convince up to the 80% that they will be affected too. this results in what I call the right wing poor people. People that can only benefit from more taxes to the rich and land redistribution, but because they see their palpable earnings as being part of some intangible upper middle class (e.g. poor people that own one home, or programmers making $170k a year in sf) they are against any of that. it's the most effective propaganda war.
mariushn 9y ago
Personal opinion: it's also harder to grow or get investment on a startup which competes or might compete with a big corporation in future, just because bigCorp might go into that area as well, or add a "feature" which represents your entire business. How do you tackle this?
- sogen 9y ago
  I can't hear you over my free banana http://nypost.com/2017/05/23/amazon-gave-away-too-many-free-bananas-and-messed-up-seattle/ http://nypost.com/2017/05/23/amazon-gave-away-too-many-free-...
- watecmascript 9y ago
  There are several advantages to being a small company. The biggest is you can offer 1-on-1 individualized support. Another big advantage is small companies have less mass and can adapt to customer/market needs quicker. Jason Cohen has a lot of good advice on the competitive advantage of small companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMPbAN6i7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMPbAN6i7s
DataWorker 9y ago
So it's all going to Bezos, Soros and Carlos Slim?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

I'm not sure we can just blame this on the tiny minority of mega-rich at the top. The whole inversion of the curve is cause for alarm. The chart is great but it seems like everyone's eye is catching on that crazy portion on the far right. Not only do we have to bring that down, we need to grab the line at 5% and start yanking it up. That's probably going to require policies and taxes that not just the 1% but the 20% as well don't like. EDIT: I'd also like to plug this really great article on regional inequality which is a huge problem but usually goes unmentioned in these sorts of discussions: http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-...

cristianpascu 9y ago
If the inequality is artificial, it might be that an artificial intervention will reverse it. If it's not, than so God help us. A democratically "elected" Robin Hood will probably just take a lot from the rich and give a little to the poor to keep being "elected" democratically. On another side of life, the moment people have enough to pay the bill, anything more will not make them any happier. Leveling the income or the wealth is not doing anything effective to increasing happiness. What's and where's the problem of inequity? The fact that I can't afford a luxurious yacht trip?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  What is "artificial" in your mind?
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  The actual problem is working long hours when you could be working short hours for the same pay, freeing time for both enjoyment, well being and creativity. Rich can also afford to hire servants and employees to do things for them. They can also afford expensive extra things or medical procedures without getting bankrupted. Capital such as factories, research facilities. Teams to manipulate both common people (marketing) and politicians (lobbyists).
gcb0 9y ago
The 20% can be completely left alone while you bring the bottom line up. but the <1% always manage to convince up to the 80% that they will be affected too. this results in what I call the right wing poor people. People that can only benefit from more taxes to the rich and land redistribution, but because they see their palpable earnings as being part of some intangible upper middle class (e.g. poor people that own one home, or programmers making $170k a year in sf) they are against any of that. it's the most effective propaganda war.

mariushn 9y ago

Personal opinion: it's also harder to grow or get investment on a startup which competes or might compete with a big corporation in future, just because bigCorp might go into that area as well, or add a "feature" which represents your entire business. How do you tackle this?

sogen 9y ago
I can't hear you over my free banana http://nypost.com/2017/05/23/amazon-gave-away-too-many-free-bananas-and-messed-up-seattle/ http://nypost.com/2017/05/23/amazon-gave-away-too-many-free-...
watecmascript 9y ago
There are several advantages to being a small company. The biggest is you can offer 1-on-1 individualized support. Another big advantage is small companies have less mass and can adapt to customer/market needs quicker. Jason Cohen has a lot of good advice on the competitive advantage of small companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMPbAN6i7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMPbAN6i7s

DataWorker 9y ago

So it's all going to Bezos, Soros and Carlos Slim?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]