4 ms·

Can you explain how income disparity hurts? Just using that measurement alone it can distort the ground reality. To list a couple high wealth disparity countrie

by whb07 8y ago

Can you explain how income disparity hurts? Just using that measurement alone it can distort the ground reality. To list a couple high wealth disparity countries: Singapore, US, and North Korea. Clearly one of them is not like the others.

chasing 8y ago
Not in a Hacker News comment, I can't. But google around -- the information is fairly easy to find.
- alehul 8y ago
  Comments like this are really unhelpful if you can't even provide a link. There's probably thousands of arguments on Google for how "income disparity hurts", and most can likely be successfully argued against rather simply. If you've found a sound argument, please at least provide a link to it.
- whb07 8y ago
  It’s too simplistic a measurement to use, clearly it’s incorrect to use it by itself. Another example to use would be imagine a neighborhood with the Forbes 100 richest, the extreme income disparity there between Number 1 and Number 100 clearly breaks what you’re commenting on. Maybe the measurement should be ability to move up and down the economic strata.
Spooky23 8y ago
North Korea is peasants, military and a tiny elite. There is no real commercial sector. If you look at the US, it’s more of a developing Brazil like situation. We’re developing a growing peasant/underclass, growing the wealthy as assets concentrate and squeezing the professional and semi-professional classes.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Every time I look at trends in income distribution in the US, I don't see low income earners increasing. I see middle income earners moving up. If you have quantitative information that contradicts this, I'd like to see it. Edit: I want to clarify that I don't see the same thing in California, where market restrictions have made the average joe poorer.
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    Middle earners are at best holding steady in the US. Inflation doesn't always capture the full picture since inelastic goods (housing, healthcare, education &c.) are taking up a larger fraction of the paycheck. The top 10% are doing fairly well, the top 1% doing better and the top 0.1% are making out like bandits. I don't have a good solution, but the current state of affairs is unsustainable.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      The number of middle earners is decreasing because some of them are moving into high earners.
int_19h 8y ago
It makes for social instability. Studies show time and again that it's the relative wealth that makes people unhappy, not absolute. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have a large salary, and take home as much of it as I can after taxes. But I would also rather have it be a permanent, stable arrangement (maybe not at any particular company, but in general). Angry torches-and-pitchforks-wielding mobs tend to disrupt that, so I consider it to be in my long-term financial interest to contribute to building a society where people are generally happy and don't feel like they need to get violent to fix their problems. Just looking at the news headlines daily, I wouldn't say that what we have in US right now is such a society.

by whb07 8y ago

chasing 8y ago

Not in a Hacker News comment, I can't. But google around -- the information is fairly easy to find.

alehul 8y ago
Comments like this are really unhelpful if you can't even provide a link. There's probably thousands of arguments on Google for how "income disparity hurts", and most can likely be successfully argued against rather simply. If you've found a sound argument, please at least provide a link to it.
whb07 8y ago
It’s too simplistic a measurement to use, clearly it’s incorrect to use it by itself. Another example to use would be imagine a neighborhood with the Forbes 100 richest, the extreme income disparity there between Number 1 and Number 100 clearly breaks what you’re commenting on. Maybe the measurement should be ability to move up and down the economic strata.

Spooky23 8y ago

North Korea is peasants, military and a tiny elite. There is no real commercial sector. If you look at the US, it’s more of a developing Brazil like situation. We’re developing a growing peasant/underclass, growing the wealthy as assets concentrate and squeezing the professional and semi-professional classes.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Every time I look at trends in income distribution in the US, I don't see low income earners increasing. I see middle income earners moving up. If you have quantitative information that contradicts this, I'd like to see it. Edit: I want to clarify that I don't see the same thing in California, where market restrictions have made the average joe poorer.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  Middle earners are at best holding steady in the US. Inflation doesn't always capture the full picture since inelastic goods (housing, healthcare, education &c.) are taking up a larger fraction of the paycheck. The top 10% are doing fairly well, the top 1% doing better and the top 0.1% are making out like bandits. I don't have a good solution, but the current state of affairs is unsustainable.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    The number of middle earners is decreasing because some of them are moving into high earners.

int_19h 8y ago

It makes for social instability. Studies show time and again that it's the relative wealth that makes people unhappy, not absolute. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have a large salary, and take home as much of it as I can after taxes. But I would also rather have it be a permanent, stable arrangement (maybe not at any particular company, but in general). Angry torches-and-pitchforks-wielding mobs tend to disrupt that, so I consider it to be in my long-term financial interest to contribute to building a society where people are generally happy and don't feel like they need to get violent to fix their problems. Just looking at the news headlines daily, I wouldn't say that what we have in US right now is such a society.