10 ms·

The top 1% of American's own more wealth than the bottom 90% and this concentration is only increasing. Soon no cities regardless of size will deliver for low s

The top 1% of American's own more wealth than the bottom 90% and this concentration is only increasing. Soon no cities regardless of size will deliver for low skilled workers as there will simply not be enough of the proverbial pie to go around. As wealth is concentrated and rents and property values rise the vast majority of this country will (does?) live paycheck to paycheck. This is unsustainable and will either need to be addressed or we will be living in a very real dystopia. Add the very real prospect of social security collapsing and we have a good setup for the streets being filled with homeless and vast portions of the population failing simply because there was just not enough money to go around.

ensiferum 8y ago
In some American cities the streets are already filled with homeless. For example in Miami and San Francisco.
WhompingWindows 8y ago
I don't disagree, but the wealth disparity is different than the income disparity. On the one hand, a wealth disparity can be directly passed down, and repealing the estate tax will only deepen this trend. On the other hand, reducing income inequality may help with the here-and-now, helping families to BUILD wealth while not also living paycheck to paycheck. So, IMO, we should tackle both income inequality via progressive taxation, and we should tackle wealth inequality by instating a much stronger estate tax that prevents a landed gentry, a permanently wealthy and insulated class of millionaires and trust fund babies. There is also something to be said for personal choices of the non-wealthy. I see many in my lower-middle class city with new luxury BMW or Benz ($30-50k) vehicles, who are living in $120k condo units. I see many people with shiny massively spec'd out trucks that they never used to haul anything and just park at their office job. What would the country look like if average people saved more and invested some of their lifestyle splurging? So, while the tax structure and skill gaps are big, we can also say consumers need to be much smarter and more modest if they want to build wealth and improve their station.
- athenot 8y ago
  > we can also say consumers need to be much smarter and more modest if they want to build wealth and improve their station. Ture. But this is an interesting point. It becomes a "fool's game" like a casino, where everyone knows that the odds are stacked against them. So when they loose, they can internalize their fault. Yet there's an abundance of "shiny" going around so that people's choice becomes emotional and hope-based, instead of rational. Therefore there's no incentive to change the system because it's so easy to blame those who lose out: "see they made poor choices"—nevermind how we bombard those people with a ton of fine-tuned marketing. Taking the massively spec'd truck as an example, consider what the car manufacturer is selling: the feeling of power. Now watch a popular game on TV and get that message drilled into you about 30 times each week, while living a life that is otherwise very constrained in terms of finances and opportunities... many give in.
- intopieces 8y ago
  > I see many in my lower-middle class city with new luxury BMW or Benz ($30-50k) vehicles, who are living in $120k condo units. How the hell do you know the financial situation of strangers? What economic data do you have to back up this assertion that lots of people would be better off if they weren't foolishly spending your money? Or are you the local "leading authority on what shouldn't be in poor people's grocery carts"? [0] [0]https://local.theonion.com/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldn-t-be-in-poor-1819576454 https://local.theonion.com/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what...
alkibiades 8y ago
“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.
- jrhurst 8y ago
  Likely because money and wealth is a zero sum game. There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.
  - fastball 8y ago
    There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around. True(ish). False. False. I say "ish" for the first one because hopefully humanity will grow beyond Earth in the near future. Generally, all of the above are false unless you are talking about a population which never stops growing, and in that case that would be the problem. Not wealth inequality.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      If you have a population that did stop growing, but in which class divisions exist, and the upper class keeps taking larger and larger share of overall wealth generated by the society, you're going to have a similar problem.
  - NeonVice 8y ago
    Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.
    - wonderwonder 8y ago
      For that item to have quantifiable value to others though, they must be willing to exchange their money for the new item. The money that is to be exchanged already existed and is supposed to be limited in supply via fiscal policy. If the majority of that supply is owned by a small group of people the value that can be exchanged for the newly created item is limited as well unless those with the wealth want it.
fastball 8y ago
Repeat after me: Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game.
- ihalip 8y ago
  Repeating something 3 times doesn't make it true.
  - fastball 8y ago
    You're right. The good news is that it's true regardless. The repetition just makes it more likely to get into the skulls of people who have a hard time grasping the concept.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  That's, at best, extremely misleading; outside of the most extreme absolute deprivation, relative deprivation (or prosperity) appears to be much more of a contributor to experienced disutility (or utility) than absolute deprivation or prosperity, such that, in practice, and modulo alleviating the most crushing poverty (which isn't where marginal gains go in the developed world, even where such poverty still remains) and maintaining illusions which shield the less well off from the prosperity of th well off (consumer-oriented capitalism actively seeks the opposite), wealth is, in practice, zero sum [0] in terms of impact on ezperienced utility, even if it isn't in measures of absolute possessions or consumption. [0] or, at least, rivalrous, in that for anyone to gain utility from wealth compared to an alternative scenario, someone else must lose; it's not real clear that utility can be meaningfully aggregated across individuals.
  - fastball 8y ago
    I am impressed with the level of nonsense in this comment.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      I'm impressed by the fact that people on a site like HN, supposed to be held at a higher caliber than Reddit, prefer to downvote rather than engage with the substance of comments.
freddie_mercury 8y ago
> Add the very real prospect of social security collapsing There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of Social Security collapsing. A 0% chance. There is no factual basis, only flat-earth anti-vaxxer type scare mongering, for any claim to the contrary. Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. The only way Social Security could "collapse" is if people stop getting paid.
- user5994461 8y ago
  Collapse is maybe a strong word, let's call it an adjustment. There are less and less workers having a job and paying taxes, while there are more and more benefits to pay for. This is especially applicable to elderly and pensions, in countries with a socialized pension system. Imagine the situation where both parents are getting retired and were promised 80% of their salaries, while both their children can't get a job. It's all too common nowadays. There is no tax to collect. This may not be too much of a problem in the US where there is limited pension, healthcare or unemployment. Europe will hurt though.

ensiferum 8y ago

In some American cities the streets are already filled with homeless. For example in Miami and San Francisco.

WhompingWindows 8y ago

I don't disagree, but the wealth disparity is different than the income disparity. On the one hand, a wealth disparity can be directly passed down, and repealing the estate tax will only deepen this trend. On the other hand, reducing income inequality may help with the here-and-now, helping families to BUILD wealth while not also living paycheck to paycheck. So, IMO, we should tackle both income inequality via progressive taxation, and we should tackle wealth inequality by instating a much stronger estate tax that prevents a landed gentry, a permanently wealthy and insulated class of millionaires and trust fund babies. There is also something to be said for personal choices of the non-wealthy. I see many in my lower-middle class city with new luxury BMW or Benz ($30-50k) vehicles, who are living in $120k condo units. I see many people with shiny massively spec'd out trucks that they never used to haul anything and just park at their office job. What would the country look like if average people saved more and invested some of their lifestyle splurging? So, while the tax structure and skill gaps are big, we can also say consumers need to be much smarter and more modest if they want to build wealth and improve their station.

athenot 8y ago
> we can also say consumers need to be much smarter and more modest if they want to build wealth and improve their station. Ture. But this is an interesting point. It becomes a "fool's game" like a casino, where everyone knows that the odds are stacked against them. So when they loose, they can internalize their fault. Yet there's an abundance of "shiny" going around so that people's choice becomes emotional and hope-based, instead of rational. Therefore there's no incentive to change the system because it's so easy to blame those who lose out: "see they made poor choices"—nevermind how we bombard those people with a ton of fine-tuned marketing. Taking the massively spec'd truck as an example, consider what the car manufacturer is selling: the feeling of power. Now watch a popular game on TV and get that message drilled into you about 30 times each week, while living a life that is otherwise very constrained in terms of finances and opportunities... many give in.
intopieces 8y ago
> I see many in my lower-middle class city with new luxury BMW or Benz ($30-50k) vehicles, who are living in $120k condo units. How the hell do you know the financial situation of strangers? What economic data do you have to back up this assertion that lots of people would be better off if they weren't foolishly spending your money? Or are you the local "leading authority on what shouldn't be in poor people's grocery carts"? [0] [0]https://local.theonion.com/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldn-t-be-in-poor-1819576454 https://local.theonion.com/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what...

alkibiades 8y ago

“not enough money to go around” Where do people get this strange idea that if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? Bill Gates got rich with an invention that also generated probably a trillion dollars in economic growth for everyone. Including most people on this sites income.

jrhurst 8y ago
Likely because money and wealth is a zero sum game. There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around.
- fastball 8y ago
  There is only so much land, food, and materials to go around. True(ish). False. False. I say "ish" for the first one because hopefully humanity will grow beyond Earth in the near future. Generally, all of the above are false unless you are talking about a population which never stops growing, and in that case that would be the problem. Not wealth inequality.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    If you have a population that did stop growing, but in which class divisions exist, and the upper class keeps taking larger and larger share of overall wealth generated by the society, you're going to have a similar problem.
- NeonVice 8y ago
  Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    For that item to have quantifiable value to others though, they must be willing to exchange their money for the new item. The money that is to be exchanged already existed and is supposed to be limited in supply via fiscal policy. If the majority of that supply is owned by a small group of people the value that can be exchanged for the newly created item is limited as well unless those with the wealth want it.

fastball 8y ago

Repeat after me: Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

ihalip 8y ago
Repeating something 3 times doesn't make it true.
- fastball 8y ago
  You're right. The good news is that it's true regardless. The repetition just makes it more likely to get into the skulls of people who have a hard time grasping the concept.
dragonwriter 8y ago
That's, at best, extremely misleading; outside of the most extreme absolute deprivation, relative deprivation (or prosperity) appears to be much more of a contributor to experienced disutility (or utility) than absolute deprivation or prosperity, such that, in practice, and modulo alleviating the most crushing poverty (which isn't where marginal gains go in the developed world, even where such poverty still remains) and maintaining illusions which shield the less well off from the prosperity of th well off (consumer-oriented capitalism actively seeks the opposite), wealth is, in practice, zero sum [0] in terms of impact on ezperienced utility, even if it isn't in measures of absolute possessions or consumption. [0] or, at least, rivalrous, in that for anyone to gain utility from wealth compared to an alternative scenario, someone else must lose; it's not real clear that utility can be meaningfully aggregated across individuals.
- fastball 8y ago
  I am impressed with the level of nonsense in this comment.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    I'm impressed by the fact that people on a site like HN, supposed to be held at a higher caliber than Reddit, prefer to downvote rather than engage with the substance of comments.

freddie_mercury 8y ago

> Add the very real prospect of social security collapsing There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of Social Security collapsing. A 0% chance. There is no factual basis, only flat-earth anti-vaxxer type scare mongering, for any claim to the contrary. Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. The only way Social Security could "collapse" is if people stop getting paid.

user5994461 8y ago
Collapse is maybe a strong word, let's call it an adjustment. There are less and less workers having a job and paying taxes, while there are more and more benefits to pay for. This is especially applicable to elderly and pensions, in countries with a socialized pension system. Imagine the situation where both parents are getting retired and were promised 80% of their salaries, while both their children can't get a job. It's all too common nowadays. There is no tax to collect. This may not be too much of a problem in the US where there is limited pension, healthcare or unemployment. Europe will hurt though.