8 ms·

Just to show that the example doesn't prove much: millions of people voluntarily spent money on narcotics too. Entertainment products aren't making consumers ri

Just to show that the example doesn't prove much: millions of people voluntarily spent money on narcotics too. Entertainment products aren't making consumers richer in the long run. Correcting income and wealth inequality will help ensure the long term health of the economy, and once that's done, we can have another debt-financed consumption binge, but the current binge can't last forever without consequences.

mjburgess 8y ago
Wealth inequality is productivity inequality, not having-less of a fixed amount. "Fixing" wealth inequality by decreasing the productivity of the wealthy is madness. "Inequality" is a feature of exchange and production, it cant be "fixed". The lives of those who suffer most can be improved by helping them be more productive. Not by hobbling everyone else. That fails to improve anything. EDIT: To clarify, the inequality is in what you can do with your total current assets: including time/effort, but CURRENT WEALTH. Yes, Jeff Bezos can do more with $100B than you can with $100. And yes, you with 100$ can do more than a person with 1$. People in poor countries produce things at a rate and with such general demand that their current assets (including their time/effort) arent very productive. Bezos can make another billion without taking it from anyone, just by deploying his assets better than you cna.
- coderzach 8y ago
  Jeff Bezos isn't a a billion times more productive than an average person. He's leeching off the productivity of amazon's workers.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Amazon wouldn’t exist without Bezos. It’s kind of a stretch to say he’s leeching off his employees when his vision and drive literally gave rise to Amazon. Also I’m pretty sure Bezos doesn’t collect much salary. His wealth is tied to how much Amazon is worth. He’s essentially taking nothing from his workers because his net worth is based pretty much entirely on how much someone else is willing to pay for his shares.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      Microsoft wouldn't exist without Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to any and all benefit derived therein to divide up between his employees. It's funny how justifications for the wealth of these people usually fall to unquantifiable metrics like "vision" rather than concrete labour, which is the sole standard ordinary workers are judged by. To use a metaphor, a slave owner having the "vision" for a palaestra including all its designs does not mean that he does not exploit the slaves (who, remember, wouldn't have a job if it weren't for him, nor would the palaestra exist). In the philosophy of exploitation, exploitation can occur even in mutually beneficial relationships.
      - dpark 8y ago
        I don't think anyone proposes that Bezos is "entitled to any and all benefit" that Amazon produces, either. Indeed his wealth is tied merely to his initial ownership with almost no additional wealth flowing to him in terms of cash or stock from Amazon. Whether or not warehouse workers should get paid more seems to be a very different issue than whether Bezos deserves to continue to own the stock he literally created. Also your metaphor sucks. If you think that wage workers are on par with slaves, I suggest you look a bit more into what slavery actually is.
        claudiawerner 8y ago
        The metaphor is not formally equating wage labourers to slaves, it's an illustration of the principle of exploitation in relationships where, in a technical sense, both parties benefit. That's why it's a metaphor, not a simile.
        dpark 8y ago
        You’re defending your absurd metaphor by turning to pedantry about definitions. You metaphor still sucks because it doesn’t say anything useful. It’s purely an emotional appeal. You could apply your metaphor to literally any employment relationship and it’s no different. The CEO is (over)compensated for vision and so everyone else is exploited, from the Executive Vice Presidents down to the receptionists.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Amazon-Com-Inc.html https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-O... Jeff Bezos takes a salary and his income isn't tied to stock.
  - mjburgess 8y ago
    You're conflating: effort, productivity and net worth. Net worth is a terrible measure of anything. You have a networth 100s times a person in a developing country but you're not "100x" anything. Jeff Bezos can invest the rewards of his lifetime effort, yes, billions of times better than you can. Elon musk invested his paypal-productivity into making space/car/etc. companies. His actions here eclipse yours.
  - whateveracct 8y ago
    This is HN - home of wannabe Bezoses. It's a hard sell to try to tell a forum of founders and hopefuls that they aren't special and instead largely a result of circumstance and opportunity.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  The US has the most productive workers in the world. You cannot feasibly make them more productive without harming our ability to be disruptive. The fact that they've been as productive as they've been for years, through massive economic changes and yet the gap between the top .01 percent of Americans and the entire rest of the country has still grown. Supply side economics are a laughable farce. Just because wealthy people have more money doesn't mean that they invest or spend it in any way that helps the economy, what is provable though is that it harms democracy by limiting the voices of the middle class, and has created a poor class that has become nearly impossible to get out of as economic ladder climbing is effectively nil. The only way to save our democracy is by putting in policies that will harm the wealthy aristocracy of the US. The other alternative is war and death that impacts the wealthy, as history has shown time and again. Blood or money, it's their choice.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    Yeah our democracy is just fine. Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. It may not be a popular choice among the elite but it is evidence of a healthy democratic society where decisions aren't being made exclusively by the wealthy.
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      > Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. Those who earned more than $50k a year were more likely to vote for Trump[1]. There's also this[2]: > During the primaries, Trump supporters were mostly affluent people. > Trump voters weren’t majority working class in the general election, either. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bab332bf87c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/0...
- will_brown 8y ago
  >"Fixing" wealth inequality by decreasing the productivity of the wealthy is madness. Really? Because the system itself is fixed guaranteeing Capital of the rich is much more productive than wages of the poor, through taxation. That is an employee of Company abc has their wages taxed to a much greater extent than the company owners profits are taxed. It’s definately not “hobbling” everyone else if we “fixed” the system such that workers wages were taxed less than the capital profits of business owners. In fact the current system is so unfairly weighted only a small percentage benefit from capital gains taxes whereas the masses of the working class are hobbled by greater taxes on their wages making up the difference. Ever wonder why it’s pretty easy to find CEO’s taking a $1 salary (it’s because they take the rest in capital so they are taxed less than their own workers). Those who suffer the most don’t need to be more productive, they working class is already more productive than anytime through history it’s time their wages reflect that fact and for good measure it’s time wages become more productive by flipping the wage/capital tax paradigm.
  - mjburgess 8y ago
    I think your comment is consistent with mine. You are advocating getting the state out of the way of its citizens productivity by redressing the ways by which most people are taxed. That's exactly the sort of thing i'm talking about. If you want people in the developing world to improve their lot, get rid of authoritarian gov.s holding them back. People wish to do things for other people, and wish to provide for themselves. It is institutions, and esp. states, which almost-everywhere and almost-everywhen have got in the way of that. Fixing institutions is exactly the sort of thing which will help people who suffer needlessly. But it won't change inequality: the distribution of productivity is necessarily unequal by the nature of productivity (those a little better off now will be able to multiply faster, exponentially).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Wealth inequality is productivity inequality No, it's not. Income inequality would be, in an idealized state where you both had a perfect market (with all the ideal rational choice theory attributes like perfect information and perfect utility maximization) andp erfectly equal initial distribution of wealth. Or, at least, the instantaneous income differential at the first moment would be, as well as the resulting wealth inequality; once you are past that you have wealth inequality which means that differences in market clearing price even in a perfect market no longer perfectly reflect differences in utility produced, because the interests of the wealthier participants are favored, so neither income inequality nor it's resulting wealth inequality reflect productivity, and with mortality and inheritances wealth inequality is even farther from a reflection of income inequality after the first generation. Being born a Trump—or even a member of the first world middle class—puts you pretty high on the world distribution of wealth from day one, and your personal productivity has no contribution to that.
- imtringued 8y ago
  Could jeff bezos really be a million times more productive than an average american if he was alone by himself in an alternative universe?

mjburgess 8y ago

Wealth inequality is productivity inequality, not having-less of a fixed amount. "Fixing" wealth inequality by decreasing the productivity of the wealthy is madness. "Inequality" is a feature of exchange and production, it cant be "fixed". The lives of those who suffer most can be improved by helping them be more productive. Not by hobbling everyone else. That fails to improve anything. EDIT: To clarify, the inequality is in what you can do with your total current assets: including time/effort, but CURRENT WEALTH. Yes, Jeff Bezos can do more with $100B than you can with $100. And yes, you with 100$ can do more than a person with 1$. People in poor countries produce things at a rate and with such general demand that their current assets (including their time/effort) arent very productive. Bezos can make another billion without taking it from anyone, just by deploying his assets better than you cna.

coderzach 8y ago
Jeff Bezos isn't a a billion times more productive than an average person. He's leeching off the productivity of amazon's workers.
- dpark 8y ago
  Amazon wouldn’t exist without Bezos. It’s kind of a stretch to say he’s leeching off his employees when his vision and drive literally gave rise to Amazon. Also I’m pretty sure Bezos doesn’t collect much salary. His wealth is tied to how much Amazon is worth. He’s essentially taking nothing from his workers because his net worth is based pretty much entirely on how much someone else is willing to pay for his shares.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Microsoft wouldn't exist without Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to any and all benefit derived therein to divide up between his employees. It's funny how justifications for the wealth of these people usually fall to unquantifiable metrics like "vision" rather than concrete labour, which is the sole standard ordinary workers are judged by. To use a metaphor, a slave owner having the "vision" for a palaestra including all its designs does not mean that he does not exploit the slaves (who, remember, wouldn't have a job if it weren't for him, nor would the palaestra exist). In the philosophy of exploitation, exploitation can occur even in mutually beneficial relationships.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I don't think anyone proposes that Bezos is "entitled to any and all benefit" that Amazon produces, either. Indeed his wealth is tied merely to his initial ownership with almost no additional wealth flowing to him in terms of cash or stock from Amazon. Whether or not warehouse workers should get paid more seems to be a very different issue than whether Bezos deserves to continue to own the stock he literally created. Also your metaphor sucks. If you think that wage workers are on par with slaves, I suggest you look a bit more into what slavery actually is.
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        The metaphor is not formally equating wage labourers to slaves, it's an illustration of the principle of exploitation in relationships where, in a technical sense, both parties benefit. That's why it's a metaphor, not a simile.
        dpark 8y ago
        You’re defending your absurd metaphor by turning to pedantry about definitions. You metaphor still sucks because it doesn’t say anything useful. It’s purely an emotional appeal. You could apply your metaphor to literally any employment relationship and it’s no different. The CEO is (over)compensated for vision and so everyone else is exploited, from the Executive Vice Presidents down to the receptionists.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Amazon-Com-Inc.html https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-O... Jeff Bezos takes a salary and his income isn't tied to stock.
- mjburgess 8y ago
  You're conflating: effort, productivity and net worth. Net worth is a terrible measure of anything. You have a networth 100s times a person in a developing country but you're not "100x" anything. Jeff Bezos can invest the rewards of his lifetime effort, yes, billions of times better than you can. Elon musk invested his paypal-productivity into making space/car/etc. companies. His actions here eclipse yours.
- whateveracct 8y ago
  This is HN - home of wannabe Bezoses. It's a hard sell to try to tell a forum of founders and hopefuls that they aren't special and instead largely a result of circumstance and opportunity.
cannonedhamster 8y ago
The US has the most productive workers in the world. You cannot feasibly make them more productive without harming our ability to be disruptive. The fact that they've been as productive as they've been for years, through massive economic changes and yet the gap between the top .01 percent of Americans and the entire rest of the country has still grown. Supply side economics are a laughable farce. Just because wealthy people have more money doesn't mean that they invest or spend it in any way that helps the economy, what is provable though is that it harms democracy by limiting the voices of the middle class, and has created a poor class that has become nearly impossible to get out of as economic ladder climbing is effectively nil. The only way to save our democracy is by putting in policies that will harm the wealthy aristocracy of the US. The other alternative is war and death that impacts the wealthy, as history has shown time and again. Blood or money, it's their choice.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Yeah our democracy is just fine. Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. It may not be a popular choice among the elite but it is evidence of a healthy democratic society where decisions aren't being made exclusively by the wealthy.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    > Evidenced by the fact that the lower classes were able to elect a president that the upper middle and upper classes most definitely did not want elected. Those who earned more than $50k a year were more likely to vote for Trump[1]. There's also this[2]: > During the primaries, Trump supporters were mostly affluent people. > Trump voters weren’t majority working class in the general election, either. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8bab332bf87c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/0...
will_brown 8y ago
>"Fixing" wealth inequality by decreasing the productivity of the wealthy is madness. Really? Because the system itself is fixed guaranteeing Capital of the rich is much more productive than wages of the poor, through taxation. That is an employee of Company abc has their wages taxed to a much greater extent than the company owners profits are taxed. It’s definately not “hobbling” everyone else if we “fixed” the system such that workers wages were taxed less than the capital profits of business owners. In fact the current system is so unfairly weighted only a small percentage benefit from capital gains taxes whereas the masses of the working class are hobbled by greater taxes on their wages making up the difference. Ever wonder why it’s pretty easy to find CEO’s taking a $1 salary (it’s because they take the rest in capital so they are taxed less than their own workers). Those who suffer the most don’t need to be more productive, they working class is already more productive than anytime through history it’s time their wages reflect that fact and for good measure it’s time wages become more productive by flipping the wage/capital tax paradigm.
- mjburgess 8y ago
  I think your comment is consistent with mine. You are advocating getting the state out of the way of its citizens productivity by redressing the ways by which most people are taxed. That's exactly the sort of thing i'm talking about. If you want people in the developing world to improve their lot, get rid of authoritarian gov.s holding them back. People wish to do things for other people, and wish to provide for themselves. It is institutions, and esp. states, which almost-everywhere and almost-everywhen have got in the way of that. Fixing institutions is exactly the sort of thing which will help people who suffer needlessly. But it won't change inequality: the distribution of productivity is necessarily unequal by the nature of productivity (those a little better off now will be able to multiply faster, exponentially).
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Wealth inequality is productivity inequality No, it's not. Income inequality would be, in an idealized state where you both had a perfect market (with all the ideal rational choice theory attributes like perfect information and perfect utility maximization) andp erfectly equal initial distribution of wealth. Or, at least, the instantaneous income differential at the first moment would be, as well as the resulting wealth inequality; once you are past that you have wealth inequality which means that differences in market clearing price even in a perfect market no longer perfectly reflect differences in utility produced, because the interests of the wealthier participants are favored, so neither income inequality nor it's resulting wealth inequality reflect productivity, and with mortality and inheritances wealth inequality is even farther from a reflection of income inequality after the first generation. Being born a Trump—or even a member of the first world middle class—puts you pretty high on the world distribution of wealth from day one, and your personal productivity has no contribution to that.
imtringued 8y ago
Could jeff bezos really be a million times more productive than an average american if he was alone by himself in an alternative universe?