3 ms·

Which part do I need to provide evidence for? That America is not unequal in opportunities? Just look at the membership of HN and YC. People from all over the

by pelle 16y ago

Which part do I need to provide evidence for? That America is not unequal in opportunities? Just look at the membership of HN and YC. People from all over the world come here to follow opportunities they did not have at home. I may very well have overstated the issue about 80% of the wealth have earned it, but if they inherited at some point in their family history someone earned it. It is far from the old communist image though of fat laughing capitalists in top hats stomping over the poor proletariat, which while extreme is essentially the subtext to "The rich are not paying their fair share". "Ooh the rich own 80% of the US" etc. etc. ad nauseum.

hackinthebochs 16y ago
Assuming it wasn't inherited, I would still argue that its mostly unearned. I don't believe "passive" income is earned. In most cases, wealth over a certain threshold is essentially passive generation--money making money. The wealthy own the means of production and when technology advances makes this more productive, they're able to create more passive wealth. I don't consider this earned wealth. The same goes for bankers and investors who make money through a function of the money they already have.
- pelle 16y ago
  What do you mean passive income isn't earned? Isn't someone's pension earned? What about VC's? PG? Isn't PG earning his keep or is he just sucking blood out of the productive masses? What is going on with this kind of neo marxism on HN?
  - hackinthebochs 16y ago
    A pension is more deferred income than anything, so it isn't passive. I don't know the details of how PG gets the money he invests, but for what he does there isn't a requirement that he have millions to begin with. He could simply be manager of a fund. And whether he's earning his keep or sucking blood depends more on the specific arrangements. If PG's terms were that he collect 100% of the profits of successful companies, while paying people a flat rate, then yes he would be 'sucking blood from the productive masses'. Yet, this is essentially what happens in most other spheres. Those who own the means of production let those on the bottom use their "property" while keeping the ever-increasing profits to themselves. Yes, everyones quality of life increases, but at a radically disproportionate rate. At this point the income is passive and there should be a line where you're not entitled to any more of it.

by pelle 16y ago

hackinthebochs 16y ago

Assuming it wasn't inherited, I would still argue that its mostly unearned. I don't believe "passive" income is earned. In most cases, wealth over a certain threshold is essentially passive generation--money making money. The wealthy own the means of production and when technology advances makes this more productive, they're able to create more passive wealth. I don't consider this earned wealth. The same goes for bankers and investors who make money through a function of the money they already have.

pelle 16y ago
What do you mean passive income isn't earned? Isn't someone's pension earned? What about VC's? PG? Isn't PG earning his keep or is he just sucking blood out of the productive masses? What is going on with this kind of neo marxism on HN?
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  A pension is more deferred income than anything, so it isn't passive. I don't know the details of how PG gets the money he invests, but for what he does there isn't a requirement that he have millions to begin with. He could simply be manager of a fund. And whether he's earning his keep or sucking blood depends more on the specific arrangements. If PG's terms were that he collect 100% of the profits of successful companies, while paying people a flat rate, then yes he would be 'sucking blood from the productive masses'. Yet, this is essentially what happens in most other spheres. Those who own the means of production let those on the bottom use their "property" while keeping the ever-increasing profits to themselves. Yes, everyones quality of life increases, but at a radically disproportionate rate. At this point the income is passive and there should be a line where you're not entitled to any more of it.