8 ms·

Economic Inequality (2016)

52 points by bobrenjc93 7y ago

shams93 7y ago
We heavily tax income and hardly touch capital gains, we discourage work, even if you get a decent salary the tax system obliterates that income. If you gamble with stocks you make money without doing anything productive and your lack of productivity is richly rewarded by the tax system.
- imgabe 7y ago
  Short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. Long term are taxed lower, but for capital gains of any kind you have to risk capital, which was already taxed when you earned it the first time. Capital gains are not only the result of "gambling". If you found a company and later sell it, that is a capital gain. The shares are virtually worthless when you start the company, and later become valuable when you sell it. Do you consider founding a successful company that provides a useful product and employs many people doing nothing productive?
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    What percentage of total capital gains are paid out to founders of new ventures?
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      Don't forget the qualified small business stock exemption — 50% tax break on founder stock held for more than 5 years, or you can roll it over into another qualifying small business and defer the gains even further. I believe you can do this as an angel investor also — it doesn't have to go into your own next startup.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      Considering the most successful founders have billions of capital gains each, I'd say it's probably significant. Not to mention that paid to all the employees via stock options.
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    You are right. But a successful company that would put you in the 1% or 10% from bottom is very much like a lottery and is highly controlled by external factors (funding, environment, family background, early education, culture, luck etc which you don't have control over as much). In that case, should we encourage such behaviour at the cost of making lives of many people worse? How many poor people have you seen working on a startup and reaching 10% bracket? How many of those startups failed? Should we really bend the rules to satisfy a cautious 2% outcome? I don't think people here have much problem with "self made" millionaires. I think what they don't like is how not everyone gets the opportunity to try to become one or how billionaires are exceptions and compromising system based on exception for the rest of us is not a good idea. Beside, tech is becoming like oil industry with cartels you need to satisfy before you even have a chance at competiting fairly. It happened to many industries before and they stopped progressing and stagnated. They have one or two big names now with nothing else.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      > In that case, should we encourage such behaviour at the cost of making lives of many people worse? What behavior are we encouraging? Founding companies? Why shouldn't we encourage that?
      - thrwaway69 7y ago
        No, it's encouraging investors and previously founders to dip into unfair taxable holes. But the way things are setup, you can't easily do that. I have thought of a few systems - - Tax VC funding on non essential problems and use that to fund non-profit competing startups. The essential word here is problematic to agree on. - Force people to sell some percentages of their shares every year and tax that on the same level as income. - Press a soft limit on time to create taxable profit. It will be set by industries differently but at some point, if your revenue is huge and you aren't creating profit, you will start getting taxed on 20% of the total revenue or similar share. - Tax hedge schemes. So if Mark Zuckerberg uses his wealth to create more social media companies, he should give up some share of the company to the government. He won't have to do that if he tries something else than a social media company. Encouraging founding companies is important but when a few players hog all the opportunities to do that. That might become net negative.
  - Booktrope 7y ago
    As you say, capital gains are not "only" due to speculation, but just sometimes. You also assumed that your risk capital was originally "earned" implying that you paid full tax rates on it. Unless your original earnings were from investment or, ahem, luck of birth (I mean, inheritance). Do you consider being lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family to be doing something productive?
    - imgabe 7y ago
      Inheritance taxes could remove that factor without also removing the incentive for entrepreneurs to take risks. If your problem is with inheritance, tax inheritance. Don't tax capital gains, which are only sometimes related to inheritance and also affect people who don't inherit anything.
- chewz 7y ago
  > If you gamble with stocks you make money without doing anything productive You provide liquidity to the market. Your saving and pension are worthless without liquidity.
S4M 7y ago
(2016)
irishcoffee 7y ago
“It’s ok”
3131s 7y ago
Is it possible to come up with a worse take on economic inequality than this?
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Well we could go full 19th century and say poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people are rich because they are just much better human beings.
  - killjoywashere 7y ago
    I have a modest proposal for you... https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
Barrin92 7y ago
seems to be the fairly common take among economists/tech folks about inequality being fine along as wealth grows, we're not living in a zero-sum world etc. Problem with that attitude is that it's mostly circular and asserts its conclusion. Inequality does not matter because social well-being and so on is only a measure of absolute wealth, so the only thing left is to show that wealth is growing etc. It's worthwhile to question the assumption which people like Robert Sapolsky have done.[1] One thing that he figured out is that even when one accounts for the worse material outcomes of inequality like worse healthcare access, there is an extremely large difference in outcome based on inequality itself. Gaps in social hierarchy matter and inform how people perceive their environment and their place in society. Compressing inequality itself may drastically increase social and individual well-being as inequality appears to induce significant stress in human populations. The same is true for many studies about happiness. Happiness is indeed influenced by material wealth, but to a significantly smaller degree than one might imagine. Countries like Germany and Nigeria, for example, report similar levels of happiness even despite being magnitudes apart on some wealth and econ metrics. the key point I want to make is that, even if one disagrees with some particular data points or conclusions, the effect of inequality must be studied at a biological/social / well-being level if one wants to make meaningful statements. Asserting that humans are Homines oeconomici and using it to justify inequality is a tautological exercise. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-inequality-inflicts-real-biological-harm/?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c3cbc5b9-01dc-4ca8-8a23-537f4a6d5da0 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-ineq...
- rapind 7y ago
  They way I think of this is that everything is relative. Happiness is a product of success and expectations. When everyone around you is rich it influences your expectations thus reducing your happiness (except for buddhist monks?) and driving you to great success or potential despair. So it really is a zero-sum game unless (until) we evolve some enlightenment where expectations are fixed. We'd be content, but would anything ever get done? Does it matter? Sounds like a sci-fi topic. Of course this is a super simplistic way to see it. Both success and expectations have many contributing factors themselves.
- closeparen 7y ago
tehjoker 7y ago
Inequality is bad because people with more money have power over people with less. Ideally, we would live in a democracy (understood by the Greeks to mean rule by the poor, given they massively outnumber the rich), but we don't. We should change this. Stated another way, your boss has power over you. Why? It could be because they earned a lot of money through their own labor, or it could be because they had access to capital that you do not. Uber loses money hand over fist, but Uber management has more power than their drivers. Why? Management has access to capital, and drivers do not.
- tempsy 7y ago
  What? The fact that your boss has power over you within a company has nothing to do with how much money they personally have relative to you. There is no correlation.
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    You would not seek employment with the company under servile terms unless you needed employment to survive. The company needs you less than you need them, so they can get away with bossing you around.
    - icelancer 7y ago
      Not in a market where your skills are in demand. This single input single output equation breaks down relatively easily.
      - tehjoker 7y ago
        This is true! It's an individualistic, non-political way to balance the power of money. Shouldn't the rest of the population have access to decent living and working conditions though? Going to bed, gn all. :)
    - anonsivalley652 7y ago
      Being a boss isn't inherently evil, it's just workers are exploited in most current circumstances. Worker-owned co-ops and organized labor are the ways out of this, but requires workers to first summon the courage to risk being fired.
ronilan 7y ago
This phrase just popped up into my head a while back: “The minimum wage should be the median wage” I’m not sure if it should be a rule or a goal or be anything at all, but thought it’s a thought worth putting out there. Edit: thinking in context of country, or province but also in context of company or group.
- iamkroot 7y ago
  As in, a majority of the people should be earning the minimum wage?
  - ronilan 7y ago
    As in Minimum wage should be raised to meet the Median. As a result, the majority of people will have equal wage. In BC, Canada: Minimum wage is: $13.85 CAD Median wage is: $23.98 CAD Minimum is going up to $15.20 in next 18 months. It’s not that far... Edit: ”in developed economies, the minimum wage ranges usually from 35 to 60 per cent of the median wage.“ https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/wages/minimum-wages/setting-adjusting/WCMS_439253/lang--en/index.htm https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/wages/minimum-wages/settin... US is 35. France is 60. BC clocks 57 right now. Will go to about 63 with minimum wage hikes. So, yes, a higher ratio is worth thinking about....
    - paulryanrogers 7y ago
      > As in Minimum wage should be raised to meet the Median. My concern is it could lead to run away inflation unless there were controls to ensure the costs to rebalance things didn't just passed along to those at the bottom anyway.
      - ronilan 7y ago
        Inflation is a concern though the last two decades have shown that the fear may be overrated. In any case, nothing is worse for inflation than UBI and people talk about that seriously... P.S - After reading more into this idea I think that setting high ratio goal of Minimum-to-Median (75%???) might be a direction worth exploring... we have an excellent, proactive provincial government in BC, maybe I’ll go look for the suggestion box...
dvduval 7y ago
It is natural to have winners. In time the winners come to dominate the system such that inequality becomes a bigger problem. A question to ask is how can we rebalance it? Shall we wait until there is social unrest or strife? Or shall we create methods to rebalance before this happens?
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  "Winners" I would go open a business today which has a fairly good chance of being successful (there is a huge demand) but I don't have money neither the connections to get it. I know kids from rich folks who do nothing all day and sleep on their phones, waste cash on microtrans online. I wish, I had folks like that. I could take risks to start different ventures, afford moving out and getting necessary medical treatment, going to a good school, attending events, hire a personal trainer for improving communication skills, posture, public speaking, learning different languages, etc. I can do some of them right now but it's learning on hard mode with increased worrying about everything else in life because you can't afford to lose. Years are lost on one loss while others with family capital gains or connections can afford to stand back up again immediately. One thing is absurd is poor environment forces you to decide on poor life choices. So the claim that poverty and difficulty may make you stronger is dubious or based on survivorship/exception bias. Poor people don't know how to manage their finances, search for valid information, not to fall for scams or make long term plans because they have been trained not to.
  - dvduval 7y ago
    Yes so I believe what you describe is a situation where the winners are already dominating to the point that the average person does not have the resources to compete. And this is where we must find ways to measure just how sick the system has become so that we can determine that rebalancing is needed. Of course the winners who control the system will tell you that nothing is needed here. Just go on about your business. Haha
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    > I don't have money neither the connections to get it. I'm pretty sure you can get money from the bank. You just have to put together a business plan and convince some people that your idea is viable. For more information Google,"How to start a business". Happy winning!
raspasov 7y ago
This is a good insight from the essay: "I'm sure most of those who want to decrease economic inequality want to do it mainly to help the poor, not to hurt the rich. Indeed, a good number are merely being sloppy by speaking of decreasing economic inequality when what they mean is decreasing poverty. But this is a situation where it would be good to be precise about what we want. Poverty and economic inequality are not identical."
- tempsy 7y ago
  I don’t think the progressive leaders who have been championing a wealth tax have been unclear about that though. The point of a wealth tax as described by Warren, Sanders, etc. is specifically to fund programs for poor and struggling middle class, not just as some penalty for being rich.
  - raspasov 7y ago
    Wealth tax discussions aside, then they should talk about "getting rid of poverty" instead of "inequality" which puts "us vs. them" spin on the whole discussion.
    - tempsy 7y ago
      The wealthy have been lobbying for laws that benefit them at the expense of the poor and middle class for awhile Tax cuts, carried interest loophole, limited income tax tiers
  - jb775 7y ago
    My initial thought with this is that the rich would find loopholes around this tax, the upper middle class would pay it, the struggling middle class and poor would barely be taxed....so basically the upper middle class would be dragged down towards the struggling middle/poor, therefore making the underlying issue worse.
    - tempsy 7y ago
      Not sure how that would work. Warren’s tax starts at a net worth above $50M. How would someone who is upper middle class pay for it.
cryptoz 7y ago
None of this makes any sense to me at all. I'm reading through it but there are logical fallacies abound. In the first few paragraphs.. > Which means by helping startup founders I've been helping to increase economic inequality. If economic inequality should be decreased, I shouldn't be helping founders. No. Just...no. Founders should be starting companies that reduce inequality. By definition. The idea of a healthy marketplace for both startups and for regular people doing regular things implies a reduction in inequality. Not just a reduction in poverty, but a reduction in inequality. That is easiest done by lifting the poor out of poverty. PG's take is to stop all progress because he is straw-man arguing against something that nobody is even taking the position on that he's arguing against. The logical fallacy count in the first few paragraphs alone make this piece difficult to read. What happened? :( Continuing to read... > But some are good, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online. No conversation at all about the pitfalls and issues that Google has also caused in the world? This is a carte blanche to Google that 100% of their work has been positive and it's not worthy to discuss anything they might have done that would hurt people in the world? Not everything about Google is "Good". These takes are all so one-sided, close-minded, and wrong. > The most naive version of which is the one based on the pie fallacy: that the rich get rich by taking money from the poor. Wait. What. PG thinks that this is a fallacy? I'm going to have to stop reading to protect my sanity. The rich are definitely getting richer at the expense of the poor. The world did not start on some level playing field. The rich had privilege and status and help that the poor do not. Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor.
- raspasov 7y ago
  "Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor." "Taking"? When a "poor" person chooses to buy an Android or an iPhone, did Google or Apple "take" his money from him? No, the person "chose" to give money to the company because she thought that it provides some utility for her. Alternatively, you can argue that designing a smartphone is leveling the playing field, which would make more sense. What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves.
ripvanwinkle 7y ago
While wealth creation isn't a zero sum game, certain important markets are zero sum. Housing is an example. If a bunch of founders make a pile of money, they can (and do) suddenly outbid everyone else (like say the school teachers and firemen) buy a bunch of land and build mega mansions that squeeze a lot of other people out. The issue today is that the gains/rewards for certain ideas (at certain times) are disproportional to the actual utility to society. An example of that is the contrast between Tim Berners-Lee's networth and Mark Zuckerberg's
- closeparen 7y ago
  Land is zero sum. Single family homes consistent with neighborhood character are zero sum. Housing is not.
ec109685 7y ago
Is there a name for the phenomenon where someone that is amazing at something (e.g. investing and helping to grow startups) then somehow is given more credibility to talk about everything else? The exact opposite is true with under represented folks — their “take” needs to be 10x better than than the rich guy with a popular blog to be listened to. He should write a post on influence inequality.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The Halo Effect I believe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
- closeparen 7y ago
  The article is pointing out the existence and dynamics of wealth creation, which is exactly what PG is amazing at. Many of his articles do suffer from that problem, but not this one.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    I don't really have a position either way on whether what PG says is true, but it's wrong to say that PG is amazing at "existence and dynamics of wealth creation". He's amazing at "wealth creation", that does not make him an expert on the effects of that wealth creation on society, or the work done in society as a prerequisite for that wealth creation. If I am a programmer, it does not make me an expert on the dynamics of the open source software community, nor does it even make me an expert on the theoretical underpinnings of the type system I'm using. We don't need PG to point out the existence of wealth creation, nor do we need him to tell us about the dynamics of it, when we have multiple sciences with their own experts (economics, economic sociology, world political economy). It's also a dubious assumption to say that economic inequality only relates to wealth creation. Even if that was the only relation, writing about economic inequality and the actual fact of wealth creation are still not identical, they are only related. PG is more qualified than most to talk about this, but he's certainly not the most qualified, and the study of the matters of inequality are tangential to his work at best.
zongitsrinzler 7y ago
While I agree with much said, I believe there seems to be a flaw in how he groups wealthy individuals based on how they create wealth. > In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others. A woodworker creates wealth. He makes a chair, and you willingly give him money in return for it. A high-frequency trader does not. He makes a dollar only when someone on the other end of a trade loses a dollar. In a market economy, people and companies are rewarded if the market sees the given service or product worth the price. The woodworker didn't create wealth out of thin air, and he gains wealth by taking it from the people that buy his wares. Same goes for a high-frequency trader, even though she doesn't build anything with her hands, the process of trading is seen as valuable by the market and if done well rewarded accordingly. The only groups that can "create wealth" are national treasuries which can print money.
- randomcarbloke 7y ago
  Additionally he doesn't understand trading, just because they lost a dollar on a trade (likely on another index) doesn't mean they lost a dollar over all, they presumably listed the sell-order because that price is already itm.
xwowsersx 7y ago
This is an incredible essay and one of PG's finest in my opinion.
blobbers 7y ago
"The great concentrations of wealth I see around me in Silicon Valley don't seem to be destroying democracy." ........<really?>
meow_mix 7y ago
> "You can't prevent great variations in wealth without preventing people from getting rich, and you can't do that without preventing them from starting startups... Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups" I feel the opposite. What keeps many people from starting startups is financial risk (the prior probaility of success is quite low!). Increasing the safety net, even if it means decreasing the gains, might cause more people to take the risk. > "For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process." How does this not contradict his earlier point about driven people no longer wanting to start startups if they can't get rich doing it? > "One of the most important principles in Silicon Valley is that "you make what you measure." I'm completely behind this statement. Attacking wealth inequality by, say, robbing the rich, is not the right approach. But I think he's mixing up what people mean when they say they don't like inequality and what they actually want to do about it. Nobody is claiming we all go back to being hunter/gatherers. > "I think rising economic inequality is the inevitable fate of countries that don't choose something worse. " This is a huge statement. I'm happy to see PG has iterated over every possible economic system under every possible level of technology and come to this axiom though; this will save the economists of 2532 a lot of effort they might have spent running this simulation :) > "The acceleration of productivity we see in Silicon Valley has been happening for thousands of years... You do not want to design your society in a way that's incompatible with this curve" What acceleration? Uber and Instagram are hardly quantum leaps from what we had > 10 years ago. The iPhone I have in my pocket today is functionally not all that different from the one 5 years ago. What's even worse is that it's questionable as to whether or not the things churning out of the valley are even good at all. No one is betting a curve: the curve is in his imagination. Change feels linear lately. Also, where is the talk about externalities?
- closeparen 7y ago
  > But I think he's mixing up what people mean when they say they don't like inequality and what they actually want to do about it. Nobody is claiming we all go back to being hunter/gatherers. The top comment on this thread, which predates your comment by an hour, is saying essentially that. Doesn't matter what the absolute wealth level is, only that the variance is small. The thesis of PG's article is that it's important to be precise about what we mean, because many are talking about the "robbing the rich" meaning, and the way it ought to be treated is really different. I'd say the recent shift in terminology from poverty to inequality, and in measurement from "% below an objective threshold" to "ratio between quantiles," is happening explicitly to accommodate the meaning you're disclaiming here. >Increasing the safety net, even if it means decreasing the gains, might cause more people to take the risk. Sure, but the operative thing here is increasing the safety net, which you could do without substantially closing the gap between rich and poor. In fact a stronger safety net might lead to more entrepreneurship and thus more founders getting rich, making the inequality stats worse. EDIT: clarity about top comment.
JDiculous 7y ago
> "let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process." This is a pretty good article as Paul distinguishes the "good" (creating wealth) and "bad" (rent seeking) sources of economic inequality, and suggests addressing the bad and attacking poverty vs. simply punishing the rich. Consider the current presidential candidates - Bernie and Warren seem to talk a lot about punishing the rich, while Andrew Yang emphasizes a more bottom-up approach of giving every American a dividend of $1,000/month. The former sounds more like a vindictive blanket punishment, the latter is directly eradicating poverty and helping people. Given Paul's focus on the value and promotion of entrepreneurship, it would seem that Yang's $1,000/month would do more than any other policy being discussed to further that cause. I'd imagine way more people would start businesses and take greater risks in general if they knew worst case scenario they'd have $1,000/month to fall back on.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  You could say the same thing about eliminating private health, dental, and vision insurance (or at the very least, making it so that all providers are required to accept public insurance). Making coverage a right instead of a privilege would at least lessen the foothold that employers have on the necks of their employees.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    The only people who can be "required to accept" a price set by the government for their labor are criminal convicts and military draftees. But yes, the government could procure services from providers on your behalf the same way it procures everything else, and that would greatly reduce dependence on employers.
- JDiculous 7y ago
  Why the hell am I being downvoted? If you disagree, then explain why. Don't just downvote people because you disagree with their opinion, this is not Reddit (or at least it didn't used to be).
cuchoi 7y ago
This essay makes me uneasy. I feel PG builds a straw man. He takes, in his own words, the most naive take on inequality and ends up concluding that "Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups". A simple example, would a tax on wealth above 100 million USD discourage startup founders? I don't think so.
- meow_mix 7y ago
  Right? This reads someone who's lying to themselves
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  $100 million, probably not. But that begs the questions: Is that the real number and would it stay there? The AMT was put together to hit the top ~150 people in the 1960s. Because of how the underlying system changed and it hasn't, the AMT now regularly hits people under $100k and is only likely to drift lower. Congress has a bad track record here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 7y ago
  Suppose we identify some policy that discourages startups unintentionally, and for no direct public benefit. For example, a bureaucratic snafu in the process of opening a business bank account. Should we fix it? If we do, then more startups will get off the ground. Some of them will make it big, and their founders will get rich. Our action will have made society more unequal. So clearly we should leave it, right? But that doesn't seem right. So maybe inequality is not exactly the right framing of what we care about. We've had progressive taxes for a long time, and that's good, but they have not prevented inequality. So again, is it really the measure of goodness?
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Why do you want to steal money from wealthy people through taxes? Isn't the problem poor people and shouldn't solutions aim to get them to create wealth?
tudorw 7y ago
I'd like to see more sympathy for the rich, they are systemic victims as much as men are in a misogynistic male paternalism. I've met enough rich people to know they are suffering too, suspicion of strangers wanting their money excludes them from 'normal' interactions. They live in fear of theft, blackmail, extortion and falling down their social ladder. They retreat to preserves of the rich, safer, but also a sterile and suffocatingly clique. The amassed wealth is a burden to maintain, and when you've bought everything you can, you cannot escape the fact that when it comes to the important stuff, love, life, health, friends, family and freedom, they are no better off than the guy who washes their Bentley. Haha, only time I've ever got negative votes, I'd like to know if it's rich people voting not to become victims, or poor people not understanding that by victimisation of the rich, they start to lose their status...
gnicholas 7y ago
A related piece on income inequality: https://reason.com/2020/01/25/the-truth-about-income-inequality/ https://reason.com/2020/01/25/the-truth-about-income-inequal...
avocado4 7y ago
Why is this post flagged?
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  Because it's embarrassing to the cult of personality for PG.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  I would guess HN guidelines-ishness. Plus, the well-off don't like discussing sex, money, religion (spiritual or favorite programming language) or politics online, and that hits two buckets. I would wager that the average HN reader is far from poor, although may have been in the past. Better to seem to stick our heads in the sand than have real conversations if doing so benefits us, because it fulfills the objectives of the site. This doesn't preclude enthusiastic discussions elsewhere. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
buzzkillington 7y ago
How can someone technical write a whole essay without a single number? >If the rich people in a society got that way by taking wealth from the poor, then you have the degenerate case of economic inequality, where the cause of poverty is the same as the cause of wealth. He could have saved himself the time it took him to write that article by just looking at the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... In summary the bottom 50% of Americans have lost all their wealth since 1989 and then gone into debt to the tune of 25% of their former wealth. So in short Paul, yes, we are in the degenerate case and a round of guillotining is in order.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  There's an infographic video on Youtube that describes and compares: - what people think the economic distribution is (extreme power law) - what people think a fair economic distribution would be (somewhat somewhat smooth but increasing) - what it actual is (absurd hockey-stick, power law)
remarkEon 7y ago
The Iron Law of Oligarchy strikes again. There will always be a class of people who, either by luck or by brute force competence, will have disproportionate power over everyone else. Also, why is this flagged?
emeerson 7y ago
PG, this is a thoughtful essay. Yet I'll point out a flaw in this thinking below. Intellectually Honest merits here: - you want to incentivize people to create value for society and optimize globally by raising the quality of life of (most) humans. - Wealth creation itself is not by default at the cost of others. Intellectually Dishonest: - That startups and wealth creation converge on a quality of life optimization function for humanity. In other words: startups and wealth creation operate within the randomness of free market. And most software technology in the last 30 years has not unlocked some kind of massive step function value in global problems. If we could align more Venture Capital funding and R&D output to solve fundamental problems (in other words: can we solve access to affordable nutritious food, reduction of common disease, reducing cost of housing ahead of 5-minute media formats or SaaS Invoicing Applications?) Housing has continued to become less affordable and poverty still prevalent in the US. - That there is a binary debate: "should there be wealth or not?" Social Programs, funded by government, funded by taxes on higher earners and large capital gains, are one lever to address this. The reason the inequality gap matters is less that its a metric of the _delta in absolute wealth_ but more that opportunity and livability of average Americans has a worse outlook in the last 20 years, not a better one.
- bransonf 7y ago
  I agree with your overall sentiment, but want to expand on a few points. Housing: It seems this is largely a policy issue rather than an economic one. Restrictive zoning and a misaligned incentive structure come to mind. Places like SF are the face of the housing shortage, but it’s a problem of supply and demand. To make affordable housing, you need a lot more housing. First, you have to satisfy the needs of all of the wealthy buyers, and this isn’t even clearly achieved. Even with subsidies, there isn’t a financial interest for developers to sell affordable housing. We need to build a ton of housing to meet demand. Policy is the inhibitor here. Food: Food deserts exist entirely because of sprawl. The suburbanization of America means lowered density in certain Urban cores. (The Midwest and south especially) Lower density, particularly among lower income residents makes traditional grocery stores unviable. To sell produce you need sufficient traffic or else your stock will go bad. To make things worse, low income residents have less access to transportation. Thus, lower traffic. It’s not profitable to run a grocery store in the middle of urban sprawl, especially given the lack of access to transportation. Transportation is a matter of policy, again. Healthcare: The problems here are directly correlated with housing and food, but extend to education. There is significant over—utilization of emergency services for non-critical medical services. I believe some universal access to healthcare should exist, but not if we don’t first address the inefficiencies that exist due to a lack of health education. Education is again, largely the fault of policy. It’s not lost on me that wealth increases access to all of these things, but I don’t think we can blame venture capital and founders. These are deeply societal issues, given poor policy decisions in our history. They aren’t attractive investments because you cannot change them in a matter of a couple of years. A higher tax on the wealthy would incentivize focusing on these issues, but it would also slow the pace of economic growth. It’s a matter of compromise.
rjkennedy98 7y ago
Wow just wow. What an incredibly awful piece of writing. Where are the facts to support any of his claims. Most of them are provably wrong. Economists study these things. Picketty for instance wrote a gigantic books showing that rates of return on Capital vs productivity growth are a huge reason for inequality. We can see that as a huge percentage of the wealthy inherited their money. We have extremely low rates of productivity growth in the US right now by historical standards. We have huge rates of corporate stock buybacks that outpace research and development for the first time ever. Startups are not representative of the economy. In fact we’ve never had a period with fewer startups than now. New business creation is at a low peak in the US. Paul graham may be a great tech investor but he clearly has no understanding of macroeconomic trends in the US.

52 points by bobrenjc93 7y ago

We heavily tax income and hardly touch capital gains, we discourage work, even if you get a decent salary the tax system obliterates that income. If you gamble with stocks you make money without doing anything productive and your lack of productivity is richly rewarded by the tax system.

imgabe 7y ago
Short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. Long term are taxed lower, but for capital gains of any kind you have to risk capital, which was already taxed when you earned it the first time. Capital gains are not only the result of "gambling". If you found a company and later sell it, that is a capital gain. The shares are virtually worthless when you start the company, and later become valuable when you sell it. Do you consider founding a successful company that provides a useful product and employs many people doing nothing productive?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  What percentage of total capital gains are paid out to founders of new ventures?
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    Don't forget the qualified small business stock exemption — 50% tax break on founder stock held for more than 5 years, or you can roll it over into another qualifying small business and defer the gains even further. I believe you can do this as an angel investor also — it doesn't have to go into your own next startup.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Considering the most successful founders have billions of capital gains each, I'd say it's probably significant. Not to mention that paid to all the employees via stock options.
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  You are right. But a successful company that would put you in the 1% or 10% from bottom is very much like a lottery and is highly controlled by external factors (funding, environment, family background, early education, culture, luck etc which you don't have control over as much). In that case, should we encourage such behaviour at the cost of making lives of many people worse? How many poor people have you seen working on a startup and reaching 10% bracket? How many of those startups failed? Should we really bend the rules to satisfy a cautious 2% outcome? I don't think people here have much problem with "self made" millionaires. I think what they don't like is how not everyone gets the opportunity to try to become one or how billionaires are exceptions and compromising system based on exception for the rest of us is not a good idea. Beside, tech is becoming like oil industry with cartels you need to satisfy before you even have a chance at competiting fairly. It happened to many industries before and they stopped progressing and stagnated. They have one or two big names now with nothing else.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    > In that case, should we encourage such behaviour at the cost of making lives of many people worse? What behavior are we encouraging? Founding companies? Why shouldn't we encourage that?
    - thrwaway69 7y ago
      No, it's encouraging investors and previously founders to dip into unfair taxable holes. But the way things are setup, you can't easily do that. I have thought of a few systems - - Tax VC funding on non essential problems and use that to fund non-profit competing startups. The essential word here is problematic to agree on. - Force people to sell some percentages of their shares every year and tax that on the same level as income. - Press a soft limit on time to create taxable profit. It will be set by industries differently but at some point, if your revenue is huge and you aren't creating profit, you will start getting taxed on 20% of the total revenue or similar share. - Tax hedge schemes. So if Mark Zuckerberg uses his wealth to create more social media companies, he should give up some share of the company to the government. He won't have to do that if he tries something else than a social media company. Encouraging founding companies is important but when a few players hog all the opportunities to do that. That might become net negative.
- Booktrope 7y ago
  As you say, capital gains are not "only" due to speculation, but just sometimes. You also assumed that your risk capital was originally "earned" implying that you paid full tax rates on it. Unless your original earnings were from investment or, ahem, luck of birth (I mean, inheritance). Do you consider being lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family to be doing something productive?
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Inheritance taxes could remove that factor without also removing the incentive for entrepreneurs to take risks. If your problem is with inheritance, tax inheritance. Don't tax capital gains, which are only sometimes related to inheritance and also affect people who don't inherit anything.
chewz 7y ago
> If you gamble with stocks you make money without doing anything productive You provide liquidity to the market. Your saving and pension are worthless without liquidity.

S4M 7y ago

(2016)

irishcoffee 7y ago

“It’s ok”

3131s 7y ago

Is it possible to come up with a worse take on economic inequality than this?

throwaway2048 7y ago
Well we could go full 19th century and say poor people deserve to be poor, and rich people are rich because they are just much better human beings.
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  I have a modest proposal for you... https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

Barrin92 7y ago

seems to be the fairly common take among economists/tech folks about inequality being fine along as wealth grows, we're not living in a zero-sum world etc. Problem with that attitude is that it's mostly circular and asserts its conclusion. Inequality does not matter because social well-being and so on is only a measure of absolute wealth, so the only thing left is to show that wealth is growing etc. It's worthwhile to question the assumption which people like Robert Sapolsky have done.[1] One thing that he figured out is that even when one accounts for the worse material outcomes of inequality like worse healthcare access, there is an extremely large difference in outcome based on inequality itself. Gaps in social hierarchy matter and inform how people perceive their environment and their place in society. Compressing inequality itself may drastically increase social and individual well-being as inequality appears to induce significant stress in human populations. The same is true for many studies about happiness. Happiness is indeed influenced by material wealth, but to a significantly smaller degree than one might imagine. Countries like Germany and Nigeria, for example, report similar levels of happiness even despite being magnitudes apart on some wealth and econ metrics. the key point I want to make is that, even if one disagrees with some particular data points or conclusions, the effect of inequality must be studied at a biological/social / well-being level if one wants to make meaningful statements. Asserting that humans are Homines oeconomici and using it to justify inequality is a tautological exercise. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-inequality-inflicts-real-biological-harm/?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c3cbc5b9-01dc-4ca8-8a23-537f4a6d5da0 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-ineq...

rapind 7y ago
They way I think of this is that everything is relative. Happiness is a product of success and expectations. When everyone around you is rich it influences your expectations thus reducing your happiness (except for buddhist monks?) and driving you to great success or potential despair. So it really is a zero-sum game unless (until) we evolve some enlightenment where expectations are fixed. We'd be content, but would anything ever get done? Does it matter? Sounds like a sci-fi topic. Of course this is a super simplistic way to see it. Both success and expectations have many contributing factors themselves.
closeparen 7y ago

tehjoker 7y ago

Inequality is bad because people with more money have power over people with less. Ideally, we would live in a democracy (understood by the Greeks to mean rule by the poor, given they massively outnumber the rich), but we don't. We should change this. Stated another way, your boss has power over you. Why? It could be because they earned a lot of money through their own labor, or it could be because they had access to capital that you do not. Uber loses money hand over fist, but Uber management has more power than their drivers. Why? Management has access to capital, and drivers do not.

tempsy 7y ago
What? The fact that your boss has power over you within a company has nothing to do with how much money they personally have relative to you. There is no correlation.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  You would not seek employment with the company under servile terms unless you needed employment to survive. The company needs you less than you need them, so they can get away with bossing you around.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    Not in a market where your skills are in demand. This single input single output equation breaks down relatively easily.
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      This is true! It's an individualistic, non-political way to balance the power of money. Shouldn't the rest of the population have access to decent living and working conditions though? Going to bed, gn all. :)
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    Being a boss isn't inherently evil, it's just workers are exploited in most current circumstances. Worker-owned co-ops and organized labor are the ways out of this, but requires workers to first summon the courage to risk being fired.

ronilan 7y ago

This phrase just popped up into my head a while back: “The minimum wage should be the median wage” I’m not sure if it should be a rule or a goal or be anything at all, but thought it’s a thought worth putting out there. Edit: thinking in context of country, or province but also in context of company or group.

iamkroot 7y ago
As in, a majority of the people should be earning the minimum wage?
- ronilan 7y ago
  As in Minimum wage should be raised to meet the Median. As a result, the majority of people will have equal wage. In BC, Canada: Minimum wage is: $13.85 CAD Median wage is: $23.98 CAD Minimum is going up to $15.20 in next 18 months. It’s not that far... Edit: ”in developed economies, the minimum wage ranges usually from 35 to 60 per cent of the median wage.“ https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/wages/minimum-wages/setting-adjusting/WCMS_439253/lang--en/index.htm https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/wages/minimum-wages/settin... US is 35. France is 60. BC clocks 57 right now. Will go to about 63 with minimum wage hikes. So, yes, a higher ratio is worth thinking about....
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    > As in Minimum wage should be raised to meet the Median. My concern is it could lead to run away inflation unless there were controls to ensure the costs to rebalance things didn't just passed along to those at the bottom anyway.
    - ronilan 7y ago
      Inflation is a concern though the last two decades have shown that the fear may be overrated. In any case, nothing is worse for inflation than UBI and people talk about that seriously... P.S - After reading more into this idea I think that setting high ratio goal of Minimum-to-Median (75%???) might be a direction worth exploring... we have an excellent, proactive provincial government in BC, maybe I’ll go look for the suggestion box...

dvduval 7y ago

It is natural to have winners. In time the winners come to dominate the system such that inequality becomes a bigger problem. A question to ask is how can we rebalance it? Shall we wait until there is social unrest or strife? Or shall we create methods to rebalance before this happens?

thrwaway69 7y ago
"Winners" I would go open a business today which has a fairly good chance of being successful (there is a huge demand) but I don't have money neither the connections to get it. I know kids from rich folks who do nothing all day and sleep on their phones, waste cash on microtrans online. I wish, I had folks like that. I could take risks to start different ventures, afford moving out and getting necessary medical treatment, going to a good school, attending events, hire a personal trainer for improving communication skills, posture, public speaking, learning different languages, etc. I can do some of them right now but it's learning on hard mode with increased worrying about everything else in life because you can't afford to lose. Years are lost on one loss while others with family capital gains or connections can afford to stand back up again immediately. One thing is absurd is poor environment forces you to decide on poor life choices. So the claim that poverty and difficulty may make you stronger is dubious or based on survivorship/exception bias. Poor people don't know how to manage their finances, search for valid information, not to fall for scams or make long term plans because they have been trained not to.
- dvduval 7y ago
  Yes so I believe what you describe is a situation where the winners are already dominating to the point that the average person does not have the resources to compete. And this is where we must find ways to measure just how sick the system has become so that we can determine that rebalancing is needed. Of course the winners who control the system will tell you that nothing is needed here. Just go on about your business. Haha
- bryan_w 7y ago
  > I don't have money neither the connections to get it. I'm pretty sure you can get money from the bank. You just have to put together a business plan and convince some people that your idea is viable. For more information Google,"How to start a business". Happy winning!

raspasov 7y ago

This is a good insight from the essay: "I'm sure most of those who want to decrease economic inequality want to do it mainly to help the poor, not to hurt the rich. Indeed, a good number are merely being sloppy by speaking of decreasing economic inequality when what they mean is decreasing poverty. But this is a situation where it would be good to be precise about what we want. Poverty and economic inequality are not identical."

tempsy 7y ago
I don’t think the progressive leaders who have been championing a wealth tax have been unclear about that though. The point of a wealth tax as described by Warren, Sanders, etc. is specifically to fund programs for poor and struggling middle class, not just as some penalty for being rich.
- raspasov 7y ago
  Wealth tax discussions aside, then they should talk about "getting rid of poverty" instead of "inequality" which puts "us vs. them" spin on the whole discussion.
  - tempsy 7y ago
    The wealthy have been lobbying for laws that benefit them at the expense of the poor and middle class for awhile Tax cuts, carried interest loophole, limited income tax tiers
- jb775 7y ago
  My initial thought with this is that the rich would find loopholes around this tax, the upper middle class would pay it, the struggling middle class and poor would barely be taxed....so basically the upper middle class would be dragged down towards the struggling middle/poor, therefore making the underlying issue worse.
  - tempsy 7y ago
    Not sure how that would work. Warren’s tax starts at a net worth above $50M. How would someone who is upper middle class pay for it.

cryptoz 7y ago

None of this makes any sense to me at all. I'm reading through it but there are logical fallacies abound. In the first few paragraphs.. > Which means by helping startup founders I've been helping to increase economic inequality. If economic inequality should be decreased, I shouldn't be helping founders. No. Just...no. Founders should be starting companies that reduce inequality. By definition. The idea of a healthy marketplace for both startups and for regular people doing regular things implies a reduction in inequality. Not just a reduction in poverty, but a reduction in inequality. That is easiest done by lifting the poor out of poverty. PG's take is to stop all progress because he is straw-man arguing against something that nobody is even taking the position on that he's arguing against. The logical fallacy count in the first few paragraphs alone make this piece difficult to read. What happened? :( Continuing to read... > But some are good, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online. No conversation at all about the pitfalls and issues that Google has also caused in the world? This is a carte blanche to Google that 100% of their work has been positive and it's not worthy to discuss anything they might have done that would hurt people in the world? Not everything about Google is "Good". These takes are all so one-sided, close-minded, and wrong. > The most naive version of which is the one based on the pie fallacy: that the rich get rich by taking money from the poor. Wait. What. PG thinks that this is a fallacy? I'm going to have to stop reading to protect my sanity. The rich are definitely getting richer at the expense of the poor. The world did not start on some level playing field. The rich had privilege and status and help that the poor do not. Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor.

raspasov 7y ago
"Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor." "Taking"? When a "poor" person chooses to buy an Android or an iPhone, did Google or Apple "take" his money from him? No, the person "chose" to give money to the company because she thought that it provides some utility for her. Alternatively, you can argue that designing a smartphone is leveling the playing field, which would make more sense. What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves.

ripvanwinkle 7y ago

While wealth creation isn't a zero sum game, certain important markets are zero sum. Housing is an example. If a bunch of founders make a pile of money, they can (and do) suddenly outbid everyone else (like say the school teachers and firemen) buy a bunch of land and build mega mansions that squeeze a lot of other people out. The issue today is that the gains/rewards for certain ideas (at certain times) are disproportional to the actual utility to society. An example of that is the contrast between Tim Berners-Lee's networth and Mark Zuckerberg's

closeparen 7y ago
Land is zero sum. Single family homes consistent with neighborhood character are zero sum. Housing is not.

ec109685 7y ago

Is there a name for the phenomenon where someone that is amazing at something (e.g. investing and helping to grow startups) then somehow is given more credibility to talk about everything else? The exact opposite is true with under represented folks — their “take” needs to be 10x better than than the rich guy with a popular blog to be listened to. He should write a post on influence inequality.

Nasrudith 7y ago
The Halo Effect I believe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
closeparen 7y ago
The article is pointing out the existence and dynamics of wealth creation, which is exactly what PG is amazing at. Many of his articles do suffer from that problem, but not this one.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I don't really have a position either way on whether what PG says is true, but it's wrong to say that PG is amazing at "existence and dynamics of wealth creation". He's amazing at "wealth creation", that does not make him an expert on the effects of that wealth creation on society, or the work done in society as a prerequisite for that wealth creation. If I am a programmer, it does not make me an expert on the dynamics of the open source software community, nor does it even make me an expert on the theoretical underpinnings of the type system I'm using. We don't need PG to point out the existence of wealth creation, nor do we need him to tell us about the dynamics of it, when we have multiple sciences with their own experts (economics, economic sociology, world political economy). It's also a dubious assumption to say that economic inequality only relates to wealth creation. Even if that was the only relation, writing about economic inequality and the actual fact of wealth creation are still not identical, they are only related. PG is more qualified than most to talk about this, but he's certainly not the most qualified, and the study of the matters of inequality are tangential to his work at best.

zongitsrinzler 7y ago

While I agree with much said, I believe there seems to be a flaw in how he groups wealthy individuals based on how they create wealth. > In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others. A woodworker creates wealth. He makes a chair, and you willingly give him money in return for it. A high-frequency trader does not. He makes a dollar only when someone on the other end of a trade loses a dollar. In a market economy, people and companies are rewarded if the market sees the given service or product worth the price. The woodworker didn't create wealth out of thin air, and he gains wealth by taking it from the people that buy his wares. Same goes for a high-frequency trader, even though she doesn't build anything with her hands, the process of trading is seen as valuable by the market and if done well rewarded accordingly. The only groups that can "create wealth" are national treasuries which can print money.

randomcarbloke 7y ago
Additionally he doesn't understand trading, just because they lost a dollar on a trade (likely on another index) doesn't mean they lost a dollar over all, they presumably listed the sell-order because that price is already itm.

xwowsersx 7y ago

This is an incredible essay and one of PG's finest in my opinion.

blobbers 7y ago

"The great concentrations of wealth I see around me in Silicon Valley don't seem to be destroying democracy." ........<really?>

meow_mix 7y ago

> "You can't prevent great variations in wealth without preventing people from getting rich, and you can't do that without preventing them from starting startups... Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups" I feel the opposite. What keeps many people from starting startups is financial risk (the prior probaility of success is quite low!). Increasing the safety net, even if it means decreasing the gains, might cause more people to take the risk. > "For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process." How does this not contradict his earlier point about driven people no longer wanting to start startups if they can't get rich doing it? > "One of the most important principles in Silicon Valley is that "you make what you measure." I'm completely behind this statement. Attacking wealth inequality by, say, robbing the rich, is not the right approach. But I think he's mixing up what people mean when they say they don't like inequality and what they actually want to do about it. Nobody is claiming we all go back to being hunter/gatherers. > "I think rising economic inequality is the inevitable fate of countries that don't choose something worse. " This is a huge statement. I'm happy to see PG has iterated over every possible economic system under every possible level of technology and come to this axiom though; this will save the economists of 2532 a lot of effort they might have spent running this simulation :) > "The acceleration of productivity we see in Silicon Valley has been happening for thousands of years... You do not want to design your society in a way that's incompatible with this curve" What acceleration? Uber and Instagram are hardly quantum leaps from what we had > 10 years ago. The iPhone I have in my pocket today is functionally not all that different from the one 5 years ago. What's even worse is that it's questionable as to whether or not the things churning out of the valley are even good at all. No one is betting a curve: the curve is in his imagination. Change feels linear lately. Also, where is the talk about externalities?

closeparen 7y ago
> But I think he's mixing up what people mean when they say they don't like inequality and what they actually want to do about it. Nobody is claiming we all go back to being hunter/gatherers. The top comment on this thread, which predates your comment by an hour, is saying essentially that. Doesn't matter what the absolute wealth level is, only that the variance is small. The thesis of PG's article is that it's important to be precise about what we mean, because many are talking about the "robbing the rich" meaning, and the way it ought to be treated is really different. I'd say the recent shift in terminology from poverty to inequality, and in measurement from "% below an objective threshold" to "ratio between quantiles," is happening explicitly to accommodate the meaning you're disclaiming here. >Increasing the safety net, even if it means decreasing the gains, might cause more people to take the risk. Sure, but the operative thing here is increasing the safety net, which you could do without substantially closing the gap between rich and poor. In fact a stronger safety net might lead to more entrepreneurship and thus more founders getting rich, making the inequality stats worse. EDIT: clarity about top comment.

JDiculous 7y ago

> "let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process." This is a pretty good article as Paul distinguishes the "good" (creating wealth) and "bad" (rent seeking) sources of economic inequality, and suggests addressing the bad and attacking poverty vs. simply punishing the rich. Consider the current presidential candidates - Bernie and Warren seem to talk a lot about punishing the rich, while Andrew Yang emphasizes a more bottom-up approach of giving every American a dividend of $1,000/month. The former sounds more like a vindictive blanket punishment, the latter is directly eradicating poverty and helping people. Given Paul's focus on the value and promotion of entrepreneurship, it would seem that Yang's $1,000/month would do more than any other policy being discussed to further that cause. I'd imagine way more people would start businesses and take greater risks in general if they knew worst case scenario they'd have $1,000/month to fall back on.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MisterBastahrd 7y ago
You could say the same thing about eliminating private health, dental, and vision insurance (or at the very least, making it so that all providers are required to accept public insurance). Making coverage a right instead of a privilege would at least lessen the foothold that employers have on the necks of their employees.
- closeparen 7y ago
  The only people who can be "required to accept" a price set by the government for their labor are criminal convicts and military draftees. But yes, the government could procure services from providers on your behalf the same way it procures everything else, and that would greatly reduce dependence on employers.
JDiculous 7y ago
Why the hell am I being downvoted? If you disagree, then explain why. Don't just downvote people because you disagree with their opinion, this is not Reddit (or at least it didn't used to be).

cuchoi 7y ago

This essay makes me uneasy. I feel PG builds a straw man. He takes, in his own words, the most naive take on inequality and ends up concluding that "Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups". A simple example, would a tax on wealth above 100 million USD discourage startup founders? I don't think so.

meow_mix 7y ago
Right? This reads someone who's lying to themselves
caseysoftware 7y ago
$100 million, probably not. But that begs the questions: Is that the real number and would it stay there? The AMT was put together to hit the top ~150 people in the 1960s. Because of how the underlying system changed and it hasn't, the AMT now regularly hits people under $100k and is only likely to drift lower. Congress has a bad track record here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 7y ago
Suppose we identify some policy that discourages startups unintentionally, and for no direct public benefit. For example, a bureaucratic snafu in the process of opening a business bank account. Should we fix it? If we do, then more startups will get off the ground. Some of them will make it big, and their founders will get rich. Our action will have made society more unequal. So clearly we should leave it, right? But that doesn't seem right. So maybe inequality is not exactly the right framing of what we care about. We've had progressive taxes for a long time, and that's good, but they have not prevented inequality. So again, is it really the measure of goodness?
Kaiyou 7y ago
Why do you want to steal money from wealthy people through taxes? Isn't the problem poor people and shouldn't solutions aim to get them to create wealth?

tudorw 7y ago

I'd like to see more sympathy for the rich, they are systemic victims as much as men are in a misogynistic male paternalism. I've met enough rich people to know they are suffering too, suspicion of strangers wanting their money excludes them from 'normal' interactions. They live in fear of theft, blackmail, extortion and falling down their social ladder. They retreat to preserves of the rich, safer, but also a sterile and suffocatingly clique. The amassed wealth is a burden to maintain, and when you've bought everything you can, you cannot escape the fact that when it comes to the important stuff, love, life, health, friends, family and freedom, they are no better off than the guy who washes their Bentley. Haha, only time I've ever got negative votes, I'd like to know if it's rich people voting not to become victims, or poor people not understanding that by victimisation of the rich, they start to lose their status...

gnicholas 7y ago

A related piece on income inequality: https://reason.com/2020/01/25/the-truth-about-income-inequality/ https://reason.com/2020/01/25/the-truth-about-income-inequal...

avocado4 7y ago

Why is this post flagged?

buzzkillington 7y ago
Because it's embarrassing to the cult of personality for PG.
anonsivalley652 7y ago
I would guess HN guidelines-ishness. Plus, the well-off don't like discussing sex, money, religion (spiritual or favorite programming language) or politics online, and that hits two buckets. I would wager that the average HN reader is far from poor, although may have been in the past. Better to seem to stick our heads in the sand than have real conversations if doing so benefits us, because it fulfills the objectives of the site. This doesn't preclude enthusiastic discussions elsewhere. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

buzzkillington 7y ago

How can someone technical write a whole essay without a single number? >If the rich people in a society got that way by taking wealth from the poor, then you have the degenerate case of economic inequality, where the cause of poverty is the same as the cause of wealth. He could have saved himself the time it took him to write that article by just looking at the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... In summary the bottom 50% of Americans have lost all their wealth since 1989 and then gone into debt to the tune of 25% of their former wealth. So in short Paul, yes, we are in the degenerate case and a round of guillotining is in order.

anonsivalley652 7y ago
There's an infographic video on Youtube that describes and compares: - what people think the economic distribution is (extreme power law) - what people think a fair economic distribution would be (somewhat somewhat smooth but increasing) - what it actual is (absurd hockey-stick, power law)

remarkEon 7y ago

The Iron Law of Oligarchy strikes again. There will always be a class of people who, either by luck or by brute force competence, will have disproportionate power over everyone else. Also, why is this flagged?

emeerson 7y ago

PG, this is a thoughtful essay. Yet I'll point out a flaw in this thinking below. Intellectually Honest merits here: - you want to incentivize people to create value for society and optimize globally by raising the quality of life of (most) humans. - Wealth creation itself is not by default at the cost of others. Intellectually Dishonest: - That startups and wealth creation converge on a quality of life optimization function for humanity. In other words: startups and wealth creation operate within the randomness of free market. And most software technology in the last 30 years has not unlocked some kind of massive step function value in global problems. If we could align more Venture Capital funding and R&D output to solve fundamental problems (in other words: can we solve access to affordable nutritious food, reduction of common disease, reducing cost of housing ahead of 5-minute media formats or SaaS Invoicing Applications?) Housing has continued to become less affordable and poverty still prevalent in the US. - That there is a binary debate: "should there be wealth or not?" Social Programs, funded by government, funded by taxes on higher earners and large capital gains, are one lever to address this. The reason the inequality gap matters is less that its a metric of the _delta in absolute wealth_ but more that opportunity and livability of average Americans has a worse outlook in the last 20 years, not a better one.

bransonf 7y ago
I agree with your overall sentiment, but want to expand on a few points. Housing: It seems this is largely a policy issue rather than an economic one. Restrictive zoning and a misaligned incentive structure come to mind. Places like SF are the face of the housing shortage, but it’s a problem of supply and demand. To make affordable housing, you need a lot more housing. First, you have to satisfy the needs of all of the wealthy buyers, and this isn’t even clearly achieved. Even with subsidies, there isn’t a financial interest for developers to sell affordable housing. We need to build a ton of housing to meet demand. Policy is the inhibitor here. Food: Food deserts exist entirely because of sprawl. The suburbanization of America means lowered density in certain Urban cores. (The Midwest and south especially) Lower density, particularly among lower income residents makes traditional grocery stores unviable. To sell produce you need sufficient traffic or else your stock will go bad. To make things worse, low income residents have less access to transportation. Thus, lower traffic. It’s not profitable to run a grocery store in the middle of urban sprawl, especially given the lack of access to transportation. Transportation is a matter of policy, again. Healthcare: The problems here are directly correlated with housing and food, but extend to education. There is significant over—utilization of emergency services for non-critical medical services. I believe some universal access to healthcare should exist, but not if we don’t first address the inefficiencies that exist due to a lack of health education. Education is again, largely the fault of policy. It’s not lost on me that wealth increases access to all of these things, but I don’t think we can blame venture capital and founders. These are deeply societal issues, given poor policy decisions in our history. They aren’t attractive investments because you cannot change them in a matter of a couple of years. A higher tax on the wealthy would incentivize focusing on these issues, but it would also slow the pace of economic growth. It’s a matter of compromise.

rjkennedy98 7y ago

Wow just wow. What an incredibly awful piece of writing. Where are the facts to support any of his claims. Most of them are provably wrong. Economists study these things. Picketty for instance wrote a gigantic books showing that rates of return on Capital vs productivity growth are a huge reason for inequality. We can see that as a huge percentage of the wealthy inherited their money. We have extremely low rates of productivity growth in the US right now by historical standards. We have huge rates of corporate stock buybacks that outpace research and development for the first time ever. Startups are not representative of the economy. In fact we’ve never had a period with fewer startups than now. New business creation is at a low peak in the US. Paul graham may be a great tech investor but he clearly has no understanding of macroeconomic trends in the US.