4 ms·

This is a pervasive perspective on HN. Everyone here is so erudite in their mindset, yet they can't observe that a trend of exponential wealth inequality ends w

This is a pervasive perspective on HN. Everyone here is so erudite in their mindset, yet they can't observe that a trend of exponential wealth inequality ends with many people being crushed and a few undeserving winners. The language "is in danger of breaking" is frankly dialed down because he is obviously self-conscious about sounding like some wild-eyed radical. The fact is, if this trend isn't checked, there certainly will be a violent break down, which is a corresponding trend that is also growing before our very eyes in the form of BLM protests and the corresponding government response. Violence is not condoned in our society. Therefore, it follows that manifestations of violence are a form of breakage. If such manifestations erupt directly from power/wealth/legal disparities, I'd say Bray's language is a rather mild flavor of perfectly accurate.

sdfsdsddsddssd 6y ago
"crushed", "undeserving winners" - people can still be better off than people in the past, despite there being more richer people than them. And what makes you think the winner's wins are "undeserved"? PG literally wrote an essay about it. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (not sure if it is the one I meant, but it touches on many of the subjects here. Including the "pie fallacy") In that light, it is more surprising that so many people on HN are in favor of socialism.
- jazzyjackson 6y ago
  Look up any lectures by Hans Rosling to understand why wealth inequality is bad. Unequal societies are less trusting and have all kinds of bad outcomes in healthcare and education. Besides, what's the use of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy a night out on the town without fear of being robbed and killed by the jealous proles? Note this does not imply socialism or expanding safety nets -- I was thinking more of very progressive taxes that fund public infrastructure, green energy, public transportation, public parks and water catchments, the kind of thing that makes the world better for everyone - rich folk inclusive.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Well there is sufficient evidence that the pie is not getting bigger for everyone (see e.g. Thomas Piketty's research amongst others). Inequality is increasing and that is dangerous to society. To give you another example, in the 1920s 1930s economists (Keynes amongst others) made projects that by 2020 we would only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. Regarding the winners being undeserved: 1. It can be shown that just using chance (or slightly unequal starting conditions) simple economic systems develop into a state where there is one player who essentially owns all (I linked to the article earlier [1]). So yes it can be just chance. 2. Once the winners have sufficient power they will game the system in their favour. There's lots of evidence for this, just look at the Panama papers for example. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    > only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. That’s one possibility, the other is that productivity has no bounds and increased efficiency just means further productivity, not a lessening of work to achieve the same productivity as before.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  I think by definition, if one person collects the majority of the profit from the effort of 100, it is undeserved. If those 100 people can’t afford things like health care and housing, they have been crushed. I’m not arguing socialism v. capitalism. I’m simply pointing out that a trend of widening inequality leads to deep systemic problems, and is not sustainable. We can correct it without gasp socialism. Laws, regulation, and political finance reform are likely sufficient.
aforwardslash 6y ago
I find it surprising you think any of this is new, or that in this there is any deserving party. If you focus on the blip in front of your eyes(BLM), you probably bypassed all casuality that made that blip exist, as well as what happened when the "blip" peaked previously. If you focus on what you're fed constantly, you will live in a permanent state of fear. And that is the objective - you focus on the flames and don't see who is fueling them or trying to take them out. Assuming you are talking about the US (frankly, your description of "society" is quite different from mine), violence is actually condoned and often encouraged, and has been throughout american history. There are a few exceptions, but that's it. And that, my friend, is not a matter of wealth. It is a matter of civility. And if you're expecting the ruling powers to enforce civility, you need to show them it is in their interest also. France did it quite well with the guillotine... Just an idea.
- Legogris 6y ago
  > I find it surprising you think any of this is new, or that in this there is any deserving party I don't read either of those in the comment you're responding to.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  Deserving party? Deserving of what? Your response is so disconnected from what I wrote I can barely understand it as such. Our laws prohibit all forms of violence domestically, do they not? Those are the explicit rules of our society. Whatever else you are referring to, it seems less relevant than that. Recent violent upticks with protestors v. police/military are a fact, and are relevant here. Do you think that all of this is indicative of a productive society? Destroyed police stations and dead/wounded protestors? It warrants an adjustment. We must try to fix the root cause, because the cost of all of this is too high. For everyone.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    There have been race riots before in the US... every couple of decades or so we get major ones. Thinking that this time marks the end of society is perhaps looking at the “blip” that he’s talking about.

sdfsdsddsddssd 6y ago

"crushed", "undeserving winners" - people can still be better off than people in the past, despite there being more richer people than them. And what makes you think the winner's wins are "undeserved"? PG literally wrote an essay about it. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (not sure if it is the one I meant, but it touches on many of the subjects here. Including the "pie fallacy") In that light, it is more surprising that so many people on HN are in favor of socialism.

jazzyjackson 6y ago
Look up any lectures by Hans Rosling to understand why wealth inequality is bad. Unequal societies are less trusting and have all kinds of bad outcomes in healthcare and education. Besides, what's the use of being a billionaire if you can't enjoy a night out on the town without fear of being robbed and killed by the jealous proles? Note this does not imply socialism or expanding safety nets -- I was thinking more of very progressive taxes that fund public infrastructure, green energy, public transportation, public parks and water catchments, the kind of thing that makes the world better for everyone - rich folk inclusive.
cycomanic 6y ago
Well there is sufficient evidence that the pie is not getting bigger for everyone (see e.g. Thomas Piketty's research amongst others). Inequality is increasing and that is dangerous to society. To give you another example, in the 1920s 1930s economists (Keynes amongst others) made projects that by 2020 we would only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. Regarding the winners being undeserved: 1. It can be shown that just using chance (or slightly unequal starting conditions) simple economic systems develop into a state where there is one player who essentially owns all (I linked to the article earlier [1]). So yes it can be just chance. 2. Once the winners have sufficient power they will game the system in their favour. There's lots of evidence for this, just look at the Panama papers for example. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465446
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > only work 15h a week or less and there was discussion if this would become a problem for society (because people typically want to work). However, this did not happen, why? Because the benefits of improved efficiency etc. flowed to fewer and fewer people. That’s one possibility, the other is that productivity has no bounds and increased efficiency just means further productivity, not a lessening of work to achieve the same productivity as before.
bonestormii_ 6y ago
I think by definition, if one person collects the majority of the profit from the effort of 100, it is undeserved. If those 100 people can’t afford things like health care and housing, they have been crushed. I’m not arguing socialism v. capitalism. I’m simply pointing out that a trend of widening inequality leads to deep systemic problems, and is not sustainable. We can correct it without gasp socialism. Laws, regulation, and political finance reform are likely sufficient.

aforwardslash 6y ago

I find it surprising you think any of this is new, or that in this there is any deserving party. If you focus on the blip in front of your eyes(BLM), you probably bypassed all casuality that made that blip exist, as well as what happened when the "blip" peaked previously. If you focus on what you're fed constantly, you will live in a permanent state of fear. And that is the objective - you focus on the flames and don't see who is fueling them or trying to take them out. Assuming you are talking about the US (frankly, your description of "society" is quite different from mine), violence is actually condoned and often encouraged, and has been throughout american history. There are a few exceptions, but that's it. And that, my friend, is not a matter of wealth. It is a matter of civility. And if you're expecting the ruling powers to enforce civility, you need to show them it is in their interest also. France did it quite well with the guillotine... Just an idea.

Legogris 6y ago
> I find it surprising you think any of this is new, or that in this there is any deserving party I don't read either of those in the comment you're responding to.
bonestormii_ 6y ago
Deserving party? Deserving of what? Your response is so disconnected from what I wrote I can barely understand it as such. Our laws prohibit all forms of violence domestically, do they not? Those are the explicit rules of our society. Whatever else you are referring to, it seems less relevant than that. Recent violent upticks with protestors v. police/military are a fact, and are relevant here. Do you think that all of this is indicative of a productive society? Destroyed police stations and dead/wounded protestors? It warrants an adjustment. We must try to fix the root cause, because the cost of all of this is too high. For everyone.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  There have been race riots before in the US... every couple of decades or so we get major ones. Thinking that this time marks the end of society is perhaps looking at the “blip” that he’s talking about.