4 ms·

I think the only people who get angry at the shape of the distribution are those who get angry at the shape of the distribution. In other words, envy towards "

I think the only people who get angry at the shape of the distribution are those who get angry at the shape of the distribution. In other words, envy towards "the better off" is not a general feature of human experience. It is of some, but not all. One of the cultural triumphs of the west has been, somehow who knows, to mitigate envy (ie., hostility towards those who have more). So that most people today think "I'm grateful that I can do xyz, who cares that Musk can do o,p,q". People who write articles like this are the people "on the (envy) treadmill", and this isnt a cheap attack: they really are suffering! For them, it is a daily stress to see others have more. Society should do more to understand how this comes about, and what can be done to ameliorate this issue. It seems most acute in the "almost rich", i'm guessing because the condition of being rich seems available, but they cant get it. Whereas poorer people don't even think its an option. Given the amount of such possible "elites" we are producing today, who will never be elite, this is a politically unstable situation.

andrepd 5y ago
Income inequality has risen dramatically since the onset of modern neoliberal financialised capitalism. Even though workers produce more, their wages have been stagnant or receding in real terms for the last 40-50 years. Nearly all of the gains have went only to a very small percentage of people. Even though value is created by all, it's appropriated by less and less people, in a more and more skewed distribution. And your argument is "yall just jealous lol"? People just want what's theirs. When the wealthiest country in world history has 1 in 6 children living in poverty, I really think you ought to look at yourself in the mirror when you talk about "envy".
pharmakom 5y ago
It’s not about me (relatively wealthy denizen of HN) but people choosing between food and rent. It bothers me that some people are in this situation whilst others have so much wealth that they never have to work a day, if they choose to. I don’t mind some inequality, but I think don’t think we should tolerate such a low floor when the ceiling is so high.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Take the wealth of all those richer people and divide it amongst everyone -- now we all have the problems of the poor; and no one around to help (invest, etc.).
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    If the top 0.1% of people own more wealth than the bottom 80%, then dividing it up would have a huge impact - not that I am proposing this anyway.
    - scatters 5y ago
      It would certainly have an immediate impact in the short term, but in the longer term?
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      This is a net-worth calculation, not an income-based on. To see the flaw in this, note that if you liquidate all the wealth of the "top 0.1%" you can do that once, and no more. All the billionaires in the world hold enough assets all together to pay for c. 6mo of healthcare across the EU. So in that one-time liquidation, you get 6mo of one social service for one medium-sized continent. Sure, it's an impressive amount for a few thousand individuals to hold. More impressive, I'd say, is the net output of those few thousand individuals (ie., the 1000s of industrial bets they make which increases wealth for everyone over the long-run). Wealth statistics are often quoted to deliberately outrage the status-anxious; if it really were teh case that 0.1% of people could somehow fund lives for 80%, they'd be a revolution overnight.
      - pharmakom 5y ago
        S&P 500 index averages 8% return per year so assets and income are not so easily separated.
mrob 5y ago
Wealth inequality is inherently dangerous because wealth is power, and power inequality tends to reinforce itself. As the Bible puts it: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." dredmorbius posted a good comment on this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28509465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28509465 The unspoken flip side of the World Economic Forum's "You'll Own Nothing" campaign is "...And We'll Own Everything."

andrepd 5y ago

Income inequality has risen dramatically since the onset of modern neoliberal financialised capitalism. Even though workers produce more, their wages have been stagnant or receding in real terms for the last 40-50 years. Nearly all of the gains have went only to a very small percentage of people. Even though value is created by all, it's appropriated by less and less people, in a more and more skewed distribution. And your argument is "yall just jealous lol"? People just want what's theirs. When the wealthiest country in world history has 1 in 6 children living in poverty, I really think you ought to look at yourself in the mirror when you talk about "envy".

pharmakom 5y ago

It’s not about me (relatively wealthy denizen of HN) but people choosing between food and rent. It bothers me that some people are in this situation whilst others have so much wealth that they never have to work a day, if they choose to. I don’t mind some inequality, but I think don’t think we should tolerate such a low floor when the ceiling is so high.

mjburgess 5y ago
Take the wealth of all those richer people and divide it amongst everyone -- now we all have the problems of the poor; and no one around to help (invest, etc.).
- pharmakom 5y ago
  If the top 0.1% of people own more wealth than the bottom 80%, then dividing it up would have a huge impact - not that I am proposing this anyway.
  - scatters 5y ago
    It would certainly have an immediate impact in the short term, but in the longer term?
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    This is a net-worth calculation, not an income-based on. To see the flaw in this, note that if you liquidate all the wealth of the "top 0.1%" you can do that once, and no more. All the billionaires in the world hold enough assets all together to pay for c. 6mo of healthcare across the EU. So in that one-time liquidation, you get 6mo of one social service for one medium-sized continent. Sure, it's an impressive amount for a few thousand individuals to hold. More impressive, I'd say, is the net output of those few thousand individuals (ie., the 1000s of industrial bets they make which increases wealth for everyone over the long-run). Wealth statistics are often quoted to deliberately outrage the status-anxious; if it really were teh case that 0.1% of people could somehow fund lives for 80%, they'd be a revolution overnight.
    - pharmakom 5y ago
      S&P 500 index averages 8% return per year so assets and income are not so easily separated.

mrob 5y ago

Wealth inequality is inherently dangerous because wealth is power, and power inequality tends to reinforce itself. As the Bible puts it: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." dredmorbius posted a good comment on this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28509465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28509465 The unspoken flip side of the World Economic Forum's "You'll Own Nothing" campaign is "...And We'll Own Everything."