5 ms·

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 othe

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.

5 ms·

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 othe

by pharmakom 5y ago

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.