6 ms·

Billionaires are highly correlated with millionaires, which don't seem to be beyond the pale for critics of wealth inequality. Countries with billionaires rank

by ipnon 4y ago

Billionaires are highly correlated with millionaires, which don't seem to be beyond the pale for critics of wealth inequality. Countries with billionaires rank much higher on quality of life than those without. It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts but the side effect of their wealth is companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive effect on society in terms of products and employment.

john_yaya 4y ago
“companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive effect on society” Citation needed.
- ipnon 4y ago
  My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too much!
  - hetspookjee 4y ago
    You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris or the Sackler families business. Just that people are very willing to buy a product doesn’t imply that it’s good. So I wouldn’t raise the fact that folks buying Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products are any good perse.
    - ipnon 4y ago
      I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a thing useless. In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional cigar. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short. Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice. Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors. The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.
  - cute_boi 4y ago
    People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? However, I don't consider it to be net positive in current society. In many countries like India, many mom & pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its company which would have been distributed to multiple people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they won't be too powerful. So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive in society?
    - 0xLaMDA 4y ago
- passivate 4y ago
  For me, I am convinced that they create jobs, spend money in the economy, help provide valuable goods and services to society, etc. Amazon is famous for not hoarding money but re-investing their profits. Most 401ks invest in index funds that are buoyed by the tech stocks. I don't have ready citations but I believe these to be relatively uncontroversial statements. This whole talk about "net positive" and what is "net" is a pointless discussion that is going nowhere. There is no way to prove anything unless we have an alternative universe without Amazon to study. What sort of citation will make you happy?
  - runarberg 4y ago
    States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Jobs would be created without the rich. See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). This is indeed a very controversial statement because the rich are living a lifestyle which is at best unsustainable for the planet. They emit more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for their own lavish lifestyles. They exploit poor labor conditions and lobby against every minor improvement. They don’t contribute to our shared funds like regular people, decreasing the state’s funds for more infrastructure which would have created more jobs. And they cause stress with their increased wealth disparity. Many research has shown perceived inequality is a significant stress producer. We may very well be bettor off without them.
    - passivate 4y ago
      >States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Yes, there is a nice division of responsibilities. But ultimately, governments are doing the jobs they get paid for. And they're not only wasteful with our money (spending on wars, defense, etc), ironically (in a sad way) they pay government workers poorly - See teachers' salaries. >Jobs would be created without the rich. Jobs were created at all stages in history in all kinds of social and economic conditions. Also, plenty of rich people got rich after starting companies and creating jobs. We're incentivizing people who like money to create jobs, among other things. >See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). Those are not responses to my comment, so specifically what part of my comment was inaccurate? I can correct any misunderstandings, or improve my comment to fix any errors on my part.
- cultofmetatron 4y ago
  I do love that we have viable electric cars and that I can order something on amazon and have it at my door in 2 days. Seriously, try living in a developing country and have ANYTHING delivered...
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Not to mention little old ladies, 50 year old ex fire fighters and retired unionized school teachers get full generous pensions because of stock market value of companies created by billionaires
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Yeah, about that: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/business/bear-market-timeline-stocks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/business/bear-market-time... > But 401(k) plans can still take a significant hit in market downturns. In 2008, for instance, as the S&P 500 dropped 37 percent, the average 401(k) account balance for those who were in their 50s fell 24 percent. > People with retirement accounts are keeping more of their assets in stocks now, as opposed to bonds or a mix of other investments. “There has been a growing complacency of people keeping most of their nest eggs in stocks,” said Monique Morrissey, who specializes in retirement at the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy Institute. “There has been a fundamental misunderstanding — returns do not always average out.” > “It’s not just the loss from January; it’s what happens going forward,” she said. “If you were counting on the amount that you have in your 401(k) to continually grow, well, then you may never get to what you had planned for.” Tying retirement plans to the market only looks good when there's a continuous bull market, less so when the bottom falls out.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  Very little stock market wealth is held by pension funds on behalf of workers, as opposed to the already wealthy. See https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Pension-scheme-holding-less-than-6-of-UK-share-market.php https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Pension-scheme-holding-less-t..., for example. And the value on these schemes are disproportionately held by those who own and/or run companies rather than those who work in them: the Small Self-Administered Scheme is a popular means of UK tax avoidance for business owners who would like their capital gains tax free, and assets held in these schemes (on trust for the owner) will also be included in these figures. Returns on capital flow, unsurprisingly, to those with capital. And the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands is precisely the issue that people are objecting to.
spullara 4y ago
I'm not as wealthy as them but I have never, ever had this feeling: "It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts" Why does that hurt anyone? Doesn't it just help the people that make yachts and work on them?
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > Why does that hurt anyone? Because those yachts were bought with money skimmed off our labor.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    Ah yes the famed 0 sum game. If that was the case, it should work both ways: when Bezos "lost" $20 billions of May 1st, how many skimmed labourers suddenly were able to afford $1 million houses ?
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > If that was the case, it should work both ways Why would it? The notion that "it should work both ways" assumes that "both ways" are equally viable.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      The notion that employers are unfairly collecting economic rent from their employees doesn't require it to be a zero-sum game.
      - junofan 4y ago
        Who’s paying less than they expected in today’s market? If anything it’s the other way round right now—lots of people are taking jobs for more money than they expected.
        int_19h 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what's "expected in today's market" from this perspective, either, since the market can be extremely skewed in terms of bargaining power. What matters is 1) how much wealth any given employee generates, and 2) how much of that generated wealth they retain. Anything that doesn't end up in their pockets, and is not a business expense otherwise, is economic rent collected by their employer.
robby_w_g 4y ago
> It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts but the side effect of their wealth is companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive effect on society in terms of products and employment. Corporations have a net positive effect on society, so we should sit by and watch the dragons add to their hoard? They don't need a billion dollars, it's just a video game to these people. They want to increase their high scores so they can be top of the leaderboard. Also, millionaires include people who saved a million dollars over their lifespan in order to retire. Retirees need that money if they want to live a modest lifestyle, pay for unexpected (or really expected at that age) health care costs, and support their grandchildren. It's a luxury we'd all be lucky to have and tragically many people weren't able to achieve. Add in an order of magnitude and what more do you get? What value does a person add to the world when they have a billion dollars instead of a million?
mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
furthermore if many westerners woke up they would realize that many people envy them like we envy billionaires. The average joe in america and many other places has more money in a month than many have a year, the average american or european has access to luxuries other people dream off. We are rich by proxy of simply living in the states or in europe. Furthermore we also have more opportunities and the ability to become a millionaire too. We are envied by many places worldwide, we need to stop being angry at what others have and be better. I hate the anti-rich people talk because we could do far more productive things. besides, to many people we are included in that rich category we talk own about.
runarberg 4y ago
It is worth noting that measures of quality of life are often conflated with wealth, even to a degree that they quite often use straight up economic metrics (like GDP) in their models. On top of that our global capitalist situation heavily favor exploitation in cheaper labor markets. So if you are a millionaire CEO in a rich country you are very likely to exploit your workers in poorer countries (or more likely, the workers of your providers and contractors) which overall increases the QOL in your country while decreasing it in your worker’s country. Your correlation might be a cross causation.
rnxrx 4y ago
Do countries with more billionaires inherently rank higher in terms of quality of life, or do billionaires tend to live in places that already have higher quality of life (...particularly for the wealthy)?
- anony23 4y ago
  Or are the two things the same?
- runarberg 4y ago
  Or do the rich exploit workers in poorer countries, backing their wealth of the decreased quality of life in poorer countries?
ineptech 4y ago
This isn't about yachts, it's about sensible policy. Corporations aren't a naturally occurring phenomenon whose autonomy we must respect; we wrote laws to allow them to exist because we thought they would be good for society. They mostly do, but when unfettered capitalism leads to bad outcomes, it needs to be fettered. So it comes down to: is a handful of pseudo-randomly selected[0] people having wealth on the scale of billions a good outcome or a bad one? Personally I think it's pretty obviously the latter, and if you agree then I struggle to see why a wealth tax isn't the obvious solution. 0: "It isn't random, they worked harder than everyone else!" Where would Microsoft be if Gates' mom wasn't friends with IBM's John Opel? Where would Amazon be if Bezos had been born 5 years earlier, or later? Etc.
otikik 4y ago
> Countries with billionaires rank much higher on quality of life than those without. I think that is a correlation. An empty granary attracts no rats. That doesn't mean that having rats is good for farmers.

by ipnon 4y ago

john_yaya 4y ago

“companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive effect on society” Citation needed.

ipnon 4y ago
My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too much!
- hetspookjee 4y ago
  You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris or the Sackler families business. Just that people are very willing to buy a product doesn’t imply that it’s good. So I wouldn’t raise the fact that folks buying Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products are any good perse.
  - ipnon 4y ago
    I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a thing useless. In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional cigar. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no longer a net positive to society. The goods and services they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that could address their failings. Amazon as a product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly improved compared to the past. But other aspects have fallen short. Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what could be improved if there was more competition, more companies, more market. Less monopolies.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. If you think competitors could do better, prove it with consumer choice. Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop are just a click away. If consumers think they can do better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its reach and resources are so much greater than the next set of competitors. The competitors you list also aren't head-on in competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a lasting competitor. Stay tuned.
- cute_boi 4y ago
  People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? However, I don't consider it to be net positive in current society. In many countries like India, many mom & pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its company which would have been distributed to multiple people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they won't be too powerful. So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive in society?
  - 0xLaMDA 4y ago
passivate 4y ago
For me, I am convinced that they create jobs, spend money in the economy, help provide valuable goods and services to society, etc. Amazon is famous for not hoarding money but re-investing their profits. Most 401ks invest in index funds that are buoyed by the tech stocks. I don't have ready citations but I believe these to be relatively uncontroversial statements. This whole talk about "net positive" and what is "net" is a pointless discussion that is going nowhere. There is no way to prove anything unless we have an alternative universe without Amazon to study. What sort of citation will make you happy?
- runarberg 4y ago
  States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Jobs would be created without the rich. See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). This is indeed a very controversial statement because the rich are living a lifestyle which is at best unsustainable for the planet. They emit more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for their own lavish lifestyles. They exploit poor labor conditions and lobby against every minor improvement. They don’t contribute to our shared funds like regular people, decreasing the state’s funds for more infrastructure which would have created more jobs. And they cause stress with their increased wealth disparity. Many research has shown perceived inequality is a significant stress producer. We may very well be bettor off without them.
  - passivate 4y ago
    >States provide the infrastructure and educate the workforce which enables the job creations. Yes, there is a nice division of responsibilities. But ultimately, governments are doing the jobs they get paid for. And they're not only wasteful with our money (spending on wars, defense, etc), ironically (in a sad way) they pay government workers poorly - See teachers' salaries. >Jobs would be created without the rich. Jobs were created at all stages in history in all kinds of social and economic conditions. Also, plenty of rich people got rich after starting companies and creating jobs. We're incentivizing people who like money to create jobs, among other things. >See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries). Those are not responses to my comment, so specifically what part of my comment was inaccurate? I can correct any misunderstandings, or improve my comment to fix any errors on my part.
cultofmetatron 4y ago
I do love that we have viable electric cars and that I can order something on amazon and have it at my door in 2 days. Seriously, try living in a developing country and have ANYTHING delivered...

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

Not to mention little old ladies, 50 year old ex fire fighters and retired unionized school teachers get full generous pensions because of stock market value of companies created by billionaires

Apocryphon 4y ago
Yeah, about that: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/business/bear-market-timeline-stocks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/business/bear-market-time... > But 401(k) plans can still take a significant hit in market downturns. In 2008, for instance, as the S&P 500 dropped 37 percent, the average 401(k) account balance for those who were in their 50s fell 24 percent. > People with retirement accounts are keeping more of their assets in stocks now, as opposed to bonds or a mix of other investments. “There has been a growing complacency of people keeping most of their nest eggs in stocks,” said Monique Morrissey, who specializes in retirement at the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy Institute. “There has been a fundamental misunderstanding — returns do not always average out.” > “It’s not just the loss from January; it’s what happens going forward,” she said. “If you were counting on the amount that you have in your 401(k) to continually grow, well, then you may never get to what you had planned for.” Tying retirement plans to the market only looks good when there's a continuous bull market, less so when the bottom falls out.
pmyteh 4y ago
Very little stock market wealth is held by pension funds on behalf of workers, as opposed to the already wealthy. See https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Pension-scheme-holding-less-than-6-of-UK-share-market.php https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Pension-scheme-holding-less-t..., for example. And the value on these schemes are disproportionately held by those who own and/or run companies rather than those who work in them: the Small Self-Administered Scheme is a popular means of UK tax avoidance for business owners who would like their capital gains tax free, and assets held in these schemes (on trust for the owner) will also be included in these figures. Returns on capital flow, unsurprisingly, to those with capital. And the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands is precisely the issue that people are objecting to.

spullara 4y ago

I'm not as wealthy as them but I have never, ever had this feeling: "It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts" Why does that hurt anyone? Doesn't it just help the people that make yachts and work on them?

yellowapple 4y ago
> Why does that hurt anyone? Because those yachts were bought with money skimmed off our labor.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  Ah yes the famed 0 sum game. If that was the case, it should work both ways: when Bezos "lost" $20 billions of May 1st, how many skimmed labourers suddenly were able to afford $1 million houses ?
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > If that was the case, it should work both ways Why would it? The notion that "it should work both ways" assumes that "both ways" are equally viable.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The notion that employers are unfairly collecting economic rent from their employees doesn't require it to be a zero-sum game.
    - junofan 4y ago
      Who’s paying less than they expected in today’s market? If anything it’s the other way round right now—lots of people are taking jobs for more money than they expected.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what's "expected in today's market" from this perspective, either, since the market can be extremely skewed in terms of bargaining power. What matters is 1) how much wealth any given employee generates, and 2) how much of that generated wealth they retain. Anything that doesn't end up in their pockets, and is not a business expense otherwise, is economic rent collected by their employer.

robby_w_g 4y ago

> It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts but the side effect of their wealth is companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive effect on society in terms of products and employment. Corporations have a net positive effect on society, so we should sit by and watch the dragons add to their hoard? They don't need a billion dollars, it's just a video game to these people. They want to increase their high scores so they can be top of the leaderboard. Also, millionaires include people who saved a million dollars over their lifespan in order to retire. Retirees need that money if they want to live a modest lifestyle, pay for unexpected (or really expected at that age) health care costs, and support their grandchildren. It's a luxury we'd all be lucky to have and tragically many people weren't able to achieve. Add in an order of magnitude and what more do you get? What value does a person add to the world when they have a billion dollars instead of a million?

mrcheesebreeze 4y ago

furthermore if many westerners woke up they would realize that many people envy them like we envy billionaires. The average joe in america and many other places has more money in a month than many have a year, the average american or european has access to luxuries other people dream off. We are rich by proxy of simply living in the states or in europe. Furthermore we also have more opportunities and the ability to become a millionaire too. We are envied by many places worldwide, we need to stop being angry at what others have and be better. I hate the anti-rich people talk because we could do far more productive things. besides, to many people we are included in that rich category we talk own about.

runarberg 4y ago

It is worth noting that measures of quality of life are often conflated with wealth, even to a degree that they quite often use straight up economic metrics (like GDP) in their models. On top of that our global capitalist situation heavily favor exploitation in cheaper labor markets. So if you are a millionaire CEO in a rich country you are very likely to exploit your workers in poorer countries (or more likely, the workers of your providers and contractors) which overall increases the QOL in your country while decreasing it in your worker’s country. Your correlation might be a cross causation.

rnxrx 4y ago

Do countries with more billionaires inherently rank higher in terms of quality of life, or do billionaires tend to live in places that already have higher quality of life (...particularly for the wealthy)?

anony23 4y ago
Or are the two things the same?
runarberg 4y ago
Or do the rich exploit workers in poorer countries, backing their wealth of the decreased quality of life in poorer countries?

ineptech 4y ago

This isn't about yachts, it's about sensible policy. Corporations aren't a naturally occurring phenomenon whose autonomy we must respect; we wrote laws to allow them to exist because we thought they would be good for society. They mostly do, but when unfettered capitalism leads to bad outcomes, it needs to be fettered. So it comes down to: is a handful of pseudo-randomly selected[0] people having wealth on the scale of billions a good outcome or a bad one? Personally I think it's pretty obviously the latter, and if you agree then I struggle to see why a wealth tax isn't the obvious solution. 0: "It isn't random, they worked harder than everyone else!" Where would Microsoft be if Gates' mom wasn't friends with IBM's John Opel? Where would Amazon be if Bezos had been born 5 years earlier, or later? Etc.

otikik 4y ago

> Countries with billionaires rank much higher on quality of life than those without. I think that is a correlation. An empty granary attracts no rats. That doesn't mean that having rats is good for farmers.