4 ms·

3 Points about the the latest Piketty book: ======================== 1) Churn in Inequality: ======================== 12 percent of the population will find

by nrao123 12y ago

3 Points about the the latest Piketty book: ======================== 1) Churn in Inequality: ======================== 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent Although 12 percent of the population will experience a year in which they find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, a mere 0.6 percent will do so in 10 consecutive years 54 percent of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60 Half of those who earned over $1 million a year did so just once during this period (1999 and 2007), while only 6 percent reported millionaire status across all nine years Data analyzed by the I.R.S. showed similar findings with respect to the top 400 taxpayers between 1992 and 2009. While 73 percent of people who made the list did so once during this period, only 2 percent of them were on the list for 10 or more years. via: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-t... ========================================================= 2) How much is the inequality being driven by Technology? ========================================================= Sam Altman @YC: http://blog.samaltman.com/technology-and-wealth-inequality http://blog.samaltman.com/technology-and-wealth-inequality Albert Wenger @ USV : http://continuations.com/post/52302452621/internet-and-income-inequality-we-need-to-think-ahead http://continuations.com/post/52302452621/internet-and-incom... ========================================================= 3) How much of this technology led inequality is transistionary? =========================================================== Innovation has brought great benefits to humanity. Nobody in their right mind would want to return to the world of handloom weavers. But the benefits of technological progress are unevenly distributed, especially in the early stages of each new wave, and it is up to governments to spread them. In the 19th century it took the threat of revolution to bring about progressive reforms. Today’s governments would do well to start making the changes needed before their people get angry. Via: http://www.economist.com/node/21594298/print http://www.economist.com/node/21594298/print

Victor_Silver 12y ago
Income isn't the issue and this is why income shouldn't be taxed. Rather, savings should be taxed.
- Ygg2 12y ago
  I think the best way is to make money taxable, basically Freigeld. But Freigeld according to it's founder should only works on small scales, not large ones.
mjn 12y ago
With all due respect, I don't see how your post is actually related to Piketty's book at all, in the sense that it isn't even discussing the same subject, let alone engaging with Piketty's actual analysis! Your post seems mainly to be about income inequality, particularly pointing out that it's often transitory and different over lifetimes than in single years. Those are interesting points, but Piketty's book isn't about income inequality. The book is mainly about capital holdings and what they do in economies over time. With issues such as: returns on capital vs. labor; concentration of capital holdings; persistence of large capital holdings over time; ratios between economies' capital holdings and rates of income; etc. Even looking only at the political part of the book (which is not the biggest part), his concern isn't about income inequality, or even inequality in general, but about wealth inequality that can maintain itself persistently. He predicts (with some caveats) that current trends suggest large holders of capital will increasingly be able to maintain and increase their capital holdings, producing stable multigenerational stocks of wealth akin to those seen in 18th and 19th century Europe. Whether right or wrong, that's not at all the same an issue as inquiring into things like income ratios between Google's programmers and janitors. He's interested in a more structural level about e.g. the differences between an economy where extant wealth equals 10 years of annual income, versus one where it equals 2 years of annual income (he argues that in the latter case existing wealth stocks are less entrenched, because they in effect represent fewer years "head start" over current income earners, and that this ratio explains some things about the relative roles of capital in 19th-century France vs. 19th-century U.S.).
- 12y ago

by nrao123 12y ago

Victor_Silver 12y ago

Income isn't the issue and this is why income shouldn't be taxed. Rather, savings should be taxed.

Ygg2 12y ago
I think the best way is to make money taxable, basically Freigeld. But Freigeld according to it's founder should only works on small scales, not large ones.

mjn 12y ago

With all due respect, I don't see how your post is actually related to Piketty's book at all, in the sense that it isn't even discussing the same subject, let alone engaging with Piketty's actual analysis! Your post seems mainly to be about income inequality, particularly pointing out that it's often transitory and different over lifetimes than in single years. Those are interesting points, but Piketty's book isn't about income inequality. The book is mainly about capital holdings and what they do in economies over time. With issues such as: returns on capital vs. labor; concentration of capital holdings; persistence of large capital holdings over time; ratios between economies' capital holdings and rates of income; etc. Even looking only at the political part of the book (which is not the biggest part), his concern isn't about income inequality, or even inequality in general, but about wealth inequality that can maintain itself persistently. He predicts (with some caveats) that current trends suggest large holders of capital will increasingly be able to maintain and increase their capital holdings, producing stable multigenerational stocks of wealth akin to those seen in 18th and 19th century Europe. Whether right or wrong, that's not at all the same an issue as inquiring into things like income ratios between Google's programmers and janitors. He's interested in a more structural level about e.g. the differences between an economy where extant wealth equals 10 years of annual income, versus one where it equals 2 years of annual income (he argues that in the latter case existing wealth stocks are less entrenched, because they in effect represent fewer years "head start" over current income earners, and that this ratio explains some things about the relative roles of capital in 19th-century France vs. 19th-century U.S.).

12y ago