5 ms·

I appreciate Gates' analysis of Piketty, but Gates is still blind to an important point- he came from a middle-class background and therefore had enough capital

I appreciate Gates' analysis of Piketty, but Gates is still blind to an important point- he came from a middle-class background and therefore had enough capital to gain a footing in the world and to be able to write his initial code without worrying about the basic needs of survival. 40% of youth in the USA today do not even have that, and as such, have virtually no chance at all of being able to even play in the capitalist economy. They will be successful if they avoid homelessness and hunger, which will be a daily struggle. Gates, Buffett, and others who claim to be philanthropists work from a point of ignorance, believing that all youth at least have their basic needs covered by this society. They are blind. Piketty at least acknowledges the underclasses. These so-called philanthropists depend on the existence of a permanent underclass to support their "charity". I was raised on the edges of this underclass and even today, after 20 years in the business doing quite well, I worry every day that I will soon be homeless or hungry. I have no inheritance to count on,other than debt from my family. The idea of taking a couple of months without income to make a startup is laughable- how would I eat and make my house payment? Most of the peers from my youth are on public assistance, in jail, ill, or worse. They are easy prey for the tech titans, who fill their eyes with glittery visions that make them forget their hunger and cold. This is in the Bay Area, mind you, less than 20 miles from the Valley. Gates' idea of a consumption tax would heavily penalize these people, who have been enslaved into a consumer lifestyle by the wealthy who exercise control over their lives. The whole "inequality" debate laments the demise of the middle class. But it never acknowledges the permanent underclass that is a necessary component of a society that can take the time for the inequality debate. I got out, though you never lose the psychic clutches of abject poverty. Most folks never get out.

alukima 12y ago
I try to explain this to people all the time. Most of my childhood friends/family worked much harder than any I know now and are just barely making it, some not at all. I watch friends in the Bay Area spend everything-save nothing and then call the homeless kids in the Haight lazy bums. I have a savings but if the tech bubble did burst there's a very real chance I could end up home. My family doesn't have wealth and some of my siblings are already homeless.
mchusma 12y ago
You paint the most damning portrait of America I've ever heard, can you help flesh this out? Can you source your 40% figure? The only child poverty number I found is 21.8% for 2012. [1] For those in poverty, can you provide more insight to why you think they have "virtually no chance at all of being able to even play in the capitalist economy"? I think everyone would agree they are at a disadvantage, but there are several people on the Forbes 400 this year who came out of poverty. Both of my parents came out of poverty, even you said you made it out of poverty. Can you provide some anecdotal insight to your peers who fell "prey for the tech titans, who fill their eyes with glittery visions that make them forget their hunger and cold." [1] http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf
- hindsightbias 12y ago
  There are rare exceptions. Perhaps HN should do a poll, how many here started out in poverty? > who fill their eyes My presumption is that he is referring to the movement towards digital/virtual consumption and away from physical consumption. The rich and poor entertain themselves in much the same way now, but that doesn't give us a way out of the trend: http://rick.bookstaber.com/2013/11/live-to-eat-eat-to-live.html http://rick.bookstaber.com/2013/11/live-to-eat-eat-to-live.h... Maybe poor kids will have more access to tools now, but will those tools be relevant in their economic age? Musicians and artists have had all these amazing tools - but is anyone making a living off of them?
jeffdavis 12y ago
"Gates' idea of a consumption tax would heavily penalize these people, who have been enslaved into a consumer lifestyle by the wealthy who exercise control over their lives." That came out of the blue... can you expand on that? [Note also that Gates said a progressive consumption tax.] I like a progressive consumption tax because (I currently believe, anyway) that it's harder to avoid than an income tax. Income can happen anywhere in the world, but if you are living here then you are consuming here. You can keep trying to defer income through clever accounting, but that seems harder to do with consumption (if you have a yacht today, you pay taxes today). It also takes away most arguments about class warfare. A wealthy person can't just call themselves a "job creator" and oppose taxes while floating around on a yacht and running a business into the ground. If they do, it will be obvious the taxes are for their yacht, and not their job-creating ability.
- reirob 12y ago
  "if you are living here then you are consuming here" - it strikes me that, the more you are poor the more you are bound to consume local. The richer you are the more choice you have where to consume (or where to invest, at some point of wealth this could also be considered as consumption). Therefore I tend to think that a consumption tax will penalize the poor.
  - jeffdavis 12y ago
    Can you give an example of living in the US and consuming mostly somewhere else? Are you just talking about luxurious vacations to Europe?
    - reirob 12y ago
      I can't give you the requested example as I am living in Europe ;-) But what I mean seems to be more of a general rule. The richer you are the better choices you have to spend money on products that appeal to you, because your consumption/investment horizon widens. Vacations to other countries are indeed part of it. But it might be as well goods produced on the other side of the planet that you can buy, because you might have heard about them through your acquaintances. Whereas poor will not have the idea to look for alternatives.
masklinn 12y ago
> Gates is still blind to an important point- he came from a middle-class background Gates didn't come from a middle-class background but from an upper-class one. His father was a highly successful lawyer and cofounder of Shidler & King (then Preston Gates & Ellis, now K&L Gates), his maternal grandfather was an affluent banker (national bank president) and his mother was a Seattle power serving on the boards of United Way, UW, US West (then Pacific Northwest Bell), First Interstate Bank and others.
- johnpenton 12y ago
  That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc. The US doesn't really have an upper class at all - just lots of rich middle class people. Maybe it's a British thing, but to me class is only minimally about money, so you can't just say the Gates family are rich so they're upper class. In Britain you can be penniless but still be upper class, or a billionaire but still working class. Take David Beckham - rich but working class. You can probably find some destitute Baronets somewhere who are definitely still upper class.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc. Professional people (as people who are predominantly workers, but usually not on living paycheck-to-paycheck and often with small capital holdings that may suffice for a comfortable retirement) are general middle class, yes. > The US doesn't really have an upper class at all The US actually does have an upper class, people who are primarily capitalists rather than workers. > In Britain you can be penniless but still be upper class, or a billionaire but still working class. You seem to be describing a pre-capitalist, essentially feudal view of class (in a capitalist society, meaningful class distinctions still aren't exactly about money, per se, but more where that money comes from, though there's a relation between the two -- you can't be penniless and be maintaining a comfortable standard of living primarily from capital -- whereas in a feudal class system its more about station of birth independent of money, though, in societies where such a class distinction is meaningful rather than a mere historical artifact, there's a close association between that station and both money and how you get it.)
harryh 12y ago
Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth to causes meant to benefit the poorest people in the world. While some of your criticism is valid I don't think it's fair to say that hie's ignorant of the existence of poor people.
maxrann 12y ago
>I appreciate Gates' analysis of Piketty, but Gates is still blind to an important point- he came from a middle-class background and therefore had enough capital to gain a footing in the world and to be able to write his initial code without worrying about the basic needs of survival. the BASIC needs of survival
cookiecaper 12y ago
>40% of youth in the USA today do not even have that Puh-leese. Who do you think is buying this? There's no way that figure is anywhere near accurate for people living in "abject poverty". >Gates, Buffett, and others who claim to be philanthropists work from a point of ignorance, believing that all youth at least have their basic needs covered by this society. You are aware that the Gates Foundation spends the majority of its resources in Africa, trying to get medicine to the thousands of children that die from ailments that are easily treatable in the US? Almost any child in the US looks massively privileged by comparison. The fact that almost all of our children live to adulthood is a testament to that. >The idea of taking a couple of months without income to make a startup is laughable- how would I eat and make my house payment? I don't really know what you're getting at here. Since you were poor growing up, you're too terrified to ever take the risk involved in a startup? Most people are, no matter their economic background. Most startup founders are taking the same kind of risk and don't have years of savings to live off of, but they gather the balls and do it anyway. You're attributing too much of this to your disadvantaged upbringing.

alukima 12y ago

I try to explain this to people all the time. Most of my childhood friends/family worked much harder than any I know now and are just barely making it, some not at all. I watch friends in the Bay Area spend everything-save nothing and then call the homeless kids in the Haight lazy bums. I have a savings but if the tech bubble did burst there's a very real chance I could end up home. My family doesn't have wealth and some of my siblings are already homeless.

mchusma 12y ago

You paint the most damning portrait of America I've ever heard, can you help flesh this out? Can you source your 40% figure? The only child poverty number I found is 21.8% for 2012. [1] For those in poverty, can you provide more insight to why you think they have "virtually no chance at all of being able to even play in the capitalist economy"? I think everyone would agree they are at a disadvantage, but there are several people on the Forbes 400 this year who came out of poverty. Both of my parents came out of poverty, even you said you made it out of poverty. Can you provide some anecdotal insight to your peers who fell "prey for the tech titans, who fill their eyes with glittery visions that make them forget their hunger and cold." [1] http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf

hindsightbias 12y ago
There are rare exceptions. Perhaps HN should do a poll, how many here started out in poverty? > who fill their eyes My presumption is that he is referring to the movement towards digital/virtual consumption and away from physical consumption. The rich and poor entertain themselves in much the same way now, but that doesn't give us a way out of the trend: http://rick.bookstaber.com/2013/11/live-to-eat-eat-to-live.html http://rick.bookstaber.com/2013/11/live-to-eat-eat-to-live.h... Maybe poor kids will have more access to tools now, but will those tools be relevant in their economic age? Musicians and artists have had all these amazing tools - but is anyone making a living off of them?

jeffdavis 12y ago

"Gates' idea of a consumption tax would heavily penalize these people, who have been enslaved into a consumer lifestyle by the wealthy who exercise control over their lives." That came out of the blue... can you expand on that? [Note also that Gates said a progressive consumption tax.] I like a progressive consumption tax because (I currently believe, anyway) that it's harder to avoid than an income tax. Income can happen anywhere in the world, but if you are living here then you are consuming here. You can keep trying to defer income through clever accounting, but that seems harder to do with consumption (if you have a yacht today, you pay taxes today). It also takes away most arguments about class warfare. A wealthy person can't just call themselves a "job creator" and oppose taxes while floating around on a yacht and running a business into the ground. If they do, it will be obvious the taxes are for their yacht, and not their job-creating ability.

reirob 12y ago
"if you are living here then you are consuming here" - it strikes me that, the more you are poor the more you are bound to consume local. The richer you are the more choice you have where to consume (or where to invest, at some point of wealth this could also be considered as consumption). Therefore I tend to think that a consumption tax will penalize the poor.
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  Can you give an example of living in the US and consuming mostly somewhere else? Are you just talking about luxurious vacations to Europe?
  - reirob 12y ago
    I can't give you the requested example as I am living in Europe ;-) But what I mean seems to be more of a general rule. The richer you are the better choices you have to spend money on products that appeal to you, because your consumption/investment horizon widens. Vacations to other countries are indeed part of it. But it might be as well goods produced on the other side of the planet that you can buy, because you might have heard about them through your acquaintances. Whereas poor will not have the idea to look for alternatives.

masklinn 12y ago

> Gates is still blind to an important point- he came from a middle-class background Gates didn't come from a middle-class background but from an upper-class one. His father was a highly successful lawyer and cofounder of Shidler & King (then Preston Gates & Ellis, now K&L Gates), his maternal grandfather was an affluent banker (national bank president) and his mother was a Seattle power serving on the boards of United Way, UW, US West (then Pacific Northwest Bell), First Interstate Bank and others.

johnpenton 12y ago
That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc. The US doesn't really have an upper class at all - just lots of rich middle class people. Maybe it's a British thing, but to me class is only minimally about money, so you can't just say the Gates family are rich so they're upper class. In Britain you can be penniless but still be upper class, or a billionaire but still working class. Take David Beckham - rich but working class. You can probably find some destitute Baronets somewhere who are definitely still upper class.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > That sounds pretty middle class to me. Professional people - lawyers, bankers, management, etc. Professional people (as people who are predominantly workers, but usually not on living paycheck-to-paycheck and often with small capital holdings that may suffice for a comfortable retirement) are general middle class, yes. > The US doesn't really have an upper class at all The US actually does have an upper class, people who are primarily capitalists rather than workers. > In Britain you can be penniless but still be upper class, or a billionaire but still working class. You seem to be describing a pre-capitalist, essentially feudal view of class (in a capitalist society, meaningful class distinctions still aren't exactly about money, per se, but more where that money comes from, though there's a relation between the two -- you can't be penniless and be maintaining a comfortable standard of living primarily from capital -- whereas in a feudal class system its more about station of birth independent of money, though, in societies where such a class distinction is meaningful rather than a mere historical artifact, there's a close association between that station and both money and how you get it.)

harryh 12y ago

Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth to causes meant to benefit the poorest people in the world. While some of your criticism is valid I don't think it's fair to say that hie's ignorant of the existence of poor people.

maxrann 12y ago

>I appreciate Gates' analysis of Piketty, but Gates is still blind to an important point- he came from a middle-class background and therefore had enough capital to gain a footing in the world and to be able to write his initial code without worrying about the basic needs of survival. the BASIC needs of survival

cookiecaper 12y ago

>40% of youth in the USA today do not even have that Puh-leese. Who do you think is buying this? There's no way that figure is anywhere near accurate for people living in "abject poverty". >Gates, Buffett, and others who claim to be philanthropists work from a point of ignorance, believing that all youth at least have their basic needs covered by this society. You are aware that the Gates Foundation spends the majority of its resources in Africa, trying to get medicine to the thousands of children that die from ailments that are easily treatable in the US? Almost any child in the US looks massively privileged by comparison. The fact that almost all of our children live to adulthood is a testament to that. >The idea of taking a couple of months without income to make a startup is laughable- how would I eat and make my house payment? I don't really know what you're getting at here. Since you were poor growing up, you're too terrified to ever take the risk involved in a startup? Most people are, no matter their economic background. Most startup founders are taking the same kind of risk and don't have years of savings to live off of, but they gather the balls and do it anyway. You're attributing too much of this to your disadvantaged upbringing.