3 ms·

I always feel a number of important metrics are left out, either by accident or on purpose, when people talk about inequality. Most importantly when it comes t

by kokey 12y ago

I always feel a number of important metrics are left out, either by accident or on purpose, when people talk about inequality. Most importantly when it comes to wealth itself, by most measures there is a very, very long tail of people with no wealth. 'No wealth' ranges from the most poor, to those living from paycheck to paycheck all the way to those who have as much debt as their assets. Many of these people are fine because, for example, their earnings potential over the next 40 years is good. They are wealthy in things like skills, social connections, etc. and they are certainly not comparable to someone with few skills, bad health and no money. The other issue is the longer term earning potential of top earners. Apart from the fact that companies are bigger and more global and that 'hits' can be bigger (like Kesha selling more records than The Beatles), the average tenure of a CEO has also gotten shorter and is around 5-7 years which usually can be described as the prime of their career, while the average worker can be anywhere in their career including eventually being a CEO one day.

johnchristopher 12y ago
> Most importantly when it comes to wealth itself, by most measures there is a very, very long tail of people with no wealth. 'No wealth' ranges from the most poor, to those living from paycheck to paycheck all the way to those who have as much debt as their assets. Many of these people are fine because, for example, their earnings potential over the next 40 years is good. They are wealthy in things like skills, social connections, etc. and they are certainly not comparable to someone with few skills, bad health and no money. No, they won't get rich later.
whybroke 12y ago
>while the average worker can be anywhere in their career including eventually being a CEO one day From the article: > our indifference lies in a distinctly American cultural optimism. At the core of the American Dream is the belief that anyone who works hard can move up economically regardless of his or her social circumstances. Aside from the factual error in the notion that there's more social mobility in the US than other countries, there is a difference between "anyone can become CEO" and "everyone will become CEO". If antebellum southern plantations had been structured such that one of the slaves might occasionally become the owner, it would not make it acceptable.
- 300bps 12y ago
  there is a difference between "anyone can become CEO" and "everyone will become CEO" I favor a system that guarantees equality of opportunity. I do not favor a system that guarantees equality of outcome.
  - ryandrake 12y ago
    Well, neither of those systems exist, so discussing the differences between them is kind of pointless. EDIT: See the response by cgearhart in a different thread for links to actual citations. Upvote that user's comment instead of mine.
    - sokoloff 12y ago
      Convenience link to the comment referenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9296654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9296654
adaml_623 12y ago
No I think you are wrong to want to include those metrics. You are including people who are probably in the bottom 80%. And they may be fine in the long run. Certainly a large mortgage is not a terrible thing if you can pay for it. And they may make it to CEO but statistically they won't. This article is about the top 0.1% and the fact that the slice of the pie owned by the 0.1% is increasing faster than the size of the pie. People aren't unhappy with other being wealthy (on average) but a system that means the gap is widening implies that something in the system needs to change. Sorry to be negative but I think it's important to focus on the problem raised by the article.
- mooreds 12y ago
  It is worth noting that this trend is actually more common in history then what we consider normal (a large middle class, moderate income inequality). See Piketty's 'Capital in the 21st Century' for a comprehensive look at wealth ownership over time.
metaphorm 12y ago
the point you're trying to make here is completely tangential to the point being discussed in the article. the fact being reported on is that public knowledge about the size of the income and wealth gap is heavily flawed and most of the survey respondents used in the study believed things that were not true. the fact that the population size (and correspondingly, the GDP) is larger today than it was 40 years ago has nothing to do with this.
cowardlydragon 12y ago
"very, very long tail of people with no wealth" Obviously the tail from median income to $0 is much shorter than the tail of median income to billions/year for BillG. So... not sure your desired metrics are that meaningful.

by kokey 12y ago

johnchristopher 12y ago

> Most importantly when it comes to wealth itself, by most measures there is a very, very long tail of people with no wealth. 'No wealth' ranges from the most poor, to those living from paycheck to paycheck all the way to those who have as much debt as their assets. Many of these people are fine because, for example, their earnings potential over the next 40 years is good. They are wealthy in things like skills, social connections, etc. and they are certainly not comparable to someone with few skills, bad health and no money. No, they won't get rich later.

whybroke 12y ago

>while the average worker can be anywhere in their career including eventually being a CEO one day From the article: > our indifference lies in a distinctly American cultural optimism. At the core of the American Dream is the belief that anyone who works hard can move up economically regardless of his or her social circumstances. Aside from the factual error in the notion that there's more social mobility in the US than other countries, there is a difference between "anyone can become CEO" and "everyone will become CEO". If antebellum southern plantations had been structured such that one of the slaves might occasionally become the owner, it would not make it acceptable.

300bps 12y ago
there is a difference between "anyone can become CEO" and "everyone will become CEO" I favor a system that guarantees equality of opportunity. I do not favor a system that guarantees equality of outcome.
- ryandrake 12y ago
  Well, neither of those systems exist, so discussing the differences between them is kind of pointless. EDIT: See the response by cgearhart in a different thread for links to actual citations. Upvote that user's comment instead of mine.
  - sokoloff 12y ago
    Convenience link to the comment referenced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9296654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9296654

adaml_623 12y ago

No I think you are wrong to want to include those metrics. You are including people who are probably in the bottom 80%. And they may be fine in the long run. Certainly a large mortgage is not a terrible thing if you can pay for it. And they may make it to CEO but statistically they won't. This article is about the top 0.1% and the fact that the slice of the pie owned by the 0.1% is increasing faster than the size of the pie. People aren't unhappy with other being wealthy (on average) but a system that means the gap is widening implies that something in the system needs to change. Sorry to be negative but I think it's important to focus on the problem raised by the article.

mooreds 12y ago
It is worth noting that this trend is actually more common in history then what we consider normal (a large middle class, moderate income inequality). See Piketty's 'Capital in the 21st Century' for a comprehensive look at wealth ownership over time.

metaphorm 12y ago

the point you're trying to make here is completely tangential to the point being discussed in the article. the fact being reported on is that public knowledge about the size of the income and wealth gap is heavily flawed and most of the survey respondents used in the study believed things that were not true. the fact that the population size (and correspondingly, the GDP) is larger today than it was 40 years ago has nothing to do with this.

cowardlydragon 12y ago

"very, very long tail of people with no wealth" Obviously the tail from median income to $0 is much shorter than the tail of median income to billions/year for BillG. So... not sure your desired metrics are that meaningful.