Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymousJim12 | Hacker News Reader

Executives live in a global economy. The rest of us might "operate" in one but we don't get to take advantage of that privilege the way the wealthy do. You are right, world wide poverty is on the decline. But given the choice between:

- better for 1 billion people

- worse for 2 billion people

- really outstandingly fantastic for 200 people

and

- really good for 5 billion people

- worse for 200 people

I know which way I'd lean in that spectrum.

View on HN

It's slightly worse for white men in the West who had a historically unique period of prosperity immediately following WWII. It's still nominally better for them, it's just not relatively better compared to everyone else. It's better for women, it's better for minorities, it's better for immigrants, it's better for the billion people who escaped poverty since just 1990. What are the big complaints compared to 50 years ago? If you happen to live in some of the best places to live in all of human history it's harder to buy a house?

Unless I'm mistaken, the premise these arguments always seem to follow is, just because people in general have a better standard of living now than in the past we should ignore the following questions.

Why the majority of profits from productivity gains over the last 40 years have gone to a select few who are already wealthy?

Why the rate of increase of our standard of living hasn't been on par with the rate of productivity gains?

I don't believe those questions are genuine.

As a thought experiment... Let's assume for a moment that we both agree on these two points. First, that taxes, social safety nets, and regulations impact things like income and wealth inequality. Second, that income and wealth inequality was better 40 years ago. How many people are willing to turn back the clock on taxes, social programs, and regulations to what they were 40 years ago when we imagine that things were better? I've personally never met a single person who complains about wealth/income inequality who would take that deal.

What? Nobody is talking about turning the clock back. I honestly can't fathom where you are arguing from here. Your response comes across as the king of all strawmen. Go reread my second question. Standard of living is better now than 40 years ago. I don't know why you are assuming I think anything else. The point is to ask whether or not that increase in standard of living was at a rate that mirrors the increase in productivity. Just because things are better doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

Well, what kinds of changes would you propose to do in order to attempt to reach this state where the increases in standards of living matched increases of productivity? Does it have anything to do with taxes, social programs, and regulation? Because I have a known historical set of of those things which led to outcomes that are at least closer to what you want than what we have now. Can we not recognize that the last 40 years of changes were a failure, so we should move back to the better state and then move forward from there again in the hopes of doing better this time? Or must we continue to add on to 40 years of failure?

Because if you're expressing a concern about wealth/income inequality, and you're not willing to try to recreate the state which created better wealth/income equality, then you seem dishonest. Frankly, it seems like you're speaking exactly in the reverse of your stated goals. You say you want equality and that taxes/regulation/social programs are the means. But you are acting the opposite, that taxes/regulation/social programs are the goal and that complaining about equality is the means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com