Hacker News Reader

Comment by cbeach | Hacker News Reader

Piketty gets away with a distortion of the debate because his conclusions are so populist.

http://www.cityam.com/1416252493/financial-crisis-saw-uk-bec...

It's questionable whether a) there is growing inequality and b) more equal times (eg the 70s in the UK) were preferable for anyone.

View on HN

> It's questionable whether a) there is growing inequality

I am wondering if your talking about UK and not US? In US it is not questionable the gaps are certainly greater.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-t...

> b) more equal times (eg the 70s in the UK) were preferable for anyone. (Soft science?)

In terms of poverty we could certainly do MUCH better.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-wa...

In terms of working middle class. Does anyone even have a pension anymore? 401K are not pensions and well it is scary. Also the rate of pay has stayed stable despite to record profits. http://monthlyreview.org/2014/01/01/the-plight-of-the-u-s-wo...

Pensions don't work. The fact that they're disappearing is proof of that.

The entire concept of being legally required to provide a certain monetary benefit in 2060 based on someone's work now is crazy.

> 401K are not pensions and well it is scary.

Why? Your benefit is based on the actual money you have. That's just math, as opposed to smoke and mirrors with pensions where the money may or may not actually be there 50 years from now.

Pensions work 100% but they cost money SO instead of paying pensions we have more profits which benefits the wealthy? The whole stock market profits the same people. That people have to pay into the market for them to have a retirement plan also benefits the same wealthy people.

When people's 401K fail then the government has to pay for the companies for not providing for their employees.

http://time.com/money/3624637/401k-retirement-problems-getti...

Don't pensions rely on the market in order to remain solvent? Where does the supposed gain come from? Either it comes from the markets, in which case the workers are better off investing in the market directly, or it comes from the people paying into the system today, in which case it collapses as soon as the debits exceed the credits.

And no it's more like "pensions work 75%"[0]

[0] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/04/insolvent-union...

Pensions rely on payments. Now those payments do get invested. Pennsylvania just didn't make payments for 10 years for teachers and state workers and that kind of causes problems.

Also 65 might be to low a number now but that is another issue.

> Pensions rely on payments.

Meaning that the system collapses if you don't have new people continually paying into it?

I think that already has a name.

No the state just didn't pay their bill. Now we are paying much higher to catch up!

Last time I looked PA has millions of people.

Of course he does! And I'm already mentally preparing to part with a large share of that money which I have left after paying the income tax, the capital gains tax and those other taxes. ("The rich" will not mean Warren Buffet or Ron Garret who have the money to dodge a new tax, it will mean those who failed to spend everything earned.)

His conclusion are completely non-controversial in my view.

Everyone knew thats how it works, that why the rich people do it that way. Piketty just put some numbers behind it.

The problem with Piketty is more his solutions. Those are based on an false premise that it's just a matter of different politics and legislation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com