Hacker News Reader

Society has to decide what "right" people have to a certain minimum quality of life and access to services. It turns out the level can actually be quite high, one only need look to the highly successful Nordic states.

The argument in america seems to be that if you work hard, you can have a decent life and a house in the suburbs. There are already problems here, what of the people born with disabilities?

But assuming everyone is capable of work, there is still the assumption that adequately rewarding work exists for everybody. Perhaps this assumption can be summarised as the american dream that people need to wake from. Conservatives argue that bringing back well paying, low skilled jobs can restore this dream time. Perhaps if they also rolled back 50 years of legislation and restored the unions this would be true, but times have changed.

The reality is that access to rewarding work almost requires a privileged upbringing. It is completely unfair to assume that if poor people worked harder they would make it. I personally have a friend who grew up in a trailer park. After slogging it out through multiple entrepreneurial ventures, in his 30's he used his life savings to relocate his mother to find better medical care. Imagine at 30, a time when by your argument one should be buying and reading books, the burden of caring for you parents fell solely on your shoulders. Even in your 30's you are at a disadvantage due to your family's wealth.

I personally believe that I should not have such an automatic advantage (for what its worth I do). I would be much happier in a world where I was taxed 50% but lived in a world where I knew the person serving me at a restaurant wasn't potentially a desperate single mother trying to hold down a job to care for her child. A person who probably doesn't have time for books.

Before we get to charity, long story short I don't believe that wealthy people should get to choose were their money goes. That's a decision for society as a whole, and I believe people should be represented in that decision equally. Therefore I don't donate to charity.

> "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

Edward Albert Filene

You're still making the "standard of living" argument that is essentially hypocritical when you think about it globally. You are extremely privileged to be born in the USA, rich or poor.

Also, you would realistically need to be taxed more like 80-95% to get to the global mean.

So the ultra rich should grow wealthier faster than middle class Americans because there are poorer countries in the world? Absurd.

In any case their wealth shouldn't be redistributed to the American middle class, rather the global poor, as should the wealth of the American middle class and poor.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I think there needs to be a greater global redistribution effort, but we should start with a more politically tenable one based on nation states.

Also, I have a hunch (but no data) to suggest that a national one may be more economically viable since you redistribute money inside your own economy which boosts demand and increases your tax base.

That's already happening through globalization. The scope of this discussion is American inequality.

Why does any single person deserve the enormous amount of power that being so absurdly wealthy can bring?

So they can get us to Mars? So they can cure malaria? Obviously doesn't apply to all of the riches.

You say "deserve" as if there is some God or universal parent dictating people's fortune like they are handing out cookies for being a good boy. You might say someone you really like deserves much better fortune then they have realized, but that's something that's completely subjective to you - it's because you yourself like them. You might say that someone who is very fortunate deserves less because you don't like them, that is also very subjective. Since wealth makes you intrinsically less likable, it's pretty natural people would think that the wealthy deserve less. But does that have any objective significance? No.

wealth is earned, not distributed.

Or inherited if your classy

> shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them.

No, you did not take it from them. They willingly gave it to you. You are free to give it to them, but you choose not to.

> I don't believe that wealthy people should get to choose were their money goes. That's a decision for society as a whole

Please do not equate any body of government to "society as a whole."

Even in a true democracy where everyone votes, the majority will never have an adequate enough perspective to ensure funds are correctly distributed.

I don't know your friend. How can I know what he needs? How do you expect the real specific cases to be solved without direct assistance from someone (an individual, a charity) who knows how to help?

Relative and absolute deprivation have absolutely little to do with how the poor feel in the US. Further, your argument basically boils down to "people used to be in concentration camps and you're not, you don't get to be upset."

Being content and happy in life has a LOT to do with expectations and we've done a great job of promoting huge expectations for Americans ala "The American Dream!" Poor people don't care that Bill Gates and Elon Musk have near unfathomable wealth. They care that a lifetime of hard work doesn't guarantee a decent home, access to affordable healthcare, or the security to live without constant threat of basic necessities being out of reach.

Further, the poor should demand more! All we hear from the upper class/business owners is more, more, more! Get leaner, cheaper, and make more money! The poor are only following the examples set by the "titans of industry." And if they didn't constantly ask for more, they would be in even worse shape than they are now.

And finally, if you ever want to convince others of your viewpoint, comparing America to third world countries is not the way to go. You've got to put on your oxygen mask before you help those around you. Otherwise you all end up screwed.

Except global mean wage hardly means anything. There is a difference between income and wealth. The amount of income fails to differentiate between purchasing power at different locations. $20000 dollars in America means poverty whereas in South Sudan it means vast wealth. I bet that those complaining are in the lower bracket of purchasing power parity in their respective country.

That's still a "standard of living" argument. You have no fundamental right to live better than those in the South Sudan.