Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So what's the point here? That income inequality doesn't exist because the average person in the US today is better off in most ways than the average person in the US of 100 years ago? Or that income inequality does exist, but it's okay, it doesn't really matter, because the last hundred years have given us more toys and comfort?

This is brought up often as some kind of contrarian rebuttal to the politics around modern inequality. It used to be one of Paul Graham's favorite counter-arguments. It's still as boring now as it was then.

Conjuring up a convoluted thought experiment just to try to take the wind out of people arguing about income inequality isn't insightful. It doesn't add anything to the argument. Literally the best point you're making is that as long as human progress doesn't stall completely for a hundred years, we should all be happy.

Oh, and choosing Rockefeller is hilarious, given his status as an oft-criticized robber baron in the political discourse at the time. (I wish modern political cartoons were as sharp and well-drawn.)

sounds like you are needlessly wound-up about this. it is merely a thought-experiment detailing some amusing anecdotes regarding the progress of society. your idea that this is some rebuttal to undermine the issue of inequality seems to be your strawman...if you look at it from another perspective, much of the progress addressed in the article has resulted from the democratization of economic growth

We don't have to, and shouldn't, read this article in isolation. The author is a pretty hardcore libertarian economist. If you search this blog for "inequality" you'll come up with a bunch of articles revealing that he thinks inequality is at worst irrelevant and at best a good thing:

http://cafehayek.com/?s=inequality

Example quote: "Second, in a market economy rising monetary inequality is evidence of the expansion of choice and diversity made possible by economic growth. As society becomes materially richer – that is, as consumption goods become less costly and more abundant even for poor people – individuals enjoy a greater range of options of how to spend their time and lives."

Given this context, it would be bizarre if this article was not an argument against addressing inequality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com