Hacker News Reader

Comment by walrus01 | Hacker News Reader

"The authors write that "the incomes of the top 1% collectively made up 11% of national income in 1980, but now constitute above 20% of national income, while the 20% of US national income that was attributable to the bottom 50% in 1980 has fallen to just 12% today.

Further, "while average pre-tax income for the bottom 50% has stagnated at around $16,000 since 1980, the top 1% has experienced 300% growth in their incomes to approximately $1,340,000 in 2014. This has increased the average earnings differential between the top 1% and the bottom 50% from 27 times in 1980 to 81 times today."

https://www.businessinsider.com/income-inequality-us-economy...

The Financial Times recently published this, which may also be of interest: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/01/04/2197227/eight-charts-...

View on HN

These numbers are all I need to know to realize that something is going wrong with our economy. It's fine that some people make more than others but it's bad that the balance shifts more and more to the top.

You're saying you care nothing for the absolutes and only consider relative wealth.

Granted, it's not the case in reality, but all the numbers in the the post you're responding to are compatible with a world where the wealth of the poorest members of society has doubled (or even increased tenfold) over the same time period.

So we have an economy that produces a lot of wealth but if most of it goes to the top it's not really helpful for the rest. In my opinion it's much healthier for an economy if gains are more widely distributed so relative wealth is very important in the long run. Otherwise we are building up a new aristocracy.

globalization only benefits the rich. They can arbitrage labor and then keep the difference in profit. The supposed lowering of cost to make up for job loss and wage reduction didn't happen

Superstar effects are a much bigger deal.

Before you were the best artist / programmer / chef in your small town. Today you or your company sells to the world. #1 / #2 takes most/all, everyone else loses.

Sorry but that's just the nature of the world today.

> Sorry but that's just the nature of the world today.

It doesn't have to be. The historic balance of power is that the rich need rule of law to stay rich. And rule of law requires participation of the majority. So the rich have to appease the mob in order to keep their riches (and their heads). I don't think we're anywhere near the tipping point of this equation in the U.S. But it's always there as an option of last resort for the disenfranchised.

The lowering of costs did happen, but it didn't tickle down, because tickle down economics is an asinine model and the rich would rather have those profits for themselves.

Greed is a weird thing, if you listen to 1% bankers you can hear after a point it's not actually about making more money for the money's sake, it's making more money than your peers.

Toxic hypercompetetive culture.

Don't forget mass immigration.

> globalization only benefits the rich.

What about jobs people get in developing countries and get them out of poverty?

However the top 20% pay over 80% of the taxes.

“You might be so broke you need to work two jobs and still can’t afford healthcare, education, or rent. But look on the bright side: you pay less taxes than the guys who have all the money!”

How are you working 2 jobs but cant afford rent...? Even at minimum wage you should easily be able to cover it. Unless your trying to support a whole family on that wage, in which case its a whole different discussion about the irresponsibility of starting a family before being ready.

If the top 20% pay 80% of taxes and still walk with a net of 100k and the bottom 50% pay no taxes and walk with a net of 30k, I would much rather be in the top 20%.

They could lower their tax rate by taking a smaller share of the profits.

So? That will always be true for any income tax, except for one so regressive it amounts to a poll tax. It's close to being true for most other kinds of taxes as well. There's always going to be some number for which you could make such a statement. Since inequality of tax is directly related to inequality of income, all you're really proving is that income is much more concentrated than ability is, i.e. that we do not live in a meritocracy, that the rich get richer primarily due to the mechanics of the system instead of by exhibiting merit. However progressive our tax system is, it's clearly far outweighed by the regressive mechanics built in to the rest of the system.

It's not surprising to learn that the top sliver of society pays most of the taxes, given that they earn close to half of all income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com