Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> So in other words: It no longer requires any malice to pay this way, as it's just a cultural norm in the business world.

Sure. But I don't think this is a sufficient defense — at the extremes, cultural norms can result in horrific things even though individual actors may not be motivated by malice.

> By the way, it's also a cultural norm in the US to complain about the lack of generosity among those richer than you, and yet spend almost 100% of your salary helping yourself, when you could just as easily spend it on those less fortunate.

There's definitely an incongruity between people's expectations of those above them and what they contribute themselves. We should all give more! But even if I were to donate 100% of my salary, it would barely dent things for those 500 employees.

When we complain about people above us, we're (usually) not chastising individuals but calling for systemic solutions to these issues. The overarching goal isn't for people to donate more of their resources, but to structure things in a more equitable way so that people don't rely on individual generosity in the first place.

> Sure. But I don't think this is a sufficient defense — at the extremes, cultural norms can result in horrific things even though individual actors may not be motivated by malice.

At which point you are better served by targeting the cultural norm and the harm it does, rather than shaming the individuals following it as malicious. Not only is it more accurate, but it's more effective.

> When we complain about people above us, we're (usually) not chastising individuals but calling for systemic solutions to these issues.

I wish this was the case, but 99% of the rhetoric I see is chastising individuals.

> But even if I were to donate 100% of my salary, it would barely dent things for those 500 employees.

There's a lot more people like you than billionares in the world, though.

_but the billionaire's have MOST of the money_

............ THAT'S THE PROBLEM

I'm sorry? This seems rather incoherent. Most income in the US does not in fact go to the 1%. (A greatly disproportionate amount does, of course - about 20% - as expected from an exponential distribution)

And if you're talking about wealth... Well, having all the world's billionares give up their money at once wouldn't have much of a positive impact either. (The 1% in the US - not exactly billionaires, $10,000,000 puts you there - had about 35% of US wealth in 2007)

Agreed, and people like me should donate more! But can we agree that to whatever degree the extreme upper class disproportionately controls the country's wealth, they should also disproportionately shoulder the burden of helping those beneath them?

As far as I'm aware, they already do disproportionately shoulder that burden - not just disproportionately to their proportion of the population, but also relative to their share of the country's income. What level of disproportionality is sufficient for you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com