Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgcj_poster | Hacker News Reader

As a software engineer who makes $150,000 per year, I'm wondering why you assume that inequality is bad? It's possible that we could improve the conditions of the poor while also increasing inequality, so that means that there's never any reason to discuss wealth redistribution as a possible solution to poverty. Also, it's human nature to want to help your offspring, so therefore it's immoral to ever even think of doing anything to reduce the advantages that rich kids get. After all, I'm for equality of opportunity, not outcome.

If you really want to help the poor, the priority should be growing the economy, which should be measured by how well my stocks are doing. This article should be flagged as a propaganda piece from the far-left publication Vice.

View on HN

This binary "inequality is bad/good" is a straw man. In the 1960s when the average CEO made 20 times the average worker, that's still inequality, but when it grows to over 300x as it is today, it doesn't seem inconsistent to me to argue that is a problem.

This all sounds rather tone deaf. What is the point, in your mind, of "equality of opportunity" if it doesn't result in any outcome? How exactly are people at the poverty level helped, this month, by the performance of the stock market?

When someone making more than triple the median salary in this country (who I'm guessing has never had to live on minimum wage) says we don't need to discuss wealth redistribution, but without offering any concrete suggestions about how to help the poor today, I find it hard to take that seriously.

Equality of opportunity means that if a homeless person and a rich kid work exactly as hard and get the same grades on the same tests and both perform the same at work they end up in the same place. That means if they both do great they could both end up well off, and if they both decide they don't need to work and skirt their responsibilities they can both end up out of a job and not in a good place, at least until they start doing better at their jobs again.

Equality of outcome means a lazy drunk who never cracked a book would get the same as an industrious person who makes great sacrifices for their career and education.

I assure you that you should take my opinion very seriously. After all, I'm smart enough to type JavaScript into a text editor, which makes me more qualified to make judgments about political/social issues than any journalist or politician.

Equality of opportunity means that no one is a serf or a slave, except people in the third world, who obviously don't count. It's important because it means no one can ever accuse me of having an unfair advantage over anyone else.

The stock market helps the poor by giving money to job creators, meaning that it might reach the poor eventually. Didn't you ever read Basic Economics?

Look to countries like Brazil, Mexico, India, Russia to see why too much inequality is bad. Like I said, there's a balance.

https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...

The poorest 20% in the U.S. have it better than the middle class in most countries, despite the inequality.

The point is that inequality causes a bunch of societal ills (crime for example), nevermind what the actual living standards are.

Inequality is not the cause of crime. Poverty is the cause of crime. Just because there is inequality, doesn't mean certain people have to be poor. Wealth is not a pie with a limited number of pieces to go around. Wealth is created.

For example, you could fish all day and you've created wealth. This doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of someone else fishing and creating wealth themselves.

Here you go: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-star...

You’re assuming the natural order of society is to preserve the wealth of the wealthy. Which may not be true at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com