Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

The poor today are the middle class of 15-20 years ago and the kings of 300 years ago.

It’s not perfect but a rising tide does raise all ships.

Regarding the ultra wealthy, the disparity was actually greater in the past.

All that said, you distribute wealth by reducing taxes on the poor and increasing it on wealthy. Alternatively, shifting the growth differential such that the poor grow faster than the wealthy (hard in a capitalistic economy). That said, I don’t see the wealth disparity as a problem itself; if you have the top 1% gain more wealth but it’s easier to become the top 1% or the top 1% rotates out often it’s probably better

View on HN

> The poor today are the middle class of 15-20 years ago and the kings of 300 years ago.

I've yet to hear this claim from someone who has been truly poor at least once in their life. When you have to live paycheck to paycheck, and stress out every single month over the uncertainty, not knowing if you'll be able to pay the bills and have enough to eat, let me know if you feel like "the king of 300 years ago".

People are better off in absolute terms, yes. That is incontrovertible.

What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers. And by those measures, the 'middle class' is demonstrably worse off than 50 years ago.

> People are better off in absolute terms, yes. That is incontrovertible.

That people are better off now than 15–20 years ago (see OP) is absolutely not obvious.

> What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers.

Uh, see the Neoliberal shift that happened some decades ago. Things got worse. The rich got richer and the rest got poorer.

This isn’t some psyche thing for crying in the sink.

We're on the same side of the argument.

> What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers

Like it or not, that's how we primates work, yes.

Of course, in aggregate that distribution never changes. If you or your group gets lower status, someone else gets higher. It's a true zero sum game. And half of us will always be below average.

No this is not correct. Half of us will always be below the mean, this much is true, but we can obviously do something about the spread of the distribution.

Depends on if you think people care about their place in the social ranking, which is what I thought of, or if it is their wealth compared to the average, which is maybe your theory.

There is probably some of both, now that I think of it.

I see where you're coming from.

I think that wealth compared to the average is more important because it's so hard to place oneself in the social ranking when much of it is driven by priorities. For example where I live it wouldn't be unusual for an electrician to drive a nicer car than a doctor. On the other hand they might spend less on vacations. But as long as most people are somewhat close to the mean I think they are not so concerned about precisely where in the ranking they are. At least compared to a world where some people live like serfs while the upper middle class can afford drivers, maids and cooks.

> a rising tide does raise all ships

The thing that has always bothered me about this analogy is that a sea level rise affects all ships uniformly while the magnification of wealth doesn't. It's more like everyone standing on a plain and then the centre deforms upwards, creating a peak of wealth while most people are on the (only slightly higher) foothills.

Middle class 15-20 years ago was able to buy, or even finance building of their own houses. How many poor you know who do that?

Only thing that has really improved is access to cheap Made in China goods, and perhaps plane tickets. But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.

> But actual necessities like housing are becoming more and more unaffordable.

That has to do with supply restrictions with NIMBY and environmet regulatory capture by nimbies. Blame your local boomer neighbor not a billionaire.

por que no los dos?

should ask parent commenter that. haha.

The poor of today (2023) are the middle class of 2003-2008? That's a hard comparison with the housing crash of 2008, but I don't think the tide has risen enough for that comparison to be accurate.

Yeah I agree, I don't think that's true overall.

Maybe in some very small senses, like many of the poor today have iPhones, which are way more capable than even the middle class phones of mid 00s. But yeah middle class in the mid 00s owned a decent house. Most of those houses haven't changed much since then.

"a rising tide raises all ships." What happens to the ships when the proverbial glass runneth over?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com