Air Jordan and The 1%

online.wsj.com

7 points·jkuria··5 comments

In Romania we have an saying that goes something like this: better to be first in the country than last in the city.

I mention it only to highlight how ridiculous it is for the article in question to argue that the bottom fifth of today's society have it better than the top 1% in 1790 ever did. Imagine, those poor top-hatted bastards living on their massive estates without any electricity or Internet. Without so much as an automobile to call their own; making do with only their chauffered horse-drawn carriages to get around.

Oh, the humanity!

> .. perhaps a century from now low-income Americans will pity the living standards of today's 1%.

This is by far the stupidiest article I've read this week.

"Certainly there are reasons for concern if lower-income Americans aren't able to save or acquire sufficient capital to pursue innovative ideas, or to see their children attend decent schools. They will suffer, and the country will lose out on significant intellectual capital and growth opportunities. But this should not be confused with inequality."

These things that are commonly understood to literally define the word inequality and are direct symptoms of it, yes those actually have nothing to do with inequality. Trust me, I own a dictionary. Don't look it up.

What is this? Basic economics conflicting with a pleasant narrative? BEGONE!

And why is today crack economics day on HN? Between this and the Economist opinion piece. I wouldn't mind some news stories (including the news story behind the opinion piece), but opinions of staff writers reading tea leaves or justifying their economic principles with sports stories is not what I come to HN to read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com