The truth is economic growth hasn’t been occurring in real terms for most people for a long time and the rich have been transferring money from the poor to themselves at a dramatic rate.
I’m starting to think the entire system is corrupt and we are headed for a destroyed Europe and a civil war in the US. Maybe I’m very pessimistic but this moment in history feels like the end of the American empire, what comes after this is extremely uncertain but people only seem to demand a fair piece of the wealth after a world war.
Basically he compares two kinds of growth rates : the growth rate of the 'real' economy and the growth rate of wealth itself. You need the wealth rate to be low enough that rich people want to invest some of it in the real world, not leave it in the bank.
If you do tax the rich, they do very well and you also have money to pay for things like education, roads, affordable housing, medical services, scientific research .. which benefit all and lubricate the general economic market.
If you dont tax the rich, you end up with a gilded age of emperors and kings or a few robber barrons, a small rich coterie around them and the gawping masses of poor eeking it out.
Postwar 70s and 80s were a unusual period of relative lower-inequality, in which we had money in the real economy to develop things.
Garys Economics made an interesting point that inequality _itself_ is a problem - because the actual real value of the world remaining the same [ goods, energy available, land, workers, housing, technology ], when there is higher inequality, then the poor are losing a proportion of that real wealth to the rich. Extreme inequality itself starves almost all the population of a share of real wealth, for them to use their skills effectively - renovate a house, invest in stocks, get a masters degree, do a garage project, travel, have kids, install solar panels etc.
> Basically he compares two kinds of growth rates : the growth rate of the 'real' economy and the growth rate of wealth itself. You need the wealth rate to be low enough that rich people want to invest some of it in the real world, not leave it in the bank.
Is this true? I'm not saying it's a huge portion of all saving, but holding wealth in things like precious metals or greater fool investments like Bitcoin doesn't seem like "investing" in anything productive.
It's hard making your capital inaccessible to the economy, but it's easy to not get the benefits of that working capital.
For instance, any time you park your money in a regular bank account or lend it at a suboptimal rate, you don't get some of the benefits.
Further to the parent comment, if you park your money in gold or crypto, you’ve given that money to someone else, and so on and so forth.
But there’s a balance to be bad, if no one actually spends anything other than acquiring investments, they starve, and the economy suffers.
Banks can and do then lend out deposited money to other customers, who can then spend it in the economy as they see fit.
1. Deposits often fund loans. If deposits were never used to fund loans as you describe, most banks would have at least as many cash or HQLAs as they do deposit liabilities. Check any deposit-taking bank's balance sheet to see that this is not the case.
2. If banks do buy government bonds with deposits, that still does not negate the funds being invested. The government now has the money and will spend it. Again, you can quickly check the governments do not hold piles of cash and the vast majority of the money that they borrow is spent on their activities.
3. It is axiomatically untrue that 'savings are removed from the economy'. Savings means that someone consumes less than they produce. That production must either be consumed by someone else, or add to the stock of capital. It cannot disappear.
Essentially banks are only required to have a fraction of their deposit liabilities as liquid assets and can loan out the rest. If I remember correctly, this is actually how a substantial amount of money is created in the US and likely most of the world. If you deposit $100, a bank could make a $1000 loan assuming the reserve rate is 10%, which leads to an increase in the money supply of $900.
Money supply is definitely not the same as the size of the economy, but it is incorrect to say that bank deposits are just sitting stagnant. Banks are quite active with those deposits - how else would bankers make all that money!
It is not true that most countries do not have reserve requirements.
There's not much point me discussing this further with your since you're so wrong. Take care and good luck with your enquiries.
I do think that your original argument that bank deposits don’t contribute to economic growth is wrong though. As you point out, they are a cheap form of liquidity for lenders. I think you’d agree that loans play a key role in economic growth.
These deposits can move between banks along with an associated asset.
Balance sheets always balance. Most of the balancing asset against a deposit is a loan. This is how banks make money and arguably their purpose. You can see the balance sheet of HSBC here (page 12): https://www.hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/investors/hsbc-results/202...
It's clear that the majority of their assets are loans as expected. Then a fair chunk of reserves which reflects transfers from other banks (which hold a corresponding loan asset) or payments from the government. Finally there's a smallish quantity of financial investments that includes government bonds.
Bonds are just a floating price asset swap for reserves so the reserves must exist (have been spent) before the bond sale can happen. That is, governments don't borrow money until after the spend. In the case of the UK, this is shown in the following paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683
You seem to be of the understanding that there's a one to one correspondence between stuff and money, which a moments consideration of the endogenous nature of money (as described into BoE paper) would highlight as flawed. If you're suggesting something else by your point that savings imply a drop in consumption, please do clarify.
It feels like your understanding comes from an economics course, which generally bears no relation to actual monetary operations and understanding, rather reflecting the particular philosophical bent of the economic school.
What does this mean? "Bonds are just a floating price asset swap for reserves so the reserves must exist (have been spent) before the bond sale can happen."
Are you able to explain what your understanding of liquidity is?
Do you know what it means for loans to be funded by deposits?
Do you know the origin of the equation between investments and savings and how it is justified?
You are giving the exact impression of someone who used to believe a flawed theory of money creation, watched the Netflix documentary about bank money and has lost it a little bit.
When a customer (customer A) deposits $10 of cash at a bank, the bank has a new $10 asset (the cash), and a new $10 liability (the deposit it owes to the customer).
If another customer (customer B) then comes in and asks for some cash in the form of a loan, the bank can loan that customer the $10 cash, at which point the bank goes from having a $10 asset in the form of cash, to a $10 asset in the form of an outstanding loan.
This new asset is less liquid than the cash, but the bank's balance sheet still balances.
> which always happens through new money creation
You are correct here - bank lending is the process through which the vast majority of money is created. Before the loan, customer A thinks they have $10. After the loan, customer A and customer B both think they have $10. In this sense, $10 of new money is created.
Interest rates moderate the rate at which banks lend and the rate at which money is created, and the Central Bank acts as one of the most important price-setters in the economy.
> They do buy short duration government bonds with it because they're not stupid and can get a better return than on reserves, and bonds are acceptably liquid. Nothing they do can be construed as investment. Savings really are savings and are effectively removed from the economy.
Even if you believe that banks only buy short duration government bonds (which is provably not the case[1]), this is still a form of lending, as it effectively finances government borrowing, and the Government can spend their borrowed money as they see fit (such as for building infrastructure).
[1] See JP Morgan's consolidated balance sheet as an example, page 206 - https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chas...
It goes further than that, it is the exact argument made by wealthy people as to why we shouldn't tax them more aggressively. Parroting that argument is ludicrous unless you're considerably wealthy yourself.
Even people who want to tax the rich are skeptical about empowering / funding the IRS because there are many studies showing that the IRS disproportionately audits the poor.
If that’s true, then why would more funding help new enforcement against the rich rather than multiplying the current problem? Generally cash/support fixes material resource issues but cannot fix policy issues
We have gotten used to Congress being dysfunctional and not passing laws that we think the current laws are some unchangeable state.
I don't think further funding the agency is a completely nutty idea. Although if you truly believe the agency is broken, and that being broken isn't related to their funding, then I could understand your perspective. I lean more towards the idea that at least some, maybe even most, of the issues they have might be due to a lack of funding. That makes more sense to me than most of the criticisms I've heard of the IRS, which seem to mostly be on partisan idealism framed as otherwise.
Just look back to the promises made before the election, how many were never fulfilled?
The left or right are the same side of the coins that the rich will support no matter what.
They shun people like Bernie Sanders, Picketty, etc.
In USA, social programs = socialists = commie.
That's how bad the brainwashing is.
1. Gary’s arguments for taxing the rich aren’t about taxing income. It’s about taxing wealth.
2. By his argument, most of the wealth are immovable: the rich disproportionately owns actual, physical real estates, and stocks of actual companies. As these assets are based in the country, you could tax right at the source.
The problem is that such a tax must be strongly progressive, or it may affect the poor much more than the rich.
For instance, I have seen cases in some countries, where after the discussions about the usefulness of such taxes for wealth, the result was the establishing of some high taxes on property, whose only effects were that e.g. someone who were jobless for some time might be forced to sell their house, and for a disadvantageous price, for not having with what to pay the property tax, thus becoming both jobless and homeless, or someone poor who inherited a house might be forced to sell it for a disadvantageous price, for not being able to pay the inheritance tax.
The result of this kind of misguided tax was an even greater transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
It is next to impossible to hide the fact that someone owns something like real estate
In addition to real estate I might consider other property such as bank accounts, at least above a certain threshold. Presumably that cash has to be invested somewhere (or should be encouraged to do so)
If we could get a real wealth tax, I would do away with income taxes like some states have done (i.e. Texas)
Real estate can already be taxed via property taxes. Unrealized gains in securities can't be taxed the same way as their value is much more volatile, with potentially large daily swings. Texas makes up for the lack of income taxes with relatively high property taxes.
>In addition to real estate I might consider other property such as bank accounts, at least above a certain threshold.
Interest from savings accounts is already taxed. The wealthy don't hoard their wealth in bank accounts though.
It seems fair that you shouldn't be able to have it both ways—if you are getting any financial benefit from an asset, including a loan, there's a pretty strong argument that you yourself are "realizing" that value.
I think it would be more realistic to heavily tax inheritance and re-evaluate trust based loopholes.
I mean, you’re clearly moving the goalposts here. We’re talking about tax on unrealized gains for the wealthy, not sales tax, property tax, or taxes on the bank.
If you’re able to keep taking out new loans to pay off the old loans until you die, with an appreciating “unrealized” asset as collateral, then yes all that money is effectively tax free if we’re talking about income tax and capital gains.
There is no such federal tax in the USA.
And it is just ludicrous to suggest that stock holdings cannot be subject to a wealth tax. The value of stock holdings are established all the time when the wealthy provide their net worth for their business dealings.
The IRS requires me to submit the value of my IRA holdings as of the end of the year to determine how much will be taxed the next year (by forcing me to withdraw a dollar amount - determined by the asset value of my holdings - which vary minute by minute when the markets are open). So, I guess it's ok for the IRS to measure my wealth each year to enable the IRS to collect a tax on that wealth - but some how you say that's impossible to do for billionaires?
If an equity is valued at $X on some date when we lock in the value for a wealth tax or a tax on unrealized gains then sell enough of your equities on that date to pay for the tax and store that in a zero-risk asset. This can easily be done automatically.
Why though? We’ve already established the end game if we don’t do this. It’s hard to imagine society willingly regressing back to feudalism. What we likely need is a sensible plan which gradually adopts wealth tax rather than a radical step change.
I'm scared of 2% wealth taxes (as discussed in New Zealand) because I believe that will take 100% of retirement savings over time. And I'm no multimillionaire. Say portfolio returns 6% and drawdown(spending) is 4% then 2% takes 100% of gains.
The 1% or 2% figures sound trivial to the voting majority but they really are not trivial. Cue discussion on compounding.
The other issue is Forcing sale of private owned businesses. If you fuck with the incentives to grow a businesses, you will end up with a shitty economy and everybody suffers.
Apart from the obvious 2% * decades = lots (for low growth investments).
I could work to create new high-margin export income for New Zealand: I have the skills. But I don't work because I hate our taxation system: NZ loses.
An economy needs to incentivise everyone to work including the wealthy: otherwise it bombs. It scares me to see people in the US want to introduce features to cripple their most successful economy. I think most workers poorly understand businesses or economic incentives.
Most people just don't know about it. Due to the FIF rules. Any international investments you have get taxed like this (it's not so clear cut, but more or less). The only exceptions are NZ investments and Aussie investments, maybe. There is a tool to check if an aussie share is except from the FIF rules. e.g. Aussie ETFs aren't, even if they invest in only aussie stocks...
So everyone with a Kiwisaver (retirement scheme), aka most people, have large portion invested overseas, and thus are paying the 1.4% p.a.
It also discourages high net worth people from moving to NZ, as they usually have investments outside of NZ, which will get taxed once they move here (after a few years exception).
The small "win" we do get is you can (cost bases) invest up to $50k overseas without the 1.4% FIF rules applying, (though dividends are still taxed). But like no one knows about it, and managed funds can't take advantage of this, so most people don't utilize this, especially not low income people, who generally aren't that well educated on finances.
Don't get me started on our lackluster retirement scheme, Kiwisaver, with near 0 tax incentives, and propping up the housing market prices.
If you don't have anything then you can avoid certain costs, or sometimes you can get subsidised.
The wealthy also get some financial boosts e.g. house appreciation. And white collar crime has cheap convictions (or you can avoid consequences)
I've never had kiwisaver because I believe in the value of optionality with my own money. I severely hate locked up money. Being able to deploy money has gained me a small house worth of money. The FIF rules are a cunt to manage and Sharsies are SHIT - they've promised to deliver an FIF report but haven't done so.
While our NZ Super isn't asset tested, our residential care subsidy (elderly care) is asset tested, and is very expensive. When you get old and don't die suddenly, then it's likely your assets you've accumulated over the years will be used to pay for your care (though there are some way around it, but not usually cost effective unless you have a large amount of assets).
But, the elder care the govt gives you (if you can't afford it aka no assets), isn't very pleasant, so you really should plan for it while you're working age, and have investments large enough to cover the costs (which most in NZ don't do).
I don't think we have insurance here that covers elder care.
I believe the guys across the ditch (Australia), have a better retirement system setup. While in NZ our Kiwisaver by default contributions are 6% (total. 3% employer, 3% employee), been this since it started just about, while in Aussie, the current min default total is 11%. Though Aussie's govt supported retirement payments are asset tested, where as they aren't in NZ.
I think having a higher min default is probably best for everyone, as most people don't change from the default.
Also, the US has 401(k) savings plans. It is pretty similar to Kiwisave.
Says who? According to whom? Who gets to make that call?
My neighbor is way wealthier than me. So its ok if I take his car. He has enough he can just buy another one.
Not quite. If you are ultra wealthy because you happen to own several large buildings, fleeing the country to avoid taxes is easy. Doing so with you wealth, however, isn’t.
It’s got to be worth a try rather than the disastrous economic policies that got us here.
In the same vein, if the US were to implement a wealth tax, the simplest way in terms of enforcement and not creating perverse incentives to shelter wealth outside the country would be to make it international in scope. Yes, people could give up their citizenship, but that's a huge sacrifice which most wealthy people would not want to make at any price, and there's already an exit tax in place for people that do this.
You make it sound as though he put a lot of his own money (somehow obtained from elsewhere) into these companies.
But that's not true at all. It is correct English to say that he is "heavily invested" in these companies in the sense that his wealth is paper wealth based on the perceived value (stock price) of these companies.
But he is not invested in them the way that a typical person has their retirement funds invested in a company or mutual fund.
And land is something of finite quantity that is actually taken away from the rest of society. Capital is produced, and made, and is not finite like land.
This is one thing that California got really wrong, it should be taxing land heavily, and income less.
Wouldn't that inflate housing prices even more? Which disproportionally affect those in the bottom 90% or so.
I still think property taxes on stocks should be a thing. Americans pay income taxes from foreign sources, so why shouldn’t the rich also pay the same for overseas investments? Just close the loopholes with simpler tax laws. That could be like saying it isn’t hard to program some feature into software, though, so perhaps not.
Example: “Thou shalt pay 0% of all income and assets up to 20k, 10% to 50k, …, and 95% on up to 20mm.”
> why shouldn’t the rich also pay the same for overseas investments?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_erosion_and_profit_shif...
The problem is that people will always probe the tax code for loopholes that weren't considered. It's a cat and mouse game, except the cat is fat and lazy, and gets paid by the mouse.
Sure, a billionaire could then use their $143M estate as collateral on a loan to avoid realizing the capital gains, loophole, but since you can only have one primary home, it's a very limited loophole.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think a more reasonable interpretation might be "the government knows about expensive cars (i.e. that they are registered, have numberplates etc), and so charges some annual tax on the owners of those cars."
The government that is supposed to work for you thinks you have accumulated too much stuff and is trying to make it legal to take a percentage of your physical wealth annually.
This is simplistic nonsense. No, the majority of wealthy people didn't accumulate their wealth because high and mighty lord government willed it into their existence. They did it within a system of laws and regulations that government admittedly does create for fostering such wealth creation. However, this still often requires strenuous effort by these people for their own ends. If it were otherwise, many more people would be rich just by virtue of living under a government. There is a real place for giving people credit for the wealth and capital accumulate, well beyond what government offers.
It's contradictory and absurd to argue that people accumulate wealth because of the government while at the same time arguing that we live in a situation in which we need more government control of people's earnings to prevent oligarchy since government doesn't do enough.
You are confusing two things thinking they aren’t highly related but they are. This statement could otherwise be written “government created a flawed system and motivated individuals achieved wealth by taking advantage of that system”. That implies a flawed system was causal. We don’t need bigger government, we need the right government. No one wants to say that those who worked hard - even by benefitting from a flawed government - should not have high wealth, but by your same argument, what did the wealthy children of these individuals do to justify their wealth? Their children? How long do we believe this chain of inheritance is sensible?
strenuous effort by their employees or are you telling me that the average billionaire works 50000 hours a day?
This is most apparent in sports or the arts. Being just a little bit better at baseball can be the difference between a million dollar contract and being stuck in the minor leagues.
Of course the question of whether we should want success to follow a power law is a different matter. As is the role of luck. Going back to the sports example, being born at the right time of year can be a huge, permanent advantage[1].
[1] https://medium.com/@connorbaldwin28/why-athletes-tend-to-be-...
Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force.
If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation.
Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy.
So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.
This is akin to saying you only achieved a high score in a video game by your own sweat and effort, and saying the video game developer had nothing to do with it. Without their work, you wouldn't have a system within which to accrue wealth. You may not even have the concept of wealth or property. Bezos wouldn't have his wealth regardless of himself creating amazon if there didn't already exist power grids to electrify his warehouses and data centers, roads upon which his delivery vans could travel, a financial sector to see him be paid for his goods, on and on and on.
The mythmaking of the self-made-wealthy has gone completely off the fucking deep end at this point with a portion of the population, as if these CEOs fell from the sky, cratered in the Earth, raised their arms and from them spawned hyperscaler businesses and cavemen left their campfires, picked up Macbooks and started writing React code.
> It's contradictory and absurd to argue that people accumulate wealth because of the government while at the same time arguing that we live in a situation in which we need more government control of people's earnings to prevent oligarchy since government doesn't do enough.
This is not contradictory at all unless you boil the points down utterly beyond recognition.
We just wanted to be the ones setting the rules.
We were quite quick to put our own stamp on the populace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
If the design speed of a road does not match the speed limit of the road, people will drive the design speed, cops will learn to sit there all hours of the day waiting for people to mess up, and get ticketed. Instead of just putting up the speed limit sign, city planners should design for the road to be safe without need for the speed limits to be in place. This can mean things like reducing the width of a lane, could mean speed bumps, to purposeful non-straight sections.
I live on major street where the speed limit is 25 to slow people down. It used to be 35, and people normally go 35-45. The problem is that people go much faster when there is no traffic because the street feels wider. I would love if they redesigned for a slower speed. But there are cars in the middle of the night that drive over 60. It doesn't matter if street is calmed, they will go super fast and only tickets with slow them down.
Those people don't care about speed limits, in part because they are generally set significantly too low. This has the effect of normalizing the scofflaws' attitude even when carried to a genuinely reckless extreme.
Conversely, if you raise the speed limit to the 85th percentile, anyone exceeding it significantly will stand out enough to catch easily.
Speeding is a victimless crime anyway. If you hit something or someone, you were doing something wrong besides speeding.
This, of course, applies just as much to the actual topic of the Economist article; new inheritance taxes are just and good, but they should be written to be enforceable, and then they should actually be enforced.
> that we can
Highways are designed to be unsafe by design, so without a redesign they require speed limits.
And the reason is those same rich influence the laws to their benefit.
It would be pretty trivial to tax the wealth if a society wanted to do so. But laws are made by lobbyists, who are paid by the rich, so what should we expect.
If the individual resides in Australia, how do they utilize the $980k sitting in the foreign company?
The company can buy assets in AU, such as a house, and lease it to the individual, but I'm pretty sure the ATO requires they pay the company rent at market rate, which will likely be unaffordable on a reported income of 20K pa.
See Page #3. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12...
If you've really managed to generate trillions in profit without using any, including indirectly (mining, showrooms, etc), fair enough. If your economic model is quite literally rent seeking, you can fuck off and give all those proceeds to whatever government ensures that land is not overrun by whatever raiders are historically a problem in your area. If you work for a living, you should be able to spend your earnings on a fancy apartment if you wish, and if a landlord wishes to make one instead of just sitting on land, they keep the profits from that too.
Of course since a consumption tax hurts the poor disproportionately, the gov't would send a refund check to them, in large enough amounts to make up for it, where the poor are basically paying zero tax.
It also fairly discourages illegal immigration because illegals wouldn't get that kickback check from the Gov't, since they're 'visitors' not 'citizens'.
Insofar as simply "choosing to spend elsewhere (outside USA)", somehow sales-tax is something people find difficult to avoid already right? We're just talking about increasing existing sales tax amount, and then eliminating all Federal tax.
There is a false assumption here, that easy to understand makes it more palatable. A flat capitation would be even easier to understand, and even less palatable, because the ease of understanding is directly connected, in its case, to the ease of opponents organizing against it. A flat consumption tax faces a similar problem, which is why the efforts to push one to replace the income and payroll taxes for decades now under the label "Fair Tax" have been unsuccessful -- easy to understand isn't a political benefit when people who understand it often don't like what they understand.
But we know one thing as a fact: MOST OF IT was WRITTEN by Washington DC lobbyists specifically to embed in it all the loopholes that make it so that the elite in this country will pay hardly any taxes at all. Basically the fox guarding the hen house.
The obvious solution is to throw it ALL out and go with something simple that everyone understands. The reason this doesn't ever happen is because those same K-Street lobbyists make very large financial "contributions" to the same politicians in DC whose votes are required for a change.
In Washington state, they passed a capital gains tax primarilly to tax Jeff Bezos. Bezos simply left the state just before the tax took effect. So did a lot of other wealthy residents.
Capital controls are very seductive, even though they’re very authoritarian.
Come on. You have fallen for cartoon-villain level smack talk. Chew it up, spit it out. We've done this before and we can do it again.
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-ma...
The effective tax rate on the top 1% has been quite stable in the post war era.
For the richest tax is optional to the point where that get loans against their shares rather than pay capital gains tax. It’s an absolute disgrace and it’s got to a point where governments need to taxing them properly.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/tax-reve...
Here's the income percentage held by the top 1% 1950-2010
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig...
While its true that its higher now than it was the 1950s-1980s, its an increase of about 15%.
It if was the case that the very high marginal rates were actually being paid, you would expect the percentage of income held by the top 1% to be much higher.
Here's another source with more direct comparison - how much their income they actually paid in tax
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich...
Giving money to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
The very to extremely wealthy run nations, why would giving them control of more money, someone else’s money, be a reasonable idea.
I suppose the argument is tax the rich more, and the poor less.
Nah, there’s got to be a better way, like maybe tax everyone less.
Honestly, I have no idea why would anyone need that. Money is not value. Money is just a way of keeping track who is owed by future society how much value. It's a way of keeping tabs who gets to consume in the future.
When rich people hoard their money it's not a problem, you can just print more money to replace what they sucked up and hoarded. It's exactly when they try to spend it where the problems start to show up. Because they are doing it stupidly causing at least some inflationary pressures but more often than not societal and environmental harm.
Countries should make every effort to make spending their money as hard as possible for the rich people. Disincentivize them with high (and highly progressive) luxury, investment and real estate taxes. If that causes them to hide their money to avoid tax, even better. Every dollar of rich money hidden is a dollar of value not wasted by society on servicing the rich and their whims and gambling.
Is it though? How much did Nvidia invest more, after their stock hikes? How about Tesla, Microsoft, Apple? No. They cut their staff or maybe stayed at their current investment levels.
So the question you should be asking is: How much did Nvidia invest before their stock hikes? And which companies will the original investors fund next after selling their shares at a profit?
Economists disagree with Piketty about the causes of this inequality: that is true.
Economists agree with Piketty however about the extent of inequality, by and large. That is, no one is arguing "inequality isn't real" or even "inequality is decreasing."
So there is disagreement about what's causing the inequality, yes. But on what (to me) is the bigger question - is inequality real and increasing? - there is a consensus that it is.
It's all there in the historical record, and as a trend, it's huge.
"It is the mechanic and teaching assistant in the middle who have the best claim to having missed the party: median real income rose by 57% from 1990 to 2019. But that is still a healthy 1.6% per year—a far cry from the stagnation in median earnings that is sometimes alleged".
For the record, I think inheritance tax should be way higher, and allowing the value of money to outstrip the value of labor is a travesty, but it's important to keep in mind that people across the income spectrum are getting richer in real terms. It's better to be poor in America than median income in most countries.
The extreme example is NYC where 1 in 3 spend more than 50% of their income on rent, and rent has appreciated there much faster than nationwide. So those people experiencing far higher inflation than the national average.
It's also pretty easy to overestimate how easy previous generations had it. It's called survivorship bias. This recent bout of inflation is bad, but it doesn't hold a candle to what happened in the 70s / 80s, which is still regarded as the good ole days by some
The 57% growth is after inflation:
>>...median real income rose by 57% from 1990 to 2019.
('real' income means after inflation, 'nominal' income means before inflation.)
Again: These number are already adjusted for inflation.
I am NOT an economist, and wonder what you mean here? It feels contradictory to me, given a system that makes labor fungible with money.
I've armchair puzzled over this aspect of capitalism and human nature. It seems to me that we, as individuals in this system, most fundamentally want to be able to use capital to time-shift the fruits of our labor, i.e. for rainy days, retirement, and unforeseen events. We need to be able to convert labor to capital, hold it, then convert it back to gain benefits of someone else's labor later.
But it seems inherent that this ability to make labor and capital fungible will enable some to amass and wield much more capital than others. In a population with differing wages, lifestyles, life events, and appetites for risk, it seems inevitable that the integral of these net savings effects will be divergent.
If you introduce a "reset" or leveling function, it seems like it will contradict this stored labor feature. It pushes us back on the continuum towards living hand-to-mouth, since our stored efforts are diminished in the future. And, I think human nature is such that we will "optimize" to stop trying to store effort that we can't expect to get back...
Is this an inherent feature of economics (or of society)? Do we need a fiction of security and potential future wealth to motivate our contributions, yet eventually need discontinuity to terminate the outcomes of this fiction?
That part seems fine to me. The thing that feels intuitively "wrong" is that it's possible to amass money/capital way out of proportion to the amount of labor input.
The example of the "four hour work week" concept comes to mind, where the goal is explicitly to minimize the ratio of input labor to output capital. Why should 4 hours of my work now entitle me to, say, 40 (or 400, or 4000...) hours of someone else's work later?
I am also not an economist, so perhaps someone else can explain what other mechanism is working alongside your "labor is fungible with capital" that leads to this result, and whether it's a feature or a buy of the economic machine...
And eventually, once you have enough capital, your new job becomes managing your capital instead of whatever you did before. There's two ways to look at that. Your labor is research and planning of your own investments. Alternatively, you are "selling" capital to others who are seeking investments, and they are "buying" it with labor. But the same story as above holds true. The price of capital (in terms of labor) becomes what the market will bear rather than a minimized "cost plus" pricing.
This duality is what it means for labor and capital to be fungible, right?
Let's say you can get a risk-free 5% return on capital and the average wage for labor is $80k. If you have $1.6M, then you can generate $80k in income every year without lifting a finger and without diminishing your principle. The richer you are, the more "free income" you get. Very rich people never have to work and they still get richer faster than the average laborer working full time. That's bad for society.
This is not an inherent feature of capitalism. A progressive capital gains tax regime can correct this. There has to be some return on capital, because otherwise it would be impossible find investors and secure loans when you need it, but that return should not be enough to mean the rich don't have to work at all and still get richer. The travesty is that effective capital gains taxes are often lower than income taxes in America, making this problem especially pronounced.
Your "reset" concept sounds like a wealth tax, not a capital gains tax. Alas, I'm not an economist either, but I believe wealth taxes are much more controversial than capital gains taxes among economists.
Yes, but once income inceeases beyond starvation levels, relative deprivation predicts misery more than absolute deprivation, so in a relatively developed country, that's still a bad thing.
Perhaps. So what? Their wealth/incomes were increasing much slower than worker productivity. Technological progress compensates for the massively increasing inequality to some extent.
Also other figures show that median and bottom 10th percentile incomes were almost completely stagnant between 1967 and 2014.
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2015/demo/real...
Of course real median income increased massively (compared to previous decades) in the last 10 years but it's not clear yet how sustainable is that
IANAE, but this sounds about as implausible as claiming that developers aren’t interested in building sustainable codebases
Worst code quality: AI devs
Best code quality: Game devs
LOL I just read something yesterday (possibly a tweet by Carmack?) that game devs optimize for public perception of their game and that is it. Certainly not long term maintainability unfortunately!
Carefully omitting the fact that the economic notion of value is wealth-weighted (and you can march enough elephants through this loophole to wage a class war), drawing attention away from "rich people getting paid for being rich" dynamics by dividing out wealth wherever possible, inviting you to use averages where "rich get richer" hides "poor get poorer" -- it's a masterclass in propaganda. I have literally never in my life seen a more artful tapestry of deception than Econ 101.
In any case, this is also matter of historical record: the purge of left-wing thought from economics and politics at the end of the New Deal Era was loud and vicious. It didn't stop at ensuring capitalist principles got top billing, it scorched the earth until even the most earnest self-examination of capitalism's largest weakness was cause for cancellation. You bury it, or you wear the scarlet letter. Most chose to bury it, and here we are.
If anything, I think economists have grossly underestimated how large increasing levels of inequality have had such a corrosive effect on our social cohesion and political systems, and that obviously does have a huge impact on eventual economic outcomes. This societal/political breakdown is not something that economists usually model well.
I certainly think, that regardless of the underlying hard numbers, there's a very strong perception that life is getting harder for the average person, and that most of that is due to their money going towards things that they resent. Exactly how and what will vary from person to person and depend on their information diet and political leanings, but there's a big undercurrent of discontent with the status quo and a strong belief it's due to a relative few benefiting from it, and this especially jives poorly with any assertion that "actually, the numbers show most people are just fine!"
I would, if I had the time, like to dive deeper into this sentiment: there's a decent amount of evidence that people are better off, on average (and median, so not prone to distortion by the hyper wealthy), than ever before, and yet this isn't how the average person perceives it. What I don't know is whether this is because said evidence is wrong or misleading, because inequality matters more psychologically than the absolute wealth, whether expectations have simply grown above the growth in wealth, or whether it's because there's been a flattening of the curve where historically disadvantaged groups have gotten better off but advantaged groups have become worse off.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivlU8hJVwc
Also, what those polled disagree with is this particular statement:
> The most powerful force pushing towards greater wealth inequality in the US since the 1970s is the gap between the after-tax return on capital and the economic growth rate.
This doesn't mean they disagree that r>g is a contributing factor to a greater portion of wealth being transferred to those with investment capital (which ultimately can have dire consequences for society). It's not difficult to demonstrate that those with a higher rate of return than the pace at which new wealth is being created (one definition of economic growth) will be capturing a greater share of that new wealth.
Well Piketty being wrong doesn't fit in many people's models either. Economists routinely do talk about inequality and I think it's intellectually dishonest to paint the whole field as wrong just because some parts of it don't agree with your pet theory.
To agree with the opposite views mean to disprove their thesis and career.
Repeat this cycle enough times and you will wind up with rich people and poor people, even if you started with a perfectly level playing field. It's an inescapable outcome. Some people will always do better than others, even starting from nothing, and as that advantage accretes through generations it will mean you wind up with the haves and have-nots. The only way to prevent it is to enforce limits on what people can do with the fruits of their labor - and that is something most are not willing to do. People believe in property rights and aren't generally willing to violate them. So, you will inevitably have rich people in society.
tl;dr: socialism over capitalism.
> We generally believe that someone is entitled to keep what they have earned and do what they wish with it (property rights).
This isn’t the law of the land because “we believe it” but because the burgeoisie made it so. But that’s a side note.
> So, let's say you burn down society and start over with everyone working at subsistence level.
Hypothetical/alternative history is not interesting. You can look at the enclosure of the commons in England. The commons that the subsistence farmers used was outright stolen.
Yes, and then there’s the subsistence level. Serfs and landless famers have been exploited for millenia not because their peers had worked harder and in turn had more grain stored... but because they were landless and/or oppressed by the weaponized lordship.
By the way, do you honestly think that someone will be enlightened by explaining how inheritance works? Maybe you’re just of an exceptionally patient explainer.
> Repeat this cycle enough times and you will wind up with rich people and poor people, even if you started with a perfectly level playing field. It's an inescapable outcome. Some people will always do better than others, even starting from nothing, and as that advantage accretes through generations it will mean you wind up with the haves and have-nots.
What this narrative seems to imply is the most direct and obvious inequality, namely some people having bigger houses, more swimming pools, and more cars than others.
This is totally uninteresting. Does someone want to work 30% harder than the median over five years so that they get to install a swimming pool? Whatever, I don’t care.[1]
There’s something about money though. You can use it for more stuff than buying cooler cars. You can use it as capital, i.e. to invest in means of production. Then you can buy all of the means of production. Or you can employ imperialism via the state (that you effectively own because you have money) in order to seize the means of production (or access to raw goods) in some second/third world country that wanted to naively own their own stuff. (Property rights?) Lots of things you can do with money.
Then eventually all the small proprietors (small business owners that we like to put on a pedestal for propaganda purposes) have been outcompeted. The farmers have been driven off the former common land (see enclosure of the commons).
All you can do to survive is to sell your labor as a commodity. So about fruits of their labor:
> The only way to prevent it is to enforce limits on what people can do with the fruits of their labor - and that is something most are not willing to do.
A small business owner that works alongside their employees is producing part of the “fruits of their labor”. A capitalist that employs a thousand workers including the managers is not part of producing the “fruits of their labor”. See how farcical that is? The fruits of their labor has got nothing to do with labor. Only about sitting on capital.
Meanwhile the laborer does not get the fruits of their labor. In fact it has got nothing to do with how many fruits he bears. Only about what the market is willing to pay for the labor commodity. As well as collective bargaining if that is even in the picture. (Guess who is actively working against that.)
Yeah I’m all about people getting to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In actuality.
The reformist approach of things like taxation does take away people’s swimming pool expansion funds. It does. Which is an inherent side effect to how completely fungible money is; it can buy a swimming pool or capital or be put to someone’s CIA informant/collaborator stipend all the same.
[1] I asked what social function rich people serve. Owning a swimming pool is fine even though it serves to social purpose. Just like a lot of other things that are fine but serve no social purpose.
If I take raw materials, and create something with them, I have increased the real value of the world.
I expect 90% would be dead within 24 hours, most likely from hypothermia.
There's a happy medium between what we have today (rampant consumerism and waste) and what we had a thousand years ago (every tribe for themselves). Perhaps you and I can agree that a lot of what humans do is useful transformations of resources into things that help us (housing, food, much of our tech and manufacturing), and then there is a lot of what we do that is completely wasteful that we could be doing less of (plastic crap, driving to offices to meet on Zoom, perhaps we build houses too large, we build in bad places for humans to survive, etc.).
My previous comment was a bit snarky, but my point via that comment is that not everything we do to transform resources into stuff increases the value of the world, perhaps some wasteful things even harm our world and decrease it's value in the future. You're a smart guy, you understand nuance and that wasting our natural resources, especially the non-renewable ones like oil, in a mostly closed ecosystem is a bad idea.
If someone else is willing to trade for it, then something of value has been created.
P.S. Most people don't know how to make a fire from scratch, and will die of hypothermia in even modest environments. I know how to do it, but have never actually tried it. Doing it without even a knife will be really hard. The TV series "Alone" is instructive about how hard it is to survive, even if you're well-equipped with modern gear.
The richer you get, the more likely you are to engage in wealth management. This necessarily means investment. No one who's rich has that much liquidity or money just laying around. This is as stupid as hiding cash in your mattress.
The question is which are genuine investments or scams. And this cannot be emphasized enough: either money is made from value-generating labor, or you are in the business of theft. There is no middle ground or third option.
This is why I think one key element of restoring sanity to economies is the categorical criminalization of usury. Compound interest is theft, and it boggles the mind how easily people are intimidated into going along with the rationalizations purporting to explain that it is not (all that nonsense about opportunity cost, as if that is the borrower's problem or responsibility). Banks are important, but they are not productive per se. The only ways a bank can legitimately make money is through service fees and investments (and real investments, where there is a kind of partnership and proportionate skin in the game, not magic bailout money or some kind of weird accounting magic).
Once we destroy the superstitious idea that money can be bred, stop using euphemisms for theft, and acknowledge labor as the basis of all economic value, we will see a healthy economic shift and more distributive justice. Housing markets will improve, too. The change is deep cutting.
The whole discussion about inequality or taxing the rich or inheritance is confused and frankly a distraction from real problems, and I suspect at times a purposeful distraction, because it preserves perverse economic norms (making the tax simply the cost of doing business) instead of correcting them, which is the real threat.
> The question is which are genuine investments or scams. And this cannot be emphasized enough: either money is made from value-generating labor, or you are in the business of theft. There is no middle ground or third option.
The fundamental theorem of capitalism: rich people get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich they are.
This is why your savings account looks like an exponential. The thing to understand is the difference in lived experience depending on where it starts. If you are poor, the returns are a joke, you tend to ignore them. If you are middle class, the returns fund your retirement, and it seems roughly fair: you work hard and at some point you earn the right to not work any more. Only if you are rich do you see the fountain of free money (homework: calculate yearly returns for the typical 10%er, 1%er, .1%er, and centabillionaire), and of course being the beneficiary you rationalize away the possibility that this could be a problem at all. It's a tidy system.
"That's an unfair characterization of capitalism!"
So is the one you get in economics which bends over backwards to hide the "fundamental theorem" as I have stated it inside a choice of units: "under conditions of market equilibrium every financial asset has an equivalent risk-adjusted rate of return from the perspective of its marginal buyer." Did you miss the class warfare? It was all hidden inside the word "rate." Very clever.
Every intro to macroeconomics basically starts with a simplified conceptualisation of production as a function of labour and capital. Then it describes returns to labor and capital and so on. People who own capital get paid for that capital. It’s quite literally Economics 101.
> Piketty is a hack.
Generally those IOUs are real as a ton of gold bars or dollar bills somebody might be hoarding in their vault.
Jeff Bezos is literally never cashing in the vast majority of the IOUs he has. The actual difference in his life isn't anything close to that suggested by the difference in net worth between he and I.
Net worth differences aren't a good proxy for actual lived differences. It's off by orders of magnitude. This isn't a groundbreaking idea, Piketty is aware. He discusses it briefly in his book, with handwavy, abstract notions about "power" and "influence", as if that's what most people care about. But, it doesn't sell the same way his nonsense does. So he pedals his nonsense.
e.g.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/19...
I agree that this is probably a better metric. Easier to visualize and interpret than Gini.
> his nonsense
You could actually try making some coherent arguments before coming out with such conclusions?
The argument is clear - net worth is a bad proxy for consumption and lived experience. You just can't read. Piketty can, he just doesn't like that it makes his argument significantly less potent so he tries to paper over it with "power" and "influence" as if 99% of the world could care less about those things.
Because it's simply not. It's a very good proxy. I understand what you said and only think you are somewhat right if talking about people who are at the very tail of the distribution (yes, when it comes to "consumption and lived experience" it hardly matters if you have 100 millions, 500 or even a billion).
For those in the the 99.X% it's certainly (and obviously backed by all kinds of data) good indicator.
Talking about the "lived" part. Here is another indicator http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/health/. Of course now you'll claim that living for significantly longer does not say much about the "experience" part or some other nonsense.
> You just can't read.
Or have a low tolerance of ideologically driven demagoguery.
>doesn't like that it makes his argument significantly less potent
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on that besides just claiming it as fact or "proving" that it doesn't apply if you're in the 0.1% (which is hardly relevant).
The difference in life expectancy is 15%. That's 1.15x. And that's including that steepest part right at the front.
You've been bamboozled by the y axis not starting at 0. Someone making 10x more than someone else gets a few % extra life expectancy. Significantly less than just taking a 30 min run a few times a week.
Which is huge. Life expectancy in the US increased by ~15% between 1955 and now. Surely you would be entirely content with receiving the same level of care as was available back then and inhaling some lead now and then?
> You've been bamboozled by the y axis not starting at 0
It must be fun being so absurdly obtuse. The whole line of reasoning in your comment is so silly that it's hardly worth commenting on.
There is a massive difference between dying before you reach 72 vs living for another 15 years.
The difference in avg. life expectancy between Germany and Ethiopia is less than that.
Again, surely there is no measurable difference between living in either place when you are making median income?
It seems by your standards nothing is. Yet if you add it all together instead of looking at a single indicator money is inarguably (if you have any arguments or data please share them) statistically the biggest differentiator compared to anything else besides congenital diseases and other health conditions we can't treat yet.
> And that's the tiny bit of common sense required
Well having more than a "tiny bit" of common sense would made it obvious than it's not the case.
> For 50x chance in income.
Directly comparing wealth/income ratios and absolute differences in life expectancy or other indicator just makes no sense and claiming that it somehow proves something. Having only a tiny bit of knowledge about statistics would make that obvious.
"if America’s rich families in 1900 had invested passively in the stockmarket, spent 2% of their wealth each year and had the usual number of children, there would be about 16,000 old-money billionaires in America today. In fact, there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made"
Yes, if rich people invested their money wisely, gave nothing to charity, spent small amounts, and left their wealth to one of their children, wealth inequality would grow unchecked.
But rich people don't do that.
This significantly challenges the "if America’s rich families in 1900 had invested passively in the stockmarket"
e.g. the equivalent of S&P 500 if adjusted by inflation was in 1982 was well below it's 1929 peak. Almost all growth happened after that.
This is called stability. The more stable the system - the more value have investments.
"there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made"
That's a refutation, Piketty made assertions not just about the outcome, but about the process by which that outcome would happen.
It doesn't change the thesis, which is wrong. r is not greater than g for any reasonable amount of time for individuals/families because humans have an amazing ability to behave stupidly and reduce r below g.
But inherited wealth does not dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labor. The largest fortunes today are dominated by people who built businesses, not by people who inherited their wealth. So if "there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made", that is a direct refutation of Pikkety's thesis.
It is hard to overstate just how bad Pikkety's arguments are. His argument assumes single inheritance of fortunes, it assumes that wealthy people don't donate significant sums to charity, it assumes that inheritors of wealth will invest that wealth as wisely as the person who created it, along with many, many other false assumptions. The most egregious one in my opinion is that it assumes the wealthy don't spend their money.
If a billionaire makes a 5% return on his billion dollars and spends $50 million dollars a year, does wealth inequality increase? No, it does not.
It's a ridiculous theory, it is directly contradicted by the facts, and I have no idea why it is taken seriously by people here other than just as an opportunity to participate in a 2 minutes hate against rich people.
Oh no, now it's important to stop this because some people are able to do these things while having political viewpoints that you don't like. Were you previously making the same argument against say, the New York Times, due to it's being owned by one family and following that family's specific ideological viewpoints?
Wealth inequality is an innate part of human society, and by itself has little bearing on democracy or even overall standards of living. There are also many countries with low wealth inequality in which democracy doesn't exist in any sense.
Wealth inequality is not innate; there have been plenty of civilizations with far less of it. It’s only an inherent part of free-market capitalism.
Please by all means, name these superior civilizations with minimal wealth inequality. The fact that some people are immensely rich and many others aren't is much less important than how a given society regulates individual rights to live one's life and be protected by the law. Wealth inequality is also less important than the specific question of how these rich people became what they are and how much power they have over those less wealthy than them. Ie: You can't honestly compare a modern market economy with a feudal barony.
In much of the modern "terribly" unequal market economies, a Bill Gates or Musk can be freely told to go fuck themselves by anyone less wealthy than them and their wealth has little to do with some random average person's capacity to better their own life. The same often doesn't apply to societies with low wealth inequality, which coincidentally are often poorly developed and authoritarian.
I don't really care if Warren Buffet, Zuckerberg or Ellison can buy a dozen private jets any time they like if I live in the same society with most of my legal and economic rights protected, and with the ability to create a comfortable life also respected. I would however worry about a more supposedly egalitarian state in which central authority figures have given themselves the legal right to confiscate property and earned capital for reasons of ideology.
Also, while many on this site live in a bubble in which the importance and influence of Musk's X (previously Twitter) is grossly fetishized, in the real world, it's just not that important. Musk can throw all the tantrums he likes on the site and ban whoever he pleases, and for 99% of the world, it doesn't matter enough to be worth a single shit.
It's when he obtains literal political power that I worry, and the mechanism behind the kind of authority that could confiscate earned wealth beyond a certain ideologically or politically defined point can at any time fall victim to someone with the kind of grossly egotistical personality that someone like X's owner has.
having the legal authority to prevent a rich person from owning a social media platform is much more dangerous than that rich person simply owning a social media platform (in a landscape of others that it has to increasingly compete with).
You have to go quite far back to find those civilizations, so you can't really compare them to modern ones. Also depends on what the goals of society are. It's possible that people are happier on average in a poorer but more equal society, so would it be inferior just because it has less material wealth?
> It's when he obtains literal political power that I worry,
Money is literal political power. If it wasn't, you would not be seeing a bunch of billionaires running the government. I agree that current forms of government also concentrate power too much, but there will always be some kind of entity that makes the rules, and always those with the most resources will naturally be the most able to take control over that entity and make rules that benefit them.
> having the legal authority to prevent a rich person from owning a social media platform is much more dangerous than that rich person simply owning a social media platform (in a landscape of others that it has to increasingly compete with).
I agree, but letting people amass unlimited amounts of wealth will lead to that authority anyway. Once someone or some group of people is wealthy enough that they're able to buy the government, they'll obviously use it to give themselves that and any other authority they wish. It doesn't matter if that government is small or large, weak or powerful. There will always be a rule creating and enforcing entity, and that entity becomes whatever those who control it wish it to be. It will be controlled by those with the most resources. The solution is therefore not to try to limit the functionality of the tool that is government, but to maximize the number of people that have control over it. That requires having a more equal distribution of wealth.
Also, journalistic standards, historically, were little or not at all better than anything you see online today. Yellow journalism was a major part of media since long before the internet and newspapers pandering to very specific, dishonest biases was also pervasive, but with few genuinely unfiltered alternative viewpoints being available. The difference today is that a real plurality of opinions is finally possible and can be globally made visible. The media gatekeepers hate this and thus create contrived arguments about an imaginary golden standard of media integrity and mass misinformation.
That wouldn't be the case if those at the top were taxed and more of their wealth transferred to those at the bottom.
How is that possible, though?
e.g. according to
https://ofdollarsanddata.com/sp500-calculator/
adjusted by inflation the stock market only grew by 34.10% between 1900 and 1982 when adjusted and even if dividends were reinvested. And that's total growth, annualized was barely 0.36%
Their wealth wouldn't have increase at all during that period, especially if they wanted to spend 2% each year.
Of course it accelerated massively in the 80s (1900-2024 was 2.48% annualized) but using the average would make no sense.
If you were still very rich in 1982 you would have made a massive amount of money since then. e.g. somebody like Trump invested all of his inherited wealth (and everything his dad gave him before) into the stock market instead of pretending that he was a very "successful" businessman he would have been much, much richer than he was in 2016 and wouldn't have had to be so ashamed about realising his tax returns.
All either studied hard in school and went on to get a degree or left school at 18 and apprenticed in a trade or got specific qualifications.
I read so much about declining wealth and how each generation is worse off that I have to assume I’m in a lucky bubble because it’s not the case for me.
None of us are rich but the system appears to be working from a sample of say 30 people aged 25 to 45 from different parts and backgrounds in the UK.
I feel like software has been an outlier here for a decade; the only place where traditional economic intuitions still apply (semi-smart people can work hard, learn a technical skill, find a job in their field, pay off their loans, make more than their parents, afford a house, and have a comfortable personal life and relatively fulfilling work life)
Everything I've heard from the rest of the economy is that this model is dead
So a real mix
In the US? Real Disposable Personal Income has been growing very consistently over time [1]. The rate of growth did stagnate between 2000 and 2013 but the trend has been remarkably consistent.
it claims that the average person has 50k usd in disposable yearly income - there's no way that's after housing and other non optional expenses have been accounted for.
using this measurement, if wages go up 5% but rent goes up 50%, it would still look as if people have more money to spend than before.
the rich are taking The Lion's share of productivity growth
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/#:~...
That phenomenon was not always apparent. Growing up, I was told specifically to avoid those sorts of jobs and go for white collar, informed by a generation where those sorts of jobs were a lot more dangerous and less compensated. In some companies over the last century we went from say building floors of modestly paid draftsmen and a few highly paid white collar classes managing them to floors of modestly paid white collar people fiddling with excel and a few highly paid certified engineers doing the actual technical work. The dynamic has changed.
My point -- even being slightly lower middle class now would feel like a good jump over my parents. That's just pointing out that comparisons to parental income is very relative.
Which economy? In the US, healthcare, public schools in some states, and B2B sales come to mind as decent jobs. But I agree with the general sentiment - there do not seem to be great choices that support a nice life. Quite a few of my friend have to work multiple jobs or double shifts to make it work.
Just for comparison the minimum wage nationwide in Feb 1, 1968 was 1.60$/hour that’s ~14.61$/hour when adjusted for inflation. Median household income in 1968 was 8,600$ or ~$78,504.90 inflation adjusted and that was mostly single income.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1969/demo/p60-66...
Granted I understand what you mean, but it’s kind of like saying managers make good money while ignoring all the shift managers at fast food joints.
As to inequality, we’ve made this much worse intentionally via things like a tax code that massively favors high income earners. It’s not even that this tradeoff has increased GDP growth or anything the country was growing faster with higher tax rates on corporations and dividends.
Even just theoretically it’s suboptimal because jobs catering to or trying to extract money from high income people don’t lend themselves to automation. Long term everyone rich or poor has been worse off.
I lived through it. We can talk a lot about, but the fact is equality doesn't work. Maximum it gets to is everyone equally poor. And as a result of it there are no startups. You need middle class for this and motivation. Government controlled and own monopolies is also the result of equality. Nobody else has the resources. So commies had to create the economy, few bigger things are easier to manage. Managers aren't interested in risk taking, it's not worth it. Finally everything stalled and fell far behind the rest of the world. There were bright spots, but that's it. Like North Korea today can build missiles and not much else.
Just look around. Probably only Cuba and North Korea are still in true socialism. In both there is a small super-rich class and the rest is, yes, equally poor. Super-rich are pretending to be poor too and invent theories to keep the rest under control. BTW, I'm not sure Cuba still has strong ideology today.
The USSR didn’t actually have economic equality.
The US has drastically lower tax rates for capital gains.
Finally, arguing for equal taxation isn’t arguing for equal pay.
As to my actual argument, I’m saying economic growth is slowed through the economic inefficiency resulting from unequal taxation. The point of economics is to make goods and services people want and capitalism achieves this through investments and exchanges of money. But distorting that feedback loop through taxes unequal taxes on individuals or companies is a distortion. Invest in the wrong things and economic growth stalls.
More or less it had. Except for privileged commie bosses everyone poor. "Rich" had cars (!) Having noticeable business was prohibited. Selling own potatoes on flea market, or growing chicken and pigs was fine.
> The US has drastically lower tax rates for capital gains.
In Mass. it's 10% to begin with.
> I’m saying economic growth is slowed through the economic inefficiency resulting from unequal taxation.
Not sure about this. Do you have examples when equal taxation helps?
By modern standards dirt poor, but by historic standards it becomes more nuanced economically if not socially. Most of the world was just shockingly poor until very recently.
As to equality the economy isn’t just the legal economy. A cop accepts a bribe is making more than a clean cop and greasing the wheels of bureaucracy was really common as was a rather extensive black market fed by production being diverted etc. It’s quite consistent how effectively people learn to leverage what they have to get what they want.
> Do you have examples where equal taxation helps.
You can look at tax rates vs long term GDP growth and see trends but economic growth isn’t clear cut. The best example is cases where tax breaks for the wealthy has been harmful is the UK which is still doing alright but had massive advantages from it’s early industrialization and colonies that it quite effectively squandered.
Those of us who work in tech, and many of the people we find ourselves bonding with and staying close to in our adulthood, are lucky to have taken up in a sector that happened to see disproportionate growth during our careers and admitted many people from modest backgrounds.
But people who didn't stumble onto that path, or perhaps hoped to follow their parents into professions that were more flat or failing (medicine, education, academia, farming, manufacturing, "the trades"). In aggregate, some of those people are still doing okay, some are doing well, and some are flailing in desperation for having made the wrong bet.
Of the people I grew up with in a modest blue collar community, I don't know anyone besides the few most ambitious and capable that were able to find the security that their parents had. And as one of those more ambitious and capable people who later circled with people of fancier backgrounds, I similarly don't know anyone who pursued things like academia or medicine and found what they expected there either.
Appreciate what you have! Many don't share it.
To be clear: I’m not saying they’re bad people or anything— most people think their experiences are more representative than they are. But, from outside, some of the assumptions software folks make about the world just seem utterly ridiculous. Consider that on average, junior developers make more money than a first year medical resident that has a PhD in perhaps the highest demand field in the US and works shifts of 16-30 hours with many consistently logging 80 hours per week, and occasionally end up working much more. Ask that medical resident what a really bad day, and a really bad week at work looks like for them and ask a developer with the same amount of post-school experience the same question, and then consider how much more school it took… and then ask that same question to an aircraft mechanic, a chef with a culinary degree, a construction worker, a public defender, a commercial fisherman, a firefighter, a nurse… the software industry is more than an aberration — it’s a different planet. The kind of shit I’ve seen developers say they’re going to “pivot to” if the software industry falls apart is, frankly, flabbergasting. If we see the sort of sustained job losses some fear in software, there are going to be a whole lot of people learning some extremely bitter, difficult truths about the world outside.
I’m not saying we all didn’t and don’t work hard to get where we are — it’s just that what developers get vs what’s expected of us and what we had to do to get there is very different than what it is for almost the entire rest of the working world. It’s easy to see your own contributions to your success and miss the industry and market scaffolding you could stand on to get what you did.
It's about margins. Software has the 2nd highest margins of any sector (highest is High Finance), so it's easy to pay competitively in software compared to other fields.
I'm just saying the only reason SWEs (and IBs) get paid the big bucks is primarily because of market economics, even if plenty of other high stress roles (eg. Nursing, EMT, Teaching) get paid a relative pittance.
I think a lot of us members of the tech industry need to cut down on our hubris and respect other industries and jobs, and understand that we are cogs inasmuch as anyone else.
I get it, because it sucks, but it's still tone deaf for people in the top income brackets, 401Ks, and plenty of disposable income.
Most Americans (employed or unemployed) don't get any of those kinds of benefits.
The dev world’s baseline for what constitutes good treatment, bad treatment, and fairness from employers, an acceptable amount of disposable income, acceptable housing expenses, etc. is completely detached from the rest of the working world. Now that the demand is dramatically changing, that will probably also dramatically change, and that’s going to be rough. If it does, maybe it will recover. It has before, but this seems like a much more significant change.
They were part of a generation that benefited from enormous house price appreciation due to a combination of falling interest rates went from almost 15% down to under 5% (this is about 3x on its own) and the fall in house building which drove up prices and rents generally.
This effect is somewhat less pronounced outside of southern England.
Thinking of one (not me) it’s delivery driver -> enlisted service -> mid level finance (not London)
Hmmm, food for thought, thank you
That is unarguably true of our parents' and grandparents' generations, but I don't think it is as true of people of my age or younger (born in early 1980s.)
There was a huge expansion of higher skilled jobs after the war with large numbers of people moving into the middle classes. For me and everyone I know our mothers (born 1950s) worked. We all grew up in dual income families.
My great-grandfather was a miner. His son, my grandfather enlisted in the forces during the war, seems to have been recognised as being technically apt and worked with radar, became an officer and in the early 1960s left to be a manager at an engineering company.
His daughter, my mum, became a teacher (first in family to go to college) and his son did not go to college but became an IT manager (married a teacher). All of us grandchildren went to university but basically have similar jobs to our parents' generation.
Several of my siblings and cousins own houses but they got help from parents or partners' parents and mostly bought outside the south east. Renting a flat in London as a fairly highly paid IT contractor I had to pay six months up front because my parents didn't earn enough to be guarantors.
Despite this, I can not afford to buy the house I grew up in; a 3 bedroom SFH with a decent sized yard and a pool, around 1400 square feet, 45 minutes away from downtown without traffic in a hot real estate market. My father was able to purchase this home as a tradesman with 4 kids, being the only parent who worked outside the home.
Similar case for my wife. Her parents bought in 2000 with a combined household salary of less than mine alone. The mortgage would be twice our monthly rent. Fortunately we stand to inherit that house, which sort of proves the article's point.
I have a similar sample, all middle class in their 30's. The only ones who have bought houses have been given significant assistance from their parents, now none of them are poor by any stretch, but few have any significant assets.
There's a lot of doom and gloom but it doesn't seem consistent with the data.
There's a weird tendency to zoom in on particular data points that paint a particularly negative story and leave out the rest. For example, we look at housing and will say that its prices outpaced inflation. And that's true, sort of. But it's also completely untrue. For example, if I look at my own situation compared to my parents: I have a 1.5% interest rate on my mortgage, my parents paid 15%. Homes are now about 50-75% bigger than my parents' generation, on average. And the average home is shared by 33% fewer people than my parents' generation. So the cost to rent the money to buy a certain area of home for 1 person, i.e. housing costs, has actually gone down, despite the average price of a house having gone up.
In all fairness I wouldn't want to trade with the average person in past generations.
I think about how much is it worth for me to work remote vs working at the same factory for 40 years like my father. Some people pretend like this is just a given in the modern world and basically worthless. In reality, it is hard to put a price tag on because the difference is so valuable to me. I actually could have been the 4th generation working at a flour mill if I had wanted. Even if the flour mill paid double what it does, my life is so much more grand than what that would have been, it isn't even close.
Personal income does not include capital gain.
Wealth grow is not included in either of these dataset.
CEO unrealized gain is huge and represents a huge chunk of his/her eventual hidden income that becomes wealth.
But lately after reading and observing around quite a bit I come to realize due to being ended up in a fast growing sector at least a minimum level of success was guaranteed. I see same thing at my company where a lot of VPs, Sr VPs and above reached to that level primarily they started a decade or two earlier than me and growth was much faster than compare to when I joined in mid 2000s.
They can talk down to me just like I can talk down to more juniors about value of hard work, drive and so on. However, joining a growing sector early was best thing career wise. No amount of hard work will help if one is starting at a middling IT job in middling company in 2025 like I did in 2005.
Not refuting your point but there is a selection bias here. You are in contact with people who did in fact achieve VP or higher levels. Lots more also joined the industry 10 or 20 years before you and burned out, failed, hated it, got fired, whatever. The people who succeeded may not be particularly exceptional in terms of talent, brainpower, innovative thinking, etc, (lots was luck, or being in the right place at the right time, surely) but it's also not true that everyone they worked with back then became a big success.
I ended up getting a good degree at a top uni and started my career at Amazon but definitely couldn't have amassed the necessary amount for a down payment for a place in London by the time I was 26.
By the time my dad was 35 he had two kids and my mum was a full time mum.
This doesn't sound remotely close to the reality of my numerous banking, lawyer, accountant, engineering and doctor friends.
The only people I know who are remotely close to being able to own a property in London and have only one breadwinner work in hedge funds.
There certainly would have been locations where your dad would not have been able to afford property, and conversely there certainly are places where you can afford property.
Point being, things change, but this anecdote doesn't illustrate that you're worse off than a previous generation.
In the US, my anecdotes seem to show that things have stayed neutral or declined slightly. It seems harder to get a decent job than our parents. It seems that fewer of us have bought homes, or delayed buying due to financial reasons. Seems like more of us are working multiple jobs too. I think the aggregate measures showed real income only trending up slightly over the past couple generations.
I just think you'd have to be so willfully in denial as to miss the darkness we are descending into. To miss how bitterly the GOP and the wealthy are building empires of lies and bespoke manufactured realities to make up down and left right, to cover for horrible treacherous actions against the possibility of the individual, stacking the deck for empire and inherited wealth. (And Dems are frequently unwilling to bite the donor class that makes winning elections possible, after the courts have obstructed democratic funding reforms.) Are actively opposing the possibility of people doing good for themselves & the world.
I strongly recommend folks go read one of the darkest periods of America, before enough was enough Adam Hochschild's American Midnight (2022) tells an amazing story of a circa-WW1 state that had radicalized against people, that had been totally overrun by well monied powers. Of Hoover using the full power of the police state to surveil as Ralph Van Demand had done during the Philippines civil war, of of the postal service run by someone using it for information control, of American Defense vigilanism.
Its not a tale of what happened next, how that broke, just a long amazing story of how dark America got, how badly the state was an extension of capital and power, and how deeply it subverted the individual, the union, any attempt for everyday humans to make any claim to life liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
We face today not quite such amassed power, but a completely warped infosphere where these bespoke realities create lifestyle beliefs where people are on board with incredible trains of lies crafting false enemies, supporting the opposite of the signalling they claim. Its different than dark; the world today is overloaded by hell's din, by monsters of abuse, doing their worst to harm us for greed and for the possibility of undoing the good of the world.
That's a typical confirmation bias: you worked hard and got successful, so you're tempted to think that it's because you worked hard. Some don't work hard and get successful, many work hard and don't get successful.
The one thing that you clearly can't rule out is luck. Tell people in Gaza that if they work hard they will end up in a situation similar as yours...
all who don't try fail
Obviously, if you don't do, you don't do.
> to use that to question the impact of a human's agency on their own life outcomes
I'm not doing that at all. I am not saying that the effort put into achieving something is worth nothing. What I am saying is that whenever someone is successful, it means that they have been incredibly lucky (and on top of that they worked a lot, maybe). Whenever they compare themselves to someone else who also worked hard but was not successful, the first conclusion to make is that this someone else was not as lucky.
But the first thing that happens when someone gets successful is that they forget how lucky they are, and just start talking about merit. My point is just that whenever you talk about merit, just remember that you were not born in a poor family in a war zone, and that does not make you more deserving.
That’s part of the challenge in the populous understanding this issue. Many people are better off than their parents, but for being the richest country in the world most people should be far better off.
Perhaps you generation is better off than their parents were in terms of everything except real estate. But their parents are also better off now than they used to be when they were their age, because everything (except housing) is much cheaper (relatively) than it used to be thanks to optimizations in production and economies of scale of last 5 decades.
> all of us are better off than our parents at the same age and their parents are better off than their parents
These are conflicting statements. Your group are all beneficiaries of generational wealth by this description. Maybe it isn’t as overt as a trust fund, but you definitely inherited wealth and opportunity from your parents.
We aren't yet. Our projection is that we will be in 5-7 years. I'm turning forty soon.
Just to give you an anchor point.
I doubt we're typical, is my point.
In which case you were able to save a deposit within 6 years of graduating? When i was at that stage my outgoings (rent, food, council tax, car, insurance) were probably 90% of my salary.
The system works fine if you don't need nonstop luxuries
I'm happy to see that your friend made it work for himself, but his was a much harder path than most people saw in prior generations.
Anyone not familiar with it needs to look up Georgism.
This transfer happens primarily via housing costs and rent payments.
The stratification of the rich happens via investment opportunities, but the core underlying mechanism for the majority of the population is via housing costs and Ricardo's law of rent.
Housing needs to stop increasing in price for a number of generations. Surely the rich can find someplace else for their money.
The YIMBY movement is pushing in the right direction, but doesn't have the political power that they need. Particularly in California. And, as long as they don't, those with houses will continue to win against those who don't.
False.
You can depress the land-based monopolistic component of housing via a land value tax. If speculating on land values stops being a good investment strategy, the price will drop.
Many economists/nobel prize winners have been quietly pointing this out for over a century at this point. Here is a pretty good primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smi_iIoKybg
A land value tax could indeed help with housing costs - but that's because it encourages development. It is the construction that makes the really big difference here.
> housing to stop INCREASING in price
Land value tax would immediately start decreasing the housing price. You are correct that it would stay high until demand and supply rebalanced, but it would start decreasing.
In fact, you actually pointed out a second mechanism that could lead to decreasing prices in your comment: a decrease in demand. As you mentioned, that decrease in demand could come from a decline in population. However, it could also come from a decrease in that population's capability to match their existing level of spend. People can't spend more than they have so if that amount goes down then prices would also have to go down as a result.
In fact, prices for housing are far more sensitive to changes in demand than for normal goods. Land supply supply is fixed and cannot increase. But likewise, it cannot decrease either and this is what makes land value tax so amazing! Normally, a decrease in price would lead to a decrease in production, but with land, supply never changes so you get a larger decrease in price.
Economists refer to this property as having zero deadweight loss, and it is what makes land value tax the most efficient theoretical tax possible as was mentioned by Adam Smith over 100 years ago. Effectively, you can tax land up to its full theoretical rental value and supply will never change.
Land is an economic edge case. It's like a massive glitch in normal economic assumptions. And that glitch is literally the largest asset class globally and makes up the majority of bank lending. It needs special attention that it's not currently being given.
Practically speaking, land value tax advocates are not proposing full rental capture, but rather first replacing property taxes, and slowly increasing the tax rate while decreasing other taxes.
A land value tax by itself would not suffice to immediately change this dynamic.
My claim that land value tax would decrease property prices does admittedly depend on the tax rate. Do you dispute the fact that there is some tax rate where house prices would decrease? For example, going above 100% tax rates would actually force people off land so to me this seems obvious because clearly nobody would want to hold property if it cost more to hold than they could afford... So obviously there is some tax rate lower than 100% where property prices would start to decrease even accounting for other growth factors. Heck, you could even ignore it being a land value tax. This would happen with a property tax as well.
Does that make sense?
Keep in mind that the number that you quote there in the article would obviously change depending on the price of housing. People move out of cities or countries all the time due to cost of living.
EDIT: this seems pretty straightforward to me. It's a net present value calculation with an annual payment. Obviously there is some annual payment where net present value will decrease...
In theory this is net neutral on costs. In practice, it is likely to be an increase immediately because housing prices tend to be "sticky". So it takes time for land value to drop because of the tax.
> For housing to stop increasing in price, a lot of it has to be built.
As
"For housing costs to stop increasing, a lot of it has to be built."
It's difficult and ambiguous either way though... Costs being plural and price being singular is maybe what threw me off as well?
Thanks for clarifying!
If there's 1 million people that want to live in a city with only 700,000 housing units, the only way to keep housing affordable is to construct more housing. No amount of regulation or tax changes will overcome the pidgeonhole principle.
There is excess supply of housing which is intentionally kept empty, hence this is not applicable.
Similarly, college has become a thing that went from <40% of high school graduates prior to the 1950s, to 80-90%+ today. The demand has increased enormously, so of course prices has gone up.
Isn’t the point of markets to provide feedback and change behaviors? Live in a smaller house, go into trades instead of college, etc. (like many in the last generations did, in reality). Instead, everyone is trying funnel into the patterns that had the most success in the past, leading those to become oversubscribed and not working as well.
The difference is that medieval peasants knew their manorial lords had bigger houses and ate more meat, but the visible local differences were small and religion could operate (for worse or better) as a stabilizing force. People tolerated a caste system because they were information poor.
There’s no reason today, though, for people to put up with the kind of inequality that is not only extreme and senseless but constantly being shoved in their faces via social media. The only way the rich stay out of the guillotines is by creating new, weird cultural spectacles like litter boxes in schools (not even a real thing) for “furry kids.”
I think the latter is worse, because it means those in power now have an information lever they can use to manipulate the masses. When there were no broadcast or network media sources, those levers didn't exist and the powerful had fewer tools to control people.
A closely related variation is the appeal the current oligarch class is making to men all over the world: let us rule over you and tax you and we will keep women in their place and set things up so you have most of the power in relationships. Men get to rule over women, and in exchange the oligarchs get to rule over men and take most of their productivity in rent and taxes. You're poor, but your wife can't leave.
Well no. Peasant rebellions/uprisings happened all the time. People tolerated the feudal system because those rebellions could at best pressure for greater leniency within the system, while it took the later historical developments of urbanization and increasing labor productivity to actually overthrow the system.
By which you mean the most recent 1% or so of human history.
Before that societies were a lot more egalitarian [0].
0 - https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/yes-our-ancient-ances...
Relentless propaganda on social and legacy medias funded by billionaires succeeded in creating the most overtly pro-billionaire government ever.
They are now giving themselves massive tax cuts, implementing austerity and straight up picking in the treasury, and a lot of Americans are still defending them.
The US is setting up to make this worse by cutting services for the average person (like the CFPB and OSHA) and continuing to give tax breaks to the wealthy...again.
This is after the same group of people set off sky-rocketing inflation by injection almost a trillion dollars of new money into the economy by way of the PPP program, of course hurting the average person more than their wealthy financial backers.
End of life care is a giant vacuum cleaner designed to move wealth out of families. It is incredibly depressing. Because Medicare does not fully cover nursing homes, you have basically two choices:
1. Give up a huge percentage of your family’s assets (home, retirement savings etc.) so that it never gets handed down to kids and grandkids. 2. Gift those assets early (at least five years I think) so you are technically broke and then can qualify for Medicaid.
Even if you don’t gift those assets early, many people will still run out of money because they aren’t wealthy. So they’ll also end up on Medicaid.
People have the very dangerous impression that “Medicaid is for the poor and Medicare is for the rich” and oh hell are they about to make a terrible mistake.
Medicare does _not_ cover nursing and long-term care facilities for the elderly. That is covered by Medicaid.
This is just not true.
At least in the U.S., people of all income tiers have seen their incomes grow[0] while their working hours shrunk[1].
Inequality is a problem in itself, but equating unequal gains with "transferring money from the poor" seems like bad faith.
[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...
[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-working-hours-per-...
[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/inequality?tab=chart&Da...
The person I responded to suggested that only the rich saw income growth, and that they were achieving this by taking from the poor, which is wrong.
Income growth in real dollars had been stagnant since the late 1970s for most deciles.
No wonder you guys constantly post about unhappiness. You are obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses.
Much more joy if you instead care only about absolute living standards. My life has improved a lot and if Jeff Bezos appears before me and will make me 10x as wealthy if he is 100x I will gladly choose that.
We live as long as kings, with greater variety of food and drink, greater variety of entertainment, and big comfortable houses. I'd take this trade 10/10 times.
Yes if the demands on our personal resources (inc hours, energy, cognition) far outstrip our quality of life gains.
Me (gen x) vs my parents (silent gen): Parenting time went from a few hours per week to 24/7 adulting while kids growth resources (free range+adult free) was nearly eradicated.
My parents had tons of leisure time. I had none.
Mundane activities are unimaginably complicated now - needs that once had a couple of factors to consider now has dozens of compounding factors, each with their own subgroups to work through.
Consumer choices are flooded with bad options; long research is needed to avoid the never-ending line of traps.
> We live as long as kings, with greater variety of food and drink, greater variety of entertainment, and big comfortable houses.
What's left out of the "Live Better Than Kings" spiel is that gains turn into mandates (electricity, internet). They're required to meet basic needs like housing and not having kids taken away.
> I'd take this trade 10/10 times.
Draw up the entire list of factors that a poor American has to work through. Drop a king into that life for a month and have them report back.
You can also have lots of leisure time. That's a choice. I do.
You could drop me into the life of a poor American, and a month later I wouldn't be one. I know that's true because I came to San Francisco with nothing in my bank account and a $10/day bed-on-a-couch paid for for 2 weeks.
At first glance, this declaration seems ignorant. You plainly lack the details of my parenting years and they are fully required to make that judgment.
In context, it looks like hubris.
But then again you implicitly validated my claims (24/7 adulting due to free range loss); you reassigned the cause of kids adult-free time.
With acceptance of the demands on modern parents' time, your declaration appears to be self-contradictory.
> You could drop me into the life of a poor American, and a month later I wouldn't be one.
This bit seems to confirm my hubris suspicions and I'm a bit divided on which way to respond. I could be less judgy, given my own years of low-wisdom confidence or I could jump right into exampling ignorance that leads to poor assumptions about fortune and poverty.
In the interest of time, I'll roll it all together.
Below is what actual lives look like.
I'll presume you're above average at opportunity farming and pulling rabbits from hats. I'll further assume your desire to excel includes being a high quality parent and spouse.
You are now married and you have children in lower+upper grades. How many children you have is tied to your confidence in providing for them.
Your spouse is a few years into the medical condition that converted her from supportive parent to +3 children in time, +many children in expenses - which are eating thru your single-income-savings faster than you can add to them.
You keep switching employers because they unexpectedly go under (exec scandal), are bought out+resized or are moved overseas. Or you are self-employed and your product/service keeps not landing where it is clearly needed.
Nevertheless you are confident that your will+skill is enough to see you through. You know your efforts will eventually yield result. Those critical uncontrollable factors (~luck) will eventually turn in your favor!
In the mean time your owned home has succumbed to an event (radon/extreme weather/sinkhole/whatever) and isn't habitable so you are forced to take on a 2nd housing expense while the insurance begins an ordeal that will take a decade to resolve.
Once you+wife+kids are relocated, your wife's medical insurance company pulls out of the market, mid-treatment. You are left scrambling to match a new provider to the full suite of options she needs.
This is when you develop Menieres disease. The tinnitus is annoying but the recurring vertigo takes you out of play for a day at a time. It's a permanent addition to your life. Your employer is understanding - at first.
Parenting during vertigo attacks is tough. Doubly so, given that your own parents died before you married. And since your job took you away from your one functional sibling, you don't have a lot of support.
Your kids still need to be transported to their before-school private classes, to their schools, home from schools, to their after school activities and to the other events that are a poor (but best available) substitute for their eradicated free range/time. They need help with homework. They need routine medical visits and not so routine visits for your oldest who has an ongoing condition of their own.
FF to 20y later and your luck hasn't turned yet. At least not nearly enough for you to get a real footing. You are poor. You're over 50 in tech so good luck finding employment even without all the baggage.
Throughout the 20ys you had a daily choice to care for your family at the level they need or invest time in trying to craft opportunities that would fit your medically-adjusted lifestyle.
Over that 20ys, you more+more opted to not neglect your family's needs. You reduced your opportunity-gardening to being opportunity-aware. You saw some but they required an amount of time that was impossible to budget properly. Or at least that became clear after you jumped into them for a while.
> You can also have lots of leisure time. That's a choice. I do.
Life can and does take that choice away. It's a pure spin of the wheel whether your number is the one that comes up.
Meniere's is a placeholder illness; it was there to help frame the scenario. It is curious that you didn't understand that.
But okay. If it helps make the lives of others easier to understand, then please choose one of the other thousands of life-altering illnesses. How about Lupus? Or Trigeminal Neuralgia, Ataxia, Fibromyalgia, Gaucher's disease, schizophrenia, Guillain–Barré syndrome, Parkinson's, Lyme's disease - any debilitating illness you want.
Because that's what happens to people. Not all but certainly not a tiny minority.
Some people receive few enough challenges that their A-Game + luck is enough to secure a stable life. The countless others work with what they have and make the best that can be made from that.
No one, anywhere has a choice of whether or not the uncontrollable challenges of life will exceed their very best.
So for these people it's bad luck, sucks to be them. For your success, it's all hard work.
That doesn't stop me from saying that the distribution of wealth within the US economy is immoral, and detrimental to our politics, our health, our environment and more. And it doesn't stop other people from saying so either:
https://www.responsiblewealth.org/
Those folks are hardly obsessed with keeping up with anyone.
I'm glad that your life has "improved a lot". But that's not a reason to give up on fairness, decency and even just plain old self-interest. It's a better society for everyone if there's less inequality, even those at the top.
It's unsurprising that one conveniently draws the line at one's own wealth as decent and fair but it should also be unsurprising when others do the same with their own larger amounts.
The average Indian (the modal nationality in the world), as an example, must work 200 years to gain the wealth you did at the age of 33. Show us your commitment to fairness and decency. I am curious to see you achieve parity with him.
25+ years writing open source software. Will that do?
I'll leave you to fill in the rest of the story.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8...
> During the most recent 22.5-year period from January 2000 to June 2022, the CPI for All Items increased by 74.4% and the chart displays the relative price increases over that time period for 14 selected consumer goods and services, and for average hourly wages. Seven of those goods and services have increased more than the average inflation rate of 74.4%, led by huge increases in hospital services (+220%), college tuition (+178%), and college textbooks (+162%), followed by increases in medical care services (+130%), child care (+115%), food and beverages (82%) and housing (80%). Average hourly earnings have also increased more than average inflation since January 2000 — by nearly 100% — indicating that hourly wages have increased 25% more over the last two decades that the average increase in consumer prices.
> The other seven price series have been flat or have declined since January 2000, led by TVs (-97%), toys (-72%), computer software (-70.5%), and cell phone service (-41%). The CPI series for new cars, household furnishings (furniture, appliances, window coverings, lamps, dishes, etc.), and clothing have remained relatively flat for the last 22 years while average consumer prices increased by 74.4% and wages by 99.6%, although all three series (TVs, toys, and software) have
What kind of happiness demands billions of dollars? These things go both ways.
> No wonder you guys constantly post about unhappiness. You are obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses.
As opposed to the ultrarich who have actively pursued this inequality? Curious, it consistently only goes one way in your mind.
> Much more joy if you instead care only about absolute living standards. My life has improved a lot and if Jeff Bezos appears before me and will make me 10x as wealthy if he is 100x I will gladly choose that.
Who said that Bezos could do that? Who said that wealth is created by the ultrarich? No one, but your mind seems to think so for some reason. Well, I’m sure you could find supposed evidence of it on X and the Washington Post, for whatever reason that might be.
> We live as long as kings, with greater variety of food and drink, greater variety of entertainment, and big comfortable houses. I'd take this trade 10/10 times.
So? This is a forum visited by high-earning US software engineers (that’s not me but a lot are). Not the kinds of people that the last four decades have hurt (the most). Which is why you get these surprise comments in these threads. “Woah guys, I’ve been reading these numbers lately and people are actually poor out there.”
No, I don’t think that it’s the Microsoft staff engineers that are personally mad about the state of things.
Flat out concluding that everyone can make their own happiness by just being open to a system that constrains many others along the way, feels like regressing not progressing.
$1 in 1970 == $7.54 in 2022
That 1970 middle-classer would be making around $450k in 2022 dollars, which sounds insane, but I also know my parents had normal jobs and were able to buy a house shortly after getting out of college.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
(yes we all have more luxuries than back then, toys got cheaper, necessities exploded in cost)
Unequal gains is the problem, and your intuition can help inform why: the 2023 dollar index used is based on what rate of inflation? CPI? RPI? Something else? Why is it that in 1970 a median income household could buy a home on a single income and raise a family (including sending kids to college), on a 2023-dollar income of $66k, but that's mostly not possible on $106k in actual 2023 for most households.
When you adjust for real buying power using a less favourable means of assessing inflation and taking into account housing costs more fully, I sense you'll find that the bottom two brackets are behind their 1970-adjusted counterparts, and the upper income bracket is significantly better off, especially if you then break that upper segment up a little into more categories.
And, without something happening to adjust this, the effect is going to just get worse and worse, and everyone knows it.
As Adam Driver points out in Ferrari, "two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time". A view some might find counterintuitive.
Obviously, if you give more weight to housing, you're going to get different results. But it would distort the actual change in expenditure.
My apologies for not knowing offhand everything that goes into the CPI, and not googling it for more context, I was just asking questions on the internet instead. I should've known better than to hope for learning something from my fellow humans.
If the riches were conscious enough, they would return a fair share to the poor and the eventual crash will be deferred much longer. But you know, everyone wants more money, no exception for the riches. It looks the only thing we learn from the history is that we learn nothing from history. So here we are: the same drama of empires' rise and fall, the only differences are the locations and the actors.
Things that can be produced with machines rather than labor have become more affordable over time. Electronics, travel, clothes, and even food are cheaper than they used to be relative to wages. Then there are fields like education, childcare, and construction, which have not seen substantial productivity gains. The prices of their outputs can be expected to rise at the same rate as wages. (And then there is healthcare, which is complicated.)
But what has actually happened that increased housing costs have eaten the productivity gains for many people. Largely because of deliberate policy. Desirable areas often discourage new construction. When new construction is allowed, they prioritize single-family homes. And if really pressed, rental complexes.
As a rule of thumb, if you can afford to rent, you can afford to buy. If you expect to stay longer than a couple of years, you should buy. But in many places, if you can't afford a large home, you have to rent a small apartment. Because there is a shortage of small condos to buy. If the units available for purchase grow larger while the price per square foot grows at the same rate as wages, housing becomes less affordable.
I think it's more that war has a tendency to literally destroy capital which is effectively a tax on the rich. When factories get bombed, factory owners lose out more than people who don't own factories.
War is horrible but it historically has at least been somewhat of an economic equalizer.
One of the real tragedies of the pandemic was that it turned that upside down. The virus didn't touch capital but destroyed humans, and the humans hit the worst were those in "essential" but low-paying jobs who couldn't socially isolate. The effect was that the pandemic increased economic inequality.
The humans worst hit were by far the elderly, and the elderly tend to have more assets than the young in industrialized countries.
Among working-age people, lower-paid "essential" workers were exposed to more risk, but by a significant margin, old people are the ones who died more.
Yes, the wide majority of economic data suggests this.
"Everything feels increasingly like a scam," she said. "Not only are grocery prices going up, but it's like everything has a fee and a surcharge. And I think that anger is put out at government."
She realized prices are going up just now?
Because that's a really strange way to look at it.
(* driven largely by increased regulation, unionization, etc... all the dirty words for modern conservatives)
No that is not my argument really.
The Jungle led to an era of reform over nearly a century in which laissez faire and caveat emptor were displaced, largely to positive results, by appropriate regulation.
That regulatory turn had been opposed, increasingly dismantled since the Reagan administration, and in the past month and some has been outright dynamited. The consequences are beginning to show.
If that is your argument, it would benefit by more precise communication.
Thanks for agreeing with me, kubb.
I get really worried when I see people glamorize equality post-war...post-war times are not good times for the middle class. The most equal wealth humanity has ever had is during caveman times, but that is not the goal.
war does not make things better folks, I hope that's not what OP was trying to say, but just in case let's be very very clear about how awful war is for progress and humanity.
War destroys existing structures and gives them a chance to evolve again.
The economy is growth dependent and can only perform its basic functions under growth, even if that growth is fake. By basic functions I also include all functions that do not depend on growth.
are you suggesting that destroying things, results in improvement in the long run? I don't know that I could be farther from agreeing with that. If starting from scratch was better, why wouldn't we be doing it voluntarily at frequent intervals? It just seems easily dismissed as entirely incorrect.
> The economy is growth dependent and can only perform its basic functions under growth, even if that growth is fake.
I don't think this describes the economy, it just describes some of the metrics we use to gauge the health of the economy. burning down the internet and killing everyone that understands it might result in another dotcom boom, but would you say the economy is more healthy than some other reality where the internet continued to exist with no reset and only has smaller incremental gains?
The extreme wealth gap and corruption paired with the loss of virtue (integrity seems to hold very little social value these days) seems like a bad mix to me if you like stability, let alone shared prosperity. Moreover, the response to the United healthcare assassination showed us that a bunch of folks don't think there is justice left in the system. The reactions to covid were a stark example of how a huge swath of people not only won't lift a finger to help their fellow citizens but will actively oppose it and be offended by the suggestion itself. This year the purges of non-straights or non-whites from all positions (and even from some records!) began and we don't yet know where that will end. Politically we've spent this year alienating our allies and generally acting like bullies.
I'm worried we'll be in a war in 3.5 years (real or manufactured) and "need" to delay the next election for a while, "in the name of national security".
1. The poor don't have money to be transferred to the rich
2. The top 1% pay 40% of the Federal income taxes
3. Medicare, Medicaid, Education and Social Security are wealth transfers to the poor
The wealthy businessmen created their wealth, it was not transferred to them.
[0] researchgate.net/figure/US-Productivity-and-Hourly-Compensation-Source-Bureau-of-Labor-Statistics_fig1_270640833
Centralized systems are more efficient by definition, it’s why the public sector can seemingly magically multiply money where the private sector cannot.
Estimating the Marginal Propensity to Consume UsingFrom https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/Workingpapers/PD... Recent studies of economic inequality almost always separately examine income, consumption, and wealth inequality and, hence, miss the important synergy among the three measures explicit in the life-cycle budget constraint. Using Panel Study of Income Dynamics data from 1999 through 2013, we examine whether these changes are more dramatic at higher or lower levels of wealth and find that the marginal propensity to consume is lower at higher wealth quintiles. This suggests that low-wealth households cannot smooth consumption as much as other households do, which further implies that increasing wealth inequality likely reduces aggregate consumption and limits economic growth.
> Gini Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Find 1980 on this chart of wealth inequality in the US:
> GINI Index for the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA
Are there additional measures of wealth inequality?
World Inequality Database: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Inequality_Database
USA!: https://wid.world/country/usa/
Economic inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality :
> Economic inequality is an umbrella term for a) income inequality or distribution of income (how the total sum of money paid to people is distributed among them), b) wealth inequality or distribution of wealth (how the total sum of wealth owned by people is distributed among the owners), and c) consumption inequality (how the total sum of money spent by people is distributed among the spenders).
How does this work? Where do the poor get wealth, on a continual basis, for the rich to take? If the poor have so little, and have had their fraction of the wealth taken by the rich for three decades, assuming things have got worse for the poor since the end of the eighties, where’s all this wealth coming from?
I’m not singling out here, this is a question for the general audience.
In the past (centuries ago), it seems like people simply accepted other classes were better and they could never be their equals. That’s how you end up with royal families, etc.
So in the future, people will simply work to the bone, find whatever pleasures they can when possible, and maybe just not wake up ever again on some morning before their shift starts. They will live in small simple residential units mostly for sleep, eating, bathing and watching some content on a screen.
The rich will segregate themselves away to enjoy a finer life somewhere that they can be shielded from the plight of the poor.
I don’t think a civil war in the us is possible but I think advertisers taking advantage of the divisiveness to see chaos is likely (and already happening).
Edit: I meant “adversaries” instead of “advertisers” but I think advertisers works equally well so left it in.
Clear, obvious initial battle lines are not a prereauisite for a civil war. The American Civil War, where the conflict was largely motivated by an issue which had a geographical split among subordinate polities was kimd of a special case.
"Capital in the 21st Century" by Piketty does a good job arguing that the historical normal condition is for wealth to concentrate bc the returns on capital are greater than overall economic growth. It's depressing, but creating the kind of world that a lot of us and our parents enjoyed takes special conditions (and political will?) ... but the flip side of this view is that intense inequality can endure for long periods of time and doesn't necessarily lead to political instability.
What I like about NFL, NBA, MLB etc is that they will tweek the rules to make things competitive so the rich don’t get too rich and win it all too much. We should have a “DOGE” system for rule tweeting to even things out once in a while
It blows my mind why pension funds continue to invest any money at all in PE and Hedge Funds. It's a straight up wealth transfer from the working class to the investor class. States should pass max fee laws for their own pension fund allocations.
Maybe an alternative is we'll figure out how to change and fix these corrupt systems as more and more people wake up to how bad they really are.
Are you attempting to make a “they provide jobs” argument? Because they wouldn’t if they didn’t have to. Jobs are an unwanted byproduct of a successful business.
I think you know at least some of the reasons Gabe. There is a series of filters: intelligence, early skill development, a supportive environment, elite networking, risk tolerance, strong vision, perfect market timing, and a business model benefiting from network effects in a market that can only sustain a few winners.
This list might be incomplete. Would you like to supplement it, or do you prefer to continue with the socratic method? I'd like if you did the former, because the latter comes across as arrogant and condescending.
Success depends on some combination of hard work / talent / luck. You can have an extreme amount of all three and get an extreme outcome like being a billionaire, you can have moderate amounts of 2 / 3 and still be quite well off. You can have extreme amounts of one and be successful from very little.
Access to resources helps, obviously, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
To your original question about the wealth transfer, this isn't just the rich selling their subscription services to the poor or something like that. It's a much broader subject.
Some ways in which it can happen include inflation eroding wages while increasing asset values, high-interest debt, tax loopholes favoring capital over labor, financialization driving up costs of essentials, government bailouts benefiting corporations, privatization shifting public assets into private hands.
You'll probably agree that some of these things have been happening for decades, and some people want to accelerate the rate at which they're happening.
To claim that it’s not happening is not believable. Why wouldn’t they protect and expand their wealth and power at the expense of the serfs if nobody is stopping them?
By definition, the poor have almost no money to transfer.
Wouldn't you have to transfer from the middle class - which is shrinking in relative terms?
The poor have never had anything and still largely have nothing. It is literally in the definition.
I don't see how it's possible to enrich yourself (when the amount you need to grow by even small percentages is enormous) from a class with nothing to take.
IMO the main thing they extract from the working poor is time - what they're stealing is the excess value between their labor and the value is creates, and technology has made it easy to do this at a massive scale. So it's less $1 from each person, it's 8 hours per day from a million people makes 1 person a billionaire.
For one, there aren't 100m poor people in the US. Not even close.
Second, billionaires have almost $7T in wealth - the top .1% are at about ~$20T.
They didn't get any meaningful percentage of that by taking pennies off of 45M. You'd need to take thousands. And they just don't have it. That's almost $450k per "poor" person.
That's more than the median HH wealth in the US.
If you look at the "actual poor" - you're likely looking >$1M per person.
You simply cannot "steal" that from the "poor" (who have almost nothing to steal, by definition).
Even if you amortize that over decades - it is just not how it happened.
And for those who will say, "Then the government should just build more houses", let me point out that we might run out of space before the appetite for real estate investment dies out.
The people who are ACTUALLY poor, don't have such things.
It's very common for people living in traditional working-class neighbourhoods to own a house and suddenly become paper rich when gentrification happens (e.g. Venice Beach in LA). They might find themselves in a situation where, in theory, they have a lot of wealth from the house but don't participate in the economy at the same level.
There are homeless people.
People who are barely able to rent a room in a crack house.
You are NOT POOR if you own a single family house in Englewood. End of discussion. Sorry.
Sell your house and live off the annuity for life at > median income after taxes in perpetuity. If you don't, there is literally no excuse for your situation other than your own choosing.
What's different here - that is critical - the actual poor HAVE NO CHOICES.
What we have is a social crisis that billionaire class used to exploit the nation for classist gains, with the collateral effect of damaging the nations memory, identity and values.
The universal dismay of humanity is that we actually built and held onto Democracy for a time.
Not perfectly, but better than suffering any dictatorship by "royalty" and oligarchs.
The transnational petroleum business was never going to go quietly into energy decline. Its component interests are flexing their influence.
no amount of graffiti and stickers will change what the numbers have always said since the days of theocracy and the deluge
luigi sadly is not a revolutionary but a substitute for the car crash in Oklahoma :)
This is what I've been struggling to articulate more succinctly since my college days, when I started really getting into macro-level systems analysis and long-term planning. Much of the Western world ceded pieces of its sovereignty to external entities without regard to the long-term consequences of said actions. Stuff like outsourcing domestic labor abroad, to countries like China (refining, manufacturing) or India (knowledge work) means those countries now have an outsized influence on domestic affairs that aren't easily clawed back. Ceding sovereignty of infrastructure (be it data centers, roads, hospitals, schools, etc) to private enterprise means those entities have dictatorial say over how those pieces of infrastructure are operated, maintained, and replaced.
In essence, the limited sovereignty the West retained was broadly centered around consumption and wealth, opposing ends of a larger economic system that are now grossly out of balance. It's at the point where there is no singular "silver bullet" to fix it, either. Taxing the wealthy will help, but absent meaningful reshoring of industry and jobs domestically, it won't actually right the economic ship. It's also not merely an American problem, but one largely affecting the neoliberal West that spent decades outsourcing, offshoring, contracting-out, and generally doing everything possible to min-max cost vs returns, quarter after quarter. I think the only country not substantially affected might be Germany, but there's still talk of automakers shuttering factories there in favor of using Chinese labor and shipping the vehicles back to save on costs.
We have created a global economy but without global regulation, which in turn has resulted in artificially depressed consumption prices (relative to actual local costs) and artificially increased wealth extraction through rampant exploitation. Absent a singular global currency and standard of living (which, let's be real is centuries away at the earliest), the only practical solution is a domestic rebuild of labor markets, supply chains, and industries, with a goal of refocusing national exports on what a country uniquely excels at rather than simply offshoring to whichever country has the optimal labor pool and exchange rate relative to your specific industry.
It's a hot mess to be sure, but not unsolvable. Reshoring industry gives us an opportunity to re-evaluate supply chains and resource management with a focus on closed-loops and renewables. Reshoring work will boost wages and living standards, which in turn will boost birth rates and economic growth. Diversifying the economy back into regions and localities will promote specialization and innovation, rather than the fad-copying of today. There's a lot of good to be had in facing the problem head-on rather than giving into fascist ideology and demagogues promoting "one easy trick" to fixing things, but all of it involves hard, honest work, which some folks will naturally be hostile toward.
Either way, we'll all find out together, I guess.
The fundamentals used to be closer to the Bible's. They shifted to subjectivity, nationalism, authoritarianism (unchecked), and capitalism. Then, new groups around 1900 shifted to more subjectivity and atheism. Add pleasure-driven culture from the sequel revolution onward. Then, evolution, intersectionality, and feelings over facts.
As I look at these, I see a dangerous combo of not seeing individuals with inherent worth, thinking people are like animals, believe/do whatever without long term consequences, and do what maximizes selfish gain, money or pleasure. Our problems are inevitable under that mindset.
Let's look at specific examples in your post. The rich should take more wealth for themselves since that's maximizing selfish gain. The poor (or scheming) should also try to take their wealth by theft or welfare. If people get hurt, it's an unavoidable problem in a workd of conflict where the fittest survive. No objective morals even exist.
Fortunately, we're seeing a growing rejection of those values leading to life transformations. That's a huge part of Trump getting elected since his policies are appealing to such people. The Spirit of Christ is also causing revivals across the country with thousands to tens of thousands gathered trying to change at the core. Inner change leads to outward effects.
Right now, our college students are taught conflict theory, favoring specific geoups, subjectivism, work against our natural design no matter the losses, and pleasure/money/intellect are god.
What will happen when college students instead are taught objective truth, doing what's right above all, building on our natural design, loving others with sacrifices made, helping those in need onto their feet, unity despite our differences, and building companies that are profitable within those virtues?
I think the results will be beautiful. I've already seen places like that on a small scale. For big ones, Chic-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are pretty close. Part of God's design is some people will be rich and eventually generous. So, that won't change in most places.
I too was the best trader in the world when I got some skittles from my friend in the playground for free and sold them to another kid for a dollar making an infinity percent profit, but I didn’t feel the need to make a YouTube career out of it.
Felt like he's working out his problems on YouTube rather than therapy (after first trying to in a trading career). I really dislike his (and most progressive's) narrative that others are distinctly out to get you. It shrouds the real complex machinery, and papers it over with intent. Which impedes meaningful progress i think.
The oddity is that it has taken so long for them to find YouTube.
I've only heard of him because of this sort of Hacker News comments, and my general impression is that he is usually so off the mark that it is hard to have relevant conversations.
He makes money selling books and having an Youtube channel.
I've long wondered why so many economists get inequality so incredibly wrong without any hint of self-awareness whatsoever, and the answer (in part 3 of that series) was mind-blowing. So, so well put together.
I won't give the spoilers here, but do watch it. It's an experience.
Who defines what is “fair”? If it’s people, people are imperfect AF and centralized planning economies tend to fail spectacularly.
I would agree that a system can be unfair, but what changes to the system are sustainable while still incentivizing risk-taking and achievement?
This was never going to be able to last forever as long as the population keeps increasing. This is why settlers left Europe etc in the first place to seek fortune overseas. And since there is no un-owned land remaining, the market price for land will match or exceed regional population growth worldwide forever, unless a whole lot of people start dying.
Working hard is necessary in its own right for many reasons, but promising everyone that if they "work" hard enough, they too can set up their heirs, is pure marketing. So is shaming anyone who fails to achieve it as "lazy", when it was never going to be possible for more than a fraction.
I don't think the amount of "unexplored" or "undeveloped" land is a good metric for social mobility. Economic growth is. New "frontiers" are created all the time. They do not have to be in the physical world (e.g. computers, the web, biotech, the App store, social media influencer, crypto, and now AI). Even in the physical world, frontiers can sometimes expand. Desirable land can be created in the middle of a desert (e.g. Las Vegas), we just don't want to anymore.
Despite its many flaws, I think the US is still better than pretty much anywhere else in the world.
Cities can outbid agriculture, but the water rights market is complicated.
A better example might be the California Forever project which seemingly had this figured out, but was blocked because they couldn't get permission.
Its a real shame that both state and federal governments do not see the advantages of this...
People interpret the speaker as if he is “one of those people”, who believes the counter narrative the listener has heard about.
Rarely does the listener move past this point, and check in on whether the speaker is actually one of those people, or if he is someone who has never heard of those people, or if he has ignored those people because he thinks their views are just as stupid as you think they are, and he is actually independently criticizing the topic.
I think you mean to say "When we could steal land from the people who were originally on that land"
- Land Appropriation for "Public Need" with Direct Transfer to Wealthy: https://fastercapital.com/content/Land-appropriation--The-In...
- Heirs property, property tax sales, and Torrens Acts (article focuses on black people, yet works equally well on all skin colors): https://inequality.org/article/black-land-theft-racial-wealt...
- Wealth City / Suburb secession to leave poor areas to pay bills, and then buy them in destitution: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-11/atlanta-s...
- Rezone areas to make new cities, take all the businesses and good land, and leave the remaining "city" with the bills (another Atlanta idea): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Union+City,+GA/@33.6158433...
- Sell vacant land out from under land owners with false listings: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newark/news/fra...
- Purposely Induced Foreclosure, Bankruptcy or surprise tax assessments to cause a forced sale: https://www.businessethicsnetwork.org/forced-sale-implicatio...
see: Adverse Possession
"Right by conquest" is sort of a cope, like "You might have a green light and the right of way, but Isaac Newton always favors the semi truck"
1) Diamond's argument rests on the idea that world historical developments are effectively determined by geography (and implicitly, by factors which precede the existence of a civilization). While I can't make a strong argument against historical determinism, the conclusions Diamond draws are strange. The chief problem is that Diamond is trying to make the case that the exceptional prosperity of Northern Europe and all of its colonies was effectively a fluke of geography. The problem for Diamond is that this pattern repeats over the course of about four hundred years all over the world, not just in the places where Europeans had the advantage of small pox on their side.
2) Native Americans had access to pack animals by way of the llama.
3) The Aztecs lacked access to pack animals. They still had specialized tradesmen and constituted a civilization.
The germs argument is the only one of Diamond's that I think holds any water with regards to the European conquest of North America, and perhaps I was being too brash in my original assertion (these civilizations existed, but were decimated by small pox). The issue with this argument is that it doesn't address European colonialism in Asia (where the disease factor is absent) and Subsaharan Africa (where the disease factor actually worked against Europeans).
The fact of the matter is that Europeans (and specifically Northern Europeans) happened upon a method of conquest that worked. This could have been an accident of geography, biology, or ideology, but it's absurd to pretend that the model didn't exist when it was the basis of a successful campaign to conquer the world. It had nothing to do with having access to pack animals.
> it was the basis of a successful campaign to conquer the world
I am referring specifically to the conquest of America here. You can see that there were several advanced societies at the time (China, India, Europe, Middle East) and it is essentially luck which of them won out. There are also many places which could not have feasibly conquered the world, America was among them precisely due to the lack of pack animals barring further societal advancement. By the same token, aboriginal Australians and Polynesian islanders had little chance dominating the world.
They are pack animals with carrying capacities comparable to donkeys and slightly less than horses.
>America was among them precisely due to the lack of pack animals barring further societal advancement.
You never addressed the issue of Tenochtitlan, which was constructed without the use of pack animals, so this isn't a compelling claim to begin with. Even so, North America had plenty of candidates for domestication that would have made serviceable pack animals (e.g. moose, caribou). Diamond makes some weak attempt to claim that the animals available were too temperamental to be domesticated, conveniently forgetting that the ancestor of man's flesh-eating best friend is the wolf.
> By the same token, aboriginal Australians and Polynesian islanders had little chance dominating the world.
You're making this argument because these places are islands. This was not a hindrance to the British. You'll then make the argument that you were really arguing that these places are isolated (which is maybe valid if we're talking about Polynesia, less so for Australia), to which I'd reply: "Isolated from what?" to which you'd reply: "The pack animals, the germs, and the steel," to which I'd inquire: "Why were these things found in Europe and not Australia?" and that is where we get to the root of the matter. Europe's conquests were not a matter of luck or an accident of geography. There was something in their method that simply worked better than the methods of those peoples that they conquered. I haven't reached a conclusion as to what it was in that approach that led Europe to becoming the dominant power of the last five hundred years, but there's no compelling case to be made that this method didn't exist.
500 years is a blink. Anatomically modern humans have existed for 150,000 years, yet civilizations as we understand them are at most 5000 years old. You are comparing two continents that have been isolated during that timespan, with different geography, diseases, and domesticable animals, and which developed a virtually independent separate history until the 1500s. How can you assert that all of this is irrelevant and that it was pure "Northern European superiority" or whatever that meant European colonialism was successful?
Because the alternative is doing what James_K is doing and claiming that these events were essentially chance developments; that is, that there was nothing endogenous to European civilization (or, perhaps, as you're inferring, European peoples themselves) that led to these world conquests, but that they were instead either just a series of coincidences or a product of the environment.
This discussion can get quite philosophical because like I said earlier in the thread, I can't refute historical determinism - I don't know if there is any way that we can really exit the chain of causality and determine events for ourselves, so in that sense, the underlying claim that it's all just the environment (or more accurately, antecedent causes) is correct, but this doesn't tell the whole story.
The fundamental question at hand here is if European civilization had anything within it that led to its rise to power. What you, James_K, and decolonialists everywhere are preoccupied with is the idea that if this is true, it must mean that this "thing" (which I will refer to as the European method) originated as a result of European intelligence, or more broadly from its biological characteristics. It is then inferred that this will necessarily lead to normative scientific racism and subsequently a world-homogenizing genocide.
There is reason to be weary of these things. They do not refute the notion that the Europeans possessed something endogenous which allowed them to conquer the world. Drawing the conclusion that Europeans did possess this endogenous thing would not validate any normative moral claim; we can only do that ourselves.
I don't know who that is and have never read any of his work.
> Tenochtitlan
> Even so, North America had plenty of candidates for domestication that would have made serviceable pack animals
Weirdly enough, Tenochtitlan is the rebuttal to this question. Why do you think they built a city on a lake? It's because they didn't have any pack animals so boats were the best way to move stuff around. This is a disadvantage that makes everything else much harder and therefore slows development.
> conveniently forgetting that the ancestor of man's flesh-eating best friend is the wolf
If literal millions of Native Americans could not domesticate the other animals, but they could domesticate dogs, I'm going to guess that the other animals are harder to domesticate than dogs. You might not feel that this is the case, but your feelings don't stack up to the practical results of a thousands-of-years-long experiment run on an entire continent where these animals could not be domesticated.
> Why were these things found in Europe and not Australia?
Because Europe has horses and Australia doesn't, and horses cannot swim therefore could not reach Australia. The moon also doesn't have horses for a similar reason. In fact, you'll find that horses only really inhabited areas reachable by horses, until someone put them on a boat and took them to other places (which didn't happen for Australia until quite late). You have this strange assumption that all areas are secretly equal in geography and must be equally hospitable to human flourishing, but this is not true. Europe is more hospitable than Australia, therefore humans flourished more in Europe than Australia. All you need do is assume differences in geography exist and you'll reach the conclusion that humans in more amenable areas are more likely to conquer those in less amenable areas.
> Europe's conquests were not a matter of luck or an accident of geography
You say this with precisely no proof. The closest you get is saying "other people didn't do it, and Europeans did so it couldn't have been luck". The idea that knowledge is what held other areas back, as opposed to luck or geography, is ridiculous and trivially disprovable. Knowledge exists in equal quantities for all people (unless you believe certain races are inferior to others). The difference between regions is geographical or in fortune, which could include the fortune of having a particularly skilled leader or successful sequence of conquests.
They built their city on a marsh because an eagle landed on a cactus and they interpreted this as a sign from heaven. They subsequently conquered the city-states that already existed there. It had nothing to do with considerations surrounding the ease of transport as they were a nomadic people and were initially forced to settle in a marsh on the fringes of the lake.
Further, you are getting away from your original claim, which was: "Transport is the backbone of industry and is required for the high degree of specialisation in trades that produces technological advancement." This was not the case for the Aztecs. "Ah," you say, "but we can amend my claim to include analogs to pack animals which facilitate the movement of materials, such as Tenochtitlan's canal system," at which point I would draw your attention to the Cahokia, the Pueblos, the Mayans, and the Olmecs, none of which fit this pattern, all of which formed complex civilizations that soundly refute your claim.
> If literal millions of Native Americans could not domesticate the other animals, but they could domesticate dogs, I'm going to guess that the other animals are harder to domesticate than dogs. You might not feel that this is the case, but your feelings don't stack up to the practical results of a thousands-of-years-long experiment run on an entire continent where these animals could not be domesticated.
Dogs were domesticated thousands of years prior to the arrival of humans in North America.
> Knowledge exists in equal quantities for all people
There is no evidence of this whatsoever and plenty of evidence to disprove it.
I take it you also think the founder of Rome was the son of the god Mars and killed his brother after being suckled by a wolf?
> There is no evidence of this whatsoever and plenty of evidence to disprove it.
Do you have this evidence? Can I see it?
Yes: You made the erroneous claim that Native Americans domesticated dogs. I corrected your error by pointing out that dogs were domesticated prior to the arrival of humans in the Americas. Thus, knowledge is not evenly distributed.
"I meant intelligence, not knowledge," you counter, to which I retort: The idea that intelligence is evenly distributed among populations has been soundly refuted. There are demonstrable differences in every metric of intelligence thus far devised both between and within populations. Incidentally, intelligence by itself is not sufficient for colonialism. The Han Chinese typically score higher on IQ tests than Europeans, and yet it was the latter that conquered the world, not the former. "You're proving my point!" you protest - I never made the claim that Europeans conquered the world due to their intelligence, I rejected the notion that this had anything to do with luck, because it kept occurring over the course of dozens of geographies and hundreds of years.
Let's suppose it was luck. Do you have this luck? Can I see it, have it defined? What would it mean for Europeans to have conquered the world by means of luck? Does it manifest out a magical aether like the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?
This seems very compatible with what I just said.
> Long since debunked
I mean, the linked article says horses were introduced in the 1600s (brought by Europeans), and then spread throughout the Americas without requiring further European distribution.
> Horses evolved in the Americas around four million years ago, but by about 10,000 years ago, they had mostly disappeared from the fossil record, per the Conversation. Spanish settlers likely first brought horses back to the Americas in 1519, when Hernán Cortés arrived on the continent in Mexico. Per the new paper, Indigenous peoples then transported horses north along trade networks.
Don't forget to read the whole article!
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-s...
There’s still a lot of land out there. The only problem today is nobody wants to start over with no plumbing, electricity, or other modern conveniences.
Simply due to the fact that it's more valuable in their hands. Driving out some campers to build a town is the rule, not an exception.
In human affairs there is no such thing as absolute value.
The reason is simply that it is inevitable as much as gravity is inevitable.
Making a moral law against gravity isn’t going to get you very far.
That's every single society ever. This has been the civilizational algorithm. It predates our species.
That same tactic is alive and well today.
People will really say this and then still be mad when I want to marry just a couple of my cousins
That was, what, a 95% extermination? Native Americans probably committed 100% exterminations e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture
History was full of violence.
Em. First, numbers of "native ancestry" are almost all self-reported which has more to do with self-identified culture than genetic ancestry.
Second, trying to argue through the use current numbers of native ancestry is nonsensical given the US has been an outlier in terms of immigration for a very long time making it impossible to compare against. For goodness sake, around a tenth of the population has been foreign born for the better part of two centuries which has had a dramatic effect on ancestry (both genetic and self-reported).
Some of the nations were large, such as the Aztec. And at least a few of them understood right by conquest. They also had extensive trade routes across the continent, seeming to disprove the lack of ownership.
“The people there didn’t have the concept of ownership” but some pioneers sure as hell made sure to enlighten them by laying claim to that same land and then threatening anyone for encroaching on it.
After smallpox when the population of the Americas had been reduced by something like 90% they most certainly didn't need all the land.
Oops!
Are you really unaware that the colonials intentionally spread smallpox to the natives? This is not some obscure detail - it's in approximately all of the history textbooks in a fair bit of detail.
If someone acted with clear intent to commit genocide, but the mass deaths would have happened anyway, does that clear them of the charge?
Put another way, if I stab someone, the knife goes in and all, but as I'm doing it a car also runs over him, am I no longer guilty of murder? Seems pretty questionable to me.
As for your example, that's a bit convoluted. Perhaps clearer would be if you intend to genocide say, a town and meteor hits killing everyone before you get there as well as the neighboring town, it would be difficult to argue you're to blame for their deaths. That doesn't mean you're a nice person and we'd generally still lock you up for attempted genocide of the town you attempted to murder, but not of the town you didn't.
The meteor in real life was disease. By some estimates, 90% of the population in the Americas died from diseases the Spanish accidentally introduced by 1600, most the Spanish did not know existed.
The east expansion took a lot of time, involved quite a few massacres and invonluntary relocations.
I would definitely cry for the death of the innocent grandchildren of thieves.
There is a lot of cheap land and even a lot of cheap houses for those willing to live in a different place. Even many of my friends in Seattle, for example, have discovered that if they move 30-60 minutes away their housing costs plummet dramatically. This has opened the door to many of them moving even farther away, unlocking an entire new world of affordability.
There was a brief moment where all of this looked like it was a very real possibility for many of us, but the rubber band is snapping back with remote work and now many are being required to move back to those few cities again to find the best jobs.
> but promising everyone that if they "work" hard enough, they too can set up their heirs, is pure marketing.
I don't think most people believe that you can just work hard and then have generational wealth for your heirs. That feels like a strawman argument. Generational wealth has always been a difficult feat for the few, not something we promised everyone could achieve.
However, people also underestimate the power of compounding for retirement savings. Obviously not helpful to someone working at McDonalds and trying to pay rent in a big city, but people working average mid-life jobs at average salaries who consistently save $100/month or more can amass significant retirement wealth over 30-40 years. Not "generational wealth" or "setting up your heirs", but enough to make big contributions to education, helping kids with emergencies, possibly leaving some non-trivial inheritance. This happens all the time and continues to happen with millenials, as it will happen with Gen Z. Again, not literally everyone but to suggest that it's out of reach is really out of alignment with the reality of what we see people earning and saving.
You’re off by at least a factor of ten.
40 years of $100/month savings at a generous 5% compounding is $148,242. And that’s in future dollars. Drop it to 4% and you’re down $116,606.
The real formula to consider is what percentage of your monthly spending you are savings. If it’s 100%, then every month worked is one month of retirement. If it’s 50% then two months of working is one month of retirement. If you live frugally and save 400% of your spend, each month counts as four retired months.
It’s a simple fraction with the numerator as your net savings and the denominator your total spending. And lowering the denominator scales things much faster.
Plus if 7% real returns (after a 3% inflation) is the historical average, how is 5% real returns generous? That's still conservative even if he meant to claim a 5% real return.
And there are plenty of nice places to live in that radius! I'm in Tacoma which I really like. And Seattle is plenty accessible for shows, events, a night out.
I did what your friends did. After 6y of paying off student loans and saving cash (not even being frugal - enjoying Seattle for sure), we looked at Tacoma and realized "oh we have our pick of wonderful homes here."
As to why new cities aren't being built in completely empty areas, I would have to know where you're talking about to make a guess as to why they aren't being developed. Off the top of my head:
1) Environmental concerns 2) Expropriation concerns making projects politically untenable 3) The concerns of aboriginals 4) Cost of infrastructure development 5) Lack of market demand
To elaborate on the fifth point, I would posit that people don't tend to populate such greenfield cities unless there is a compelling reason to do so; either by being pulled (e.g. by resource extraction opportunities, a growing economy, educational opportunities, etc.) or by being pushed (e.g. fleeing a war, the effects of climate change, or political persecution). China is the example to look at here. They spent most of the 2010s buying up an enormous amount of resources to build cities that ended up just sitting empty before eventually being demolished. A lot of this was just fraud (the buildings weren't constructed to be habitable to begin with), but at least some proportion of it had to do with the factors I mentioned above. The cost of physically moving to a new city, as well as the loss of social capital resulting from such a move make relocating to a new city both undesirable and prohibitively expensive for most people.
Do you have another theory?
I do (becuase I've heard it from a buddy of mine who's an MD at a Bulge Bank) - there is no capital to invest in consumer real estate anymore.
Large portions of that industry died out in 2008-12, and capital for large real estate projects like a housing community tend to be allocated 2-3 years before ground breaking, and then an additional 1-2 years to build.
So to build a brand new community by 2020, you should have done all the leg work in 2014-16. And to build a new one today, it should have been done in 2019-20.
Any pipeline that even existed is now dead, because manufacturing construction was the asset class of choice in the 2022-24 period along with high interest rates (making projects much more expensive) and tariffs on Canadian lumber, so the housing shortage is about to get even worse.
If you reread the original post, the claim being made is:
> The idea that an average person, working hard, can eventually own part of a nation's land and resources, [...] was never going to be able to last forever as long as the population keeps increasing.
This is manifestly not the case. My response was that, insofar as a pyramid scheme exists, it has nothing to do with some fundamental Malthusian limit on how many people can fit in a given space; this limit exists, but is not the reason that the rich are getting richer, which instead has to do with monetary policy.
You make cheap money available to those with good credit. These people take out loans and use the money to buy real property with the expectation that they will be able to rent it out for more than the carrying cost of the loan. This causes the price of real estate to rise artificially beyond what it would if the cheap credit had not been made available. The key issue here is that this credit isn't being made available to everyone at once - you have to qualify for the loan first.
And why you guys are looking at Mars now.
Here in latam we haven't filled the land at all, you guys have been hard working and filled with riches. But our laziness might give us more longevity, we are playing the long game with the amazon
Also, this is very bad for not only the locals as they get gentrified from living in their own city/urban centers (and in some cases even rural zones), but also the local companies: The US and other rich Western companies dump their healthcare and housing costs onto the locals through arbitration while making it harder for local companies to keep up with the CoL increase through wages, therefore increasing their expenses and reducing their competitiveness. And the reduced taxes that the nomads etc pay doesn't help it. (that is, the ones who actually pay).
Most nomads are going to be getting private health insurance. It's true that a lot of them are not paying their taxes, but if you're talking about Latin America that's true for a large portion of the domestic population as well. I looked into relocating to a country in South America a few years ago and had a lawyer tell me to not even worry about filling out the relevant visas because he had clients from China who had been living there for decades with no papers (I opted not to retain his services). The key here is that even if they aren't paying taxes, they are bringing money into the economy and are generally not competing with local laborers. This attitude has started to shift in places like Mexico City because a lot of the expats are not digital nomads but instead run-of-the-mill immigrants competing with the working population for jobs.
Those private health insurances are subsidized by the public healthcare because they piggyback off of the public healthcare system. That's why they are affordable, unlike the US. And as a result, those nomads end up congestion the public healthcare system because the private health insurers also send their own patients to public hospitals for anything serious. Im telling this from a place that is experiencing precisely this.
> It's true that a lot of them are not paying their taxes, but if you're talking about Latin America that's true for a large portion of the domestic population as well
The amount of taxes avoided by the poor majority in such countries don't compare to the taxes avoided by the rich white collars. Nomads earn 2 to 5 times more than the local white collars as well. Even in some European countries.
> The key here is that even if they aren't paying taxes, they are bringing money into the economy
They don't. People think that but neither tourists nor nomads nor short term-renters (whatever the kind) bring money into the economy:
The nomad doesn't buy 10 shoes every month, 2 cars every year, eat out 20 times every day or buy 50 loaves of bread every day. He consumes just like any other human being (obviously), and his consumption does not move the needle of the local economy much.
What nomad's consumption boosts is a few local/luxury shops that cater to the rich or nomads, and maybe one or two local shops or services that they also use. Those few businesses make bank even as other businesses in the same neighborhood rot. And those few businesses that benefit don't buy dozens of employees to make up for the added workload - they hire one or two and everyone works harder and that's it. So what nomads end up doing is enriching a few local, already-well-to-do shop and business owners. On the other side, they cause a 20 to 30% increase in rents (even in Europe), housing prices and significant increases in CoL.
> This attitude has started to shift in places like Mexico City because a lot of the expats are not digital nomads but instead run-of-the-mill immigrants competing with the working population for jobs.
It started changing in Europe too. In places like Barcelona, Madrid, Southern Spain, Portugal, some central European 'bohemian' destinations etc. Mostly because of the sharp gentrification the nomads are causing even for the white collars. But especially the English-speaking foreigner population concentration in some places became way too visible and they started outnumbering the locals. In Barcelona there seems to be a lot of cafes in the city center where the waiters don't know Spanish or Catalan, people having difficulty hearing either language being spoken in the city center etc.
In any case a strong reaction came to being against nomadism and its not looking good.
Most nomads I know have insurance that is either global or based in their home country. If I had been injured in my host country I would have been required to pay full price for my medical services, which is why I bought insurance in my own country. If you're at the point that you've purchased insurance in the place you are living, are you really a nomad anymore?
> The amount of taxes avoided by the poor majority in such countries don't compare to the taxes avoided by the rich white collars.
Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just speculating? I've read about this with regards to South America and what I took away from it was that the informal economy is largely made up of low wage laborers, not white collar professionals. In either case, this is kind of irrelevant to the discussion because any taxes the nomads pay represent revenues that the host would not otherwise have had. As a nomad you aren't going to be consuming more in services than you're spending unless you're camping in a tent and end up breaking a leg.
> They don't. People think that but neither tourists nor nomads nor short term-renters (whatever the kind) bring money into the economy:
I spent more on rent in 3 months in my host country than most people spend in a year. I ate out at restaurants almost every night I was there, and took taxis every day. These aren't normal consumption patterns where I was living. Your point might hold if you're talking about Europe; but if we accept that it does, we would then have to ask how it's possible for nomads to be driving rents up.
> Those few businesses make bank even as other businesses in the same neighborhood rot.
Does the economy improve or does it not?
> And those few businesses that benefit don't buy dozens of employees to make up for the added workload - they hire one or two and everyone works harder and that's it.
This is pure speculation on your part and there's no compelling reason to think that it occurs.
I don't think any really 'global' insurance exists as it would be unmanageable as it would bankrupt the 'global' firm. All such insurances probably pass through some local subsidiary or intermediary firm. And where I am, all nomads have to buy local private insurance as that is the one that they can legally prove having. And that means they use the public healthcare system when they have anything serious.
> If you're at the point that you've purchased insurance in the place you are living, are you really a nomad anymore?
Purchasing private insurance that you can confirm is obligatory to get DN visa here.
> Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just speculating?
Speculation is unnecessary as numbers are public. The amount of taxes that the nomads pay is at most ~24% even in the popular European spots. That is if they actually pay anything because most of them use the 180 day rule to avoid having to be resident in those countries. If they exit schengen in the 180th day and stay somewhere else for what, some ~3 months, they can reset the duration and stay another 180 days in that country without becoming a resident and paying taxes. Then there are the assholes that stay more than that but dodge taxes by using Delaware corporations, other shell companies etc.
In contrast to this, wherever they cram into, they cause a 20% to 30% rent and housing price increase every year. When you consider that the income of the average nomad is $5000/month according to statistics, even if they actually pay their taxes what they pay amounts to something like $1000 per person/month on average and does not do sh*t to make up for the CoL increase they cause. Especially the rent and housing.
Its bad, really. The intention for the DN visa here was to stimulate the information technology sector. But it ended up as a scheme in which mainly the US companies dump their healthcare and housing costs onto the locals while still getting the labor of the nomad. So it is not the local technology market that is benefiting from this at all. If anything, it is getting harmed because the CoL increase makes the local companies' employees suffer and the companies cant raise salaries to keep up.
> As a nomad you aren't going to be consuming more in services than you're spending unless you're camping in a tent and end up breaking a leg.
Merely the extra load they cause in the public healthcare system would be enough to consume more, even before talking about the CoL and local economic issues above.
> I spent more on rent in 3 months in my host country than most people spend in a year. I ate out at restaurants almost every night I was there, and took taxis every day. These aren't normal consumption patterns where I was living.
Yes, and those raise the CoL. All landlords in your region will now be jacking up prices and will try to rent their spaces to foreigners - which will also bring in the private investment plundererers who will start buying up the local housing to do it themselves instead. There are cases in my country where foreign individuals rent the housing they bought in my country and rent it to nomads without setting foot in the country or any locals getting involved. They pay a pretty meager property tax, and all their income tax goes to their own country because they reside there.
> Does the economy improve or does it not?
Abso-fkin-lutely not. Im in one of the major hotspots, and not even the worst, but people cant afford housing, they don't have jobs and there doesn't seem to be anything that is stimulated. If you don't count American investment corps and 'investor' individuals coming in and starting to scoop entire neighborhoods - which exacerbates the crisis even more.
> This is pure speculation on your part and there's no compelling reason to think that it occurs
That is exactly what we see happening. The economic numbers confirm the same reality. Higher CoL and no change in jobs even in the supposedly boosted 'information technology' sector.
In international trade there's complementary/productive trade, you have gold, we have silver, let's trade. And you also have redundant/substitutive trade, you have soy, we have cheaper soy, buy our soy.
I don't believe from the bottom of my heart in substitutive trade for similar reasons I don't believe in (most) inmigration. We've conquered the americas, now we have to populate it, god won't reward desertors who revert their ancestor's decision by running back to the old continent, and the excuse of "I was born in the wrong hemisphere" is also quite petty, we rolled the dice and this is what we got.
Substitutive trade isn't far from immigration, the poor want to go to the rich countries, and the rich buy the cheap labour. Where is the pride in that? In both sides. Leave your country for another with a different religion, leave your mother your brethren, and serve. Leave a war instead of fighting? Take a 1 hour bus to a fancy neighbourhood to serve coffee and wash dishes. Conversely, you can wash your own dishes, you can use a bottle of water and fill that up before you leave, we don't need a migrant washing our dishes, and we don't need to migrate to wash dishes.
So I'm trying to focus on trade that is not replaceable with local labour, hopefully countries start nailing down remote work and we start locking those behind visas.
And unfortunately india and philipinnes get that productive trade, they can cover night shifts.
We'll find stuff to export. There's not much, as Trump said "they need us more than we need them".
Local entertainment, sports and games will always be there, it's like cybertourism.
there might be an argument for redundant trade as a counterweight to an unbalanced productive export. But I don't think that works long term.
There's also localization services, in language and legal, but those are just costs of exporting really.
Lithium is probably the lesser evil, super extractive, but we gotta pay somehow.
Sorry about the super rant. Lately I've been more using forums as a way to write things that I already had drafted in my mind.
There is no shortage of land in the US. There is a shortage of land in a few high density areas. But increasing their density makes them more attractive.
I don't think it's reasonable to make the pioneer comparison-- if you want to do what pioneers did and build something from almost nothing in the middle of nowhere with great effort then there is still an analogous route open to you.
Land is still generally plentiful. The need to all live in one spot is more social/artificial and really accelerated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries due to rapid urbanization.
Land use is a complex topic, but you’re basically right. Everything good—not just land but social opportunities—is spoken-for and what we’re seeing in South Korea and Japan is probably the best solution: peaceful natural attrition and non-replacement of capital’s reserve army that is unwanted labor.
It would make so much more sense if land "ownership" was related to whether you live on or work that particular piece of land rather than relying on arbitrary pieces of paper that were mainly decided before any of us were even born.
It’s paying tax for owning something that is weird to me.
If there had still been a big demand for it, the program would probably still be running. They granted an extension to Alaska for that reason.
that’s just not happening
In practice housing costs are driven by shortages of _housing_, not land. And these are quite different.
I may consider myself liberal, but general housing policy by most liberal leaders has been a total disaster and should be recognized as such.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS12420Q
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DAXRNSA
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYXRSA
The linked article below has more details. Austin has had the largest declines in rents compared to the peak of any metro in the country: https://nypost.com/2025/02/27/real-estate/austin-is-seeing-t...
Austin: 346 -> 510. 510/346 = 1.47
Dallas: 192-> 295. 295/192= 1.53
NYC: 203-> 318. 510/346 = 1.56
SF: 271-> 361. 510/346 = 1.33
LA: 291-> 443. 510/346 = 1.52
These numbers are all pretty close imo, clustered around 50% growth in the last 5 years. Austin in particular grew 47% over the last 5 years, for a annualized growth rate of ~8% -- that is some _crazy_ growth for real estate, when the long term average in the US is about 3% annualized. IMO SF is the only remarkable datapoint, with 33% growth -> ~6% annualized growth. Even that is still high though.
It would be easier to visualize if we can plot them all on top of each other, but I didn't find an easy way to do that.
Austin: 502-> 510 growth: 1.6%
Dallas: 263-> 295 growth: 12.2%
NYC: 255-> 318 growth: 24.7%
SF: 349-> 361 growth: 3.4%
LA: 384-> 443 growth: 15.4%
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
However, my interpretation of the original claim about Austin is "Austin house prices have grown less in the last 5 years than other places". That claim is pretty specific, and can be examined by looking at just the start and end points. Looking at the end points, it seems incorrect.
800/346=2.3
2.3 >> 1.47
That's not a wobble in the plot.
>They’ve basically all nearly doubled in that time
This statement is incorrect. In another comment I did the math, and most of them had about 50% growth in the last 5 years, with SF being the outlier with 33% growth. Sorry for the mistake, my eyeballs are not as good as my math.
You mean 22% in the last year? Definitely not 22% compared to 5 years ago.
This happens all the time.
Rents aren't based on the value of the asset. They are based on supply and demand in the rental market.
[Edit] FWIW that was based on the rental market rather than anything related to asset value.
What policies are you referring to? What kinds of things happened?
The biggest problem as a landlord was that many of the laws were changed without any kind of grandfathering. This effectively rewrote some of my contracts. It had a lot of weird effects that I won't go into and took away many of our previously held property rights.
One thing that happened is that we offered a low-income individual, a $700 less than market discount to give the tenant and their medically complex child a safe place to weather the pandemic. During the pandemic the city introduced laws constraining rises in rent. Because my lease was written up without recognizing the discount, I would have had to pay $4,000 to the tenant to resume charge once the pandemic had passed as was the original agreement.
Also, during that period, there was a movement to reduce the ability of landlords to stop renting to particular people so that once you rented once you had to continue renting. For a while you couldn't even stop renting to sell your unit. That has thankfully been fixed very recently.
There are a lot of timelines enforced by the city. These can have complex interactions with human factors despite being good rules on the face of them. Great laws include that school-age children and their families as well as any school employee cannot evicted (including letting the lease end) during the school year so those 12 month contracts you write up for somebody in that class must be renewed in perpetuity or at some point changed to a shorter or longer term to align with summer. We had one tenant who got so paranoid by the legally mandated language (at the time) that they tried to force us to admit that we are trying to kick her out for 4 months before deciding to leave. We had no intention of kicking her out or ending her lease at any point. We did feel like we needed to retain that opportunity if we fell on to hard Financial times because that particular unit couldn't be sold with someone in it due to rental cap limitations of the HOA.
Tenants get free legal representation, which is pretty good. They're much less likely to have the capital to retain legal representation. We have had tenants, as friends of friends informed us after the fact, lie and verbally abuse us in order to try and trick us into violating the rules so they can trigger the 4K payout. On the other hand, the city communicates poorly and is often misleading so that landlords are required to have City specialized lawyers to navigate some of the most simple interactions. The real estate agent we just used to sell our unit noted that there's been a steady movement of small landlords out of the market. The only way it makes sense to keep up with all the changes is if you can scale the extra cost of keeping up across many units.
We got into it because we wanted to give a friendly human relationship to people who needed shorter-term housing and didn't have the capital to purchase. It has strained our marriage and our finances. We'll come out of it well off, but we would have been happy to continue being what almost all of our tenants have called the best landlords they've ever had.
Anyway, I'm meandering and this has gotten long. Sorry again for the delay.
? Private development is the heart of liberalism. We haven't had anyone but liberal leadership since, like, LBJ I think? And he was also a liberal acting out of character. Any alternative would surely imply public investment in housing. No, re-zoning is not going to make a dent in homelessness.
I'm aware that you're referring to liberal in the sense of "loyalist democrat" or whatever, but the reality is that both parties have virtually the same policy when it comes to housing: blame the market, act as though the market will still answer our problems even though it hasn't in the past, and feign helplessness that the government can directly influence housing in the first place outside of zoning. I.e., liberalism.
In fact, I’d argue its exactly the opposite.
Even if a majority would vote for a construction ban, many people would build new housing if it was legal. Both people who would vote against and for a ban.
I hope we start there, a very simple and straightforward action to take.
If you’re looking for what to tax instead of income, the best things are: land, pollution and consumption.
Land is great because people will not use less of it, no matter how high the tax. Pollution is great to tax, because we want to produce less of it. Consumption (or purchases or spending) is good to tax because economic growth is good and this tax encourages investment rather than spending your wealth. The most common consumption taxes are the sales tax or VAT tax.
You may have heard of consumption taxes described as “regressive “, but that comes from looking at only part of the policy. For example, a universal basic income funded by a sales or VAT tax would see the poor better off than the rich.
Seems like wealth taxes would be a great target too then.
Since apparently Carbon Dioxide is considered pollution now you have somehow defined the very action of living and working as taxable. Not going to end well.
Consumption tax leads to LESS investment because it leads to LESS viable companies over all. So unless you goal is More investement into a handful of megacorps you shouldn't do this.
Land tax is horrible because it's already our most abundant untapped resource, maybe in dense urban environments it might be justifiable, but that's it.
Stop trying all this dumb shit just say "suburban tax" if you want to make a tax that targets suburbanites. People appreciate honesty more than BS! Democracies can't function without it! The entire point of having representatives is to taxes that the people don't want, if they can't do that then American democracy has already failed decades before Trump.
And what are the pros/cons and outcomes of your preferred alternative?
Lots of countries in the world operate without income taxes.
Okay, but "lots" feels untrue and saying "operate" is borderline deceptive - there are 21 that I can find from a random infographic [0]. Human rights superstars like the UAE, NK, Brunei, and Saudi Arabia; above-board corporate havens like the Cayman Islands; and places I can't come up with a quippy joke about like Monaco or Vatican City.
I'm no geopolitics expert, but it looks like one thing that "functional sovereign states meaningfully participating in the world stage without oil money or some clear outside source of capital" all have in common is income taxes.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-a-handy-list-of-cou...
Can you give some examples? Do you think you live better in those countries than those with taxes?
Less than one fifth of its revenue comes from federal sources. If its residents weren't paying federal income taxes, Florida could probably afford to increase its taxes to cover the difference.
In the US, local taxes—not federal taxes—pay for the majority of surface street maintenance, schools, emergency services, licensing regimes, health and safety inspections, unemployment insurance, etc. I.e., most of what one considers to be staples of the social contract in a well-administered society.
It seems as though you're implying income taxes are a prerequisite to some standard of living comparable to the US, but that presupposes that income taxes in the US actually pay for the things that make a place worth living in.
If all of those staples are paid for by local governments, then what do federal income taxes pay for? Retirees and military procurement, for the most part.
Can you imagine other ways to raise those funds?
Over one-quarter (26%) comes from Federal sources according to the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances.
Having 26% of your government funded by (Federal) income taxes sure sounds like Florida can't operate without income taxes. They simply outsource collection to another jurisdiction.
Regardless, I addressed your point already.
The issue is when we allow people who do not live or pay tax in this country to make profit on assets in said country. A landlord who lives in the Cayman Islands should not be able to collect rent on UK assets while not paying the UK government tax in turn.
most labor does not individually have the means to leave like that.
also, you're talking about capital moving as in already-invested capital, while I'm talking about the people with capital making decisions to invest in the first place.
Capital flight is a thing. Land isn't going anywhere.
Economists including multiple Nobel laureates on both the left and right have been screaming for land value tax for almost a century for this and many other reasons.
Otherwise by taxing land based on what’s on it, it negatively incentivizes improving it. The nicer my home gets, the more my taxes go up.
If you build something that makes my land valuable, I get taxed more.
I like the incentive structure, but I think part of the incentives are towards collectivization so you and I become one unit, which may or may not be a good thing.
There aren’t many billionaires. Expropriating all their wealth wouldn’t move the needle for any of our budgetary problems.
I’m all for closing the step up in basis on death, which is what allows billionaires (and of course only moderately rich folks) to avoid paying much tax over their full life cycle.
But LVT is a good idea, regardless of whether billionaires get some extra punishment for having the temerity to create successful businesses.
I don't think so. Billionaires consume quite a lot of real-estate, even if indirectly through their business enterprises. Consider the Google campus in Mountain View or the Microsoft one in Redmond.
if I own 1000 acres in the middle of nowhere that holds an enormously profitable business, I could end up paying almost zero tax simply because I dont have any nearby real estate development
Also, LVT has never been proposed with taxing 100% of the annual rental value of land. This means you do not need to be 100% accurate with your assessment in order for the land to still be profitable to utilize. A 33% tax would mean you could literally be off by a factor of three in the assessment and it would still be marginally profitable.
I'm not sure about your example, but land of little potential value should be taxed little. Keep in mind that it is taxed according to its potential value though - not its current. 1,000 acres in the middle of nowhere is likely to cost basically zero in taxes if it can't be utilized for any purpose either now or in the future. If it has future value then you would need to do a net present value calculation.
What led you to this bizarre idea that capital flight entails a person selling or exchanging all of their securities?
I don’t know a single neighborhood in this city where the average household in that neighborhood makes enough to live there with current prices.
I genuinely don’t know why I even work anymore. I don’t have any achievable financial goals except save as much as I can until I move away to live off my savings in a cheap area
I work in the same jobs as my peers, but there is a clear wealth difference in how our lives are spent.
We have a nice house in a good neighborhood, but our peers have very nice houses is some of the best neighborhoods due in large part to down payment gifts, gifts for remodeling, etc. We can both afford the mortgage payment, but the down payment would take us probably a decade to save for.
On vacations, we'll drive a couple hours away with the kids, while our peers will fly to Europe and spend two weeks since they pay for the flights and their parents pay for lodging and food.
And then there is family support. Some of my peers have parents who bought second (or third) homes to be closer to their grandchildren, or will pay for the very nice private school, etc.
It's taken me a lot to not very bitter about this -- and I'm clearly still a little bitter -- but I also know that we will likely be in a position to offer some of this support to our kids in 20+ years.
Wealth inequality has been increasing for decades, if the trend continues and nobody does anything the wealth gap could easily become so large that you might not be able to provide any meaningful support to your kids, and even if you manage to, your children won't stand a chance to provide it to theirs in 40+ years.
Many of our current rights are only there thanks to bitter people.
Grew up in a very small house with two lower middle class parents. Frugal upbringing.
My wife and I out earn my parents by more than 10x. And so we can afford to do some things that I couldn’t as a kid like “ski weekend in Park City”
I’ve jealously looked around many times and frustrated myself with comparisons to wealthier people. They can do X and I can’t.
But as I’m getting older and raising kids, I’m continually reassessing the value of these high cost adventures. Am I happier, healthier, more refreshed, etc or is it instead my access to high-cost that fools me into feeling those ways?
I see the path forward similar to you. I’d like to help my kids however I can while not giving them a financial ticket for life. Want to do things that fulfill us without feeling too extravagant or costly.
If this is in the US, hope for no health issue or it could easily derail the dreams :(
I suggest you look at historical trends for USD to CAD and trends for home prices vs income in Canada.
I like it here but I have no future and it’s seriously impacting my mental health
I'm glad for him. But it's incredible how different one's life can be from their peers just based on their parent's wealth.
>People in advanced economies stand to inherit around $6trn this year—about 10% of GDP, up from around 5% on average in a selection of rich countries during the middle of the 20th century. As a share of output, annual inheritance flows have doubled in France since the 1960s, and nearly trebled in Germany since the 1970s. Whether a young person can afford to buy a house and live in relative comfort is determined by inherited wealth nearly as much as it is by their own success at work. This shift has alarming economic and social consequences, because it imperils not just the meritocratic ideal, but capitalism itself.
>If you consider this as a whole, the growing importance of inheritance starts to become clear. In Britain one in six of those born in the 1960s is projected to receive an inheritance that exceeds ten years of average annual earnings for that generation. For those born in the 1980s, the ratio rises to one in three. The inequality of what people inherit, meanwhile, is startling. A fifth of 35- to 45-year-olds are expected to inherit less than £10,000 ($13,000), whereas a quarter are expected to inherit more than £280,000.
Moreover, how does this fact disprove the article's thesis? Is the implication that because less than 50% of people are getting giant inheritances, everything's fine?
But also there is a lot of upwards mobility.
And they do not need to be correlated even. What if rich families maintain their wealth, and meanwhile other families create wealth and become rich. How is this incompatible?
Eventually the man dying while making an income and spending no time with his child will grow to resent the one making the same income through family wealth who has enough time for that and more.
I'm not saying it is or isn't, but that would need to be the case for your argument.
Also the ratio of wealthy to non wealthy needs to be quite high.
Also wealth needs to be transferred and maintained, and not spoiled or lost.
I think those are the assumptions.
But yeah, under those conditions, the competition for resources would mean in order to move upwards someone needs to come down.
But it would need to be a zero sum economy
Falsely equating economic growth with cost of living metrics, and assuming that with more money everything can just continue happily. It’s been a very successful evolutionary niche for a handful of centuries.
Generational wealth rarely lasts more than a generation or two. Families like the Rothschilds seem to be more the exception than the rule.
Though I am not wealthy so perhaps I truly don't know what it's like in the big club I'm not in
There's increasingly less in the USA. In fact, most people today will end up worse off than their parents.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/social-mobility-upwa...
There can be a lot of upwards mobility (say 10%), and there can be a lot of statics (say 90%)
The datapoint I remembered is that a huge fraction of billionaires wer3 first generation billionaires.
But that may not mean much for the greater part of the population.
So we may be saying things that sound contradictory, but are congruent.
Millionaires too.
The last bit is sus though. "Only inherited after making a million". Sounds like it would include born rich, high education, basic necessities covered, can work on startups without worrying about earning a salary, many such cases.
Avenues to upward mobility are blocked by these rich people through various methods.
It’s the new feudalism.
https://investors.redfin.com/news-events/press-releases/deta...
In a sense that basic housing now is luxury - yes.
Not really. Peasants were mostly owning their houses, that did't make them aristocracy.
I genuinely do not see how owning a 1970s-built bungalow translates me into the aristocracy in a few decades.
I genuinely don't follow. Yes, the bungalow sits on land ( enough for BBQ for 5-6 people ) and I sit inside the bungalow. Neither of the them make me any money. I can't sold them and live in the stratosphere. I either have to buy something else or rent.
This article is another restating of the fact that wealth inequality is the greatest its ever been.
Even if I work my ass off, I won't be able to afford a house the same as my parents did. My only hope is that I inherit their house when they pass.
How do you figure? Are we out of land? I would argue we are not, at all.
I hate having to explain this to people, but a tax based on the value of something is called rent. Georgism is a system where the government owns all land and leases it out, but then the call the rent a "tax" to make it more palatable to people who are afraid of public ownership.
So, mission accomplished? The state already compels me to pay annual taxes based on the value of my titled real estate, my car, my income, my foreign assets, etc… I guess Im just renting it all from the state?
Mind you Im no John Birch-man here. I actually pay 42% of my income in taxes, and think real property _should_ be taxed more effectively here in AU. But jumping all the way to “ownership is theft, and taxes are double secret ownership” doesnt seem particularly useful.
You are trying so desperately to put those words in my mouth, but I will not say them as I don't know what they mean.
> taxes are double secret ownership
I'm not making an ideological point here, simply pointing out that the proposed systems are isomorphic in their objectives and execution. They both aim to increase the productive use of land by charging a periodic fee to the occupants of said land based on the market value of the land. There are two differences: the first is one of language (rent vs. tax), and the second on how the rate of this fee is determined. Under socialised land, the market price of land is the same as the fee charged. Under Georgism, the fee is charged by a bunch of politicians looking at the market price of land and trying to figure it out based on that.
Given that the two systems are essentially identical, but the second brings in undue political meddling, I see no reason to prefer it to the first solution outside of the practical situation that many people are afraid of public ownership and therefore would be more likely to vote for the worse option. Do you have any real argument for Georgism over public ownership?
You're conveniently glossing over issues like price discovery (auctions?), periodicity (annual?), and what I suspect are some pretty large inefficiencies implied by requiring continual re-bid/repurchase of existing real property vs a small proportional tax. Im an amateur, no graduate degree in economics here, but I would wager there's a reasonable amount of literature around the benefits of surety of title and depth of markets for efficient discovery to support a distributed, private, ownership & transaction model.
WRT "scary" ownership, as I said I live in Australia. I understand what crown land is, title, registry, and how we've transitioned through those ~3 times in 200 years. That's actually another example where some proclamations[4] don't quite hold up; Land ownership in Australia _is_ owned by the crown already. I merely hold (indefinite) title, so maybe 'government ownership' isn't quite the panacea? I do find our current real property and capital rate mechanisms deficient, and would appreciate something a lot closer to an annual LVT.
When you say "... the real solution has always been government ownership of all land. There is no advantage to privately owned land ..." don't act surprised if you get lumped in with those who argue against private ownership of real property.
[1] "The dual of owning a home is the ability to deny others access to housing" [2] "a tax based on the value of something is called rent" [3] "Given that the two systems are essentially identical, but the second brings in undue political meddling" [4] "...the real solution has always been government ownership of all land."
You are incorrect to suspect that. The price must still be discovered in the Geogist system through market means, and the additional burden of rediscovering it to issue the tax means doing that work twice. You are on a software forum so I assume you understand computers well enough to appreciate that the effort required for this in practice is essentially zero. A system sufficient to serve an entire nation of people could be programmed by perhaps ten engineers.
> I would wager there's a reasonable amount of literature around the benefits of surety
You can't just assume someone else has made your point for you and expect me to buy that. The system of government ownership can provide any degree of surety depending on how its implemented, but in general the objective of both systems is to force people to sell land instead of hording it, i.e. to reduce the surety people have over their ability to occupy land indefinitely.
> a tax based on the value of something is called rent
This is not a redefinition of language, but a simple observation that the two things are identical in practice.
> don't act surprised if you get lumped in with those who argue against private ownership of real property.
I don't care how justified you feel in mischaracterising my views.
> so maybe 'government ownership' isn't quite the panacea?
Yes, clearly if you read my argument made thusfar it dictates that government ownership is only effective when it is leased back to people in a market fashion. "The government owns it but you have an indefinite lease with no charge" is another example of changing the language of something without changing the practice of it. In practice, you own that land.
Finally, I am going to ask that you no longer attempt to find differences between Gerogism and social ownership. When you look at the actual implementation of both systems, they are the same. Any policy in Georgism has a one-to-one equivalent policy under government ownership. In fact Georgism is equivalent to a government ownership system with the following setup:
1) Leases are indefinite.
2) A substantial upfront cost is levied against people who wish to acquire a lease, determined by the highest bidder.
3) The charge on a lease is determined by some fraction of the upfront cost on surrounding leases of buildings.
Having observed this, we can see that it could be improved by removing the upfront cost, and instead have the lease determined by the leases on surrounding buildings when those buildings are vacated and the lease is put back up for auction. Forced renewal of leases is not necessary under a government ownership system as the increase in lease prices should be enough to naturally remove under-performing businesses. However the opportunity to renew a lease gives you a positive advantage over a Georgist one: if you feel your rent is too high, you can subject it to market scrutiny by voluntarily ending the lease on the property and offering the highest bid in the resultant auction.
A home is where people feel safe and secure with their family, or by themselves.
I reject the premise of your re-definition of owning a home.
Renting gives you that power too
> how many homes can one person realistically reasonably use?
This question is why I consider the solution of a limit on ownership stupid. A person can reasonably use however many houses which they can afford to rent. It isn't up to me to decide what counts as reasonable use. It is simply a question of whether other people would be willing to pay more for some other purpose. Suppose someone wishes to purchase an entire abandoned town and can do so at a relatively low rate due to it being abandoned, I see no reason to deny them them this, yet a limit on home ownership would do precisely that.
One should also note that a land tax is another inferior solution to the problem. It is effectively a government lease on land which doesn't allow the rent charged to be determined by market forces. What makes total government ownership of land the most practical solution is that it most closely follows market principals. Usage of land is contingent on productive revenue from that land in excess of the revenue generated from alternative usages. Any other solution will fall short of the optimal allocation of resources which the market provides.
They have that in China. How's that working out for them?
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...
Maybe take the BS elsewhere?
https://english.www.gov.cn/services/investment/2014/08/23/co...
Point being, it's not as simple as it's made out to be and it's not dissimilar to many other countries that have a notion of underlying ownership, seperation of surface and mineral rights, cave outs for eminant domain, etc.
In this specific context it's not especially clear what the GP's "how's that working out for them" is meant to convey.
>In general, rural collectives own agricultural land and the state owns urban land. However, Article 70 of The Property Law allows for ownership of exclusive parts within an apartment building, which endorses the individual ownership of apartments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law_in_China
>Individuals cannot privately own land in China but may obtain transferrable land-use rights for a number of years for a fee.
https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/real-property-law/china-real-...
Moreover, the devil's in the details:
( In China, your maint.loc.gov ) According to the 2007 Property Rights Law, when the term for the right to use land for residential purposes expires, the term will be automatically renewed
Both countries are more complicated than you sweepingly make things out to be.
That's why we have wealth taxes to even the playing field and encourage children of the have-nots to putting their effort in work and contributing in the system instead of on way to murdering the children of the haves for their stuff.
It's sort of protection tax the wealthy have to pay to live in a safe society that benefits them since their wealth comes from the work of the poor.
However my point is that there's a huge difference between demanding a wealth tax and the "inheriting is the root cause of all corruption" approach. Former is a measure to preserve status quo, latter is a dangerous utopia.
In a bit more details, the wealth can be created, preserved, redistributed and destroyed (i.e. failed to be preserved). Obsession with fair redistribution harms the creation and preservation of wealth, in the end there's nothing left to distribute. We saw that happen IRL.
In my view, creation and preservation of wealth is more important to get right. At least you'll have something to redistribute in the first place. And within that framework, inheritance is a good way to preserve wealth because passing it to the state inevitably destroys part of the value due to bad governance. Inheritance is also a very good incentive to create wealth, I personally wouldn't work 12 hours a day if I didn't have kids to set up in a new country where they have nothing.
So while inheritance is only a part of the whole system, I argue that it's not only humane part but a necessary one. Live country-wide experiments seem to confirm this so far.
Just checked and in argentina there is no federal tax gift, and in some provinces it's just much lower. We also have a wealth tax so that may address the gen wealth issue in another manner.
Tax is like that different in every country and hard to compare apples to apples.
The way the ultra-wealthy manage to make it entirely taxless; super evil for sure. Even so, it's not really the root - maybe a very large branch of it.
If you dig deeper and deeper at this point, your argument will eventually come to a halt, before even getting at crazy theoretical mutations.
The former does not apply to heirs, and the latter only weakly applies.
As it turns out, some of the most unique and interesting things I observe in the public sphere are owned by trust fund babies who took a different path to development (or just inefficiently left some ancient thing alone to decay). Either way, personally I appreciate this diversity in ownership of the world around me and this observation has changed the way I view the transfer of wealth through generations.
I would suggest reading more about the history of development and ask yourself why we used to make prettier buildings, but generally no longer do. Rich people have not changed.
They’re not hardcore enough to do meaningful research.
They’re too expensive to work in factories. (And not going to compete with Chinese slave labor)
What’s left? Hard to automate or offshore labor: service, or menial labor.
Surely you can’t become wealthy that way? I just happened to blunder my way into tech despite subpar education.
Regarding science, there are plenty of American scientists who graduated from public high schools. The problem there is that even highly-qualified students probably aren’t going to have a research career because the funding isn’t there to support it - even if you look at people who completed graduate school that was like 1/10 even before the Republicans’ savage cuts.
And I reject your characterization of the capabilities of American students. There are plenty of incredibly bright ones.
I also used to work in science, the reason there's so few chances to make it as a top researcher is that there is little opportunity. Look at jobs for a lot of life science majors after a BS, you will find a ton that is washing glassware in a lab, a complete waste of anyone with half a brain.
There's reasons why there is little opportunity that's not worth exploring here, but suffice to say there are a ton of very smart kids in America that choose other paths. Outside tech and specialized physicians, nerd careers are not lucrative on average. With little opportunity, smart people end up doing banal work. Why do banal work and have a mediocre salary predicated on jumping through higher than average academic hoops? Doesn't add up for most people.
My performance in the Putnam (I got a 2…) and in grad school are all the proof I need that I couldn’t compete.
BTW I was the best student in my flyover state public school.
What we need is wealth that's spread out more evenly so more of our educated (and just simply smart) people have the resources to apply that education in valuable ways. If you have a valuable education but the only way to make a living is to work for some tech company selling ads or writing increasingly sophisticated AI software then, yeah, you're being wasted.
Or if the entire economy is aligned to whatever whim Elon Musk or Donald Trump in their most gracious overlordship feels like funding. The a lot of valuable people will be wasted.
I wonder how much of this inherited wealth is from rising house prices. My parents' generation (I'm 38) have earned around €500k from rising house prices during their lifetime. The price of their house has more than quadrupled since when they bought it 35 years ago. That's a lot of money in inheritance right there. Something that children of parents who rent don't get.
This study matches my anecdotal experiences. Second and third generations of wealth don't respect money and this manifest in all kinds of bad behavior that leads to wealth destruction.
The alternative is indentured servitude and variable housing costs keeping them impoverished forever.
It all happened so fast in 2022.
You don't cut off your finger when you get a splinter, or tell your earlobe it needs to fend for itself because it just hangs there and does nothing most of the time.
Pain in our bodies can make us shift our whole being to ease pressure on a stiff muscle or avoid a small burn.
Pain in our society falls on deaf ears and drives us to fight over scraps when there is abundance everywhere.
The solutions are simple. We all need our basic needs met, we should strive to end the suffering of others, and to help each other reach our true potential from where we are right now.
People will strive to make their lives better. If that effort can be funneled into productive actions that provide benefits to society as a whole, then that's what people will do. If that effort requires stealing from and killing hoarders of wealth because there's no other way to get resources, then that's what people will do.
The hyper-wealthy seem oblivious to the fact that you can't both be a trillionaire that's causing societal economic desperation and live in a society where people politely do their business and leave you in peace.
They have been well aware of it. See Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8
We seem to be in the bread and circus phase for the time
History of mankind has been shaped by housing. It also is the most common and long lasting vehicle of investment, primarily because how easy it is to pass it down to descendants. It's not going away anytime soon.
this is mixing apples and oranges. Let's say the stock market yields 10% annual returns on average (it doesn't, but it's a round number in the ballpark). Let's say you inherit a million dollars. That million dollars invested in the stock market would return $100,000 to you as annual income. THAT number is comparable to GDP which is a measure of income. So, in other words, "people in advanced economies stand to earn annually from their inheritances less than 1% of GDP (yawn) not 10%"
other nits, the baby boomers were an unusually large population group in an unusually prosperous and healthy period of history: we've known they would die for quite some time and we've known they would leave a lot of money. It's not "a trend" and it's not "news". It's a well known anomoly, a blip/bulge passing through the system. It's interesting but it's not alarming.
I get where you're trying to go with this (ie. "you can't compare stock vs flows!"), but you've patterned matched too aggressively. There's nothing wrong with using GDP of a country as a benchmark. Sure, it's comparing stock vs flows, but GDP of a country is nonetheless a valuable yardstick when comparing sums, for instance comparing debt to GDP levels. As long as they're not directly comparing the figures (eg. implying that the whole country is going to be inherited in 10 years time or whatever), it's fine.
Every positive comes with a negative, nothing is created nothing is destroyed.
Chemistry found it to be so in the physical domain, confucians in the spiritual domain, and accountants in the wealth domain.
I won't deny that you CAN ignore the responsibilities that come from inheriting wealth, yes you can sell your father's company and life mission, but you destroy your legacy, and your children will destroy yours.
Wealth comes with its own set of problems if taken. Sure we may argue about which problems are worst, but must we? Each is born into a place, each is born into a class. And the principle of balance shall bring equity in the form of responsibility (to paraphrase Spiderman's uncle).
I just feel it's a more appropriate response to tell your parent "I will take care of it" rather than "thank you" and selling it to go on trips and snort cocaine. I'm not saying I'm free of sin and don't indulge in the pleasures of hedon, be it in a coffee (brought to me by a less attractive waiter of a distinct race from other commensals serving a publicly traded company, and made with beans grown and brought under a veil I can assume hides even more injustices) or in the wasting of my intellectual and physical talents on the pursuit and satisfaction of short term audiovisual novelty, but I will do so in guilt damnit!
>Chemistry found it to be so in the physical domain, confucians in the spiritual domain, and accountants in the wealth domain.
This is a platitude that has no bearing on reality. Technological advance in the past 2 centuries has increase our wealth and standards of living by orders of magnitude. You can come up with token objections about how each advancement had some downsides (indoor plumbing is bad because... copper mines pollute the environment?), but it's certainly not the case that "nothing is created nothing is destroyed". Technological advancement has created untold wealth.
Maybe I’m in a bubble that I seem to hear this and while I do agree I would still like to know what the opposing idea is here.
Perhaps a well-run military would be an example; unequal by definition but without all the parts working well it falls apart.
All this free money also caused inflation and so everyone holding assets saw those USD valuations rise accordingly. Basically the baby boomers indebted the nation by stealing $36T from all future generations, and every one of them will all be long dead before one nickle of this debt is paid down, if it ever is, and no one even thinks it ever will be.
Californians have been flooding Idaho, Nevada, Utah etc. They buy their homes and 2 new cars then have money left over to invest in the markets.
For inheriting wealth to be important to your success, it would either have to come much sooner or you would have to have no kids of your own
At least in theory that's not hard to pull off. From the article:
>By one calculation, if America’s rich families in 1900 had invested passively in the stockmarket, spent 2% of their wealth each year and had the usual number of children, there would be about 16,000 old-money billionaires in America today. In fact, there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made.
The average inheritor might be too spendthrift to stick to the plan, it's not exactly impossible as you suggest.
If we’re talking about an average population, the authors premise doesn’t make sense if you look beyond one generation. It sort of feels like the author is jealous of someone else’s inheritance, and wrote this article to complain about it.
Are you arguing that because the average person only inherits $100k or whatever, rather than the $20M+ required to build "generational wealth", everything's fine?
This is absurd and cuts any upward social mobility.
In the country where I was born, inheritance was way more important than working 100 years ago.
Plain economics. Surely they will make the rational choice.
The result is that corporations now choose who candidates are in the US and who gets elected. Once a candidate is elected they serve the master who got them elected. Not, We the people. Any even casual evaluation of the laws passed confirms this. Affordable medical care, which the People want and need? No. Obscene profits from corporations overcharging people for medical care? Great!
Regular people push addictive drugs? Jail. The Sackler Family, probably the biggest cause of drug overdoes deaths ever? Are they in jail? And what about the millions of stock owners who made a tidy sum? Did they lose their money, are they in jail? Nope.
We are not a democracy, we are a corpocracy. Because of a US Supreme Court decision. We need to fix this. And hint: is the word corporation in the US Constitution. Hint #2 does the 14th amendment prohibit unequal protection under the law.
In a democracy the representatives represent the will of the people. In a corpocracy they represent the will of the wealthy corpocrats and corporations. We have two corpocratic parties to choose from. Democrats and Republicans.
We need to fix this.
My dad worked at a gas station and I run a tech company.
In the context of capitalism as we known scarcity increases value, such thing is true for number of employees available, the less employable people around the higher the wages and therefore the quality of life of the living.