Hacker News

points by crostlybostly 1 day ago | 0 comments

A contrarian view:

- Most of that wealth is tied up in assets offering services for americans (servers / warehouses). It would be much worse if the rich decided to spend all of that on consumption rather than keep reinvesting it in assets. - Even the LHS of that chart Americans are some of the wealthiest in the world. A lot of the middle class from many other countries would love to be on the LHS of that chart. - No one is expected to build wealth on a 40 hour minimum wage job. It is the bare minimum and most people get paid more. - Americans don't want wealth. Our spending habits are abysmal. I suspect if you gave every American $500K the chart would revert back to this in like 12 months

[–] hypfer 1 day ago

The same wealth could be tied up in assets that are _owned_ by the americans and offer services to them.

Services that have an incentive to serve said americans, because it is them who own them.

You are completely right that this capital is super useful for society. It would just be infinitely more useful if it was in the hands of society.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

These assets DO offer services to them. The whole point of these assets is to make products that have value to other Americans. If the assets / owners don't do that then their net worth decreases and disappers.

Putting it in the "hands of society" is crazy talk. Government / elected officials are awful at allocating capital, negotiating labor, holding people accountable.

[–] hypfer 1 day ago

Idk I feel like your opinions are "crazytalk" as you say.

So who is right? is it the real person with a real identity attached to it, or is it the 7 month old account pointing nowhere?

I guess we'll never know.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

Huh?

[–] viraptor 1 day ago

> Most of that wealth is tied up in assets offering services for americans (servers / warehouses). It would be much worse if the rich decided to spend all of that on consumption rather than keep reinvesting it in assets.

Why would that be worse? What online services are so important that it's better to have them than to lift some people above the poverty line? Rich people spending is the next best thing after taxing them - it distributes their money and provides jobs. It would strictly improve the society if Bezos spent lots of money and folded his servers and warehouses - in so many different ways...

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

I personally would rather have next day delivery and not waste my time shopping and driving from store to store.

What jobs do you think it creates? You really want all our labor pandering to billionaires? Why would anyone give attention to middle class if the billionaires were forced to spend all their money? How expensive would your life get if the billionaire class redirected all of their wealth toward frivolous consumption.

[–] viraptor 1 day ago

> What jobs do you think it creates?

Whatever jobs are needed to fulfil the spending of billions of dollars. You can't drop that kind of amount of new demand on the existing system without some expansion.

> You really want all our labor pandering to billionaires?

It already is (not all but there's a big impact and political influence), without benefits. Just spending money for products and services would be an improvement.

> Why would anyone give attention to middle class if the billionaires were forced to spend all their money?

Why (for example) Tesla producing both budget 3 and taking millionaires money for Roadster? Because addressing both markets works.

> How expensive would your life get if the billionaire class redirected all of their wealth toward frivolous consumption.

Probably cheaper for higher quality goods and same otherwise. But also nobody is talking about all of their wealth - that's unrealistic. Some more vs hoarding in assets would be still good.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

Trigger unnecessary consumption will increase prices. Its basic supply and demand… econ 101 stuff.

[–] viraptor 22 hours ago

Some prices. It's not like billionaire spending will influence the local carrot prices. They're unlikely to overlap at all with most day-to-day spending for normal people.

[–] crostlybostly 15 hours ago

Its all connected. Everything you buy comes down to how labor or capital is deployed. No one wants to pick your carrot or deliver it or work in a retail store if they can make more money shining shoes, building yachts, building mansions, etc. for a billionaire.

But the bigger flaw in your logic is that investment is a good things. We want investment in plants, warehouses, technology, pharma. That is what wealthy people do with their excess money is speculate and invest in these new things that will serve everyday people.

If you give that money away the people who recieve it are not going to invest it. They are going to blow it on trivial things and consumption.

[–] podgorniy 1 day ago

> Most of that wealth is tied up in assets offering services for americans

Yeah. Like renting a house for a mother of 2 children who will never get her own by selling her labour, while the renter uses her money to buy more units.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

Yes she needs a house, and can rent one from 1000s of different rental owners willing to provide her that service.

What's the issue?

[–] lucaspm98 1 day ago

This is a low effort strawman.

[–] nullocator 1 day ago

This is someone's lived reality.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

Do you think it is wise to have two kids on one income when you can barely make rent? Are we going to hold the mother accountable at all or is society to blame for that situation?

[–] c0nducktr 1 day ago

What does 'holding the mother accountable' look like to you? Some kind of punishment, that her children also suffer from?

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

I just mean making bad choices should not mean you suddenly get to live in your ideal house funded by taxpayers.

Having two kids on a low income is a bad choice.

She should not be punished. But she also should not be rewarded.

[–] nullocator 1 day ago

I don't think that procreation should be a right only afforded to the wealthy. This seems incredibly unhealthy for both humanity and for the planet.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

It isn’t only afforded to the wealthy. But lets be honest - the US is one of the easiest places in the world to make a living. If someone is unable to make it work here, they are probably making bad choices. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize bad choices.

[–] IAmBroom 1 day ago

So now you are slut-shaming as an economic policy?

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

I’m all for the right to slut it up! I just don’t think taxpayers should have to subsidize others bad decisions!

[–] fblp 1 day ago

Disagree.

A large portion of billionaire wealth isn't reinvested in productive assets. It comes from holding onto assets like corporate shares and land that grows in value based on the asset's ability to extract profit or rent. Or from distorted (speculative) demand for that asset that is completely detached from its productive output.

Someone like Bernard Arnault is worth around $160B (wealth from luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Tiffany). That paper valuation exceeds the total national wealth of many entire countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_pri...

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

How does it keep growing if it isn't invested in productive assets?

Yes he is valuable because he makes a product people want. That is how life works. If you want him to be poor, convince people to buy something other than luxury brands.