Hacker News
points by hobo123 1 day ago | 0 comments
But millionaires only but nice houses and maybe a nice car or two, and send their kids to a nice college. Billionaires invest in companies that create many jobs. Maybe you can argue the houses and colleges create even more jobs, idk.
[–] IAmBroom 1 day ago
Reality doesn't follow the promises of Trickle Down - and especially not your bizarre variation.

Most jobs in the US are from small businesses. That means billionaires create fewer jobs than Mom & Pop owners (even owners who may be able to afford really nice cars and houses).

Go back to school.

[–] thrance 1 day ago
We've never had this many billionaires, and they've never been this rich. So following your logic, the country should be more prosperous than ever, right?
[–] senordevnyc 1 day ago
The US is more prosperous than ever, if you look at the data (inflation-adjusted, median income, for example). But people hate inflation, and so the vibes are that we're not.
[–] micromacrofoot 1 day ago
The prosperity is NOT evenly distributed, or even distrusted in a shape that follows historical precedent (until you start looking at the gilded age, which was quite problematic!) mid 20th century America had a very healthy middle class that is now rapidly dwindling. Ironically this is often the time period people refer to as "great" but decry the tax policies that made it possible.

The average person (you and me) are much more productive, but have actually lost our share of wages relative to our productivity compared to our parents and grandparents. That extra production we're doing is almost entirely captured by the top 1% of the population, it's literally been taken away from us.

And contrary to our "billionares create jobs" friends, what billionaires do by and large is hoard wealth and power of a scale most people can't even begin to grasp.

[–] hobo123 1 day ago
If they hoarded wealth they'd lose tons of money simply through inflation. Most rich people, if they're not stupid, have most of their wealth invested in productive assets.
[–] senordevnyc 1 day ago
I specifically used median income to make the point that we are NOT just more prosperous at the top, but at virtually every level of society.

That said, you're right that the gains over the past fifty years have been disproportionately captured by the people at the very top of the distribution, and we should address that with policy changes, including taxation. But we can do so without tossing the facts aside.

[–] micromacrofoot 15 hours ago
A lot of the gains are in things like consumer electronics though? food, healthcare, education, housing and transportation are more expensive relative to median income gains.

So what measure of "prosperity" are you using? income alone can't be it.

[–] lucaspm98 1 day ago
We are almost indisputably the most prosperous ever, especially if you index against countries who have taken the approach of preventing or punishing success (UK, France).
[–] micromacrofoot 1 day ago
this is a very weird perspective that you haven't done even cursory math on, if we're talking a million millionaires... that's a million houses, two million cars, a million tuitions...

has elon musk made it possible for a million people to own houses, cars, and pay tuition? no! does he own multiple houses, cars, private jets, yachts, and other bullshit himself? yes!

he employs maybe 200k people directly? likely a lot less... so we're not even talking quarter of the same economic benefit reach

he also wielded his wealth as power to dismantle government systems single-handedly that lost many people jobs and didn't even scratch the surface of the country's debt

people really need to start thinking critically about billionaires, they are not doing anything for you personally