TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

MIT economist aims to move the inequality discussion beyond the “1 percent.”

30 pointsby dalek2point3almost 11 years ago

6 comments

rquantzalmost 11 years ago
Yes, the wealthy, too, want us to focus on inequality among the 99% instead of shining our light on the 1% or the 0.1%. They always want to talk about education and skills gaps instead of talking about how they&#x27;ve shaped laws and institutions to make sure they retain their wealth and power. Meanwhile, wages have been stagnant and debt increasing for everyone who is <i>not</i> in the 1%. Mr. Autor&#x27;s arguments are a red herring.
评论 #7827303 未加载
评论 #7827090 未加载
评论 #7827529 未加载
csensealmost 11 years ago
I&#x27;ve believed for a long time that unrestricted international trade, and having well-paying jobs for people with minimal education, are fundamentally incompatible -- it&#x27;s an either-or choice. There are simply too many poor people overseas that are willing to take lower wages and out-compete domestic workers.<p>It&#x27;s nice to see someone with economic credentials who agrees with me. Which end of the either-or proposition should we take? That depends largely on your politics.<p>I think global free trade would be a nice thing in the happy imaginary world where having a seat in the UN means your country always puts the interests of the whole of humanity above your own. But the simple and obvious reality is that most countries look out for themselves first, and so if we make policies and choices based on our happy imaginary world instead of the darker (or at least greyer) real world where we actually live, we&#x27;re going to be quite sorry about some of those choices sooner or later.
Spooky23almost 11 years ago
These discussions are useless if you don&#x27;t factor in housing and childcare costs. If a couple consists of two working professionals, they pay a steep penalty for childcare.<p>Comparing my personal situation to my parents 30 years ago, I&#x27;d argue that we&#x27;re easily making 25-35% more relative to my folks in the 80s (mostly because we had kids later), but I think that we are less well off in several respects compared to my family in childhood.
评论 #7827242 未加载
Terr_almost 11 years ago
&gt; This public debate is dominated by the discussion of the top 1 percent. And the top 1 percent is important, but focusing on the top 1 percent conveys the message that the game is all rigged, that if you’re not in the elite stratum, there’s nothing to shoot for. And that’s just not the case.<p>Perhaps, but if you want to actually change things it is important to look at where political leverage is concentrated.
eternalbanalmost 11 years ago
The issue isn&#x27;t economic inequality.<p>The 1% rules.
评论 #7827329 未加载
jokoonalmost 11 years ago
with piketty&#x27;s book it seems inequality is now a bandwagon discussion. the inequality in the 99% is somehow a good inequality.