Re:How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”
by dinkumthinkum on Sunday January 03, 2016 @03:54PM
(#10832323)
How about maybe that is sort immoral, let alone not serving any purpose of economic inequality. Now, your destroying entire industries for people that make things for multi-millionaires. Its just terribly naive, I'm not sure what this would achieve. Honestly, I'm not sure why you do not just argue for outright communism.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”
by ZenoArrow on Sunday January 03, 2016 @04:14PM
(#10832423)
> "How about maybe that is sort immoral"
How is it immoral to set upper and lower bounds on what people can earn? Do you really think it's immoral that someone can only earn 1000x more (for example) than the poorest amongst us? Do you really find that oppressive?
> " Now, your destroying entire industries for people that make things for multi-millionaires."
You're not destroying industries, you're curbing the rate at which private wealth can be accumulated.
> "Honestly, I'm not sure why you do not just argue for outright communism."
Setting a maximum wage is socialist, but socialism is a broad church, communism is not the only system in the socialist umbrella.
Re:How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”
by dinkumthinkum on Sunday January 03, 2016 @09:24PM
(#10833695)
I do think saying someone cannot be paid more than X by law is immoral and draconian. It's also a very naive "solution." It's like a child saying "nah nah nah, we're equal now" or something to that effect.