> I am still unable to fathom why he thinks inequality is a problem in and of itself. Hunger, famine, war, disease, we all understand are bad because they have negative consequences on real human lives. Jeff Bezos owning 12% of Amazon does not make me any worse off and if he owned 11% instead it would not make my life any better.

Massive income inequality impacts social and economic mobility within a society. If 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, it means a disproportional amount value labor provides is going to a small group of people.

Labor doesn’t create all value.

That's not what the GP said. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? Note this one:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Also the ones about substantive commenting and ideological battle. The last thing we need is another Marxism flamewar.

Where does value come from besides labour? If gold was everywhere, it wouldn’t be as valuable as it is - but it’s not, you have to dig it out of the ground and it can be hard to find; the labour input into the process of producing gold is what gives gold its value. A silicon rock is about as useful as any other rock, but the labour which goes into fabricating it into useful components is what gives it its value. A hammer is useless without an arm to swing it. Even when that arm is attached to a semi-autonomous machine, its sole purpose is to reduce the time expenses by human labour on some material - this devalues human labour in the abstract (not a bad thing of course, in fact crucial for our social and technological development), but at the end of the day the process reduces entirely to human labour producing value.

Where does value come from besides labour? Land, investment, time value of money, management, freedom of commerce, etc... LTV was known baloney 100 years ago.

You can actually "reduce" any expense entirely to several things if you think reductionistically enough: energy costs, material scarcity, etc.

Labor is one possible resource bottleneck, and because it can be intuitively converted into most other resources with some imagination, it is often mistaken as transcending other resources.

Labor Theory of Value has been broadly discredited for this reason among many others.

Each of those things ultimately reduce to human labour though. Energy because it requires human labour to produce; material scarcity because of the human labour required to extract certain rare materials. It’s very easy to say that this is mental gymnastics, but do you honestly disagree and think that these disparate things are categories into themselves? - how can we then determine the relative value of things, it becomes a matter of comparing apples and oranges. You can look at the utility of some commodity, but that will only ultimately tell us what a person will pay for it, and value does not always correlate to cost.

Yes, we can reduce energy needs to human labor; we can also reduce human labor to energy needs. I invite you to try out the exercise. Since both are substitutes for one another to a significant degree much of the time, it's easy to get trapped into the thinking that they're always substitutes. The reality is that despite their fungibility, you tend to reach the limits at an extreme (think like a Cobb-Douglas function).

And yes, the disjunction between market value and cost is well-known. They only converge under certain market assumptions, an interesting subject of study in itself.

As a resident of a former communist country I can tell you, from my country experience, that labor is definitely not enough to create any value. You need two other things:

1. Savings which you can use as a capital to improve the efficiency of labor - think buying tools before you start working.

2. Proper organization of work, which is the task of entrepreneurs. Without them people can work hard and produce no value at all. It happens everywhere in the world today, where some bureaucrats get the power to decide what people should do. It happened a lot in all communist countries, where large parts of people's effort were under their control.

If people's labor was everything you need to create value, then why are people in North Korea starving? Do you suggest that they don't work hard enough?

These things reduce the input human labour required to produce some good. They are inputs to the process of production, but do not themselves produce value. In fact, as I mentioned, they may well diminish the value of some product, because they reduce the abstract human labour required to produce it.

Your second question isn’t really helpful ... the simple answer is sustained famine in the 90s, poorly maintained land, and market forces.

The worst thing is that it is not the inequality of wealth that matters. It's the inequality of power.

What Piketty and others of this philosophical movement believe is that taking money away from people is the same as removing power.

They are going to be disappointed. Power is a capital item, not a revenue item. Money gets you the contacts with the right people. Lack of money doesn't remove them.

Plus, of course, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth - particularly not financial wealth. So why confiscate when you can accommodate?

Lack of money absolutely does remove them. Billionaires like Murdoch and the Koch brothers have had a massive detrimental effect on US politics (and British, in the case of Murdoch). Without the capital they control, they wouldn't have anywhere near that kind of impact.

Not every billionaire uses their money for that kind of power, but some do, and it hurts democracy when they do. In fact, it's even been argued that legitimate philanthropy is undemocratic, because it's rich people deciding which problems society will fix, rather than a democratic process.

If money only provided luxury, people would have less problems with this inequality. And people would probably be less interested in amassing more wealth than they can consume.

Counterpoint: Michael Bloomberg recently spent almost half a billion dollars trying to convince people to make him a presidential candidate. How did that work for him?

What a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that propaganda doesn’t cause beliefs, it focuses and amplified beliefs that preexist at least in nascent form. The Koch brothers would have no power if there weren’t people ready for their kind of message. In fact this is a good example. The Koch Brothers were against the Trumpian turn in Republican politics and spent heavily against it. How did that work out for them?

Sorry money == power is too facile.

There are effective and ineffective way to use your money for power, of course. But many US politicians work for their wealthy donors. Most Senators are millionaires, no presidential candidates are poor.

The fact that some rich people only get part of what they want because they're opposed by other rich people, does not mean that their money didn't get them power. The Koch brothers got a lot of what they wanted.

And even if poor people, if there are enough of them and they are sufficiently organised, are able to oppose rich people, that still doesn't mean that the rich people don't have more power individually. Their resources make it much easier to organise, to buy influence and support, to reward politicians who legislate the way they want.

In the US, even more than in other countries, money is absolutely power.

Though he might handwave at this notion of "power imbalance", you and I both fully understand that this is not the core issue driving his philosophy. Someone making $120k a year can afford to hire a lobbyist in their state legislature. Should no one make $120k?

If there were no billionaires would the so called "power imbalance" be restored? Does someone with $900 million not have the power of someone with $1 billion? Of course not.

And money doesn't linearly equate with power. There are a number of powerful people in Washington, even unelected ones, who have no substantial fortune to their name yet wield far more power than say Jack Dorsey, Bill Ackman, or Marc Andreeson. If Piketty was truly against all concentrations of power, he would call himself a libertarian.

But Piketty is not against concentrations of power. The core idea behind Piketty's philosophy is a moral one. He believes that some people having a significant amount more than others is a moral failure in society, and must be corrected, even at an economic cost.

People in Washington (or elsewhere) who wield a lot of power without being rich, wield that power because it has been delegated to them. They are accountable for that power. Rich people are not, but probably should be.

The problem isn't merely the concentration of power, it's the concentration of unaccountable power. This is also why people are upset about secret courts and lack of congressional oversight over secret services: it withdraws accountability from an institute wielding power.

>People in Washington (or elsewhere) who wield a lot of power without being rich, wield that power because it has been delegated to them. They are accountable for that power. Rich people are not, but probably should be.

I specified the qualifier "unelected"

There are more kinds of delegated power, though.

It's very easy to make the logical leap that increasing inequality is equivalent to "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". And most people don't necessarily have a problem with "the rich get richer" part, but they do object to "the poor get poorer".

It is a leap though. Bezos, Gates, Musk, Buffet, Page, Brin, Zuckerberg all started as regular people and became ultra-rich through their work and ideas.

But it's not a complete fallacy either. If you are a real estate owner in New York City, your assets continue appreciating at a good pace, well above inflation, and you have a vested interest in NIMBY, which does indeed restrict social mobility.

Social mobility, or social mobility opportunity are harder to measure though, so a lot of people are ok with using the inequality as a proxy. I do agree with you that it's an imperfect proxy, and focusing on it can have negative side-effects.

I'm pretty sure that all of the people you note had middle-class to upper-middle-class parents, so potentially you are proving Piketty's point.

We can do a random search through the founders of various unicorns. My first hit was Brian Chesky [1], one of the Airbnb founders. His parents were social workers. Stripe was founded by two brothers who were born in Limerick, Ireland. Maybe they were middle class in Limerick, but most likely not rich by global standards. They are now worth $3BN each [2]. Instacart was founded by Apoorva Mehta, who was born in India, and whose parents immigrated to Canada in 2000. Apoorva doesn't have a wikipedia page, but again, very likely his family was not rich.

If you go through the wikipedia unicorn list [3], you'll find many founders that appear to be from middle or upper-middle class, but also many founders from lower-middle class as well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Chesky

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Collison

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unicorn_startup_compan...

Like, I appreciate your investigations, but none of those people were mentioned in the original post to which I responded.

Mark Zuckerberg: father was a dentist; solidly upper-middle class Bill Gates: mother on the board of IBM, upper-middle class

I won't try to talk about anyone except the Collison brothers, and given that I was born somewhat before them in the same country, I can assure you that they were solidly upper-middle class by Irish standards. Also, please note that Patrick Collison attended MIT as an international student, which is not something that poor people do.

Economic inequality (and erosion of middle class) is water to populists' mill. We have living examples of this right now.

My issue with statements like this is that there is no such thing as the "middle class". It's a political concept, not an economic one. It has no definition. Furthermore, if you try to define it the way is usually defined - as the people making between x% of the median - it is mathematically impossible for it to shrink so long as the population continues to grow.

Slavery is the most extreme case of inequality. How close do you need to get to slavery before inequality is a problem?

Slavery is a basic human rights violation... Jeff Bezos owning $100B in Amazon stock is not. Piketty is obviously not writing abolitionist literature

The problem in, and of itself, is not that Jeff Bozos has 100B, it is that by Jeff Bezos having 100M, he is able to bend the political environment to benefit him. creating more wealth and reducing the wealth of others. The tax code is a great example of that. Piketty's book, clearly demonstrates that.

By the way, for every "Bezos", there is a Walmart Heiress who simply chose the right womb to come out of, and while Bezos may have "built" Amazon, he needed early investors, e.g. that Wal Mart Heiress for example, to start that instead of going to public markets.

Then the solution should not be to take Bezos share in this business. Like I said earlier, there is no clear point where someone's wealth stops giving them influence. The solution should be to increase the rigidity of government. But Piketty does not advocate that.

You don’t seem the type to be persuaded to a progressive tax system or a change to property rights. So unless you have a different proposal to fix the system, assuming you even recognize it as a problem, their really isn’t anywhere to go from here.

Pretty sure this just makes you a fucking moron.

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how ignorant someone else is or you feel they are.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN as intended, we'd be grateful.

Please follow the rules of this site.