[AnimalMuppet]

> That society is what enables them to become rich.

Somewhat true. Where you go with it is false, though. You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society.

> If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing.

That presumes that everything a democracy decides on is just a choice - that it can't be wrong. I disagree with that statement. More, I think history disagrees with that statement.

[Mz]

You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society.

Billionaires didn't really exist until there were billions of people. You can't amass that kind of wealth if there aren't people to generate it. Wealth is a means of capturing value and part of the value it captures is the value created by human intelligence and labor.

The fact that some people are both talented at capturing value created by society as a whole and well positioned to do so is a large factor in why some people have vast wealth and some do not. It doesn't mean someone like Bill Gates is "better"/smarter/whatever overall than other people. There is a combination of factors that lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of one person like that.

This is why people argue so much about it. That wealth is created by the very existence of all of society, but inordinately benefits a small percentage of people.

I don't know how we do this better. I am not for Basic Income, nor am I for trying to manipulate things with a goal of creating "level" outcomes. I think both of those approaches are inherently problematic.

For one thing, society as a whole benefits when we actively reward certain behaviors. Being too punitive and too angry about some folks being rich hurts society as a whole. Bill Gates helped create real value for society by making the PC available to the masses, thereby revolutionizing life and business for pretty much everyone.

We need to not be discouraging things like that (things like people creating real value for society by being business people, etc). But I do think we need to do a better job of not shafting the masses.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Bill Gates helped create real value for society by making the PC available to the masses, thereby revolutionizing life and business for pretty much everyone.

Yes, exactly. Bill Gates created way more value than I did, therefore it is not totally unreasonable that he has way more money than I do.

> But I do think we need to do a better job of not shafting the masses.

Yeah, there's the real problem. We want to reward value creators enough that people try to create value. And yet, those who don't (or who try and fail) shouldn't be left completely behind.

[Mz]

We want to reward value creators enough that people try to create value. And yet, those who don't (or who try and fail) shouldn't be left completely behind.

One of the problems with this statement is the assumption that poor people are poor because they don't create value. One of the problems with that is the feminization of poverty. Women tend to be poorer than men. This is so not because we all simply laze around watching soap operas and eating bon bons. Instead, it is true because some portion of our time and energy goes into having and raising kids, taking care of relatives who are sick, and supporting the careers of our husbands in various ways.

One largely invisible way that women end up poorer is that families typically move to follow the husband's career. In other words, if they move to a new city as a family, it is because the husband sought employment elsewhere and got it.

For him, this is almost always a step up for his career. When his wife then quits her job to go with him, her next job is usually a step down for her. You do this enough and women end up going nowhere fast in their careers.

It is a complicated topic, but one of those complications is that an awful lot of poor people do create value for society, it just mostly doesn't result in them capturing value. If it is a woman who is poor, the odds are very high that she did plenty to benefit other people, but, no, it in no way resulted in financial security for her.

It would be really nice if people would stop implying that poor people are just lazy ass bums who do nothing at all of value. I was a military wife and homeschooling mom. I supported my husband's career and I took excellent care of two special needs sons. I just got off the street recently, after nearly 6 years of homelessness.

So, your framing implies ugly things about me and other people like me that are absolutely not true.

[AnimalMuppet]

From your comments, I actually was somewhat aware of your situation. (Though it was news to me that you had made it off the street. Very welcome news, too.) I tried to write my comment such that it didn't imply anything negative about you. I can now see how what I wrote can be taken that way; I didn't intend that.

I meant to be saying that people can, though no fault of their own, fail to create much economic value, at least as measured in dollars that people will pay for what they do. (Yeah, sometimes it's their fault. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's kind of a mix - they made a choice, and it worked out badly, but it wasn't a clear-cut bad choice. Sometimes it's hard to tell. The point is, these people are there, in very bad economic circumstances.) The question is, what do we do about it? What do we do that genuinely helps them, without taxing the rich so much that it dulls the incentive to create the stuff that will make all of us better off?

And since there's (I think) a lot of "help" that doesn't actually help, I'll specifically ask you: What would have helped you?

[Mz]

You are taking my remarks very graciously. Thank you for that. I don't mean to be a bear on such topics, but sometimes I come across that way.

I posted the announcement that I was off the street to HN and it very, very quietly got upvoted over the course of the night and people were very kind to me in remarks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15205436

It didn't make the front page. The surprisingly high karma count for the piece happened really slowly, not enough to get it on the front page, so I imagine that a lot of people missed the announcement. It was a very strange experience.

What would have helped me would have been to get taken more seriously. In fact, once I began getting taken more seriously, that did help me. In recent months, I sometimes get resume work and I have a small amount of Patreon money for my blog writing. (Plus, my blogs sometimes get tips and my ad money is trending up as traffic trends up.) That preceded me getting back into housing and helped facilitate it.

I have reason to believe that sometimes rather influential people read what I write, but do not ever promote my work. They don't want to admit to reading anything I write. This makes me pretty crazy. A little more traffic, a small amount more social proof that I am not just a crazy loser or whatever can (and did, when it finally happened on a very small scale) make a difference for someone like me.

I think there are a number of reasons I don't get taken seriously or treated in a manner that helps me make money. I think classism is a factor and I think my gender is a factor.

There are other issues, like some people legitimately think I am nuts. But, some of those people were extremely ugly to me in a way that is wholly unwarranted by an assumption of mental health issues. These were often people who imagine they are good and kind people. They often wear that on their sleeve. It is virtue signaling and their actions (at least wrt me) don't match their claims.

So, less virtue signaling, and more just helping me figure out how to make money online, which was the primary I thing I asked for consistently over the years and was often openly dismissed, often by people who, themselves, earn their living online in some sense or to some degree.